Intel Core i3-4160 vs Intel Core i3-4340 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clean sweep for the Intel Core i3-4340 across every Cinebench workload in the comparison. The margins are consistent, though they remain narrow in absolute terms. In the Cinebench R15 multi-core test, the i3-4340 scores 300 against 297 for the i3-4160, a lead of exactly 1%. The R20 multi-core run shows 1252 versus 1241, a 0.9% advantage. Single-core results follow the same pattern: R20 single-core has the i3-4340 at 176 and the i3-4160 at 175, a 0.6% edge, while R23 single-core lands at 421 against 417, again a 1% gap. The R23 multi-core test closes the set at 2983 versus 2955, another 0.9% difference.

What matters here is not the size of each individual delta, but the consistency. Five benchmark runs, five wins for the i3-4340. There is no workload in the head-to-head set where the i3-4160 pulls ahead, even by a single point. The largest single percentage margin is 1%, appearing in both R15 multi-core and R23 single-core. The smallest is 0.6% in R20 single-core. This pattern suggests the i3-4340 holds a small but repeatable performance advantage across both single-threaded and multi-threaded rendering tasks.

Average benchmark scores reinforce this picture. The i3-4340 posts an average benchmark score of 1026, while the i3-4160 records 1017. That is a difference of 9 points on the aggregate scale. Both processors sit at the 28th percentile among all CPUs in the database, meaning neither escapes a similar overall performance tier. Yet within that tier, the i3-4340 consistently edges ahead.

The nearest rival data places both chips in similar company. The i3-4340 is bracketed by the Intel Processor N150 at 1025 (0.1% behind the i3-4340) and the Intel Core i7-5650U at 1027 (0.1% ahead), with the AMD Ryzen Embedded V1202B also at 1027. The AMD Phenom II X6 1075T trails slightly at 1024, 0.2% behind. The i3-4160, meanwhile, compares against the Intel Core i5-2300 at 1014 (0.3% behind), the Intel Core i3-4330 at 1020 (0.3% ahead), the Intel Xeon W5580 at 1012 (0.5% behind), and the Intel Pentium Gold G5600 at 1022 (0.5% ahead). In both cases, the surrounding competition is extremely tight, with no rival more than half a percent away in either direction.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same fundamental design. They are 2-core, 4-thread parts built on the Haswell architecture, fabricated on Intel's 22 nm process node, and housed in the same Intel Socket 1150. Both have a base clock of 3.60 GHz with no boost clock available, both carry a 54 W TDP, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The transistor count is identical at 1,400 million, and the die size is the same at 177 mm². Both support DDR3 memory in dual-channel configuration, both use PCIe Gen 3, and neither supports ECC memory. The market segment for both is desktop.

The differences are confined to cache, integrated graphics, and release timing. The i3-4340 carries 4 MB of shared L3 cache, while the i3-4160 has 3 MB of shared L3 cache. That is a 1 MB difference in favor of the i3-4340, representing a 33% larger L3 pool. The per-core L1 and L2 caches are identical: 64 KB per core for L1 and 256 KB per core for L2. This extra L3 capacity is the most plausible architectural explanation for the i3-4340's consistent benchmark lead, as both chips run at the same clock speed and have the same core and thread configuration.

The integrated graphics also differ. The i3-4340 ships with Intel HD 4600, while the i3-4160 uses Intel HD 4400. Both are integrated graphics solutions, but the HD 4600 is the higher-tier option in the Haswell lineup. No graphics benchmarks are recorded in the database, so the practical impact on gaming or media workloads cannot be quantified here, but the part number difference is confirmed in the specification data.

Release dates separate the two as well. The i3-4340 was released in August 2013, while the i3-4160 arrived in July 2014, roughly eleven months later. Despite the later release, the i3-4160 does not gain any clock speed or core count advantage. It simply carries a reduced L3 cache and a lower-tier integrated GPU. The production status for the i3-4160 is listed as active, while no production status is recorded for the i3-4340.

