CPU Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Processor N150 edges out the Intel Core i3-4160 with an average benchmark score of 1025 versus 1017. Both CPUs sit at the 28th percentile among all CPUs, indicating they occupy the same overall performance tier.

Q: How do the two compare in multi-threaded rendering workloads?

A: The results are mixed. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the N150 scores 422.5 versus 297 for the i3-4160, a 29.7% advantage. However, in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the i3-4160 reverses the result with 2955 against 2590.5, a 14.1% lead.

Q: Which processor has the stronger single-core performance?

A: The Intel Processor N150 is decisively ahead in single-core workloads. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 935 versus 417 for the i3-4160, a 55.4% advantage. The N150 also has a Cinebench R15 single-core score of 153.15, while the i3-4160 has no R15 single-core result in the data.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The Intel Core i3-4160 has 2 cores and 4 threads, while the Intel Processor N150 has 4 cores and 4 threads. Despite the i3-4160 having fewer physical cores, it uses Hyper-Threading to match the N150's thread count.

Q: How do their thermal profiles differ?

A: The Intel Processor N150 has a TDP of 6 watts, which is dramatically lower than the 54-watt TDP of the Intel Core i3-4160. This makes the N150 suitable for fanless or ultra-low-power designs, whereas the i3-4160 requires a more substantial cooling solution.

Q: Which processor is more recent?

A: The Intel Processor N150 was released in November 2024, while the Intel Core i3-4160 dates back to July 2014. This decade-long gap explains the N150's superior process technology and feature set.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core i3-4160 is built on the Haswell architecture using a 22 nm process node, while the Intel Processor N150 uses the Twin Lake architecture on a 10 nm node. This process advantage gives the N150 significantly better power efficiency and transistor density. The i3-4160 has a die size of 177 mm² and contains 1,400 million transistors, whereas the N150's die size and transistor count are not listed in the available data.

Cache layouts differ substantially. The i3-4160 features 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 3 MB of shared L3 cache. The N150 offers 96 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of shared L2, and a larger 6 MB of shared L3. This gives the N150 twice the total L3 cache, which benefits workloads with large working sets.

Memory support also diverges. The i3-4160 supports DDR3 memory in dual-channel configuration, while the N150 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 in single-channel mode, with a listed memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The N150's support for newer memory standards is a clear generational advantage, although the single-channel bus may limit bandwidth in some scenarios.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The i3-4160 uses Intel HD 4400, while the N150 features UHD Graphics 730. Both processors are built by Intel, use PCIe Gen 3, and do not support ECC memory. The i3-4160 uses Intel Socket 1150 for desktop builds, while the N150 uses Intel BGA 1264 for mobile or embedded applications. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results show a split decision across three Cinebench tests, with the Intel Processor N150 winning two and the Intel Core i3-4160 winning one. The most striking difference appears in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the N150 scores 935 against the i3-4160's 417. That 55.4% delta is the largest performance gap in any test, and it reflects the N150's much higher boost clock of 3.60 GHz compared to the i3-4160's fixed 3.60 GHz base clock with no boost capability. In single-threaded tasks, the N150 is the clear choice.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the N150 again comes out ahead, scoring 422.5 versus 297 for the i3-4160, a 29.7% margin. This result is notable because the i3-4160 has a higher base clock and dual-channel memory, yet the N150's four physical cores outperform the i3-4160's two cores with Hyper-Threading in this older rendering benchmark.

However, the Cinebench R23 multi-core test tells a different story. Here, the i3-4160 scores 2955, beating the N150's 2590.5 by 14.1%. This suggests that the i3-4160's Haswell architecture and higher sustained clock speeds handle the longer, more demanding R23 workload better, despite having half the physical cores. The i3-4160 also has a Cinebench R20 multi-core score of 1241 and a single-core score of 175, though the N150 has no R20 results for direct comparison.

The average benchmark scores align closely with these mixed results. The i3-4160 averages 1017, while the N150 averages 1025, a difference of less than 1%. The nearest rival lists confirm their proximity: the i3-4160 sits between the Intel Core i5-2300 (1014) and Intel Core i3-4330 (1020), while the N150 lands between the AMD Phenom II X6 1075T (1024) and Intel Core i3-4340 (1026).

