AMD Ryzen 3 210 vs AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a decisive outcome: the AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 wins all 11 recorded head-to-head comparisons against the AMD Ryzen 3 210. The most substantial margins appear in compute-heavy workloads, where the P164's additional cores and newer architecture deliver massive performance advantages.

The largest gap is in floating-point math, where the P164 scores 55,799 versus the Ryzen 3 210's 23,649, a 57.6% difference. Integer math follows closely: the P164 records 87,940 against 37,933, a 56.9% lead. Data compression shows a 53.6% delta (327,891 versus 152,017), while extended instructions demonstrate a 52.6% gap (24,193 versus 11,464). These four workloads all exceed a 50% performance differential, which indicates the P164's architectural advantages are particularly pronounced in arithmetic and data-processing tasks.

The multithreaded test shows a 47.5% advantage for the P164 (25,889 versus 13,585), and data encryption trails at 46.4% (16,055 versus 8,607). Random string sorting produces a 44.1% gap (34,801 versus 19,454). Physics simulation shows a 32.1% lead (1,210 versus 821), and prime number finding records a 31% advantage (71 versus 49). The narrowest margin is in single-thread performance, where the P164 leads by only 7.6% (4,029 versus 3,724). This smaller gap suggests that per-core performance is relatively close, and the P164's overall dominance stems largely from its doubled core and thread counts.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this picture. The Ryzen 3 210 averages 17,321 across its recorded tests, placing it at the 71st percentile among all CPUs. The P164 averages 52,901, which lands at the 91st percentile. That is a 205% difference in average score, though the raw head-to-head deltas range from 7.6% to 57.6% depending on workload. The P164's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Ryzen 5 9500F (average score 52,873, delta 0.1%), Intel Xeon 634 (52,974, delta -0.1%), AMD EPYC 7313P (53,206, delta -0.6%), and AMD Ryzen 9 7900X (53,288, delta -0.7%). These deltas are all within 0.7% of the P164, placing it in a tightly competitive band at the upper end of the database's rankings.

The Ryzen 3 210's nearest rivals are similarly close: the AMD Ryzen 5 4500 (average 17,333, delta -0.1%), AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G (17,278, delta 0.2%), Intel Core 7 150U (17,395, delta -0.4%), and Intel Core i5-12450H (17,239, delta 0.5%). None of these rivals differs by more than 0.5% from the Ryzen 3 210's average, which indicates the 210 sits squarely in a crowded mid-range performance tier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the most benchmark comparisons?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 wins all 11 head-to-head tests recorded in the database. The Ryzen 3 210 does not win any of the 11 comparisons.

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

A: Floating-point math shows the biggest delta at 57.6%, with the P164 scoring 55,799 versus the Ryzen 3 210's 23,649. Integer math is close behind at 56.9% (87,940 versus 37,933).

Q: How do the two compare in single-threaded performance?

A: The P164 leads by 7.6% in single-thread tests, recording 4,029 versus 3,724. This is the narrowest margin of any recorded comparison, indicating relatively similar per-core capability.

Q: Where does each processor rank among all CPUs?

A: The Ryzen 3 210 sits at the 71st percentile with an average benchmark score of 17,321. The P164 ranks at the 91st percentile with an average score of 52,901.

Q: Are the average scores close to their nearest rivals?

A: Both processors sit within 0.5% of their nearest rivals. The Ryzen 3 210's closest competitor is the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G at 0.2% delta, while the P164's closest is the AMD Ryzen 5 9500F at 0.1% delta.

Q: Which workloads show the smallest performance difference?

A: Prime number finding shows a 31% gap, and physics simulation shows a 32.1% gap. These are the smallest margins outside of single-thread tests, though they still favor the P164 substantially.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear hierarchy. The AMD Ryzen AI Embedded P164 delivers dramatically higher throughput across every recorded workload, with advantages ranging from 7.6% in single-thread tests to 57.6% in floating-point math. Its average benchmark score of 52,901 is roughly three times the Ryzen 3 210's 17,321, and its 91st percentile ranking places it among the top tier of the database's CPU population.

The Ryzen 3 210, by contrast, occupies the 71st percentile with a modest average score. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-12450H and AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G, all within 0.5% of its average. This places the 210 in a dense mid-range cluster where small deltas separate competitors.

For workloads that depend on multi-threaded throughput, data compression, encryption, or heavy arithmetic, the P164 is the clear choice based on the recorded measurements. The 210's only relative strength is in single-thread performance, where the 7.6% deficit is much smaller than the 47.5% multithread gap. Buyers targeting single-thread-sensitive applications would see less benefit from the P164, but in every other category the P164's advantage is substantial.

The P164's nearest rivals in the database include server and high-end desktop parts like the AMD EPYC 7313P and Ryzen 9 7900X, all within 0.7% of its average score. This indicates the P164 competes at a performance level far above the 210's tier.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several fundamental specifications. The Ryzen 3 210 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the P164 doubles both to 8 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks differ significantly: the 210 runs at 3.00 GHz, while the P164 starts lower at 2.00 GHz. Boost clocks reverse the trend, with the 210 reaching 4.70 GHz and the P164 reaching 5.00 GHz. Both have a 28 W TDP.

The 210 uses AMD Socket FP7, while the P164 uses AMD Socket FP8. The integrated graphics differ as well: the 210 features the Radeon 740M, while the P164 carries the Radeon 880M. PCIe support shows a modest gap: the 210 provides Gen 4 with 14 lanes, while the P164 offers Gen 4 with 16 lanes. Memory support differs in scope, with the 210 limited to DDR5 and the P164 supporting both DDR5 and LPDDR5X. ECC memory is absent on the 210 but present on the P164.

Cache configurations diverge in L1 and L2 sizes. The 210 has 64 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core. The P164 raises L1 to 80 KB per core while keeping L2 at 1 MB per core. Both share 8 MB of L3 cache. Die size differs markedly: the 210 measures 137 mm², while the P164 measures 233 mm². The 210 lists 20,900 million transistors; the P164's transistor count is not recorded. The 210 has a release date of January 2025, while the P164 is dated March 2026.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is significant. The Ryzen 3 210 uses the Zen 4 architecture under the Hawk Point codename, with its generation listed as Ryzen 3 (Zen 4 (Hawk Point)). The P164 uses a mixed Zen 5 / Zen 5c configuration under the Gorgon Point codename, with its generation listed as Ryzen AI Embedded (Zen 5 / Zen 5c). Both are manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC.

The P164's doubled core count (8 versus 4) and thread count (16 versus 8) are the primary architectural drivers of its benchmark advantage. The Zen 5 / Zen 5c hybrid design likely combines high-performance cores with efficiency cores, though the database does not specify the core distribution. The P164's larger die size (233 mm² versus 137 mm²) reflects the additional cores and the newer architecture's complexity. The P164's higher boost clock of 5.00 GHz versus 4.70 GHz on the 210 also contributes to its single-thread lead.

The integrated graphics differ between generations: the Radeon 740M on the 210 versus the Radeon 880M on the P164. The P164's ECC memory support and wider PCIe lane count (16 versus 14) suggest it is designed for embedded and reliability-focused deployments, while the 210 targets standard mobile applications. The P164's support for LPDDR5X in addition to DDR5 provides memory flexibility that the 210 lacks.

The L1 cache increase from 64 KB to 80 KB per core on the P164 improves per-thread data access, which likely contributes to its 7.6% single-thread advantage despite the lower base clock. The shared L3 cache remains at 8 MB for both, so the P164's multithread dominance comes primarily from core count and architecture rather than larger last-level cache.