Intel Core i3-4370 vs Intel Core i3-7300 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database shows a consistent pattern across every recorded test: the Intel Core i3-7300 finishes ahead of the Intel Core i3-4370 in all five head-to-head comparisons. The margin is strikingly uniform, with the newer processor leading by roughly 14.8% to 14.9% in each workload. This consistency suggests the performance gap is driven by fundamental architectural advantages rather than test-specific quirks.

Starting with Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i3-4370 scores 330 points while the i3-7300 reaches 388 points. The delta of 14.9% places the i3-7300 clearly ahead, and this is the largest percentage gap recorded in the comparison. The R20 multi-core test shows a similar story: 1379 points for the older chip versus 1619 points for the newer one, a 14.8% advantage. These multi-threaded results are particularly telling because both processors have the same core and thread counts, so the difference comes entirely from per-core efficiency and clock speed.

Single-core performance follows the same trajectory. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the i3-4370 scores 194 while the i3-7300 scores 228, again a 14.9% lead for the newer part. The R23 single-core test reinforces this with 463 versus 544 points, another 14.9% gap. The R23 multi-core test completes the sweep: 3284 versus 3856, a 14.8% difference. Across all five benchmarks, the i3-7300 wins every single comparison, and the database records zero wins for the i3-4370 in this matchup.

The magnitude of the lead is worth emphasizing. A 14.9% improvement in single-core workloads is substantial for processors that share the same core count, thread count, and cache hierarchy. The fact that the R15 multi-core and both single-core tests show nearly identical deltas indicates that the i3-7300's advantage is not workload-dependent; it simply executes instructions faster across the board. In practical terms, a user moving from the i3-4370 to the i3-7300 would see roughly a seventh faster performance in rendering, compilation, or other CPU-bound tasks, assuming other system components remain equal.

The database also places both processors in similar percentile ranges relative to all CPUs. The i3-4370 sits at the 32nd percentile with an average benchmark score of 1130, while the i3-7300 sits at the 31st percentile with an average score of 1115. Despite the i3-7300 winning every head-to-head test, its overall percentile is marginally lower, which reflects the broader pool of processors released later. This is a useful reminder that percentile rankings depend on the entire CPU landscape, not just direct comparisons.

Looking at nearest rivals, the i3-4370's closest competitor is the Intel Pentium Gold G5500, which matches its average score of 1130 exactly with a delta of 0%. The Intel Core i5-4690T and Intel Core i7-3612QM both score 1129, a 0.1% difference, while the Intel Core i3-10110U scores 1131, a 0.1% gap in the other direction. For the i3-7300, the AMD Ryzen 3 1200 scores 1116 with a 0% delta, the Intel Core i5-3550S scores 1118 at 0.3% higher, the Intel Core i3-4150 scores 1119 at 0.3% higher, and the Intel Core i7-5557U scores 1110 at 0.4% lower. These rivalries show that both processors occupy a similar performance tier, yet the direct head-to-head data clearly favors the i3-7300.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core i3-7300 wins all three multi-core benchmarks: Cinebench R15 (388 vs 330), R20 (1619 vs 1379), and R23 (3856 vs 3284). The margin is consistently around 14.8% in favor of the i3-7300.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the Intel Core i3-4370 comes out ahead?

A: No. The database records zero wins for the i3-4370 across the five head-to-head tests. The i3-7300 wins all five.

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

A: In Cinebench R20 single-core, the i3-7300 scores 228 versus 194 for the i3-4370, a 14.9% lead. In R23 single-core, the gap is again 14.9% (544 vs 463). These are nearly identical margins to the multi-core results.

Q: Do the two processors have the same memory support?

A: No. The i3-4370 supports DDR3 memory, while the i3-7300 supports DDR4. The i3-7300 also has a recorded memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s, whereas the i3-4370 has no memory bandwidth figure listed in the database.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each processor?

