AMD Ryzen 3 210 vs Intel Core 7 253PQE Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a remarkably one-sided comparison. The Intel Core 7 253PQE wins all 17 recorded head-to-head tests, leaving the AMD Ryzen 3 210 without a single victory. The margins, however, vary considerably depending on the workload, which reveals where each processor's architectural strengths and weaknesses lie.

In Cinebench tests, the Intel part shows a consistent 64.3% advantage across every iteration. The multi-core scores are particularly decisive: Cinebench R23 multi-core sees Intel at 31,390 versus AMD's 11,198, while Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 13,183 against 4,703. Single-core results tell a similar story, with the Intel Core 7 253PQE posting 4,431 in Cinebench R23 single-core compared to the Ryzen 3 210's 1,581. The consistency of that 64.3% delta across all six Cinebench tests suggests a fundamental performance gap rather than workload-specific behavior.

The PassMark suite reveals an even wider spread. Floating point math shows the largest disparity: Intel's 105,279 dwarfs AMD's 23,649, a 77.5% deficit for the Ryzen part. Prime number finding follows closely with a 76.2% gap (206 versus 49). Integer math delivers 137,795 for Intel against 37,933 for AMD, a 72.5% difference, while physics processing shows 2,970 versus 821, a 72.4% gap. Data encryption sees Intel at 25,515 versus AMD's 8,607, a 66.3% margin. The smallest recorded difference appears in PassMark single-thread performance, where Intel's 4,389 only leads AMD's 3,724 by 15.2%. This is still a clear win, but it hints that the Ryzen 3 210's Zen 4 architecture is comparatively more competitive in lightly threaded, latency-sensitive tasks.

The database places the Intel Core 7 253PQE in the 91st percentile of all CPUs, while the AMD Ryzen 3 210 sits at the 71st percentile. Average benchmark scores reinforce this hierarchy: Intel's 55,919 average far exceeds AMD's 17,321. The nearest rivals for each processor further contextualize the gap. Intel sits within 1.1% of the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX and within 0.7% of the AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX PRO 470, while AMD's closest competitor is the Intel Core i5-12450H at a 0.5% delta. The Intel part competes in a different performance class entirely.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge sharply in their fundamental design approaches. The AMD Ryzen 3 210 uses a Zen 4 architecture on the Hawk Point codename, fabricated on TSMC's 4 nm process. It integrates 20,900 million transistors on a 137 mm² die. The Intel Core 7 253PQE belongs to the Bartlett Lake generation, built on Intel's 10 nm process, with transistor count and die size not recorded in the database.

Core counts create the first major distinction. AMD offers 4 cores and 8 threads, while Intel provides 10 cores and 20 threads. That 2.5x core advantage and 2.5x thread advantage directly explains much of the multi-threaded benchmark dominance. Clock speeds reinforce the gap: AMD's base clock runs at 3.00 GHz with a 4.70 GHz boost, whereas Intel starts at 3.50 GHz and boosts to 5.70 GHz. The combination of more cores and higher clocks gives Intel a substantial execution capacity.

Cache hierarchies differ in both size and organization. AMD allocates 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3. Intel uses 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 33 MB of shared L3. The larger L3 cache on the Intel part, over four times the capacity, likely contributes to its superior performance in data-heavy workloads like compression and encryption.

Memory support presents another contrast. AMD supports only DDR5, while Intel supports both DDR4 and DDR5. Both use dual-channel memory buses with identical 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. ECC memory support differs: Intel enables it, AMD does not. PCIe capabilities also vary, with Intel offering Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes against AMD's Gen 4 with 14 CPU lanes.

The integrated graphics solutions diverge as well. AMD uses the Radeon 740M, while Intel employs UHD Graphics 770. The Intel part targets the desktop segment with a 125 W TDP, whereas the AMD chip is a mobile processor with a 28 W TDP. This power envelope difference is enormous and explains why the Intel part can sustain such high clocks and feed 10 cores effectively. The AMD part's efficiency focus is evident in its much lower thermal design point.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core 7 253PQE records an average benchmark score of 55,919, compared to 17,321 for the AMD Ryzen 3 210. Intel also ranks in the 91st percentile of all CPUs, while AMD sits at the 71st percentile.

Q: How large is the multi-core performance difference in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core 7 253PQE scores 31,390 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the AMD Ryzen 3 210 scores 11,198. This represents a 64.3% advantage for Intel, matching the same delta seen across all Cinebench iterations.

Q: What is the smallest benchmark gap between the two processors?

