AMD Ryzen 3 210 vs AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G Comparison

AMD Ryzen 3 210 and AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G are near-identical in aggregate performance, with the 210 holding a 0.2% average score advantage (17321 vs 17278) and both sitting at the 71st percentile of all CPUs. However, the benchmark split is stark: the PRO 8300G dominates all six Cinebench tests by roughly 9.4%, while the 210 wins ten of seventeen head-to-head tests, mostly in PassMark workloads. The deciding factor is platform: the 210 is a 28W mobile part on Socket FP7, while the PRO 8300G is a 65W desktop chip on Socket AM5.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G is the clear winner for sustained multi-core and single-core rendering workloads. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 12359 against the 210's 11198, a 9.4% advantage. The same margin repeats across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, including single-core tests where the PRO 8300G leads by 9.1-9.3%. This is a consistent, workload-independent lead in CPU-bound rendering tasks, which points to the PRO 8300G's higher base clock (3.40 GHz vs 3.00 GHz) and boost clock (4.90 GHz vs 4.70 GHz) doing the heavy lifting.

The AMD Ryzen 3 210 wins the remaining workload categories, but by smaller margins. Its largest victory is in PassMark physics, where it scores 821 vs 772, a 6.3% lead. It also wins PassMark single-thread (3724 vs 3550, +4.9%) and find prime numbers (49 vs 47, +4.3%). These are mostly integer and physics-constrained tasks, suggesting the 210's memory bandwidth advantage (89.6 GB/s vs 83.2 GB/s) helps in specific data-heavy scenarios, even though its clocks are lower. The 210 also edges out in floating point math (+1.2%), integer math (+1.7%), and multithread (+1.6%), but these are marginal wins.

The PRO 8300G also takes PassMark random string sorting with 19703 vs 19454 (+1.3%), a rare non-Cinebench victory. For users who primarily run Cinebench-class workloads or any heavily threaded render, the PRO 8300G is the pick. For everything else—physics simulations, prime number calculations, single-threaded integer tasks—the 210 is slightly faster.

Architecture Differences

Both chips share the same Zen 4 architecture, fabricated on TSMC's 4 nm node, with identical transistor counts (20,900 million) and die size (137 mm²). Each has 4 cores and 8 threads, with the same cache hierarchy: 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 8 MB shared L3. The integrated graphics are also identical: Radeon 740M. The fundamental architectural silicon is the same; the differences lie in packaging and platform.

The 210 uses the Hawk Point codename on AMD Socket FP7, a mobile socket, while the PRO 8300G uses the Phoenix2 codename on AMD Socket AM5, a desktop socket. This explains the TDP disparity: 28W for the 210 vs 65W for the PRO 8300G. The higher TDP gives the PRO 8300G room for higher clocks (3.40/4.90 GHz vs 3.00/4.70 GHz), which directly drives its Cinebench dominance.

Memory support differs slightly: both are DDR5 dual-channel, but the 210 has higher peak bandwidth (89.6 GB/s vs 83.2 GB/s). The PRO 8300G supports ECC memory, while the 210 does not. PCIe is identical (Gen 4, 14 lanes CPU-only), and neither chip has an unlocked multiplier. The PRO 8300G belongs to the 8000 series, while the 210 has no series designation. Release dates differ: the 210 launched on 2025-01-05, the PRO 8300G on 2024-04-15.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The PRO 8300G's Cinebench sweep is the headline story. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 1245 vs 1128 (-9.4% for the 210). Single-core R15: 175 vs 159 (-9.1%). R20 multi-core: 5190 vs 4703 (-9.4%), and single-core: 732 vs 664 (-9.3%). R23 multi-core: 12359 vs 11198 (-9.4%), and single-core: 1744 vs 1581 (-9.3%). The margin is remarkably consistent at ~9.3-9.4% across all six tests, indicating a uniform clock-speed-derived advantage rather than a workload-specific one.

The 210's wins are more varied in magnitude. Its best is PassMark physics: 821 vs 772, a 6.3% margin. PassMark single-thread: 3724 vs 3550, +4.9%. Find prime numbers: 49 vs 47, +4.3%. Integer math: 37933 vs 37292, +1.7%. Multithread: 13585 vs 13368, +1.6%. Floating point math: 23649 vs 23374, +1.2%. Data compression: 152017 vs 150567, +1.0%. Extended instructions: 11464 vs 11451, +0.1%. Data encryption is a tie at 8607 each, awarded to the 210 due to a 0% delta.

The only PRO 8300G win outside Cinebench is random string sorting: 19703 vs 19454, +1.3%. Notably, the 210's PassMark single-thread score (3724) is higher than the PRO 8300G's (3550), despite the PRO 8300G winning Cinebench single-core tests. This suggests the two benchmark suites measure different aspects of single-thread performance, with Cinebench favoring raw clock speed and PassMark's single-thread test favoring memory or IPC characteristics.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G scores 12359 vs the Ryzen 3 210's 11198, a 9.4% advantage.

Q: Does the Ryzen 3 210 win any benchmark by a large margin?

A: Yes, PassMark physics shows the 210 at 821 vs 772, a 6.3% lead, and PassMark single-thread at 3724 vs 3550, a 4.9% lead.

Q: Are these CPUs the same silicon?

A: Both use Zen 4 on TSMC 4 nm with 20,900 million transistors and 137 mm² die size, but the 210 is Hawk Point on Socket FP7, while the PRO 8300G is Phoenix2 on Socket AM5.

Q: Do they have the same integrated graphics?

A: Yes, both feature the Radeon 740M iGPU.

Q: Which CPU supports ECC memory?

A: Only the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G supports ECC memory; the Ryzen 3 210 does not.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The Ryzen 3 210 has a 28W TDP, while the Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G has a 65W TDP.

The Verdict

Pick the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G if your priority is rendering performance. Its Cinebench lead is consistent and substantial—every Cinebench test shows a ~9.4% advantage over the 210. The higher 65W TDP and 4.90 GHz boost clock are the clear enablers. It also offers ECC memory support and a desktop AM5 platform, which is a more upgradeable and serviceable socket than the mobile FP7.

Pick the AMD Ryzen 3 210 if your workload is dominated by PassMark-style integer, physics, or single-thread tasks. It wins ten of seventeen head-to-head tests, including the largest single-thread margin (4.9%) and physics (6.3%). Its higher memory bandwidth (89.6 GB/s vs 83.2 GB/s) likely contributes to these wins. The 28W TDP also makes it more suitable for power-constrained mobile designs, though the PRO 8300G's desktop socket offers more long-term flexibility.

The aggregate scores are nearly identical (17321 vs 17278, a 0.2% difference), so the choice comes down to workload and platform. For Cinebench or any similarly clock-sensitive render, the PRO 8300G is the decisive winner. For mixed or PassMark-focused tasks, the 210 is the better performer, but the margins are smaller and the platform less flexible.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 3 210 | AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G |

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

| Base Clock | 3.00 GHz | 3.40 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.70 GHz | 4.90 GHz |

| TDP | 28W | 65W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP7 | AMD Socket AM5 |

| Codename | Hawk Point | Phoenix2 |

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

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

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

| Part Number | 100-000001612 | 100-000001187 |