Intel Core i3-4170 vs Intel Core i3-7320 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive sweep for the Intel Core i3-7320 across every recorded multi-core and single-core test. The i3-4170 does not register a single win in the head-to-head comparisons, with the i3-7320 claiming all five recorded victories. The margin is remarkably consistent, hovering near the 25 percent mark in every workload.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i3-7320 scores 408 against the i3-4170's 306, a delta of negative 25 percent from the perspective of the older part. This gap widens slightly in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the i3-7320 posts 1703 versus 1275, a 25.1 percent deficit for the i3-4170. The pattern holds in single-core tests as well: Cinebench R20 single-core shows the i3-7320 at 240 against 180, again a 25 percent difference. Cinebench R23 multi-core follows with 4057 versus 3038, a 25.1 percent gap, and Cinebench R23 single-core completes the sweep with 572 versus 429, a 25 percent difference.

The consistency of these margins is notable. A 25 percent advantage across both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads suggests a fundamental clock-for-clock and architecture-level improvement rather than a workload-specific quirk. The i3-7320's base clock of 4.10 GHz against the i3-4170's 3.70 GHz accounts for roughly a 10.8 percent raw frequency advantage, but the measured performance delta is more than double that figure, indicating that architectural efficiency gains from the newer Kaby Lake design are doing substantial work beyond the clock speed increase.

Looking at the broader benchmark averages, the i3-4170 records an average benchmark score of 1193, while the i3-7320 sits slightly lower at 1173. This inversion is curious given the head-to-head sweep, but it reflects the different benchmark suites included in each part's average. The i3-4170 has Geekbench scores in its record (2033 multi-core, 1090 single-core), while the i3-7320 lacks Geekbench entries in the database. The average scores are also influenced by the nearest rival comparisons: the i3-4170 sits at the 33rd percentile overall, matching the i3-7320's 33rd percentile, so both parts occupy the same relative position in the broader CPU landscape despite the i3-7320's clear victory in direct comparisons.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent different generations of Intel's Core architecture, separated by nearly three years of design evolution. The i3-4170 uses the Haswell architecture on a 22 nm process node, while the i3-7320 uses Kaby Lake on a 14 nm process node. This process shrink is significant: it allows the newer part to achieve a higher base clock of 4.10 GHz while maintaining a lower thermal design power of 51 watts, compared to the i3-4170's 54 watts at 3.70 GHz. The newer process node typically enables better power efficiency, and the data here supports that, with the i3-7320 delivering higher performance at lower rated power.

Cache configurations differ as well. Both parts share identical L1 and L2 cache sizes at 64 KB per core and 256 KB per core respectively, but the L3 cache grows from 3 MB shared on the i3-4170 to 4 MB shared on the i3-7320. This additional 1 MB of L3 cache likely contributes to the performance advantage in workloads that benefit from larger working sets. The i3-7320 also has a smaller die, though the database does not record its exact dimensions or transistor count, while the i3-4170 is listed at 1,400 million transistors on a 177 mm² die.

Memory support represents a major platform divergence. The i3-4170 supports DDR3 memory with a dual-channel bus and a recorded memory bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s. The i3-7320 moves to DDR4, also dual-channel, but with a substantially higher memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s, a 50 percent increase. This bandwidth advantage can matter in memory-sensitive applications, though the benchmark scores in the database do not isolate memory-bound workloads specifically.

The integrated graphics also differ: the i3-4170 ships with Intel HD 4400, while the i3-7320 includes Intel HD 630. The database does not record graphics benchmark scores, so no direct comparison is possible, but the newer graphics architecture in the i3-7320 is generally expected to be more capable. Both processors use PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU, so expansion bandwidth is identical. Neither part supports ECC memory, and both have locked multipliers, meaning overclocking is not a supported feature on either.

The sockets differ as well: the i3-4170 uses Intel Socket 1150, while the i3-7320 uses Intel Socket 1151. This means the two processors are not interchangeable in existing motherboards, and an upgrade from the older part to the newer one would require a platform change. The production status also differs, with the i3-4170 marked as end-of-life while the i3-7320 remains active in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The Intel Core i3-7320 wins every recorded multi-core test. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 4057 against the i3-4170's 3038, a 25.1 percent advantage. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the margin is 1703 versus 1275, also a 25.1 percent gap, and in Cinebench R15 multi-core, it is 408 versus 306, a 25 percent difference.

Q: How do the single-core scores compare?

A: The i3-7320 leads in single-core performance as well. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 572 versus 429, a 25 percent edge. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 240 versus 180, again a 25 percent difference. The i3-4170 does not have a recorded Cinebench R15 single-core score in the database, so no comparison is possible for that specific test.

Q: What are the clock speed differences?