A: The smallest recorded difference is in PassMark single-thread performance, where Intel's 4,389 leads AMD's 3,724 by 15.2%. This is notably closer than the 64% to 77% margins seen in most other tests.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: No. The AMD Ryzen 3 210 supports only DDR5, while the Intel Core 7 253PQE supports both DDR4 and DDR5. Both use dual-channel memory buses with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. Intel also supports ECC memory, which AMD does not.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 210 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Intel Core 7 253PQE has 10 cores and 20 threads. Intel's larger core and thread counts align with its dominant multi-threaded benchmark results.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 7 253PQE boosts to 5.70 GHz, compared to 4.70 GHz for the AMD Ryzen 3 210. Intel also has a higher base clock at 3.50 GHz versus 3.00 GHz.

The Verdict

The recorded data makes the performance hierarchy unambiguous. The Intel Core 7 253PQE outperforms the AMD Ryzen 3 210 in every single benchmark test recorded, with margins ranging from 15.2% in single-thread performance to 77.5% in floating point math. The Intel part's 10 cores, 20 threads, higher clock speeds, larger cache, and more generous power envelope combine to deliver results that place it in the 91st percentile, alongside processors like the AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX.

The AMD Ryzen 3 210, despite its 71st percentile ranking and much lower average score, is not without merit. Its 28 W TDP indicates a design focused on thermal efficiency for mobile applications. Its Zen 4 architecture on a 4 nm process represents a modern manufacturing approach. The 15.2% single-thread gap, while still favoring Intel, suggests that AMD's core design is comparatively strong in latency-sensitive workloads. However, the data does not show any workload category where AMD takes the lead.

For workloads that demand maximum throughput, whether in multi-core rendering, data compression, or floating point calculations, the Intel Core 7 253PQE is the clear choice based on the benchmark evidence. The 64.3% Cinebench margins and 72% to 77% PassMark gaps in compute-heavy tests leave no ambiguity. For scenarios prioritizing power efficiency and mobile deployment, the AMD Ryzen 3 210 offers a more modest performance profile within a much lower thermal envelope. The selection between the two depends entirely on whether the workload prioritizes raw performance or power-constrained operation.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every recorded specification. The AMD Ryzen 3 210 provides 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Core 7 253PQE provides 10 cores and 20 threads. Clock speeds differ substantially: AMD runs at 3.00 GHz base and 4.70 GHz boost, Intel at 3.50 GHz base and 5.70 GHz boost. Thermal design power shows the largest relative difference, with AMD at 28 W and Intel at 125 W.

The AMD part uses a Zen 4 architecture with the Hawk Point codename, fabricated on a 4 nm TSMC process. The Intel part belongs to the Bartlett Lake generation on Intel's 10 nm process. AMD integrates 20,900 million transistors on a 137 mm² die, while Intel's transistor count and die size are not recorded. Cache configurations differ in every level: AMD uses 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 8 MB shared L3, while Intel uses 80 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 33 MB shared L3.

Memory support sees AMD limited to DDR5 and Intel supporting DDR4 and DDR5. Both use dual-channel buses with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. ECC memory is supported by Intel but not AMD. PCIe capabilities differ: AMD provides Gen 4 with 14 lanes, Intel provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes. Integrated graphics differ as well, with AMD using the Radeon 740M and Intel using UHD Graphics 770. Sockets are incompatible: AMD uses Socket FP7, Intel uses Socket 1700. AMD targets the mobile segment, Intel targets desktop. Release dates also differ, with AMD released in January 2025 and Intel in March 2026. Intel has a recorded launch MSRP of $409, while AMD's launch MSRP is not recorded.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data grants the Intel Core 7 253PQE wins in all 17 recorded tests, so the use-case split must be inferred from the specific margins and architectural characteristics rather than from any AMD victory.

The Intel Core 7 253PQE dominates in compute-intensive, multi-threaded workloads. Its largest margins appear in floating point math (77.5% ahead), prime number finding (76.2% ahead), integer math (72.5% ahead), and physics processing (72.4% ahead). These results point toward scientific computing, engineering simulations, and data processing tasks. The 64.3% advantage across all Cinebench tests makes the Intel part well suited for 3D rendering and content creation workloads. Data compression (68.8% ahead) and data encryption (66.3% ahead) further support its use in server or storage applications. The 33 MB shared L3 cache and 20 threads provide substantial parallel execution resources, and the 125 W TDP allows sustained high performance under load.

The AMD Ryzen 3 210, despite losing every test, shows its most competitive result in single-thread performance, trailing by only 15.2%. This narrower margin suggests the Zen 4 core design is comparatively efficient in lightly threaded tasks. The 28 W TDP positions it for mobile or power-sensitive applications where the Intel part's 125 W envelope would be impractical. Its smaller footprint, both in physical die size and thermal requirements, makes it more suitable for compact or battery-powered devices. The Radeon 740M integrated graphics and mobile market segment designation reinforce this interpretation. For users needing a functional processor in a low-power context, the AMD part offers a viable path, albeit with significantly lower peak performance than the Intel alternative.