AMD Ryzen 3 210 vs Intel Core 5 330 Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 3 210 and Intel Core 5 330 are both active mobile processors, but the benchmark data shows they are built for different priorities. The AMD Ryzen 3 210 wins 3 of the 17 head-to-head tests, while the Intel Core 5 330 wins 14. The AMD part claims victories in data compression, integer math, and random string sorting, while the Intel part dominates rendering, encryption, floating-point math, and single-threaded workloads. The Intel Core 5 330 also holds a higher average benchmark score of 18345 compared to the AMD Ryzen 3 210's 17321, a difference that aligns with its 72nd percentile ranking versus the AMD part's 71st.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 3 210 establishes its advantage in specific integer-heavy and memory-latency-sensitive tasks. Its data compression score of 152017 beats the Intel Core 5 330's 145287, a 4.6% margin. The gap widens significantly in integer math, where the AMD part scores 37933 against the Intel part's 33258, a 14.1% lead. Random string sorting also favors AMD, with a score of 19454 versus 17771, a 9.5% advantage. These three wins suggest the AMD architecture handles certain data-manipulation and sorting algorithms more efficiently, likely due to its thread configuration and cache layout.

The Intel Core 5 330 wins across nearly every other measured category. Its Cinebench results are consistently about 14.8% higher in both single-core and multi-core tests. The most dramatic separation appears in floating-point math: Intel scores 43885, which is 46.1% above AMD's 23649. Prime number finding shows Intel at 114 versus AMD's 49, a 57% deficit for the AMD chip. Data encryption also favors Intel, 11076 versus 8607, a 22.3% lead. Even in the multithread PassMark test, Intel wins with 15471 against 13585, a 12.2% margin, despite having fewer threads.

Architecture Differences

The two processors use fundamentally different designs. The AMD Ryzen 3 210 is built on Zen 4 architecture with the Hawk Point codename, manufactured on a 4 nm process at TSMC. It uses 20,900 million transistors across a 137 mm² die. The Intel Core 5 330 uses the Wildcat Lake codename on Intel's 3 nm process, with no transistor or die size data recorded in the database.

Core and thread counts diverge sharply. AMD provides 4 cores and 8 threads, using simultaneous multithreading to double its logical thread count. Intel provides 6 physical cores but only 6 threads, meaning no hyperthreading support on this part. The base clocks reflect their thermal design points: AMD runs at 3.00 GHz base with a 4.70 GHz boost, while Intel runs much lower at 1.50 GHz base with a 4.60 GHz boost. The Intel chip carries a 15 W TDP versus AMD's 28 W TDP.

Cache hierarchies also differ. AMD allocates 64 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, with 8 MB of shared L3. Intel lists 192 KB of L1 total and 2.5 MB of L2 total, with 6 MB of shared L3. The AMD part uses dual-channel DDR5 memory with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel part uses single-channel DDR5 and LPDDR5X with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. PCIe connectivity favors AMD as well, offering Gen 4 with 14 CPU lanes versus Intel's Gen 4 with 6 CPU lanes.

The integrated graphics differ: AMD uses the Radeon 740M, while Intel uses Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. Neither processor supports ECC memory, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The AMD part uses AMD Socket FP7, and the Intel part uses Intel BGA 1516. The Intel Core 5 330 has a launch MSRP of $309.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to the Intel Core 5 330 as the stronger overall processor. Its average benchmark score of 18345 sits 5.9% above the AMD Ryzen 3 210's 17321. The Intel part also ranks in the 72nd percentile of all CPUs, one point above the AMD part's 71st percentile. In the nearest rivals comparison, the Intel Core 5 330 sits between the Intel Core 7 360 and the Intel Core 3 305, with deltas of -0.2% and 0.2% respectively, indicating it is well placed within its performance class.

For rendering workloads, Cinebench results show Intel ahead by roughly 14.8% across R15, R20, and R23 in both single-core and multi-core runs. The single-thread PassMark score confirms this trend, with Intel at 4088 versus AMD's 3724, an 8.9% lead. The floating-point math result, where Intel leads by 46.1%, suggests a substantial advantage for scientific and numerical workloads. The Intel part also handles encryption 22.3% better, which matters for security-sensitive tasks.

The AMD Ryzen 3 210 should be selected when the workload centers on integer math, data compression, or random string sorting. Its 14.1% integer math lead and 9.5% random string sorting lead are not marginal; they represent clear architectural strengths. The AMD part also uses dual-channel memory with higher bandwidth, 89.6 GB/s versus 59.7 GB/s, which may benefit memory-intensive applications even though the raw benchmark scores in most tests favor Intel. The AMD part's 8 threads versus Intel's 6 threads do not translate into a multithread win, as Intel still wins PassMark multithread by 12.2%.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core 5 330 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The AMD Ryzen 3 210 has 4 cores and 8 threads. AMD uses simultaneous multithreading, while Intel does not.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference?

A: The Intel Core 5 330 has an average benchmark score of 18345, while the AMD Ryzen 3 210 scores 17321. The Intel part is 5.9% higher on average.

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Intel Core 5 330 wins with a score of 13150 against the AMD Ryzen 3 210's 11198, a 14.8% advantage.

Q: Does the AMD processor win any benchmark tests?

A: Yes, the AMD Ryzen 3 210 wins three tests: data compression (152017 versus 145287), integer math (37933 versus 33258), and random string sorting (19454 versus 17771).

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 210 uses dual-channel DDR5 with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Core 5 330 uses single-channel DDR5 and LPDDR5X with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth.

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

A: The largest gap is in prime number finding, where the Intel Core 5 330 scores 114 versus the AMD Ryzen 3 210's 49, a 57% difference. Floating-point math is the second largest, with Intel ahead by 46.1%.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows consistent Intel superiority. In Cinebench R15 multicore, Intel scores 1325 against AMD's 1128, a 14.9% gap. The single-core R15 test shows Intel at 186 versus 159, a 14.5% lead. Cinebench R20 multicore results are 5523 for Intel and 4703 for AMD, a 14.8% difference, with the single-core test mirroring that at 779 versus 664. Cinebench R23 multicore delivers 13150 for Intel and 11198 for AMD, again 14.8% apart, and R23 single-core shows 1856 versus 1581, also 14.8% apart. This consistent margin across three Cinebench versions indicates a stable architectural performance difference rather than a workload-specific anomaly.

The PassMark suite reveals where each processor excels. Intel wins data encryption with 11076 against 8607, a 22.3% advantage. Extended instructions favor Intel at 12808 versus 11464, a 10.5% lead. Prime number finding is heavily Intel-favored at 114 versus 49, a 57% gap. Floating-point math shows Intel at 43885 versus 23649, a 46.1% lead. The multithread test gives Intel 15471 versus 13585, a 12.2% win, and physics shows Intel at 1201 versus 821, a 31.6% margin. Single-thread performance is closer but still Intel-favored at 4088 versus 3724, an 8.9% lead.

The AMD Ryzen 3 210 claims its wins in three PassMark categories. Data compression goes to AMD at 152017 versus 145287, a 4.6% edge. Integer math is the largest AMD win at 37933 versus 33258, a 14.1% margin. Random string sorting completes the AMD set at 19454 versus 17771, a 9.5% advantage. These wins, while fewer in number, show that the AMD part has specialized strengths that could matter for specific software workloads. The overall pattern, however, is clear: the Intel Core 5 330 delivers higher scores in 14 of the 17 recorded tests and maintains a higher average benchmark score.