AMD Ryzen 3 210 vs Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents an unambiguous outcome. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus wins all 17 head-to-head comparisons against the AMD Ryzen 3 210, with zero wins for the AMD part. The Intel processor's average benchmark score of 66855 places it in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs, while the AMD Ryzen 3 210 averages 17321, ranking in the 71st percentile. The Intel part sits near the AMD EPYC 4465P in the database, with a delta of -0.1%, and close to the Intel Xeon 6515P at -0.2%. The AMD Ryzen 3 210, by contrast, is closest to the AMD Ryzen 5 4500 with a delta of -0.1% and the Intel Core 7 150U at -0.4%.

For workloads that demand multi-threaded throughput, the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is the clear choice from the recorded measurements. For single-threaded responsiveness, the Intel part also holds a substantial lead, although the gap narrows compared to the multi-core tests. The AMD Ryzen 3 210 is a compact mobile processor with 4 cores and 8 threads, suited for low-power systems, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is a desktop processor with 18 cores and 18 threads. The data indicates that the Intel processor delivers far higher scores across every recorded benchmark, making it the stronger option for any performance-focused build. The AMD part, however, operates at a much lower TDP, which may appeal to systems with strict thermal or power constraints.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen 3 210 uses the Zen 4 architecture, codenamed Hawk Point, built on a 4 nm process node from TSMC. It packs 20,900 million transistors on a 137 mm² die. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus uses the Arrow Lake Refresh codename, belonging to the Core Ultra Series 2, fabricated on a 3 nm process node, also from TSMC, with 17,800 million transistors on a 243 mm² die.

Core counts differ sharply. The AMD part has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel part has 18 cores and 18 threads, meaning no hyper-threading on the Intel side. Cache hierarchies also diverge. The AMD Ryzen 3 210 provides 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus provides 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel processor thus has substantially more cache per core and more total shared cache.

Memory support shows both use DDR5 with a dual-channel bus. The AMD part has a memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s, while the Intel part reaches 115.2 GB/s. ECC memory support differs: the AMD Ryzen 3 210 does not support ECC, while the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus does. PCIe connectivity also differs, with the AMD part using Gen 4 with 14 lanes (CPU only) and the Intel part using Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics differ as well: the AMD part uses Radeon 740M, while the Intel part uses Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU.

The market segments differ. The AMD Ryzen 3 210 is a mobile processor on AMD Socket FP7, with a TDP of 28. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is a desktop processor on Intel Socket 1851, with a TDP of 125. Base clocks also differ: 3.00 GHz for the AMD part versus 4.20 GHz for the Intel part. Boost clocks are 4.70 GHz and 5.30 GHz respectively. The Intel part has an unlocked multiplier, while the AMD part does not.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single win for the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus appears in PassMark find prime numbers, where it scores 486 against 49, a delta of -89.9%. Floating point math shows the Intel part at 162692 versus 23649, a delta of -85.5%. Data encryption results show 42144 against 8607, a delta of -79.6%. Physics tests show 3494 versus 821, a delta of -76.5%. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows 4640 against 1128, a delta of -75.7%. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 18442 versus 4703, a delta of -74.5%. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 2603 versus 664, also a delta of -74.5%. PassMark extended instructions show 44565 versus 11464, a delta of -74.3%.

PassMark multithread shows 51596 against 13585, a delta of -73.7%. Data compression shows 568721 versus 152017, a delta of -73.3%. Random string sorting shows 69090 versus 19454, a delta of -71.8%. Integer math shows 125091 versus 37933, a delta of -69.7%. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 30867 against 11198, a delta of -63.7%. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 328 versus 159, a delta of -51.5%. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 2261 versus 1581, a delta of -30.1%. The smallest advantage for the Intel part is in PassMark single-thread, with 4757 versus 3724, a delta of -21.7%.

The pattern is consistent: the Intel processor leads by more in multi-threaded workloads than in single-threaded ones. The single-thread gap of -21.7% in PassMark and -30.1% in Cinebench R23 is still significant, but the multi-thread deltas frequently exceed -70%. The data shows that the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is not merely faster, it is categorically faster across every recorded metric, with the margin widening when more cores are utilized.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has 18 cores and 18 threads. The AMD Ryzen 3 210 has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: How much faster is the Intel part in multi-threaded Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus scores 30867 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the AMD Ryzen 3 210 scores 11198, a delta of -63.7% in favor of the Intel part.

