In Atomfall, the Core i3-4160T is slower than the Core Ultra 9 285K. We cannot compare value as at least one CPU is out of stock.
Core i3-4160T
- Consumes up to 72% less energy – 35 vs 125 Watts
- Consumes up to 72% less energy
Core Ultra 9 285K
- Up to 27% faster in Atomfall – 251 vs 197 FPS
- Up to 27% faster in Atomfall
- Is 10 years and 3 months newer – Oct 24, 2024 vs Jul 21, 2014
- Is 10 years and 3 months newer
Atomfall FPS Calculator
Core i3-4160T vs Core Ultra 9 285K: Comparison of performance and price
All items are out of stock
Core Ultra 9 285K
Oct 24th, 2024
Average FPS
251 FPS
100%
Min 1% FPS
188 FPS
100%
Price, $
$505.16
100%
Value, $/FPS
$2.01/FPS
100%
![Intel Core Ultra 9 285K Tetracosa-core [24 Core] 3.70 GHz Processor - OEM Pack - Box](https://howmanyfps.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/static/cpus/B0DFKC99VL.jpg)
Synthetic Benchmarks
The Core i3-4160T vs Core Ultra 9 285K in synthetic CPU benchmarks
Performance Specifications
The Core i3-4160T vs Core Ultra 9 285K in core CPU performance specifications
Core i3-4160T
Jul 21st, 2014
Cores
2-core
8%
L3 Cache
3 MB
8%
Base Frequency
3.1 GHz
84%
Turbo Frequency
GHz
Max. DDR3 RAM Speed
MHz
Core Ultra 9 285K
Oct 24th, 2024
Cores
24-core
100%
L3 Cache
36 MB
100%
Base Frequency
3.7 GHz
100%
Turbo Frequency
5.7 GHz
100%
Max. DDR5 RAM Speed
6400 MHz
100%
Specifications
Comparison of core specifications
Core i3-4160T Jul 21st, 2014 | SpecificationsComparison of core specifications | Core Ultra 9 285K Oct 24th, 2024 |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Jul 21st, 2014 | Released | Oct 24th, 2024 |
| – | MSRP | $589.00 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
| LGA1150 | Socket | LGA1851 |
35 W | Power Consumption | 125 W |
| Other Features | ||
| DDR3 | RAM | 6400 MHz (DDR5) |
| Intel HD 4400 | Integrated GPU | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU |
| Not Overclockable | Overclock Support | Overclockable |
