Core i3-1000NG4
Popular choices:
Phenom II X6 1075T
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - CPU
About PassMark
PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.
Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook
This comparison brings together gaming FPS, productivity performance, platform differences, power efficiency, pricing context, and upgrade path so you can see which CPU actually makes more sense.
Core i3-1000NG4
2020Why buy it
- ✅+0.9% higher PassMark.
- ✅Draws 9W instead of 125W, a 116W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Phenom II X6 1075T across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (4 MB vs 6 MB).
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Phenom II X6 1075T.
Phenom II X6 1075T
2010Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +17.7% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅+50% larger total L3 cache (6 MB vs 4 MB).
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core i3-1000NG4.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark (3,500 vs 3,530).
- ❌Launch MSRP is still $245 MSRP, while Core i3-1000NG4 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
- ❌1288.9% higher power demand at 125W vs 9W.
Core i3-1000NG4
2020Phenom II X6 1075T
2010Why buy it
- ✅+0.9% higher PassMark.
- ✅Draws 9W instead of 125W, a 116W reduction.
Why buy it
- ✅Better for gaming: +17.7% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ✅+50% larger total L3 cache (6 MB vs 4 MB).
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
- ✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Core i3-1000NG4.
Trade-offs
- ❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Phenom II X6 1075T across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (4 MB vs 6 MB).
- ❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Phenom II X6 1075T.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark (3,500 vs 3,530).
- ❌Launch MSRP is still $245 MSRP, while Core i3-1000NG4 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
- ❌1288.9% higher power demand at 125W vs 9W.
Quick Answers
So, is Core i3-1000NG4 better than Phenom II X6 1075T?
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Games Benchmarks
To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.
Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.
Path of Exile 2
| Preset | Core i3-1000NG4 | Phenom II X6 1075T |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 88 FPS | 88 FPS |
| medium | 88 FPS | 88 FPS |
| high | 88 FPS | 88 FPS |
| ultra | 77 FPS | 88 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 88 FPS | 88 FPS |
| medium | 88 FPS | 88 FPS |
| high | 83 FPS | 88 FPS |
| ultra | 65 FPS | 72 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 67 FPS | 62 FPS |
| medium | 57 FPS | 56 FPS |
| high | 43 FPS | 43 FPS |
| ultra | 34 FPS | 34 FPS |
Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Core i3-1000NG4 | Phenom II X6 1075T |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 77 FPS | 88 FPS |
| medium | 69 FPS | 88 FPS |
| high | 63 FPS | 88 FPS |
| ultra | 46 FPS | 88 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 63 FPS | 88 FPS |
| medium | 55 FPS | 88 FPS |
| high | 52 FPS | 88 FPS |
| ultra | 40 FPS | 88 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 44 FPS | 88 FPS |
| medium | 40 FPS | 88 FPS |
| high | 30 FPS | 88 FPS |
| ultra | 21 FPS | 72 FPS |
League of Legends
| Preset | Core i3-1000NG4 | Phenom II X6 1075T |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 88 FPS | 88 FPS |
| medium | 88 FPS | 88 FPS |
| high | 88 FPS | 88 FPS |
| ultra | 88 FPS | 88 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 88 FPS | 88 FPS |
| medium | 88 FPS | 88 FPS |
| high | 88 FPS | 88 FPS |
| ultra | 88 FPS | 88 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 88 FPS | 88 FPS |
| medium | 88 FPS | 88 FPS |
| high | 88 FPS | 88 FPS |
| ultra | 88 FPS | 88 FPS |
Valorant
| Preset | Core i3-1000NG4 | Phenom II X6 1075T |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 88 FPS | 88 FPS |
| medium | 88 FPS | 88 FPS |
| high | 88 FPS | 88 FPS |
| ultra | 88 FPS | 88 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 88 FPS | 88 FPS |
| medium | 88 FPS | 88 FPS |
| high | 88 FPS | 88 FPS |
| ultra | 88 FPS | 88 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 88 FPS | 88 FPS |
| medium | 88 FPS | 88 FPS |
| high | 88 FPS | 88 FPS |
| ultra | 88 FPS | 88 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Core i3-1000NG4 and Phenom II X6 1075T
Core i3-1000NG4
Core i3-1000NG4
The Core i3-1000NG4 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 18 March 2020 (5 years ago). It is based on the Ice Lake-Y (2020) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 1.1 GHz, with boost up to 3.2 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 10 nm process technology. Socket: BGA1044. Thermal design power (TDP): 9 Watt. Memory support: LPDDR4-3733. Passmark benchmark score: 3,530 points. Launch price was $69.
Phenom II X6 1075T
Phenom II X6 1075T
The Phenom II X6 1075T is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 21 September 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Thuban (2010) architecture. It features 6 cores and 6 threads. Base frequency is 3 GHz, with boost up to 3.5 GHz. L3 cache: 6 MB (total). L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: AM3. Thermal design power (TDP): 125 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 3,500 points. Launch price was $260.
Processing Power
The Core i3-1000NG4 packs 2 cores / 4 threads, while the Phenom II X6 1075T offers 6 cores / 6 threads — the Phenom II X6 1075T has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.2 GHz on the Core i3-1000NG4 versus 3.5 GHz on the Phenom II X6 1075T — a 9% clock advantage for the Phenom II X6 1075T (base: 1.1 GHz vs 3 GHz). The Core i3-1000NG4 uses the Ice Lake-Y (2020) architecture (10 nm), while the Phenom II X6 1075T uses Thuban (2010) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Core i3-1000NG4 scores 3,530 against the Phenom II X6 1075T's 3,500 — a 0.9% lead for the Core i3-1000NG4. L3 cache: 4 MB (total) on the Core i3-1000NG4 vs 6 MB (total) on the Phenom II X6 1075T.
| Feature | Core i3-1000NG4 | Phenom II X6 1075T |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 4 | 6 / 6+200% |
| Boost Clock | 3.2 GHz | 3.5 GHz+9% |
| Base Clock | 1.1 GHz | 3 GHz+173% |
| L3 Cache | 4 MB (total) | 6 MB (total)+50% |
| L2 Cache | 256 kB (per core) | 512 kB (per core)+100% |
| Process | 10 nm-78% | 45 nm |
| Architecture | Ice Lake-Y (2020) | Thuban (2010) |
| PassMark | 3,530 | 3,500 |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | — | 1,896 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | — | 679 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | — | 1,960 |
Memory & Platform
The Core i3-1000NG4 uses the BGA1044 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Phenom II X6 1075T uses AM3 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.
| Feature | Core i3-1000NG4 | Phenom II X6 1075T |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | BGA1044 | AM3 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 3.0+50% | PCIe 2.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | — | DDR3-1333 |
| Max RAM Capacity | — | 32 GB |
| RAM Channels | — | 2 |
| ECC Support | — | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | — | 16 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: not specified (Core i3-1000NG4) / AMD-V (Phenom II X6 1075T). Primary use case: Phenom II X6 1075T targets Gaming. Direct competitor: Phenom II X6 1075T rivals Core i5-750.
| Feature | Core i3-1000NG4 | Phenom II X6 1075T |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | — | No |
| Unlocked | — | Yes |
| AVX-512 | — | No |
| Virtualization | — | AMD-V |
| Target Use | — | Gaming |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar CPU comparisons based on Core i3-1000NG4 and Phenom II X6 1075T
