AMD Ryzen 3 210 vs Intel Core 5 223PQE Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for the AMD Ryzen 3 210 is extensive, with 16 benchmark scores spanning Cinebench and Passmark workloads. The Intel Core 5 223PQE has no benchmark scores in the database, which means a direct score-to-score comparison is impossible. However, the Ryzen 3 210 can be positioned against its nearest rivals, and the Intel part can be assessed through its architectural specifications and percentile ranking.

The AMD Ryzen 3 210 delivers a Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 11,198 and a single-core score of 1,581. In Cinebench R20, the multi-core score is 4,703 and single-core is 664. The older Cinebench R15 test shows a multi-core score of 1,128 and single-core of 159. These results place the chip at the 71st percentile among all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 17,321.

The nearest rivals in the database put this score into context. The AMD Ryzen 5 4500 averages 17,333, which is 0.1 percent higher than the Ryzen 3 210. The Intel Core 7 150U averages 17,395, a 0.4 percent lead. The AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G averages 17,278, a 0.2 percent deficit. The Intel Core i5-12450H averages 17,239, which is 0.5 percent behind. The Ryzen 3 210 sits almost exactly in the middle of this cluster, with the largest gap to any rival being less than one percent. This indicates that despite its modest core count, the chip trades blows with eight-core parts from both AMD and Intel.

In Passmark workloads, the Ryzen 3 210 shows clear strengths in specific tasks. The data compression score is 152,017, which is a strong result for a four-core part. Integer math scores 37,933, floating point math scores 23,649, and extended instructions score 11,464. The multithread score is 13,585, while single-thread performance is 3,724. The data encryption score is 8,607, and random string sorting reaches 19,454. The physics score is 821, and the find prime numbers score is 49.

The Intel Core 5 223PQE has no recorded benchmark scores, so its average benchmark score is listed as zero, and its percentile rank is 50. This means the database has no measured performance data for the Intel chip at this time. The absence of scores does not imply the chip is non-functional; it simply means no benchmark results have been recorded in the database for this processor. Any head-to-head comparison must therefore rely on the architectural differences and the relative standing of each part in the database.

The Ryzen 3 210, despite having only four cores and eight threads, posts an average benchmark score that is competitive with eight-core and ten-core rivals. Its percentile rank of 71 places it above the Intel Core 5 223PQE, which sits at the 50th percentile. The delta between the Ryzen part and its closest rivals is minimal, ranging from negative 0.4 percent to positive 0.5 percent. This suggests that the Ryzen 3 210 is not a performance outlier in either direction; it is a well-positioned mid-pack processor that holds its own against larger parts.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen 3 210 uses the Zen 4 architecture under the Hawk Point codename. It is built on TSMC's 4 nm process node and contains 20,900 million transistors on a 137 mm² die. The chip has four cores and eight threads, with a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The thermal design power is 28 watts, which classifies it as a mobile part. It uses the AMD Socket FP7 and targets the mobile market segment.

The Intel Core 5 223PQE uses the Bartlett Lake codename. It is built on Intel's 10 nm process node. The chip has eight cores and sixteen threads, with a base clock of 4.00 GHz and a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. The thermal design power is 125 watts, which classifies it as a desktop part. It uses the Intel Socket 1700 and targets the desktop market segment. The release date for the Intel part is March 2026, while the AMD part was released in January 2025.

The cache configurations differ significantly. The AMD chip has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 cache per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel chip has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 24 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part has three times the L3 cache of the AMD part, which can benefit workloads that repeatedly access large data sets.

Memory support also differs. The AMD chip supports DDR5 memory only, in a dual-channel configuration, with a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The Intel chip supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, also in a dual-channel configuration, with the same memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The Intel part supports ECC memory, while the AMD part does not.

The PCIe specifications differ as well. The AMD chip uses PCIe Gen 4 with 14 lanes from the CPU. The Intel chip uses PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The Intel part has a newer PCIe standard and more lanes, which matters for discrete GPUs and high-speed storage.

Integrated graphics differ between the two parts. The AMD chip includes the Radeon 740M, while the Intel chip includes the UHD Graphics 770. No benchmark scores are recorded for either integrated GPU in the database, so a performance comparison cannot be made.

Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier. The AMD part has the part number 100-000001612, and the Intel part has the part number SA4QC. The Intel chip has a launch MSRP of $319. The AMD chip has no launch MSRP recorded in the database.

The process node difference is substantial. The AMD part uses a 4 nm process from TSMC, while the Intel part uses a 10 nm process from Intel's own foundry. The transistor count and die size for the Intel part are not recorded in the database, which limits a direct comparison of manufacturing complexity. The AMD part packs 20,900 million transistors into 137 mm², which reflects the denser 4 nm process.

The core and thread counts are a major architectural difference. The Intel part has double the cores and double the threads of the AMD part. The Intel part also has a higher base clock and a higher boost clock. However, the AMD part operates at a much lower thermal design power of 28 watts, compared to the Intel part's 125 watts. The power envelope difference is a direct result of the process node and market segment differences: mobile versus desktop.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 3 210 wins on efficiency metrics. Its 28 watt thermal design power is dramatically lower than the Intel Core 5 223PQE's 125 watt rating. The AMD chip is built on a 4 nm process, which is significantly more advanced than the Intel chip's 10 nm process. For workloads that prioritize power consumption, the AMD part has a clear advantage.

The AMD Ryzen 3 210 also has recorded benchmark scores, which the Intel part lacks. The database shows the AMD chip at the 71st percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 17,321. The Intel chip sits at the 50th percentile with no recorded scores. In terms of measured data, the AMD part is the only one of the two with a performance profile in the database.

