Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Core i3 4160

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i3 4160

Report a correction
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Much newer manufacturing process 22 nm vs 32 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much lower typical power consumption 43.88W vs 77.19W Around 45% lower typical power consumption
Much higher Maximum operating temperature 72 °C vs 62.5 °C More than 15% higher Maximum operating temperature
Higher clock speed 3.6 GHz vs 3.5 GHz Around 5% higher clock speed
Much lower annual home energy cost 13.01 $/year vs 22.89 $/year Around 45% lower annual home energy cost
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 47.3 $/year vs 83.22 $/year Around 45% lower annual commercial energy cost
Newer Jul, 2014 vs Oct, 2012 Release date over 1 years later
Front view of AMD FX 6300

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 6300

Report a correction
Is unlocked Yes vs No Somewhat common; An unlocked multiplier allows for easier overclocking
More cores 6 vs 2 Three times as many cores; run more applications at once
Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.75 GHz vs 3.67 GHz Around 30% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.82 GHz vs 3.81 GHz More than 25% better overclocked clock speed (Water)

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i3 4160 vs FX 6300

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i3 4160
FX 6300

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i3 4160
FX 6300

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i3 4160
3,620,000 MB/s
FX 6300
2,290,000 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i3 4160
FX 6300

GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i3 4160
FX 6300


Core i3 4160
FX 6300

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Core i3 4160
FX 6300

PassMark (Single Core)

Core i3 4160
FX 6300

Specifications Full list of technical specs


Core i3 4160  vs
FX 6300 
Clock speed 3.6 GHz 3.5 GHz
Cores Dual core Hexa core
Is unlocked No Yes


Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
AVX 1.1
Supplemental SSE3
AVX 2.0
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 54W 95W
Annual home energy cost 13.01 $/year 22.89 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 47.3 $/year 83.22 $/year
Performance per watt 12.89 pt/W 9.84 pt/W
Typical power consumption 43.88W 77.19W


Core i3 4160  vs
FX 6300 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 4 6
L3 cache 3 MB 8 MB
L3 cache per core 1.5 MB/core 1.33 MB/core
Manufacture process 22 nm 32 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Operating temperature Unknown - 72°C Unknown - 62.5°C


Overclocked clock speed 3.67 GHz 4.75 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 3.81 GHz 4.82 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.67 GHz 4.75 GHz

integrated graphics

Label Intel® HD Graphics 4400 N/A
Number of displays supported 3 N/A
GPU clock speed 350 MHz N/A
Turbo clock speed 1,150 MHz N/A

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC Yes Yes
Maximum bandwidth 25,600 MB/s 29,866.66 MB/s
Intel Core i3 4160
Report a correction
AMD FX 6300
Report a correction

Read more


Showing 10 comments.
Toda la vida i3 4160. la tecnología Intel está por encima de la AMD, (en el año 2020 AMD mejoró mucho el problema de temperatura en sus micros.... Igual la performance está y estuvo siempre un escalón abajo de Intel. usé muchos años AMD y siempre tuvo esa incompatibilidad en su conjunto de hardware, Intel tiene y tuvo siempre eso de encajar todo tan perfecto como engranajes de una caja de cambio. Para resumir FX 6300 tiene más núcleos y eso lo hace mejor en ese aspecto, a la hora de trabajar en multitareas puede distribuir mejor su trabajo. más el clock del i3 4160 es más elevado mejor a la hora de transferir datos, o descomprimir archivos con grandes pesos. Segundo su consumo de tan sólo 54w lo hace trabajar a temperaturas tan bajas que le hace sacar el máximo de su rendimiento. (procesador caliente pierde rendimiento) Por siempre "INTEL"
The i3-4160's single core performance is better, therefore it's better than the FX-6300 at playing most games.
No they dont. You are just simple minded and think that the cpuboss score means "beats". Its not a race, if you wanna see what cpu is faster you scrool down and check the GeekBench scores. The cpuboss scores include speed, power consumption, manufacturing process and PRICE. THATS why a g3250 beats an I3 (way more expensive with only 15% higher speed) THATS why an i3 beats an 6300 (same price range, almost same speed, but with half the cores and power consumption, therefore better single core performance wich says alot) THATS why fx 6300 beats the g3250 (about 35% faster, cant argue with that even if it burns alot of power more) This is computer hardware and you cannot understand it.
Οχι, απλα το σκορ δεν εχει να κανει ΜΟΝΟ με το performance αλλα και με το quality, και η intel ειναι πιο ποιοτικη.
Lol you win EVERYTHING
ajja el i3 es casi igual como la amd 6 cores ajja que sorprendente ..............pero me quedo con la i3 asi no se me calienta y consume menos energia y me ahorrro la plata
En este momento tienen el mismo precio, creo que es mejor el i3 para juegos
This site just promoted intel, nothing more.
Why is this site so messed up? According to cpuboss, a g3250 beats an i3 4160, an i3 4160 beats an fx 6300 and an fx 6300 beats the g3250. Is this paper-rock-scissors or computer hardware?
En mi opinión es mas conveniente el fx-6300, es mas barato y el consumo no es tan elevado.
comments powered by Disqus