A: The i3-7320 has a base clock of 4.10 GHz, while the i3-4170 operates at 3.70 GHz. Neither processor has a boost clock recorded in the database, so the base clocks represent the maximum sustained frequencies. The i3-7320 achieves this higher clock while drawing 51 watts, compared to 54 watts for the i3-4170.

Q: Do these processors support the same memory type?

A: No. The i3-4170 supports DDR3 memory with a bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s, while the i3-7320 supports DDR4 with a bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. Both use dual-channel memory buses. The physical sockets also differ, with the i3-4170 on Socket 1150 and the i3-7320 on Socket 1151, so they require different motherboards.

Q: Are there differences in integrated graphics?

A: Yes. The i3-4170 includes Intel HD 4400 graphics, while the i3-7320 includes Intel HD 630. The database does not record any graphics benchmark scores for either processor, so the performance impact cannot be quantified here. Both parts are desktop processors with locked multipliers.

Q: How do these chips rank against all CPUs in the database?

A: Both processors sit at the 33rd percentile when compared to all CPUs in the database. The i3-4170 has an average benchmark score of 1193, and the i3-7320 has an average of 1173. Despite the i3-7320 winning every direct head-to-head test, its average score is slightly lower because the benchmark suites recorded for each part differ.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two processors:

• Base clock: 3.70 GHz (i3-4170) versus 4.10 GHz (i3-7320)
• TDP: 54 watts (i3-4170) versus 51 watts (i3-7320)
• Socket: Intel Socket 1150 (i3-4170) versus Intel Socket 1151 (i3-7320)
• Architecture: Haswell (i3-4170) versus Kaby Lake (i3-7320)
• Process node: 22 nm (i3-4170) versus 14 nm (i3-7320)
• Transistors: 1,400 million (i3-4170); not recorded for i3-7320
• Die size: 177 mm² (i3-4170); not recorded for i3-7320
• L3 cache: 3 MB shared (i3-4170) versus 4 MB shared (i3-7320)
• Memory support: DDR3 (i3-4170) versus DDR4 (i3-7320)
• Memory bandwidth: 25.6 GB/s (i3-4170) versus 38.4 GB/s (i3-7320)
• Integrated graphics: Intel HD 4400 (i3-4170) versus Intel HD 630 (i3-7320)
• Production status: End-of-life (i3-4170) versus Active (i3-7320)
• Release date: 2014-04-30 (i3-4170) versus 2017-01-02 (i3-7320)
• Launch MSRP: $117 (i3-4170); not recorded for i3-7320
• Part number: SR1PL (i3-4170) versus SR358 (i3-7320)

Identical specifications include core count (2), thread count (4), L1 cache (64 KB per core), L2 cache (256 KB per core), memory bus (dual-channel), ECC support (none), PCIe configuration (Gen 3, 16 lanes from CPU), multiplier lock (locked), and market segment (Desktop).

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i3-7320 wins in every measured category, making the case for it straightforward in any workload captured by the database. Multi-core rendering in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 all favor the i3-7320 by approximately 25 percent. Single-core performance in Cinebench R20 and R23 shows the same margin. For users running CPU-bound tasks such as video encoding, 3D rendering, or general productivity applications that scale with both core count and clock speed, the i3-7320 is the clear choice based on the recorded data.

The i3-7320 also holds advantages in platform-level features. Its DDR4 memory support with 38.4 GB/s of bandwidth provides a 50 percent bandwidth increase over the i3-4170's DDR3 implementation, which can benefit memory-intensive workloads even if the benchmark suite does not isolate this factor. The 4 MB L3 cache versus 3 MB provides additional headroom for data reuse. The newer 14 nm process node and lower TDP mean the i3-7320 delivers more performance per watt, which could be relevant in compact desktop builds with limited cooling. The integrated HD 630 graphics are a newer generation than the HD 4400 in the i3-4170, though no benchmark data is available to quantify the difference.

The i3-4170 does not win any recorded benchmark, but it retains situational relevance. Its Socket 1150 platform may already be present in existing systems, allowing a drop-in replacement without a motherboard change. The i3-4170 also has a recorded launch MSRP of $117, while the i3-7320 has no launch MSRP in the database, so direct cost comparison is not possible. For users constrained to the Haswell platform, the i3-4170 remains a functional dual-core, four-thread desktop processor with a 33rd percentile standing, matching the i3-7320's overall percentile despite losing every head-to-head test.

For any new build, the data points decisively to the i3-7320. The performance margin is consistent, the platform is newer, and the power efficiency is better. The i3-4170's only practical advantage lies in platform continuity for existing Socket 1150 systems, where upgrading to the i3-7320 would require a new motherboard and DDR4 memory, an ecosystem cost that the benchmark data cannot capture.