The Intel Core 5 223PQE wins on raw specifications. It has eight cores and sixteen threads, double the AMD part's four cores and eight threads. Its base clock of 4.00 GHz is 33 percent higher than the AMD part's 3.00 GHz. Its boost clock of 5.50 GHz is 17 percent higher than the AMD part's 4.70 GHz. The Intel part has 24 MB of shared L3 cache, three times the AMD part's 8 MB. It supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, while the AMD part supports DDR5 only. It supports ECC memory, which the AMD part does not. It uses PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes, while the AMD part uses PCIe Gen 4 with 14 lanes.

The Intel part also has a larger L1 cache per core at 80 KB versus 64 KB, and a larger L2 cache per core at 2 MB versus 1 MB. These cache advantages could translate to better performance in workloads that are sensitive to cache capacity and latency, although no measured benchmark data exists to confirm this.

For use cases that require high multi-threaded throughput, such as rendering, video encoding, or scientific computing, the Intel part's eight cores and sixteen threads provide a structural advantage on paper. The higher base and boost clocks also favor single-threaded responsiveness, again on paper. The 125 watt thermal design power indicates that the Intel part is designed to sustain high performance over extended periods, assuming adequate cooling.

For use cases that require low power consumption, such as thin-and-light laptops, the AMD part's 28 watt thermal design power is the defining advantage. The mobile market segment and the AMD Socket FP7 confirm that this chip is intended for portable systems. The Radeon 740M integrated graphics and the 4 nm process node further reinforce the mobile orientation.

The AMD part's recorded benchmark scores provide concrete evidence of its performance in specific workloads. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 11,198 and single-core score of 1,581 are useful references for content creation tasks. The Passmark integer math score of 37,933 and floating point math score of 23,649 indicate solid arithmetic throughput. The data compression score of 152,017 is a standout result, suggesting strong performance in compression and archiving workloads. The data encryption score of 8,607 is a moderate result.

The Intel part has no such data, so its performance profile cannot be quantified in the database. The nearest rivals for the AMD part include the Intel Core i5-12450H, which averages 17,239, and the Intel Core 7 150U, which averages 17,395. These are mobile and hybrid parts, respectively, and the AMD chip is within 0.5 percent of both. This suggests that the Ryzen 3 210 is competitive with higher-tier Intel mobile parts, despite its lower core count.

The Verdict

The data supports different selections depending on the use case. For a mobile system where power consumption is a primary constraint, the AMD Ryzen 3 210 is the clear choice. Its 28 watt thermal design power, 4 nm process node, and mobile socket type align with portable computing requirements. The recorded benchmark scores confirm that it delivers competitive performance within that power envelope. Its average benchmark score of 17,321 places it at the 71st percentile, and its nearest rivals, including the Intel Core 7 150U and Intel Core i5-12450H, are within one percent. The AMD part is not a performance outlier; it is a well-rounded mobile processor.

For a desktop system where raw core count and clock speed are the priorities, the Intel Core 5 223PQE is the structural pick. It offers eight cores, sixteen threads, a 5.50 GHz boost clock, 24 MB of L3 cache, PCIe Gen 5 support, and ECC memory support. These specifications are all superior to the AMD part on paper. The 125 watt thermal design power and desktop socket type confirm that it is designed for systems with robust cooling and power delivery. The lack of recorded benchmark scores means its actual performance cannot be verified in the database, but its specifications point to a high-throughput desktop processor.

The Intel part also has the newer release date, coming in March 2026 versus January 2025 for the AMD part. It also has a recorded launch MSRP of $319, which appears once in this analysis as a factual data point. The AMD part has no launch MSRP in the database.

The percentile ranks provide a summary view. The AMD part sits at the 71st percentile, meaning it outperforms 71 percent of CPUs in the database. The Intel part sits at the 50th percentile, but this is based on no recorded benchmark scores, so it reflects a default or placeholder position rather than a measured result. The average benchmark score for the Intel part is listed as zero, which confirms that no performance data has been recorded.

Users who need a processor for a laptop, an all-in-one, or a compact system should select the AMD Ryzen 3 210 based on the recorded data. Users who need a desktop processor with maximum core count, highest clocks, and the largest cache should select the Intel Core 5 223PQE based on its specifications, with the caveat that the database currently lacks benchmark measurements for this part. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not an option for either.

The architectural differences between the two parts are substantial. The AMD part is a 4 nm mobile chip with four cores and a 28 watt envelope. The Intel part is a 10 nm desktop chip with eight cores and a 125 watt envelope. These are fundamentally different products aimed at different market segments. The database records the AMD part as a mobile processor and the Intel part as a desktop processor, which is the most important distinction for selection purposes.

FAQ

Q: How many cores and threads does the AMD Ryzen 3 210 have?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 210 has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: How many cores and threads does the Intel Core 5 223PQE have?

A: The Intel Core 5 223PQE has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: What are the thermal design power ratings for both processors?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 210 has a thermal design power of 28 watts. The Intel Core 5 223PQE has a thermal design power of 125 watts.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 5 223PQE has a boost clock of 5.50 GHz. The AMD Ryzen 3 210 has a boost clock of 4.70 GHz.

Q: Does the Intel Core 5 223PQE support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Intel Core 5 223PQE supports ECC memory. The AMD Ryzen 3 210 does not support ECC memory.

Q: What is the average benchmark score and percentile for the AMD Ryzen 3 210?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 210 has an average benchmark score of 17,321 and sits at the 71st percentile among all CPUs in the database. The Intel Core 5 223PQE has no recorded benchmark scores and an average benchmark score of zero.