CPU Comparison

The Intel Core i3-4150 and Intel Core i3-7300 are both dual-core desktop processors with four threads, yet they represent different eras of Intel’s mainstream lineup. The i3-4150 is a Haswell-era part on Socket 1150, while the i3-7300 is a Kaby Lake part on Socket 1151. Benchmark results show a clear performance hierarchy, with the newer i3-7300 winning every single head-to-head test in the data, but the margins and architectural context reveal more than just a raw speed gap.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is one-sided, with the Intel Core i3-7300 winning all five recorded comparisons. The largest margin appears in the Cinebench R20 single-core test, where the i3-7300 scores 228 against the i3-4150’s 170, a delta of -25.4% (from the i3-4150’s perspective). This pattern repeats across every Cinebench iteration. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the i3-7300 posts 388 versus 290, a 25.3% deficit for the i3-4150. The R20 multicore test shows 1619 against 1212, a 25.1% gap. The R23 multicore result is 3856 versus 2888, also 25.1%. Single-core R23 shows 544 versus 407, a 25.2% difference.

Notably, the i3-4150 has a Geekbench multicore score of 1896 and a single-core score of 968, but the i3-7300 has no Geekbench entries in the head-to-head set. The available Cinebench data, however, is consistent: every deltaPct falls between -25.1% and -25.4%. This uniformity suggests a single dominant factor, clock speed, rather than workload-specific advantages. The i3-7300’s 4.00 GHz base clock versus the i3-4150’s 3.50 GHz base clock explains the near-constant 25% edge. There is no boost clock listed for either processor, so the base clock is the sole frequency reference.

Looking at broader averages, the i3-4150 has an avgBenchmarkScore of 1119, while the i3-7300 sits at 1115. These are nearly identical, yet the head-to-head scores tell a different story. The reason is that the avgBenchmarkScore includes different test suites, the i3-4150 has Geekbench results, while the i3-7300 only has Cinebench data. The percentiles reinforce this: the i3-4150 ranks at the 32nd percentile of all CPUs, the i3-7300 at the 31st. In practical terms, both sit in the same performance tier according to aggregate metrics, but the direct comparisons show the i3-7300 is decisively faster in rendering workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs are built on different process nodes and microarchitectures. The i3-4150 uses Intel’s 22 nm Haswell architecture, with a die size of 177 mm² and 1,400 million transistors. The i3-7300 uses the 14 nm Kaby Lake architecture, with no transistor or die size data provided. This node shrink is the primary enabler of the i3-7300’s higher clock speed while actually lowering TDP: the i3-4150 draws 54 W, the i3-7300 draws 51 W. Both are dual-core, four-thread parts, but the i3-7300 achieves 4.00 GHz versus 3.50 GHz.

Cache configurations differ as well. Both have 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core, but the shared L3 cache is 3 MB on the i3-4150 and 4 MB on the i3-7300. This additional 1 MB of L3 is a secondary factor in the i3-7300’s performance lead, though the consistent delta percentages point to clock speed as the main driver. Memory support also diverges: the i3-4150 uses DDR3 with dual-channel bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s, while the i3-7300 uses DDR4 with dual-channel bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. That is a 50% increase in theoretical memory bandwidth, which can benefit workloads that are memory-sensitive.

The integrated graphics differ as well: the i3-4150 includes Intel HD 4400, while the i3-7300 includes Intel HD 630. Neither benchmark data is provided for iGPU performance, so this is a feature difference without quantitative comparison. Both support PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The sockets are incompatible, Socket 1150 for the i3-4150, Socket 1151 for the i3-7300, meaning platform choice is a hard constraint. The i3-4150 is End-of-life, while the i3-7300 is Active in production status.

Where Each One Wins

The data shows zero wins for the i3-4150 across all recorded head-to-head tests. The i3-7300 wins 5 out of 5 comparisons. This does not mean the i3-4150 has no use case, but within the provided benchmarks, it is strictly slower. The i3-4150’s only advantage is its compatibility with older DDR3 platforms and Socket 1150 motherboards, which are not performance metrics but ecosystem considerations.

