AMD Ryzen 3 210 vs AMD Ryzen 3 3100U Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data leaves no ambiguity: the AMD Ryzen 3 210 wins all 11 head-to-head comparisons against the AMD Ryzen 3 3100U. The margins are substantial across every workload category, ranging from a 133.9% advantage in single-threaded tests to a 441.8% lead in extended instruction handling.

Starting with single-core performance, the Ryzen 3 210 scores 3724 in PassMark's single-thread test compared to 1592 for the Ryzen 3 3100U. That 133.9% delta indicates the newer architecture delivers more than double the per-thread throughput, which directly impacts responsiveness in everyday applications and lightly threaded workloads.

The multi-threaded results widen further. In PassMark's multithread test, the Ryzen 3 210 records 13585 points versus 3348 for the 3100U, a 305.8% advantage. The gap reflects both the core count difference (4 cores and 8 threads versus 2 cores and 2 threads) and the substantial clock speed advantage. The Ryzen 3 210 boosts to 4.70 GHz while the 3100U tops out at 3.20 GHz, and the base clocks differ by more than a gigahertz (3.00 GHz versus 1.90 GHz).

Math-heavy workloads show similar patterns. Integer math scores 37933 for the Ryzen 3 210 against 8873 for the 3100U, a 327.5% lead. Floating-point math delivers 23649 versus 5854, a 304% delta. The extended instructions test, which measures SIMD and specialized instruction throughput, shows the largest disparity at 441.8% (11464 versus 2116), suggesting the Zen 4 architecture's wider execution resources and newer instruction set provide outsized benefits in vectorized code.

Data compression and encryption workloads follow the trend. Compression scores 152017 versus 38455, a 295.3% margin. Encryption shows 8607 versus 1972, a 336.5% lead. The encryption advantage likely stems from hardware AES acceleration improvements in the newer processor generation.

The remaining tests continue the pattern. Prime number finding records 49 versus 18, a 172.2% delta. Physics simulation scores 821 versus 232, a 253.9% margin. Random string sorting achieves 19454 versus 4666, a 316.9% advantage.

The overall average benchmark score reinforces the dominance: 17321 for the Ryzen 3 210 versus 6247 for the 3100U. The Ryzen 3 210 sits in the 71st percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the 3100U ranks in the 62nd percentile. Interestingly, the Ryzen 3 210's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 4500 (avg score 17333, delta -0.1%), the Intel Core 7 150U (17395, -0.4%), and the Intel Core i5-12450H (17239, +0.5%), placing it in competitive territory with higher-tier mobile processors. The 3100U's nearest rivals are all high-core-count desktop or server parts like the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X (6231, +0.3%) and AMD EPYC 7272 (6186, +1%), which is unusual and suggests the 3100U's average score aligns with much more expensive hardware due to its low thread count.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design eras. The Ryzen 3 210 uses the Zen 4 architecture on the Hawk Point codename, built on TSMC's 4 nm process node. The Ryzen 3 3100U uses the Zen+ architecture with the Picasso codename, manufactured on GlobalFoundries' 12 nm node. This process shrink from 12 nm to 4 nm explains a significant portion of the performance and efficiency gap.

Transistor counts tell a surprising story. The Ryzen 3 210 integrates 20,900 million transistors on a 137 mm² die, while the 3100U packs only 4,940 million transistors on a larger 210 mm² die. The 4 nm process allows the newer chip to pack over four times more transistors into roughly two-thirds of the silicon area, enabling more complex execution logic and larger caches.

Core configurations differ sharply. The Ryzen 3 210 provides 4 cores and 8 threads with simultaneous multithreading, while the 3100U offers just 2 cores and 2 threads with no SMT support. Cache hierarchies also diverge. The Ryzen 3 210 uses 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3. The 3100U has 96 KB of L1 per core (larger per core, but fewer cores), 512 KB of L2 per core, and only 4 MB of shared L3. The Ryzen 3 210's larger total cache footprint provides more working set capacity for data-intensive tasks.

Memory support separates the generations. The Ryzen 3 210 uses DDR5 with a dual-channel bus and 89.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The 3100U relies on DDR4, also dual-channel, but with just 38.4 GB/s of bandwidth. That 51.2 GB/s difference directly impacts memory-bound workloads and helps explain the compression and encryption score gaps.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The Ryzen 3 210 provides PCIe Gen 4 with 14 lanes from the CPU, while the 3100U offers PCIe Gen 3. The newer standard doubles per-lane bandwidth, benefiting storage and discrete GPU connectivity in compatible systems.

Integrated graphics advance as well. The Ryzen 3 210 includes Radeon 740M graphics, while the 3100U ships with Radeon Vega 8. The database does not include graphics benchmarks for either part, so the performance delta remains qualitative, but the architectural jump from Vega to RDNA-class integrated graphics implies substantial improvement.

Socket requirements change too. The Ryzen 3 210 uses AMD Socket FP7, while the 3100U uses AMD Socket FP5. These are not interchangeable, meaning platform upgrades require a new motherboard or system.

Power envelopes shift dramatically. The Ryzen 3 210 has a 28 W TDP, nearly double the 3100U's 15 W TDP. The higher power budget, combined with the more efficient 4 nm process, enables the much higher clock speeds and core count without an unreasonable power draw increase relative to performance gains.