In terms of part identification, the i3-4340 has the part number SR1NL, while no part number is recorded for the i3-4160. Neither processor has a listed launch MSRP in the database, so no pricing comparison can be made.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data gives the i3-4340 the win in every recorded discipline. Multi-core rendering favors it in R15, R20, and R23. Single-core rendering favors it in R20 and R23. There is no category in the head-to-head table where the i3-4160 takes the lead. The win count is 5 for the i3-4340 and 0 for the i3-4160.

For users running Cinebench-style workloads, which are representative of 3D rendering and content creation tasks, the i3-4340 is the stronger choice by a slim but uniform margin. The 1% lead in R15 multi-core translates to a 3-point score difference, and the 0.9% lead in R20 multi-core is an 11-point gap. In R23 multi-core, the 28-point difference (2983 versus 2955) is the largest absolute gap in the entire comparison. Single-core differences are smaller in absolute terms: 1 point in R20 and 4 points in R23.

The i3-4160 does not win any workload category, but it remains competitive. Its scores trail by less than 1.1% in every test, and its average benchmark score of 1017 places it within 0.9% of the i3-4340's 1026. For applications that do not stress the L3 cache or integrated graphics, the real-world difference could be difficult to perceive. The data, however, points to the i3-4340 as the faster part in all measured scenarios.

The integrated graphics difference adds a secondary consideration. The i3-4340's HD 4600 is a higher-tier iGPU than the i3-4160's HD 4400. While no graphics benchmarks are recorded, users who rely on the integrated GPU for display output or light media acceleration would likely prefer the i3-4340's configuration. The lack of recorded graphics data prevents a definitive statement on performance, but the specification gap is clear.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i3-4340 has an average benchmark score of 1026, while the Intel Core i3-4160 records 1017.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the Cinebench R23 multi-core test?

A: The i3-4340 scores 2983 and the i3-4160 scores 2955, giving the i3-4340 a 0.9% lead and a 28-point absolute difference.

Q: Do both processors have the same clock speed?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core i3-4340 and the Intel Core i3-4160 have a base clock of 3.60 GHz, and neither has a boost clock.

Q: What is the cache difference between the two chips?

A: The i3-4340 has 4 MB of shared L3 cache, while the i3-4160 has 3 MB of shared L3 cache. Both have 64 KB of L1 per core and 256 KB of L2 per core.

Q: Are the integrated graphics different?

A: Yes, the i3-4340 includes Intel HD 4600, while the i3-4160 includes Intel HD 4400.

Q: Which processor was released earlier?

A: The Intel Core i3-4340 was released in August 2013, and the Intel Core i3-4160 was released in July 2014.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory type?

A: Yes, both support DDR3 memory in dual-channel configuration.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Core i3-4340 wins every benchmark in the head-to-head comparison. It leads in R15 multi-core, R20 multi-core, R20 single-core, R23 multi-core, and R23 single-core. Its average benchmark score of 1026 is higher than the i3-4160's 1017. It carries 4 MB of L3 cache versus 3 MB, and its Intel HD 4600 integrated graphics outrank the i3-4160's HD 4400. On every measured axis, the i3-4340 is the superior part.

The margins, however, are small. The largest head-to-head delta is 1%, and the smallest is 0.6%. Neither processor escapes the 28th percentile among all CPUs. Users who already own an i3-4160 would see a negligible performance uplift from switching to the i3-4340, assuming no other system changes. The 1 MB L3 cache difference and the iGPU tier difference are real, but they do not translate into dramatic benchmark swings.

For a new purchase between these two specific parts, the i3-4340 is the correct choice based strictly on the recorded data. It wins every workload test, has a higher average score, and offers more cache and a better integrated GPU. The i3-4160 does have the advantage of active production status, which may matter for availability, but that is a supply consideration rather than a performance one. The i3-4340 also carries an earlier release date, which may affect used-market availability, but the database records no pricing or production status for that part.

In workloads that resemble Cinebench rendering, the i3-4340 should be selected. In scenarios where the i3-4160 is already installed and the workload is not cache-sensitive, the performance difference is likely below the threshold of perception. The recorded data, though, offers no scenario where the i3-4160 comes out ahead. The verdict is therefore straightforward: the Intel Core i3-4340 is the faster processor in this comparison, and the only reason to choose the i3-4160 would be availability or system compatibility, neither of which is reflected in the benchmark scores.