Key Differences
In short, we have a clear winner — Core i3-4160 outperforms the more expensive Core i3-3240T on the selected game parameters, and is also a better bang for your buck! The better performing Core i3-4160 is 686 days newer than the more expensive Core i3-3240T.
Advantages of Intel Core i3-3240T
- Consumes up to 35% less energy than Intel Core i3-4160 - 35 vs 54 Watts
Advantages of Intel Core i3-4160
- Performs up to 3% better in Battlefield 1 than Core i3-3240T - 237 vs 229 FPS
- Up to 22% cheaper than Core i3-3240T - $19.99 vs $25.7
- Up to 27% better value when playing Battlefield 1 than Core i3-3240T - $0.08 vs $0.11 per FPS
Battlefield 1
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Sep 3rd, 2012
FPS
229
96.62447257383965%
Value, $/FPS
$0.11/FPS
72.72727272727273%
Price, $
$25.7
77%
Buy for $25.7 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 174 minutes ago
Desktop • Jul 21st, 2014
FPS
237
100%
Value, $/FPS
$0.08/FPS
100%
Price, $
$19.99
100%
FPS and Value Winner
Buy for $19.99 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 177 minutes ago
TOP 5 Games
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Sep 3rd, 2012
Desktop • Jul 21st, 2014
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Desktop • Sep 3rd, 2012
Single-Core
447
42.01127819548872%
Multi-Core
971
46.86293436293436%
Intel Core i3-3240T | vs | Intel Core i3-4160 |
---|---|---|
Sep 3rd, 2012 | Release Date | Jul 21st, 2014 |
Core i3 | Collection | Core i3 |
Ivy Bridge | Codename | Haswell |
Intel Socket 1155 | Socket | Intel Socket 1150 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
2 | Cores | 2 |
4 | Threads | 4 |
2.9 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.6 GHz |
Non-Turbo | Turbo Clock Speed | Non-Turbo |
35 W | TDP | 54 W |
22 nm | Process Size | 22 nm |
30.0x | Multiplier | 36.0x |
Intel HD 2500 | Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 4400 |
No | Overclockable | No |