Intel Core i3-4160 vs Intel Core i5-10210Y Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data positions these two processors as near-equals in overall average score, yet the distribution of wins is entirely one-sided. The Intel Core i5-10210Y wins every recorded head-to-head benchmark, taking all five tests with a consistent margin of approximately 15% over the Intel Core i3-4160. The i3-4160, however, holds a slight edge in overall percentile ranking, sitting at the 28th percentile against all CPUs compared to the i5-10210Y's 27th percentile. The average benchmark scores are remarkably close: 1017 for the i3-4160 and 1006 for the i5-10210Y, a difference of just over 1%.

The i5-10210Y is the clear choice for workloads that stress multi-threaded performance, as it leads in every Cinebench multicore test by the same 15.1% margin. It also takes the single-core tests with a 15% to 15.1% advantage. The i3-4160 does not win a single recorded comparison. For users who prioritize the highest possible frame rates in lightly threaded applications or who require a desktop platform with a dedicated socket, the i3-4160 offers the more conventional upgrade path, but the data shows it is slower in every measured scenario. The i5-10210Y is the superior performer across the board, despite its lower percentile ranking, which reflects the broader competitive field rather than a direct comparison between these two parts.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent different eras of Intel design. The i3-4160 uses the Haswell architecture on a 22 nm process node, featuring 1,400 million transistors on a 177 mm² die. It is a desktop part built for Intel Socket 1150. The i5-10210Y uses the Comet Lake architecture on a 14 nm process node, specifically the Comet Lake-Y variant, and is a mobile processor soldered to Intel BGA 1440. The transistor count and die size for the i5-10210Y are not recorded in the database.

Core configuration differs significantly. The i3-4160 has 2 cores and 4 threads, while the i5-10210Y has 4 cores and 8 threads. This doubling of cores and threads is the primary structural advantage for the mobile chip. Cache hierarchy also favors the i5-10210Y: it has 6 MB of shared L3 cache, twice the 3 MB found on the i3-4160. Both processors feature 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core, so the per-core cache structure is identical.

Clock speeds tell a more complex story. The i3-4160 has a base clock of 3.60 GHz with no boost clock recorded, meaning it runs at a fixed frequency. The i5-10210Y has a base clock of 1.00 GHz but a boost clock of 4.00 GHz. The i5-10210Y therefore relies on boost behavior to reach competitive performance, whereas the i3-4160 maintains a constant high base clock. The thermal design power reflects their respective market segments: the i3-4160 is rated at 54 watts, while the i5-10210Y is rated at just 9 watts, a six-fold difference that highlights the mobile chip's efficiency focus.

Memory support is DDR3 for both, but the i3-4160 explicitly supports dual-channel memory, while the memory bus configuration for the i5-10210Y is not recorded. The i3-4160 also lists PCIe Gen 3 support, whereas the i5-10210Y has no PCIe generation recorded. Integrated graphics differ as well: the i3-4160 ships with Intel HD 4400, while the i5-10210Y carries UHD Graphics. Neither processor supports ECC memory, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The i3-4160 was released in July 2014, while the i5-10210Y arrived in August 2019, a gap of just over five years.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core i5-10210Y has 4 cores and 8 threads, exactly double the 2 cores and 4 threads of the Intel Core i3-4160.

Q: How much faster is the i5-10210Y in multi-core rendering?

A: The i5-10210Y leads in every multi-core Cinebench test by a consistent 15.1% margin. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 3479 versus 2955 for the i3-4160.

Q: Does the i3-4160 win any benchmark comparison?

A: No. The recorded head-to-head data shows the i5-10210Y winning all five benchmark tests, with the i3-4160 recording zero wins.

Q: What is the thermal design power difference?

A: The i3-4160 has a TDP of 54 watts, while the i5-10210Y has a TDP of 9 watts. The i5-10210Y uses approximately one-sixth the power of the i3-4160 according to these ratings.

Q: Which processor has the larger L3 cache?

A: The i5-10210Y has 6 MB of shared L3 cache, double the 3 MB shared L3 cache of the i3-4160.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The i3-4160 has an average benchmark score of 1017, while the i5-10210Y scores 1006, a difference of 1.1% in favor of the i3-4160.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification category. The i3-4160 is a desktop processor with 2 cores and 4 threads, a 3.60 GHz base clock, and no boost clock. The i5-10210Y is a mobile processor with 4 cores and 8 threads, a 1.00 GHz base clock, and a 4.00 GHz boost clock. The i3-4160 has a TDP of 54 watts, while the i5-10210Y has a TDP of 9 watts.

