Key Differences
In short — Ryzen Threadripper 1900X outperforms Core i3-4160 on the selected game parameters. We do not have the prices of both CPUs to compare value. The better performing Ryzen Threadripper 1900X is 1137 days newer than Core i3-4160.
Advantages of Intel Core i3-4160
- Consumes up to 70% less energy than AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X - 54 vs 180 Watts
- Works without a dedicated GPU, while AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X doesn't have integrated graphics
Advantages of AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X
- Performs up to 2% better in Dying Light 2: Stay Human than Core i3-4160 - 127 vs 125 FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Core i3-4160 - 16 vs 4 threads
Dying Light 2: Stay Human
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High Quality Raytracing
Desktop • Aug 31st, 2017
FPS
127
100%
Value, €/FPS
€2.99/FPS
100%
Price, €
€379.64
100%
FPS and Value Winner
Buy for €379.64 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 109 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
High Quality Raytracing
Desktop • Jul 21st, 2014
Desktop • Aug 31st, 2017
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Intel Core i3-4160 | vs | AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X |
---|---|---|
Jul 21st, 2014 | Release Date | Aug 31st, 2017 |
Core i3 | Collection | Ryzen Threadripper |
Haswell | Codename | Whitehaven |
Intel Socket 1150 | Socket | AMD Socket SP3r2 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
2 | Cores | 8 |
4 | Threads | 16 |
3.6 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.8 GHz |
Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.0 GHz |
54 W | TDP | 180 W |
22 nm | Process Size | 14 nm |
36.0x | Multiplier | 38.0x |
Intel HD 4400 | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | Yes |