Intel Core i3-4150T vs Intel Core i7-960 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clean sweep for the Intel Core i7-960 across all five shared benchmark tests. The older Nehalem part wins every head-to-head comparison, though the margins are consistent and moderate rather than overwhelming. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i7-960 scores 290 against the i3-4150T’s 244, a 15.9 percent advantage. That same 15.9 percent gap repeats in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the i7-960 posts 1211 versus 1018, and in Cinebench R20 single-core, where it leads 170 to 143.

The pattern holds in the newer Cinebench R23 workloads. Multi-core results show the i7-960 at 2885 against 2425 for the i3-4150T, again a 15.9 percent edge. Single-core in R23 is nearly identical in proportional terms: the i7-960 scores 407, the i3-4150T scores 342, and the delta is 16 percent. Notably, the i7-960’s single-core advantage is not meaningfully smaller than its multi-core lead, which suggests the gap stems from raw clock rate and architectural efficiency rather than just core count.

The i3-4150T does have one benchmark category not present in the i7-960’s recorded results: Geekbench. Here the i3-4150T scores 1762 multi-core and 892 single-core. Without matching Geekbench data for the i7-960, the database does not include a direct comparison for that workload. But in the five Cinebench tests where both CPUs appear, the i7-960 wins every time, giving it a 5 to 0 head-to-head record.

Average benchmark scores tell a similar story. The i7-960 carries an average score of 993, while the i3-4150T averages 975. Both sit in the same percentile neighborhood: the i7-960 at the 27th percentile of all CPUs in the database, the i3-4150T at the 26th. That near-identical percentile ranking, despite a consistent 16 percent deficit in head-to-head tests, reflects the fact that both parts occupy a similar performance tier in the overall database distribution.

The i7-960’s nearest rivals in the database include the Intel Core i7-965, AMD Phenom II X6 1065T, and Intel Xeon W3565, all with an identical average score of 993. The i3-4150T’s nearest rivals, meanwhile, are the AMD Athlon X4 840, Intel Core i3-4130, and AMD A10-7870K, all at 975. The delta between the two CPUs in average score is only 1.8 percent, a smaller margin than the head-to-head Cinebench deltas would suggest, because the average includes workloads where the i3-4150T’s architecture may close the gap.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU wins the most head-to-head benchmark tests?

A: The Intel Core i7-960 wins all five recorded head-to-head Cinebench tests. The i3-4150T wins zero. The i7-960’s margins range from 15.9 percent to 16 percent across R15, R20, and R23 workloads.

Q: How large is the single-core performance gap?

A: In Cinebench R20 single-core, the i7-960 scores 170 against 143 for the i3-4150T, a 15.9 percent lead. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the i7-960 scores 407 against 342, a 16 percent lead. The single-core advantage is essentially the same size as the multi-core advantage.

Q: Are these CPUs in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, nearly identical. The i7-960 sits at the 27th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the i3-4150T sits at the 26th. Their average benchmark scores are 993 and 975 respectively, a difference of 1.8 percent.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each CPU in the database?

A: The i7-960’s nearest rivals are the Intel Core i7-965, AMD Phenom II X6 1065T, and Intel Xeon W3565, all with an average score of 993. The i3-4150T’s nearest rivals are the AMD Athlon X4 840, Intel Core i3-4130, and AMD A10-7870K, all with an average score of 975.

Q: Does the i3-4150T have any benchmark advantages?

A: The database includes Geekbench scores for the i3-4150T (1762 multi-core, 892 single-core), but no Geekbench scores for the i7-960, so no direct comparison exists for that test. In all shared Cinebench tests, the i7-960 leads.

Q: What is the production status of each CPU?

A: The i7-960 is marked as end-of-life in the database. The i3-4150T has no listed production status, meaning the database does not record it as discontinued.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel generations and manufacturing nodes. The i3-4150T uses the Haswell architecture on a 22 nm process, while the i7-960 uses the Nehalem architecture (codename Bloomfield) on a 45 nm process. This is a two-generation gap in process technology, and the transistor counts reflect it: the Haswell chip packs 1,400 million transistors on a 177 mm² die, while the Nehalem chip contains 731 million transistors on a larger 263 mm² die. The newer process allows the i3-4150T to run at a much lower 35 W TDP despite having fewer cores, compared to the i7-960’s 130 W TDP.

Core and thread counts differ substantially. The i3-4150T offers 2 cores and 4 threads, relying on Hyper-Threading to reach that thread count. The i7-960 offers 4 cores and 8 threads, also with Hyper-Threading. Despite having half the physical cores, the i3-4150T trails by only 16 percent in multi-core Cinebench tests, evidence of the Haswell architecture’s per-core efficiency and the i7-960’s older design.