A: The i3-4370 has an average benchmark score of 1130, and the i3-7300 has an average score of 1115. Despite the i3-7300 winning the head-to-head, its average is slightly lower due to differences in the overall benchmark set.

Q: How do the processors compare in terms of integrated graphics?

A: The i3-4370 includes Intel HD 4600 graphics, while the i3-7300 includes Intel HD 630. The database does not provide direct graphics benchmark comparisons, so the performance difference is not quantified here.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations, and this is the primary explanation for the consistent performance gap. The Intel Core i3-4370 is built on the Haswell architecture, fabricated on Intel's 22 nm process node. The transistor count is listed as 1,400 million, and the die size is 177 mm². The Intel Core i3-7300 uses the newer Kaby Lake architecture, built on a 14 nm process node. The database does not list transistor count or die size for the i3-7300, which limits direct manufacturing comparisons.

The process node difference is significant. Moving from 22 nm to 14 nm typically allows for higher clock speeds at the same or lower power consumption, and the benchmark results align with this expectation. The i3-7300 has a base clock of 4.00 GHz compared to 3.80 GHz for the i3-4370, a 0.20 GHz advantage. Neither processor has a boost clock listed, so the base clock is the only frequency data available.

Both processors share the same core and thread configuration: 2 cores and 4 threads. They also have identical cache hierarchies: 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 4 MB of shared L3 cache. This means the performance difference cannot be attributed to cache capacity or core count. Instead, it comes down to the architectural efficiency of Kaby Lake over Haswell, combined with the higher clock speed.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The i3-4370 pairs with Intel HD 4600, while the i3-7300 pairs with Intel HD 630. The database does not provide graphics benchmarks, so the impact of this difference remains qualitative. However, newer integrated graphics architectures typically offer better media processing and display output capabilities.

The socket and memory support also reflect the generational split. The i3-4370 uses Intel Socket 1150 and supports DDR3 memory in a dual-channel configuration. The i3-7300 uses Intel Socket 1151 and supports DDR4 memory, also dual-channel, with a listed memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The PCIe interface is Gen 3 for both, but the i3-7300 specifies 16 lanes (CPU only), while the i3-4370 does not list lane details.

Neither processor supports ECC memory, and both have locked multipliers, meaning they are not intended for overclocking. The market segment for both is Desktop, and both are manufactured by Intel. The i3-7300 has a part number of SR359 and its production status is listed as Active, while the i3-4370 does not have a part number or production status in the database.

The release dates are separated by roughly two and a half years. The i3-4370 was released in July 2014, while the i3-7300 was released in January 2017. This timeline aligns with the architectural progression from Haswell to Kaby Lake, and the benchmark data reflects the expected generational improvement.

Specification Differences

The most straightforward specification difference is the base clock. The i3-4370 runs at 3.80 GHz, while the i3-7300 runs at 4.00 GHz. This 0.20 GHz advantage is modest but measurable, and it partially explains the benchmark gap.

The process node differs: the i3-4370 uses 22 nm, while the i3-7300 uses 14 nm. The newer node allows for the higher clock speed while maintaining a similar thermal envelope. The TDP values are close: 54 watts for the i3-4370 and 51 watts for the i3-7300. The i3-7300 delivers better performance at slightly lower power, which reflects the efficiency gains of the newer process.

Memory support is a clear differentiator. The i3-4370 supports DDR3, while the i3-7300 supports DDR4. The i3-7300 also has a listed memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s, whereas the i3-4370 has no bandwidth figure recorded. Both use dual-channel memory buses.

The socket is different: Intel Socket 1150 for the i3-4370 versus Intel Socket 1151 for the i3-7300. This means the two processors are not interchangeable in the same motherboard, which is an important practical consideration for anyone planning an upgrade.

Integrated graphics differ as well: Intel HD 4600 for the i3-4370 versus Intel HD 630 for the i3-7300. The database does not provide graphics performance numbers, so this difference is only noted in terms of model names.

