AMD Ryzen 3 210 vs AMD Ryzen 3 8300GE Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results paint a clear picture of two processors with complementary strengths. The AMD Ryzen 3 8300GE claims the majority of benchmark wins, taking 10 of 17 recorded tests, while the AMD Ryzen 3 210 secures 7 victories. The margin of victory, however, tells a more nuanced story than the raw win count alone.

In the Cinebench suite, the 8300GE establishes a consistent and decisive advantage across every generation of the test. Cinebench R15 multicore shows the 8300GE at 1179 against the 210's 1128, a 4.5% lead. The single-core result in the same test repeats the pattern: 166 versus 159, a 4.4% edge. Cinebench R20 multicore continues the trend with 4916 versus 4703, again 4.5% ahead, while R20 single-core delivers 693 versus 664, another 4.4% margin. Cinebench R23 multicore shows 11705 against 11198, and R23 single-core shows 1652 against 1581, both maintaining the 4.5% delta. These are not isolated spikes; the 8300GE outperforms the 210 by a remarkably consistent 4.4% to 4.5% across all six Cinebench measurements, which suggests a systematic advantage in both frequency scaling and architectural execution rather than workload-specific luck.

The Passmark suite reveals a more split outcome. The 8300GE takes the lead in data compression (155164 versus 152017, a 2.1% edge), extended instructions (11923 versus 11464, 4% ahead), floating-point math (24681 versus 23649, 4.4% ahead), and integer math (39163 versus 37933, 3.2% ahead). These wins align with the Cinebench results, reinforcing that the 8300GE holds a genuine throughput advantage in compute-heavy workloads.

However, the 210 fights back in several Passmark tests. The most dramatic reversal comes in find prime numbers, where the 210 scores 49 against the 8300GE's 44, a 10.2% margin in favor of the mobile chip. Passmark physics shows the 210 ahead at 821 versus 750, an 8.6% lead. Random string sorting favors the 210 at 19454 versus 18010, a 7.4% advantage. The multithread test is nearly a tie, with the 210 at 13585 against 13507, a slim 0.6% edge. Single-thread performance also goes to the 210: 3724 versus 3644, a 2.1% lead. The data encryption test is effectively a dead heat, with the 210 at 8607 and the 8300GE at 8603, a delta of 0%.

The pattern suggests that the 210 has an edge in latency-sensitive, branch-heavy, or memory-latency-dependent workloads, while the 8300GE dominates in sustained throughput and FPU-heavy tasks. The overall average benchmark scores confirm the 8300GE as the stronger all-round performer: 17614 versus 17321, a difference of roughly 1.7%. Both processors sit at the 71st percentile among all CPUs in the database, so they occupy the same performance tier overall, but the distribution of wins is not equal.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same fundamental Zen 4 microarchitecture, manufactured on TSMC's 4 nm process node, with an identical transistor count of 20,900 million and a die size of 137 mm². They also share the same core configuration: 4 cores and 8 threads, with 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. Cache capacity is therefore identical, and the core count offers no differentiator.

The first significant architectural divergence appears in the codename and platform target. The 8300GE belongs to the Phoenix2 family within the 8000 series, while the 210 uses the Hawk Point codename. The 8300GE is a desktop part, whereas the 210 is explicitly a mobile part. This distinction is reflected in the socket: the 8300GE uses AMD Socket AM5, while the 210 uses AMD Socket FP7. These are not interchangeable; the 8300GE is designed for desktop motherboards, the 210 for mobile systems.

Clock speeds differ notably. The 8300GE runs at a 3.50 GHz base clock and a 4.90 GHz boost clock. The 210 operates at a 3.00 GHz base and a 4.70 GHz boost. The 8300GE therefore holds a 0.5 GHz advantage at base and a 0.2 GHz edge at boost. This clock advantage explains much of the 8300GE's consistent lead in Cinebench and floating-point workloads.

Power envelopes also diverge, with the 8300GE rated at 35 W TDP and the 210 at 28 W TDP. The 8300GE is allowed a higher power draw, which aligns with its higher clocks, but the 210 achieves its lower clocks at a reduced thermal budget. The 210's lower TDP is a meaningful consideration for mobile chassis, where thermal and battery constraints dominate.

Memory support shows a subtle difference. Both support DDR5 and dual-channel memory, but the 8300GE has a memory bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s, while the 210 reaches 89.6 GB/s. The mobile chip actually delivers a higher theoretical memory bandwidth, which may contribute to its wins in latency-sensitive tests like find prime numbers and random string sorting. ECC memory is supported on the 8300GE but not on the 210, a feature gap for desktop users seeking error-correcting memory.