Cache configurations also diverge. Both CPUs share the same L1 cache size of 64 KB per core and L2 cache of 256 KB per core. But the L3 cache differs: the i3-4150T has 3 MB shared, while the i7-960 has 8 MB shared. That larger L3 cache gives the i7-960 an advantage in data-heavy workloads, though the benchmark results suggest it does not fully compensate for the i3-4150T’s newer architecture in single-threaded efficiency.

Memory support and PCIe generations differ as well. The i3-4150T supports DDR3 over a dual-channel memory bus and PCIe Gen 3. The i7-960 also supports DDR3 but over a triple-channel memory bus, and it uses PCIe Gen 2. The triple-channel memory interface on the i7-960 provides more memory bandwidth potential, though the database does not record a memory bandwidth figure for either CPU.

Integrated graphics are another key distinction. The i3-4150T includes Intel HD 4400 graphics, while the i7-960 has no integrated graphics at all. That means the i3-4150T can drive a display without a discrete GPU, whereas the i7-960 requires a separate graphics card. The i3-4150T also has a newer socket (Intel Socket 1150) versus the i7-960’s Intel Socket 1366, which affects upgrade paths and motherboard compatibility.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ across nearly every major specification field in the database. Clock speeds: the i3-4150T has a base clock of 2.90 GHz and no boost clock, while the i7-960 has a base clock of 3.20 GHz and a boost clock of 3.47 GHz. The i7-960 therefore runs faster in both base and boost states, which explains its consistent single-core lead.

Power and process: the i3-4150T has a 35 W TDP, the i7-960 has a 130 W TDP. The i3-4150T uses a 22 nm process, the i7-960 uses a 45 nm process. Transistor count favors the i3-4150T at 1,400 million versus 731 million, but die size favors the i7-960 in reverse: 263 mm² for the i7-960 versus 177 mm² for the i3-4150T.

Cores and threads: the i3-4150T has 2 cores and 4 threads, while the i7-960 has 4 cores and 8 threads. L3 cache: 3 MB for the i3-4150T, 8 MB for the i7-960. Memory bus: dual-channel for the i3-4150T, triple-channel for the i7-960. PCIe: Gen 3 for the i3-4150T, Gen 2 for the i7-960.

Integrated graphics: the i3-4150T has Intel HD 4400, the i7-960 has none. Socket: Intel Socket 1150 for the i3-4150T, Intel Socket 1366 for the i7-960. Release dates: the i3-4150T launched in April 2014, the i7-960 in October 2009. Production status: the i7-960 is end-of-life, the i3-4150T has no listed status. Part number: the i7-960 is recorded as SLBEU, while the i3-4150T has no part number in the database.

Neither CPU has an unlocked multiplier, and neither supports ECC memory. Both use DDR3 memory. The i3-4150T has a 64 KB L1 cache per core and 256 KB L2 per core, matching the i7-960’s per-core L1 and L2 sizes exactly.

Where Each One Wins

The i7-960 wins all five recorded head-to-head Cinebench tests, covering both multi-core and single-core workloads across R15, R20, and R23. Its advantages are proportionally consistent, around 16 percent, whether the workload uses one core or all cores. That makes it the stronger choice for any Cinebench-style rendering task, including single-threaded and multi-threaded rendering. The i7-960 also benefits from a larger 8 MB L3 cache and triple-channel memory support, which can help in memory-bandwidth-sensitive applications, though the database does not record specific memory bandwidth numbers.

The i3-4150T, despite losing every shared benchmark, has clear strengths in other areas. Its 35 W TDP versus 130 W means dramatically lower power draw, making it suitable for compact or thermally constrained systems. It includes integrated Intel HD 4400 graphics, so it can run a display without a discrete GPU. It uses a newer 22 nm process, PCIe Gen 3, and a more modern socket (1150), which offers a newer platform with better upgrade paths. The i3-4150T also has a Geekbench record in the database (1762 multi-core, 892 single-core) where the i7-960 has no recorded score, so for Geekbench-style workloads, only the i3-4150T has verified data.

In terms of database percentile, both CPUs sit nearly level: the i7-960 at 27, the i3-4150T at 26. The i7-960’s average score of 993 edges the i3-4150T’s 975 by 1.8 percent. That small average gap, contrasted with the 16 percent head-to-head deficit, suggests the i3-4150T performs better relative to the broader CPU population than it does against the i7-960 specifically. The i3-4150T also has a more recent release date (April 2014 versus October 2009) and is not marked as end-of-life, unlike the i7-960.

For users prioritizing raw multi-threaded and single-threaded rendering performance, the i7-960 is the clear winner in the recorded data. For users prioritizing power efficiency, integrated graphics, platform modernity, or a CPU that is still in production, the i3-4150T makes a stronger case, even if its benchmark scores trail in every shared test.