Socket compatibility separates them completely: the i3-4160 uses Intel Socket 1150, while the i5-10210Y uses Intel BGA 1440, meaning the i5-10210Y is soldered and not upgradeable. The architectures are different generations: Haswell for the i3-4160 and Comet Lake (specifically Comet Lake-Y) for the i5-10210Y. Process nodes also differ, with the i3-4160 on 22 nm and the i5-10210Y on 14 nm. The i3-4160 records 1,400 million transistors and a 177 mm² die size, while neither figure is available for the i5-10210Y.

Cache configurations differ in total L3 capacity: 3 MB shared on the i3-4160 versus 6 MB shared on the i5-10210Y. Memory support is DDR3 for both, but the i3-4160 explicitly supports dual-channel memory, while the i5-10210Y has no memory bus configuration recorded. PCIe support is listed as Gen 3 for the i3-4160, with no PCIe generation recorded for the i5-10210Y. Integrated graphics differ: Intel HD 4400 on the i3-4160 versus UHD Graphics on the i5-10210Y. Market segments are desktop versus mobile, and release dates are July 2014 versus August 2019. Both processors are marked as Active in production status, both lack ECC support, and both have locked multipliers.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are uniform in direction but worth examining individually. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i5-10210Y scores 350 against 297 for the i3-4160, a 15.1% advantage. This is the only R15 test recorded for the i3-4160, which lacks a single-core R15 score in the database. The i5-10210Y has an R15 single-core score of 51, but no direct comparison is available.

Cinebench R20 multi-core shows the i5-10210Y at 1461 versus 1241 for the i3-4160, again a 15.1% margin. The single-core R20 test follows the same pattern: the i5-10210Y scores 206, the i3-4160 scores 175, a 15% difference. Cinebench R23 multi-core continues the trend with the i5-10210Y at 3479 and the i3-4160 at 2955, a 15.1% gap. The R23 single-core test completes the sweep: 491 for the i5-10210Y versus 417 for the i3-4160, a 15.1% margin.

The consistency of these margins is notable. Across every test where both processors have scores, the i5-10210Y leads by either 15% or 15.1%. This suggests the performance difference is structural rather than workload-dependent. The i5-10210Y's advantage comes from its doubled core and thread count, which benefits multi-threaded tests, and its higher boost clock, which benefits single-threaded tests. The i3-4160's fixed 3.60 GHz base clock cannot match the i5-10210Y's 4.00 GHz boost ceiling in single-core scenarios, and its 2 cores cannot compete with 4 cores in multi-threaded workloads.

The average benchmark scores tell a slightly different story. The i3-4160's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-2300 with an average score of 1014 (0.3% lower), the Intel Core i3-4330 at 1020 (0.3% higher), the Intel Xeon W5580 at 1012 (0.5% lower), and the Intel Pentium Gold G5600 at 1022 (0.5% higher). The i5-10210Y's nearest rivals are the Intel Core i7-880 and AMD FX-9830P, both at 1006 with 0% delta, the Intel Core i7-2630QM at 1005 (0.1% lower), and the Intel Processor N100 at 1007 (0.1% higher). These rival clusters show that both processors sit in a dense performance band where small margins separate many parts.

Where Each One Wins

The i5-10210Y wins every recorded benchmark, making its case straightforward. It is the stronger choice for multi-threaded rendering workloads, as demonstrated by its consistent 15.1% lead in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests. It also wins all single-core tests by 15% to 15.1%, meaning it handles lightly threaded applications better as well. Users running video encoding, 3D rendering, or compilation workloads would see measurable gains with the i5-10210Y. Its 4 cores and 8 threads provide double the parallel execution capacity of the i3-4160, and its 6 MB L3 cache offers twice the shared cache for frequently accessed data. The 9 watt TDP also makes it suitable for fanless or ultra-portable designs, though the database does not record any power efficiency benchmarks.

The i3-4160 has no benchmark wins to claim, but it retains advantages in specific non-performance categories. Its desktop socket (Intel Socket 1150) allows for user-replaceable installation and potential upgrades, whereas the i5-10210Y is soldered to the motherboard via Intel BGA 1440. Its 54 watt TDP, while much higher, reflects a desktop platform with more robust cooling options. The i3-4160 also lists PCIe Gen 3 support and explicit dual-channel memory support, features that are unrecorded for the i5-10210Y. For users with existing Socket 1150 motherboards, the i3-4160 offers a drop-in upgrade path, whereas the i5-10210Y requires a complete mobile platform. The i3-4160's higher percentile ranking (28 versus 27) also indicates it sits marginally better within the broader CPU landscape, though this difference is negligible in practical terms.

For workload-specific recommendations, the i5-10210Y is the pick for any CPU-bound task measured here. The i3-4160 is only preferable if the user's priority is desktop compatibility, socket upgradability, or platform features that are not captured in benchmark scores. The recorded data offers no scenario where the i3-4160 outperforms the i5-10210Y in actual computation.