PCIe configuration is identical: Gen 4 with 14 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics are also the same, with both carrying the Radeon 740M. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and both are listed as Active in production. The 8300GE was released on 2024-04-15, while the 210 arrived later on 2025-01-05. Neither has a recorded launch MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 8300GE is consistently faster in multi-core Cinebench tests. It leads by 4.5% in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multicore, posting scores of 1179, 4916, and 11705 respectively, against the 210's 1128, 4703, and 11198.

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen 3 210 win any benchmark categories?

A: Yes, the 210 wins 7 of 17 head-to-head tests. Its largest win is in Passmark find prime numbers, where it scores 49 against the 8300GE's 44, a 10.2% margin. It also wins in physics (821 versus 750), random string sorting (19454 versus 18010), multithread (13585 versus 13507), and single thread (3724 versus 3644).

Q: Are these processors based on the same architecture?

A: Yes, both use the Zen 4 architecture on a 4 nm TSMC process, with identical transistor counts (20,900 million) and die size (137 mm²). The 8300GE uses the Phoenix2 codename, while the 210 uses Hawk Point, but the core design is the same.

Q: How do their clock speeds compare?

A: The 8300GE has a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The 210 has a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The 8300GE runs 0.5 GHz higher at base and 0.2 GHz higher at boost.

Q: What memory features differ between the two?

A: The 8300GE supports ECC memory, while the 210 does not. The 210 has a higher memory bandwidth at 89.6 GB/s, compared to the 8300GE's 83.2 GB/s. Both support DDR5 with dual-channel memory bus.

Q: Are both processors suitable for the same type of system?

A: No. The 8300GE is a desktop processor using AMD Socket AM5, while the 210 is a mobile processor using AMD Socket FP7. They are not interchangeable. The 8300GE has a TDP of 35 W, whereas the 210 has a lower TDP of 28 W.

The Verdict

The benchmark data supports a clear division of purpose between these two processors. For desktop users seeking maximum compute throughput, the AMD Ryzen 3 8300GE is the stronger choice. It wins all six Cinebench tests with a consistent 4.4% to 4.5% margin, and it also leads in Passmark integer math, floating-point math, extended instructions, and data compression. Its higher base and boost clocks (3.50 GHz and 4.90 GHz versus 3.00 GHz and 4.70 GHz) directly translate into measurable performance gains across rendering and general compute tasks. The 8300GE also offers ECC memory support, which is relevant for workstation or server-adjacent desktop builds where data integrity is a concern.

For mobile users, the AMD Ryzen 3 210 presents an interesting profile. It loses the overall average benchmark comparison (17321 versus 17614), but it wins in several latency-sensitive workloads. The 10.2% lead in find prime numbers, the 8.6% lead in physics, and the 7.4% lead in random string sorting suggest that the 210 may feel snappier in certain interactive or single-threaded scenarios, despite its lower clocks. Its higher memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s likely contributes to these wins. The 210 also operates at a lower TDP of 28 W, which is advantageous for thin-and-light laptops where battery life and cooling are critical.

The database places both chips at the 71st percentile among all CPUs, indicating they occupy the same overall performance class. The 8300GE's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i3-14100T at an average score of 17648 (0.2% ahead), the Intel Core i3-13100F at 17653 (0.2% ahead), and the Intel Core i7-1255U at 17656 (0.2% ahead). The 210's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 4500 at 17333 (0.1% ahead), the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G at 17278 (0.2% behind), and the Intel Core i5-12450H at 17239 (0.5% behind). Neither chip meaningfully outperforms its closest competitors, but within this head-to-head, the 8300GE wins 10 of 17 tests and holds a higher average score.

The verdict hinges on platform, not raw capability. Desktop builders with AM5 motherboards should select the 8300GE for its higher clocks, ECC support, and multi-core dominance. Mobile buyers constrained to FP7 sockets get the 210, which trades some throughput for lower power consumption and delivers surprising wins in specific latency-bound tasks. The data does not support calling one processor universally superior; it supports choosing based on the target system and workload priorities.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 3 8300GE | AMD Ryzen 3 210 |

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

| Series | 8000 series | null |

| Base Clock | 3.50 GHz | 3.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.90 GHz | 4.70 GHz |

| TDP | 35 W | 28 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket AM5 | AMD Socket FP7 |

| Codename | Phoenix2 | Hawk Point |

| Memory Bandwidth | 83.2 GB/s | 89.6 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2024-04-15 | 2025-01-05 |

| Part Number | 100-000001496 | 100-000001612 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 17614 | 17321 |

| Wins in Head-to-Head | 10 | 7 |