Release timing differs significantly, with the Ryzen 3 210 appearing in the database with a 2025-01-05 release date and the 3100U listed as 2026-05-31. Both remain in active production status.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear hierarchy. The AMD Ryzen 3 210 outperforms the AMD Ryzen 3 3100U in every recorded measurement, often by wide margins. The 210's 17321 average benchmark score versus 6247 for the 3100U represents roughly 2.77 times higher overall performance. Its 71st percentile ranking versus the 62nd percentile further contextualizes the gap.

The Ryzen 3 210 is positioned for users who need genuine multi-threaded capability in a mobile form factor. Its 4-core, 8-thread configuration with high boost clocks and DDR5 memory support makes it suitable for productivity workloads, content creation, and moderate multitasking. The 8 MB of L3 cache and PCIe Gen 4 connectivity provide headroom for demanding applications.

The Ryzen 3 3100U, while clearly slower, serves a different purpose. Its 15 W TDP and 2-core design prioritize power efficiency over performance. The 3100U's nearest rivals in the database, which include high-core-count desktop and server processors, indicate that its average score lands in a range where thread count matters less than raw efficiency. For basic computing tasks, web browsing, office applications, and light media consumption, the 3100U's lower power draw may be preferable in battery-constrained devices.

The data does not suggest the 3100U wins any performance category. Its advantages are purely in power consumption and potentially platform cost, but the database does not record pricing or efficiency benchmarks beyond TDP. The 28 W TDP of the 210 is higher, but the performance per watt is likely superior given the 4 nm process and the massive score advantages.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 3 210 | AMD Ryzen 3 3100U |

|---------------|-----------------|-------------------|

| Cores | 4 | 2 |

| Threads | 8 | 2 |

| Base Clock | 3.00 GHz | 1.90 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.70 GHz | 3.20 GHz |

| TDP | 28 W | 15 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP7 | AMD Socket FP5 |

| Codename | Hawk Point | Picasso |

| Generation | Ryzen 3 (Zen 4) | Ryzen 3 (Zen+) |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 12 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 20,900 million | 4,940 million |

| Die Size | 137 mm² | 210 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 96 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 512 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 8 MB (shared) | 4 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5 | DDR4 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 38.4 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 14 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 3 |

| Integrated Graphics | Radeon 740M | Radeon Vega 8 |

| Part Number | 100-000001612 | YM3100C4T2OFG |

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 210 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the AMD Ryzen 3 3100U has 2 cores and 2 threads. The 210 supports simultaneous multithreading; the 3100U does not.

Q: How much faster is the Ryzen 3 210 in single-threaded performance?

A: The Ryzen 3 210 scores 3724 in PassMark's single-thread test versus 1592 for the 3100U, a 133.9% advantage.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two processors?

A: The extended instructions test shows the biggest delta at 441.8%, with the Ryzen 3 210 scoring 11464 versus 2116 for the 3100U.

Q: Do these processors use the same memory technology?

A: No. The Ryzen 3 210 supports DDR5 with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the 3100U uses DDR4 with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. Both use dual-channel memory buses.

Q: Are the sockets compatible between the two CPUs?

A: No. The Ryzen 3 210 uses AMD Socket FP7, while the 3100U uses AMD Socket FP5. They are not interchangeable.

Q: Which processor has a lower power consumption?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 3100U has a 15 W TDP, while the AMD Ryzen 3 210 has a 28 W TDP. The 3100U consumes less power but delivers significantly lower performance.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 3 210 wins every benchmark category recorded in the database. Its advantages are most pronounced in multi-threaded workloads, where the combination of 4 cores, 8 threads, and high clock speeds produces margins exceeding 300% in tests like multithread (305.8%), integer math (327.5%), and random string sorting (316.9%). The 441.8% lead in extended instructions indicates superior SIMD and specialized instruction handling, which benefits scientific computing, video encoding, and cryptography workloads.

The Ryzen 3 210's DDR5 memory support and 89.6 GB/s bandwidth make it better suited for memory-intensive applications like data compression (295.3% lead) and large dataset manipulation. Its PCIe Gen 4 connectivity provides faster I/O for NVMe storage and external GPUs, though the database does not include storage or graphics benchmarks.

The AMD Ryzen 3 3100U wins only in power efficiency. Its 15 W TDP versus 28 W for the 210 makes it the more appropriate choice for fanless designs, ultra-thin laptops, or devices where battery life takes priority over performance. The 3100U's 2-core design with lower clocks produces less heat, which can enable quieter cooling solutions in compact chassis.

The 3100U's nearest rival comparison reveals an interesting positioning: its average score of 6247 places it alongside high-core-count desktop processors like the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X (6231) and AMD EPYC 7272 (6186). This suggests the 3100U's performance profile matches processors with many more cores but far lower per-thread performance, making it a poor choice for parallel workloads despite its efficiency benefits.

For users running productivity suites, compiling code, rendering content, or multitasking across many applications, the data strongly favors the Ryzen 3 210. For basic usage like document editing, web browsing, and video playback where the 3100U's lower power draw extends battery life, the older processor remains viable, but the performance gap is so large that most users would notice the difference immediately.