AMD Ryzen 3 210 vs Intel Core Ultra 7 164U Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 3 210 and Intel Core Ultra 7 164U are both active mobile processors that land at the 71st percentile of all CPUs, but they achieve that standing through opposite strategies. The Ryzen 3 210 wins 9 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks, leveraging a 27.7% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Core Ultra 7 164U counters with 8 wins, dominated by a 29.6% advantage in floating-point math. The verdict splits cleanly: the Ryzen 3 210 is the choice for sustained multi-threaded workloads and single-thread responsiveness, while the Core Ultra 7 164U is the pick for math-heavy floating-point tasks and integer throughput, with its 9W TDP suggesting a power-lean design that the data does not contradict.

The Verdict

Buy the AMD Ryzen 3 210 if your priority is raw multi-core rendering or data compression. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 11198 beats the Intel Core Ultra 7 164U’s 8766 by a decisive 27.7%, and it wins PassMark multi-thread 13585 to 13296. The Ryzen also owns single-thread PassMark, scoring 3724 versus 2996, a 24.3% margin that makes it the snappier choice for lightly threaded applications. The Intel part’s only single-core win is Cinebench R23 single-core by a razor-thin 0.6% (1590 vs 1581), which is within noise.

Choose the Intel Core Ultra 7 164U for floating-point or integer math workloads. It crushes the Ryzen in PassMark floating-point math, 33581 to 23649 (29.6% ahead), and integer math, 50387 to 37933 (24.7% ahead). It also wins Cinebench R15 multi-core (1304 vs 1128) and single-core (225 vs 159), but those are older tests where Intel holds a 13.5% and 29.3% edge respectively. For users who run physics simulations or prime-number searches, the Intel part’s PassMark physics score of 918 and prime-number score of 56 beat the AMD’s 821 and 49.

The average benchmark scores tell a near-tie story: the Ryzen 3 210 averages 17321, and the Core Ultra 7 164U averages 17074, a 1.4% gap. Both sit at the 71st percentile, and their nearest rivals confirm parity. The Ryzen’s closest competitor is the AMD Ryzen 5 4500, which scores 17333, just 0.1% higher. The Intel’s nearest rival is the AMD EPYC 7573X at 17070, a 0.0% delta. If you need more multi-core rendering performance, take the AMD. If you need more math throughput per watt, the Intel’s 9W TDP versus the AMD’s 28W makes it the data-backed pick for thermally constrained systems.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Ryzen 3 210 uses Zen 4 architecture on a 4 nm TSMC process, packing 20,900 million transistors into a 137 mm² die. The Intel Core Ultra 7 164U uses Meteor Lake architecture on Intel’s 7 nm node. AMD configures its chip with 4 cores and 8 threads, while Intel offers 12 cores and 14 threads, a hybrid arrangement that explains the Intel’s higher core count but not its multi-core losses.

Cache hierarchies diverge sharply. The Ryzen 3 210 has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3. The Intel part has 112 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3. Despite having more cache per core and more total L3, the Intel loses multi-core tests, suggesting the AMD’s Zen 4 efficiency per core outweighs Intel’s cache advantage. The Intel’s base clock is listed as 1100.00 MHz, which is far lower than the AMD’s 3.00 GHz, but the Intel boosts to 4.80 GHz versus the AMD’s 4.70 GHz.

Memory support differs: both use DDR5 with dual-channel buses, but AMD lists 89.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth while Intel lists no bandwidth figure. PCIe connectivity also differs—AMD provides Gen 4 with 14 lanes (CPU only), while Intel provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics are distinct as well: the AMD has a Radeon 740M, and the Intel has an Arc Xe-LPG 64EU. Both are mobile segments, with the AMD on Socket FP7 and the Intel on BGA 2551. The Intel carries a launch MSRP of $448, while the AMD’s launch MSRP is not listed.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multi-core performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 210 wins Cinebench R23 multi-core with a score of 11198, which is 27.7% higher than the Intel Core Ultra 7 164U’s 8766. It also wins Cinebench R20 multi-core (4703 vs 4488) and PassMark multi-thread (13585 vs 13296).

Q: Does the Intel Core Ultra 7 164U beat the AMD in any math workloads?

A: Yes. The Intel wins PassMark floating-point math (33581 vs 23649, a 29.6% lead) and integer math (50387 vs 37933, a 24.7% lead). It also wins PassMark physics (918 vs 821) and prime-number finding (56 vs 49).

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 210 averages 17321, and the Intel Core Ultra 7 164U averages 17074. Both sit at the 71st percentile of all CPUs. The AMD’s nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen 5 4500 at 17333, while the Intel’s nearest rival is the AMD EPYC 7573X at 17070.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 7 164U has 12 cores and 14 threads, while the AMD Ryzen 3 210 has 4 cores and 8 threads. Despite having three times the cores, the Intel loses the Cinebench R23 multi-core test by 27.7%.