The architecture and codename differ, with the i3-4370 listed as Haswell and the i3-7300 as Kaby Lake. The generation field reflects this: Core i3 (Haswell) for the older part and Core i3 (Kaby Lake) for the newer part. The foundry is Intel for both.

Other differences include the part number (SR359 for the i3-7300, none listed for the i3-4370), production status (Active for the i3-7300, none listed for the i3-4370), and release date (January 2017 for the i3-7300, July 2014 for the i3-4370). The i3-4370 has transistor and die size figures (1,400 million and 177 mm²), while the i3-7300 does not have these listed.

The cache specifications are identical between the two processors: 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 4 MB shared L3. Both have 2 cores and 4 threads. Both have locked multipliers and lack ECC support. The PCIe version is Gen 3 for both, though the i3-7300 explicitly lists 16 lanes (CPU only).

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Core i3-7300 outperforms the Intel Core i3-4370 in every recorded benchmark. The performance advantage is consistent, ranging from 14.8% to 14.9% across multi-core and single-core tests. Anyone choosing between these two processors based purely on compute performance should select the i3-7300.

The architectural progression from Haswell to Kaby Lake, combined with a higher base clock and a newer process node, delivers a meaningful improvement in both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads. The identical core counts, thread counts, and cache sizes isolate the difference to the architecture itself and the clock speed. The i3-7300 also benefits from DDR4 memory support and a newer integrated graphics solution.

However, the socket difference is a critical practical consideration. The i3-4370 uses Intel Socket 1150 and the i3-7300 uses Intel Socket 1151, meaning they require different motherboards. A user upgrading from the i3-4370 to the i3-7300 must also replace the motherboard, which changes the total cost and effort of the upgrade. The benchmark data cannot account for platform costs or availability.

The percentile rankings offer another perspective. The i3-4370 sits at the 32nd percentile of all CPUs, while the i3-7300 sits at the 31st percentile. This counterintuitive result, where the faster processor ranks lower, reflects the shifting CPU landscape over time. The i3-7300 faces newer competition that the i3-4370 never had to contend with, so its relative standing among all CPUs is slightly worse despite winning the direct comparison.

For a new build, the i3-7300 is the better choice based on the benchmark data. For an existing i3-4370 system, the decision to upgrade depends on whether the motherboard replacement is justified by the 14.8% to 14.9% performance gain. The database does not include pricing or platform costs, so that judgment remains outside the scope of this analysis.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i3-7300 wins in every tested workload category. Multi-core rendering in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 all favor the i3-7300 by approximately 14.8%. Single-core tests in R20 and R23 also favor the i3-7300 by 14.9%. There is no scenario in the recorded data where the i3-4370 takes the lead.

The i3-4370 does have some advantages in the broader specification picture. It has a smaller process node difference to contend with, but that is not a performance win. It also has a lower base clock, which is a disadvantage. The only areas where the i3-4370 appears to match the i3-7300 are cache sizes, core and thread counts, and PCIe generation. These are equal, not wins.

The i3-4370's nearest rivals include the Pentium Gold G5500 and the Core i5-4690T, both of which score very close to its average of 1130. The i3-7300's nearest rivals include the Ryzen 3 1200 and the Core i5-3550S, with average scores around 1116 to 1118. This suggests that in the broader market, both processors compete in a similar performance band, but the direct comparison still clearly favors the i3-7300.

The i3-7300 also wins on efficiency, with a lower TDP of 51 watts versus 54 watts for the i3-4370, while delivering higher performance. This combination of better performance and lower power draw is a meaningful advantage for systems where thermal management or energy consumption matters.

For users who prioritize single-core responsiveness, such as older games or lightly threaded applications, the i3-7300 is the clear pick. For users who prioritize multi-core throughput, such as video encoding or 3D rendering, the i3-7300 also wins. The only scenario where the i3-4370 might be preferable is if a user already owns a Socket 1150 motherboard and wants to keep that platform, but the benchmark data itself offers no case for the older processor on performance grounds.