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every core specification. The i3-4160 has 2 cores and 4 threads, while the N150 has 4 cores and 4 threads. Base clocks are listed as 3.60 GHz for the i3-4160 and 0.10 GHz for the N150, though the N150's boost clock reaches 3.60 GHz. The i3-4160 has no boost clock listed.

TDP is a major differentiator: 54 watts for the i3-4160 versus 6 watts for the N150. The i3-4160 uses Intel Socket 1150, while the N150 uses Intel BGA 1264. The process node is 22 nm for the i3-4160 and 10 nm for the N150. The i3-4160 has a die size of 177 mm² and 1,400 million transistors; the N150 has neither listed.

Cache configurations differ: the i3-4160 has 64 KB L1 per core and 256 KB L2 per core, while the N150 has 96 KB L1 per core and 2 MB shared L2. L3 cache is 3 MB shared on the i3-4160 versus 6 MB shared on the N150. Memory support shows DDR3 for the i3-4160 and DDR4, DDR5, LPDDR5 for the N150. The memory bus is dual-channel on the i3-4160 and single-channel on the N150, with the N150 listing 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. PCIe is Gen 3 for both, with the N150 specifying 9 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics are Intel HD 4400 on the i3-4160 and UHD Graphics 730 on the N150. The market segment is Desktop for the i3-4160 and Mobile for the N150. Release dates are July 2014 for the i3-4160 and November 2024 for the N150.

The Verdict

The data shows two processors that land at the same 28th percentile and have nearly identical average benchmark scores, but they achieve that parity through very different means. The Intel Processor N150 wins the single-core and Cinebench R15 multi-core tests, while the Intel Core i3-4160 wins Cinebench R23 multi-core. The N150's 55.4% single-core advantage is the headline result, and it comes with a 6-watt TDP that is 48 watts lower than the i3-4160's 54-watt TDP. For any workload that prioritizes single-threaded responsiveness or power efficiency, the N150 is the clear choice from a purely technical standpoint.

The i3-4160, however, demonstrates that raw core count is not everything. Its 14.1% win in Cinebench R23 multi-core suggests that sustained multi-threaded rendering on longer workloads still favors the older Haswell design. The i3-4160 also offers dual-channel memory, which the N150 lacks, and its desktop socket allows for easier upgrades in traditional desktop systems. That said, the i3-4160 is a decade older, and its 22 nm process and DDR3-only support are significant limitations for modern workloads.

Neither processor has a launch MSRP listed, so no cost comparison is possible. The production status for both is listed as Active. The N150's newer release date, larger cache, better integrated graphics, and dramatically lower power draw make it the more future-proof option, despite its single-channel memory and BGA socket that prevents upgrades. The i3-4160's strongest argument is its R23 multi-core performance and dual-channel memory bandwidth.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Processor N150 wins in any scenario where single-core performance matters most. The 55.4% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core translates to faster application launches, snappier web browsing, and better responsiveness in lightly threaded software. Its 29.7% advantage in Cinebench R15 multi-core also makes it the better choice for older rendering workloads that scale well across four physical cores. The 6-watt TDP means it can operate in fanless or passively cooled systems, making it ideal for compact, low-power devices. Its support for DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5 memory, along with UHD Graphics 730, gives it a modern feature set that the i3-4160 cannot match.

The Intel Core i3-4160 wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core by 14.1%, indicating that it handles longer, more demanding multi-threaded rendering workloads more effectively. This suggests that for sustained CPU-bound tasks like video encoding or 3D rendering, the i3-4160 may still hold an advantage despite having fewer physical cores. Its dual-channel memory bus is another point in its favor, as it provides higher theoretical memory bandwidth than the N150's single-channel configuration. The i3-4160's desktop socket also allows for system upgrades without replacing the motherboard, which is not possible with the N150's BGA 1264 package. For users with existing DDR3 platforms or those prioritizing long-duration multi-core workloads, the i3-4160 remains relevant.