Q: What are the TDP differences?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 210 has a TDP of 28W, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 164U has a TDP of 9W. The Intel’s lower TDP suggests it is designed for more power-constrained environments.

Q: Which processor wins single-thread benchmarks?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 210 wins PassMark single-thread with 3724 versus the Intel’s 2996, a 24.3% lead. The Intel wins Cinebench R15 single-core (225 vs 159) and Cinebench R23 single-core (1590 vs 1581, a 0.6% margin), but the AMD wins Cinebench R20 single-core (664 vs 633).

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification field. The AMD Ryzen 3 210 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Core Ultra 7 164U has 12 cores and 14 threads. Base clocks are 3.00 GHz for the AMD and 1100.00 MHz for the Intel, with boost clocks of 4.70 GHz and 4.80 GHz respectively. TDP is 28W for the AMD and 9W for the Intel. The AMD uses Socket FP7; the Intel uses BGA 2551.

Architecture and process differ: AMD uses Zen 4 (Hawk Point) on a 4 nm TSMC process with 20,900 million transistors and a 137 mm² die. Intel uses Meteor Lake on a 7 nm Intel process with no listed transistor or die size. Cache differences are significant: AMD has 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 8 MB shared L3; Intel has 112 KB L1 per core, 2 MB L2 per core, and 12 MB shared L3. Memory bandwidth is listed as 89.6 GB/s for AMD but not for Intel, though both support dual-channel DDR5. PCIe lanes differ: AMD has Gen 4 with 14 lanes, Intel has Gen 4 with 8 lanes. Integrated graphics are Radeon 740M for AMD and Arc Xe-LPG 64EU for Intel. The Intel has a launch MSRP of $448; the AMD does not have a launch MSRP listed. Release dates differ as well, with the AMD released on 2025-01-05 and the Intel on 2023-12-13.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest win for the AMD Ryzen 3 210 comes in PassMark extended instructions, where it scores 11464 against the Intel’s 7918, a 44.8% margin. This is followed by a 28.6% win in PassMark random string sorting (19454 vs 15131) and the 27.7% Cinebench R23 multi-core victory. The AMD also takes PassMark single-thread by 24.3% (3724 vs 2996), data compression by 10.9% (152017 vs 137133), and Cinebench R20 single-core by 4.9% (664 vs 633). Smaller wins include Cinebench R20 multi-core at 4.8% (4703 vs 4488) and PassMark multi-thread at 2.2% (13585 vs 13296).

The Intel Core Ultra 7 164U’s biggest win is PassMark floating-point math at 29.6% (33581 vs 23649), followed by integer math at 24.7% (50387 vs 37933). It also wins Cinebench R15 single-core by 29.3% (225 vs 159) and Cinebench R15 multi-core by 13.5% (1304 vs 1128). Physics and prime-number tests go Intel’s way by 10.6% (918 vs 821) and 12.5% (56 vs 49) respectively. The Intel also edges data encryption by 2.6% (8838 vs 8607) and Cinebench R23 single-core by 0.6% (1590 vs 1581).

The overall tally is 9 wins for the AMD and 8 for the Intel. The AMD’s wins cluster in modern multi-core and single-thread tests, while the Intel’s wins concentrate in math throughput and legacy Cinebench R15 tests. The average benchmark scores reflect this split: AMD at 17321, Intel at 17074.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 3 210 is the clear winner for multi-core rendering and compression tasks. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 11198 beats the Intel by 27.7%, and it wins data compression by 10.9%. For users running video encoding, 3D rendering, or file archiving, the AMD’s 4-core Zen 4 design delivers more usable multi-threaded performance than the Intel’s 12-core hybrid arrangement. The AMD also wins PassMark multi-thread (13585 vs 13296) and takes single-thread PassMark by 24.3%, making it the better choice for general desktop responsiveness and single-threaded applications like web browsing or office suites. Extended instruction workloads also favor the AMD heavily, with a 44.8% lead in that benchmark.

The Intel Core Ultra 7 164U wins where math throughput is paramount. Its 29.6% lead in floating-point math and 24.7% lead in integer math make it the pick for scientific computing, financial modeling, or any workload that relies on heavy arithmetic. The Intel also wins physics simulations (918 vs 821) and prime-number searches (56 vs 49), which are classic floating-point and integer tasks. Its lower 9W TDP versus the AMD’s 28W suggests the Intel is better suited for fanless or ultra-thin designs where thermal headroom is minimal, even though the benchmark data does not directly measure power efficiency. The Intel’s wins in Cinebench R15 multi-core and single-core (by 13.5% and 29.3%) indicate it maintains an edge in older software that may not scale with the AMD’s newer architecture, but those tests are less relevant for modern workloads.

For users who need both multi-core rendering and math throughput, the data shows no single winner. The AMD wins 9 benchmarks, the Intel wins 8, and their average scores differ by just 1.4%. The decision rests on workload type: choose the AMD for rendering, compression, and general single-thread speed, or choose the Intel for floating-point math, integer math, and lower power consumption.