Q: What is the single-thread score difference in PassMark?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus scores 4757 in PassMark single-thread, while the AMD Ryzen 3 210 scores 3724, a delta of -21.7%.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus supports ECC memory. The AMD Ryzen 3 210 does not.

Q: What are the TDP values for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 210 has a TDP of 28. The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus has a TDP of 125.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus?

A: The launch MSRP of the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is $199.

Where Each One Wins

From the recorded data, the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus wins every single benchmark comparison. There are no tests where the AMD Ryzen 3 210 records a higher score. The Intel processor dominates in all categories, including data compression, encryption, extended instructions, prime number finding, floating point math, integer math, multithread, physics, random string sorting, single-thread, and all Cinebench versions (R15, R20, R23) for both multi-core and single-core.

The AMD Ryzen 3 210, however, holds advantages in non-performance areas. Its TDP of 28 versus 125 for the Intel part means it consumes far less power, which is relevant for mobile platforms. It uses the AMD Socket FP7, while the Intel part uses Intel Socket 1851. The AMD part has a smaller die size of 137 mm² versus 243 mm² for the Intel part, though the Intel part uses a newer 3 nm process versus 4 nm for the AMD part. The AMD part also has a lower base clock of 3.00 GHz versus 4.20 GHz, and a lower boost clock of 4.70 GHz versus 5.30 GHz.

For use cases, the data suggests the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is the appropriate choice for desktop systems needing maximum throughput in rendering, compression, encryption, or any multi-threaded workload. Its higher memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s and Gen 5 PCIe with 20 lanes provide additional headroom for memory-intensive and expansion-heavy configurations. The AMD Ryzen 3 210, with its 89.6 GB/s bandwidth and Gen 4 PCIe with 14 lanes, fits mobile form factors where lower power draw and heat output are prioritized over raw performance.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the AMD Ryzen 3 210 and the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus:

• Cores: 4 (AMD) versus 18 (Intel)
• Threads: 8 (AMD) versus 18 (Intel)
• Base clock: 3.00 GHz (AMD) versus 4.20 GHz (Intel)
• Boost clock: 4.70 GHz (AMD) versus 5.30 GHz (Intel)
• TDP: 28 (AMD) versus 125 (Intel)
• Socket: AMD Socket FP7 (AMD) versus Intel Socket 1851 (Intel)
• Architecture: Zen 4 (AMD) versus null (Intel)
• Codename: Hawk Point (AMD) versus Arrow Lake Refresh (Intel)
• Generation: Ryzen 3 (Zen 4 (Hawk Point)) (AMD) versus Ultra 5 (Arrow Lake) (Intel)
• Process node: 4 nm (AMD) versus 3 nm (Intel)
• Transistors: 20,900 million (AMD) versus 17,800 million (Intel)
• Die size: 137 mm² (AMD) versus 243 mm² (Intel)
• L1 cache: 64 KB per core (AMD) versus 192 KB per core (Intel)
• L2 cache: 1 MB per core (AMD) versus 3 MB per core (Intel)
• L3 cache: 8 MB shared (AMD) versus 30 MB shared (Intel)
• Memory bandwidth: 89.6 GB/s (AMD) versus 115.2 GB/s (Intel)
• ECC memory: false (AMD) versus true (Intel)
• PCIe: Gen 4, 14 Lanes CPU only (AMD) versus Gen 5, 20 Lanes CPU only (Intel)
• Integrated graphics: Radeon 740M (AMD) versus Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU (Intel)
• Market segment: Mobile (AMD) versus Desktop (Intel)
• Release date: 2025-01-05 (AMD) versus 2026-03-10 (Intel)
• Launch MSRP: null (AMD) versus $199 (Intel)
• Multiplier unlocked: false (AMD) versus true (Intel)
• Part number: 100-000001612 (AMD) versus SA4UZ (Intel)
• Series: null (AMD) versus Core Ultra Series 2 (Intel)

Fields that are the same include both supporting DDR5 memory, both using a dual-channel memory bus, both manufactured by TSMC, and both having active production status. The average benchmark scores and percentile rankings differ as noted: 17321 and 71st percentile for the AMD part, 66855 and 93rd percentile for the Intel part.