For the i3-7300, the wins are consistent across single-core and multicore Cinebench tests. The single-core advantage (25.4% in R20, 25.2% in R23) suggests it is better for lightly-threaded tasks like everyday responsiveness or older games that rely on one or two threads. The multicore wins (25.1% to 25.3%) indicate it also scales better in fully threaded workloads like video encoding or 3D rendering, despite having the same core and thread counts. The higher memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s versus 25.6 GB/s further favors the i3-7300 in data-intensive scenarios.

The i3-4150, however, is not without merit if one looks at aggregate scores. Its Geekbench multicore score of 1896 and single-core score of 968 are the only numbers available for that suite. The i3-7300 lacks Geekbench data entirely, so direct comparison there is impossible. For users already on a Socket 1150 platform with DDR3 memory, the i3-4150 may be a drop-in upgrade without changing other components, though this is an ecosystem argument, not a performance one.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the Intel Core i3-7300 is the faster processor in every measured test. The average delta of roughly 25% across all Cinebench workloads is substantial and consistent. The i3-7300 also does this at a lower TDP (51 W versus 54 W), which is a notable efficiency gain given the higher clock speed. The additional 1 MB of L3 cache and 12.8 GB/s of extra memory bandwidth provide theoretical headroom beyond the raw clock advantage.

The i3-4150’s position is that of a legacy part. Its avgBenchmarkScore of 1119 is actually 4 points higher than the i3-7300’s 1115, but this is due to different benchmark suites rather than real-world superiority. The percentile ranking (32nd versus 31st) is effectively a tie. If a user is constrained to Socket 1150 and DDR3, the i3-4150 is a functional dual-core option, but it will trail the i3-7300 by roughly a quarter in rendering tasks.

For a new build, the i3-7300 is the clear choice from a performance standpoint. It offers higher clocks, a newer architecture, more cache, faster memory support, and a lower TDP. The only caveat is the lack of a launch MSRP for the i3-7300, whereas the i3-4150 had a launch MSRP of $117, but pricing is not a consideration here. The data says the i3-7300 wins, and wins by a wide margin.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher base clock speed?

A: The Intel Core i3-7300 has a base clock of 4.00 GHz, while the Intel Core i3-4150 has a base clock of 3.50 GHz. Neither CPU has a boost clock listed.

Q: How much faster is the i3-7300 in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The i3-7300 scores 3856 versus the i3-4150’s 2888, which is a 25.1% deficit for the i3-4150.

Q: Do both CPUs have the same number of cores and threads?

A: Yes, both have 2 cores and 4 threads.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The i3-7300 supports DDR4 with 38.4 GB/s dual-channel bandwidth, while the i3-4150 supports DDR3 with 25.6 GB/s dual-channel bandwidth.

Q: Are these CPUs socket-compatible with each other?

A: No. The i3-4150 uses Intel Socket 1150, and the i3-7300 uses Intel Socket 1151.

Q: Which CPU has a larger L3 cache?

A: The i3-7300 has 4 MB shared L3 cache, while the i3-4150 has 3 MB shared L3 cache.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i3-4150 | Intel Core i3-7300 |

|---|---|---|

| Base Clock | 3.50 GHz | 4.00 GHz |

| TDP | 54 W | 51 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1150 | Intel Socket 1151 |

| Architecture | Haswell | Kaby Lake |

| Process Node | 22 nm | 14 nm |

| Transistors | 1,400 million | Not specified |

| Die Size | 177 mm² | Not specified |

| L3 Cache | 3 MB (shared) | 4 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR3 | DDR4 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 38.4 GB/s |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 4400 | Intel HD 630 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | 2014-04-30 | 2017-01-02 |

| Launch MSRP | $117 | Not specified |

| Part Number | SR1PJ | SR359 |