Intel Core i3-4370T vs Intel Core i7-875K Comparison

The Intel Core i7-875K and Intel Core i3-4370T are separated by five years, two process nodes, and a starkly different core philosophy, yet benchmark results show the newer dual-core chip consistently outpaces the older quad-core flagship. Across all five head-to-head Cinebench tests, the Core i3-4370T wins every round, with margins ranging from 4.2% to 4.7%. The data is unambiguous: the i3-4370T is the faster processor in every measured workload, despite having half the cores and threads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core i3-4370T’s sweep is narrow but absolute. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the i3-4370T scores 287 against the i7-875K’s 275, a 4.2% advantage. The pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multicore, where the i3-4370T posts 1199 versus 1146, a 4.4% lead. The same 4.4% delta appears in Cinebench R23 multicore, with the i3-4370T at 2856 and the i7-875K at 2729. These consistent margins across three generations of the Cinebench suite indicate a stable performance gap that does not widen or shrink with workload intensity.

Single-core results tell the same story with slightly larger gaps. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the i3-4370T scores 169 against the i7-875K’s 161, a 4.7% lead. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 403 versus 385, a 4.5% delta. The i3-4370T’s per-core efficiency advantage is the deciding factor here — its higher base clock of 3.30 GHz, combined with the newer Haswell architecture, overcomes the i7-875K’s 3.60 GHz boost clock. Notably, the i7-875K has no single-core benchmark victory in any test, and the i3-4370T wins all five head-to-head comparisons.

Average benchmark scores confirm the near-parity in overall standing. The i7-875K averages 984 points, while the i3-4370T averages 983 points, a difference of just 0.1%. This places both chips in the same performance tier, with the i7-875K at the 27th percentile of all CPUs and the i3-4370T at the 26th percentile. The nearest rivals list reinforces this: the i7-875K’s closest competitor is the Intel Core i3-4130T at 984 points (0% delta), while the i3-4370T sits alongside the Intel Xeon X3470 at 983 points (0% delta). The two chips are essentially interchangeable in aggregate scoring, even though the i3-4370T wins every specific test.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design eras. The i7-875K uses the Nehalem architecture on the Lynnfield codename, built on Intel’s 45 nm process node. It packs 774 million transistors on a 296 mm² die. The i3-4370T uses the Haswell architecture on the same codename, manufactured on Intel’s 22 nm process. It contains 1,400 million transistors — nearly double the i7-875K — on a smaller 177 mm² die. This transistor density jump is the root cause of the i3-4370T’s superior performance-per-clock.

Core configuration differs dramatically. The i7-875K offers 4 cores and 8 threads, leveraging Hyper-Threading to double its logical processor count. The i3-4370T provides 2 cores and 4 threads, also with Hyper-Threading but half the physical cores. Despite this 2:1 core disadvantage, the i3-4370T wins multicore benchmarks, demonstrating that Haswell’s architectural improvements outweigh raw core counts in these workloads. Cache hierarchies also diverge: both share 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core, but the i7-875K has 8 MB of shared L3 cache against the i3-4370T’s 4 MB. The larger L3 on the i7-875K does not translate into benchmark wins, however.

Platform support separates the two further. The i7-875K uses Intel Socket 1156, while the i3-4370T uses Intel Socket 1150 — these are not interchangeable. The i7-875K supports PCIe Gen 2 with 16 lanes, whereas the i3-4370T supports PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes. Memory bandwidth also favors the newer chip: the i3-4370T offers 25.6 GB/s versus the i7-875K’s 21.3 GB/s, both on dual-channel DDR3. The i3-4370T includes integrated Intel HD 4600 graphics, while the i7-875K has no integrated graphics at all. Neither supports ECC memory.

Where Each One Wins

The i3-4370T wins everywhere benchmarks are measured. It takes all five head-to-head tests, including the four multicore variants (R15, R20, R23) and both single-core tests (R20, R23). This makes it the outright choice for any application relying on Cinebench-style rendering workloads, whether single-threaded or multi-threaded. Its 35 W TDP, versus the i7-875K’s 95 W, also makes it the more power-efficient option for thermally constrained systems — a meaningful advantage in small form factor builds or always-on machines.

The i7-875K’s wins are structural rather than benchmark-based. It offers 4 cores and 8 threads, double the core count of the i3-4370T, which could benefit workloads not captured in this benchmark set — particularly heavily threaded applications that scale beyond what Cinebench measures. Its 8 MB L3 cache is double the i3-4370T’s 4 MB, potentially aiding data-heavy tasks. The i7-875K also has an unlocked multiplier, enabling overclocking, whereas the i3-4370T is locked. For users who prioritize customization and have workloads that exploit extra cores, the i7-875K retains a theoretical edge — but the empirical data shows no such advantage in these tests.

The i3-4370T’s higher base clock of 3.30 GHz versus the i7-875K’s 2.93 GHz base (with 3.60 GHz boost) gives it a consistent frequency advantage in all scenarios. The i7-875K’s boost clock is higher than the i3-4370T’s fixed clock, but the i3-4370T still wins single-core tests, indicating that Haswell’s instructions-per-clock advantage exceeds the 0.30 GHz clock deficit. For real-world usage, the i3-4370T is the safer bet for everyday responsiveness and modern software, while the i7-875K is a legacy part better suited to era-appropriate workloads.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification. Core count: 4 vs 2. Thread count: 8 vs 4. Base clock: 2.93 GHz vs 3.30 GHz. The i7-875K has a 3.60 GHz boost clock; the i3-4370T has none, running at a fixed 3.30 GHz. TDP: 95 W vs 35 W — the i3-4370T uses 63% less power. Socket: 1156 vs 1150. Architecture: Nehalem vs Haswell. Process node: 45 nm vs 22 nm. Transistor count: 774 million vs 1,400 million. Die size: 296 mm² vs 177 mm². L3 cache: 8 MB vs 4 MB. Memory bandwidth: 21.3 GB/s vs 25.6 GB/s. PCIe generation: Gen 2 vs Gen 3. Integrated graphics: none vs Intel HD 4600. Multiplier: unlocked vs locked. Release date: May 2010 vs March 2015. Launch MSRP: $353 vs $138. Part number: SLBS2 vs SR1TB. The only shared specs are manufacturer (Intel), socket type (both Intel), memory support (DDR3), memory bus (dual-channel), ECC support (false for both), market segment (Desktop), and per-core L1/L2 cache sizes (64 KB and 256 KB respectively).

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in multicore performance?

A: The Intel Core i3-4370T wins all four multicore benchmarks. It scores 287 in Cinebench R15, 1199 in R20, and 2856 in R23, versus the i7-875K’s 275, 1146, and 2729 respectively — a 4.2% to 4.4% margin in each test.

Q: Does the i7-875K’s higher core count help it in any benchmark?

A: No. Despite having 4 cores and 8 threads versus the i3-4370T’s 2 cores and 4 threads, the i7-875K loses every head-to-head test. The i3-4370T wins all five comparisons, including all multicore variants.

Q: What is the single-core performance difference?

A: The i3-4370T leads by 4.7% in Cinebench R20 single-core (169 vs 161) and by 4.5% in Cinebench R23 single-core (403 vs 385). This occurs despite the i7-875K having a higher boost clock of 3.60 GHz versus the i3-4370T’s 3.30 GHz fixed clock.

Q: How do the two compare in overall average benchmark score?

A: They are nearly identical. The i7-875K averages 984 points, and the i3-4370T averages 983 points, a 0.1% difference. The i7-875K sits at the 27th percentile of all CPUs, while the i3-4370T sits at the 26th percentile.

Q: What are the power consumption differences?

A: The i3-4370T has a 35 W TDP, while the i7-875K has a 95 W TDP. The i3-4370T uses 60 W less power, making it significantly more efficient for the same or better performance.

Q: Are there any features the i7-875K has that the i3-4370T lacks?

A: Yes. The i7-875K has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking, 8 MB of L3 cache (double the i3-4370T’s 4 MB), and double the core/thread count. The i3-4370T instead offers integrated Intel HD 4600 graphics, PCIe Gen 3 support, and higher memory bandwidth.

The Verdict

The data makes the choice straightforward: the Intel Core i3-4370T is the better processor for measured performance. It wins every benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, posting consistent 4.2% to 4.7% advantages across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 in both single-core and multicore tests. Its 35 W TDP is a fraction of the i7-875K’s 95 W, and it delivers this performance with half the cores. For any user running Cinebench-style workloads — rendering, content creation, or general multi-threaded tasks — the i3-4370T is the clear pick.

The i7-875K is not without merit, but its advantages are circumstantial. Its 4-core/8-thread configuration and 8 MB L3 cache could theoretically benefit applications that are not represented in this benchmark suite. Its unlocked multiplier appeals to overclockers, though the benchmark data shows even the i3-4370T’s fixed clock outperforms the i7-875K’s boost clock. The i7-875K also demands a different platform (Socket 1156 versus 1150), which may matter to users with legacy motherboards. However, the benchmark results show no workload where the i7-875K wins, and its 27th percentile ranking versus the i3-4370T’s 26th percentile is effectively a tie in overall standing.

The verdict: the Intel Core i3-4370T is the superior choice for performance and efficiency. It wins all five head-to-head tests, uses 60 W less power, and offers modern features like integrated graphics and PCIe Gen 3. The i7-875K remains relevant only for users who specifically need its extra cores for unmeasured workloads or who require an unlocked multiplier for overclocking. For everything the benchmarks measure, the i3-4370T is the definitive winner.