AMD Ryzen 3 210 vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285 Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 3 210 and the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 occupy opposite ends of the performance spectrum. The benchmark data shows a dominant result for the Intel part across every single recorded test. The Core Ultra 9 285 wins all 17 head-to-head comparisons. The Ryzen 3 210 does not secure a single win. The average benchmark score for the Ryzen 3 210 is 17,321, while the Core Ultra 9 285 posts an average of 75,488. The Intel processor sits in the 95th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the AMD chip is in the 71st percentile. This gap in overall standing is reflected in the individual workload results.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive advantage for the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 appears in the PassMark find prime numbers test. The Intel chip scores 459, while the AMD Ryzen 3 210 scores 49. The recorded delta is -89.3%, meaning the AMD processor trails by that margin. This is the largest percentage gap in the entire comparison. Floating point math also shows a massive separation. The Core Ultra 9 285 delivers 194,988, against 23,649 for the Ryzen 3 210, a delta of -87.9%. These two workloads, which stress raw arithmetic throughput and iterative calculation, expose the core count difference between the two parts.

The data encryption test shows the Intel chip at 46,949 versus 8,607 for the AMD part, a delta of -81.7%. This is the second-largest margin after the prime number test. Extended instructions follow a similar pattern, with the Intel part scoring 45,357 and the AMD part scoring 11,464, a delta of -74.7%. The random string sorting test produces a score of 73,651 for the Intel chip and 19,454 for the AMD chip, a delta of -73.6%. Data compression shows 602,121 for the Intel part and 152,017 for the AMD part, a delta of -74.8%. These workloads all rely heavily on multi-threaded execution and memory bandwidth, areas where the Intel part has a clear structural advantage.

The Cinebench suite confirms the pattern. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core Ultra 9 285 scores 48,945, while the Ryzen 3 210 scores 11,198. The delta is -77.1%. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 20,556 for the Intel part and 4,703 for the AMD part, also a delta of -77.1%. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows 4,933 versus 1,128, again a delta of -77.1%. The consistency of this exact percentage across all three multi-core Cinebench versions indicates a fixed ratio in the underlying performance scaling.

Single-core results are closer, but the Intel part still wins clearly. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Intel chip scores 6,909, and the AMD chip scores 1,581, a delta of -77.1%. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 2,901 versus 664, a delta of -77.1%. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 696 versus 159, a delta of -77.2%. The PassMark single-thread test shows a much narrower gap. The Intel part scores 4,881, and the AMD part scores 3,724, a delta of -23.7%. This is the smallest margin in the entire comparison. The single-thread result indicates that the AMD Zen 4 core is competitive in basic single-core throughput, but the Cinebench single-core scores suggest the Intel core has a much higher peak capability under that specific rendering workload.

The PassMark integer math test shows the Intel part at 164,869 and the AMD part at 37,933, a delta of -77%. The PassMark multi-thread test shows 56,602 versus 13,585, a delta of -76%. The PassMark physics test shows 3,598 versus 821, a delta of -77.2%. The nearest rivals in the database confirm the positioning. The Ryzen 3 210 sits within 0.5% of the AMD Ryzen 5 4500, the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G, the Intel Core 7 150U, and the Intel Core i5-12450H. The Core Ultra 9 285 sits within 0.3% of the AMD EPYC 8224P, the AMD EPYC 4545P, the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D, and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755. The Intel part competes with server-class and high-end workstation chips, while the AMD part competes with mid-range mobile and desktop processors.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 in multi-core rendering compared to the AMD Ryzen 3 210?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Intel part scores 48,945 against 11,198 for the AMD part. The delta is -77.1%, meaning the AMD processor trails by 77.1%. The same percentage gap appears in Cinebench R20 multi-core (20,556 versus 4,703) and Cinebench R15 multi-core (4,933 versus 1,128).

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

A: The PassMark single-thread test shows the smallest gap. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 scores 4,881, and the AMD Ryzen 3 210 scores 3,724. The delta is -23.7%. All other tests show a delta of at least -73.6%.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has an average benchmark score of 75,488. The AMD Ryzen 3 210 has an average benchmark score of 17,321. The Intel part is in the 95th percentile of all CPUs, while the AMD part is in the 71st percentile.

Q: How do the two processors compare in the data compression workload?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 scores 602,121 in the PassMark data compression test. The AMD Ryzen 3 210 scores 152,017. The delta is -74.8%.

Q: Which processor performs better in the PassMark physics test?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 scores 3,598 in the PassMark physics test. The AMD Ryzen 3 210 scores 821. The delta is -77.2%.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each processor in the database?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 210 has an average score of 17,321, with the AMD Ryzen 5 4500 at 17,333 (delta -0.1%), the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G at 17,278 (delta 0.2%), the Intel Core 7 150U at 17,395 (delta -0.4%), and the Intel Core i5-12450H at 17,239 (delta 0.5%). The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has an average score of 75,488, with the AMD EPYC 8224P at 75,582 (delta -0.1%), the AMD EPYC 4545P at 75,373 (delta 0.2%), the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D at 75,716 (delta -0.3%), and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755 at 75,738 (delta -0.3%).

Architecture Differences

The AMD Ryzen 3 210 uses the Zen 4 architecture under the codename Hawk Point. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 uses the Arrow Lake architecture under the codename Arrow Lake-S. The AMD part is built on a 4 nm process node at TSMC, while the Intel part is built on a 3 nm process node, also at TSMC. The AMD chip integrates 20,900 million transistors on a die size of 137 mm². The Intel chip integrates 17,800 million transistors on a die size of 243 mm². The AMD part has fewer transistors but a much smaller die, resulting in a higher transistor density.

The core configurations are fundamentally different. The AMD Ryzen 3 210 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has 24 cores and 24 threads. The Intel part does not use simultaneous multi-threading, so its thread count equals its core count. The AMD part uses SMT, doubling its thread count from 4 to 8. The cache hierarchy differs substantially. The AMD part has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part has 192 KB of L1 per core, 3 MB of L2 per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache.

Both processors support DDR5 memory with a dual-channel memory bus. The memory bandwidth differs, with the Intel part rated at 102.4 GB/s and the AMD part rated at 89.6 GB/s. The Intel part supports ECC memory, while the AMD part does not. PCIe connectivity also differs. The AMD part uses PCIe Gen 4 with 14 lanes (CPU only). The Intel part uses PCIe Gen 5 with 20 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics differ as well. The AMD part uses the Radeon 740M, while the Intel part uses the Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU.

The market segments differ. The AMD Ryzen 3 210 is a mobile processor on the AMD Socket FP7. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 is a desktop processor on the Intel Socket 1851. The production status for both is active. The release dates are close, with the AMD part released on 2025-01-05 and the Intel part released on 2024-12-31. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $579.

Specification Differences

The base clock of the AMD Ryzen 3 210 is 3.00 GHz, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285 has a base clock of 2.50 GHz. The boost clock reverses this relationship, with the AMD part reaching 4.70 GHz and the Intel part reaching 5.60 GHz. The thermal design power differs significantly. The AMD part is rated at 28 W, while the Intel part is rated at 65 W. The core count is 4 versus 24. The thread count is 8 versus 24. The L3 cache is 8 MB shared versus 36 MB shared. The L2 cache is 1 MB per core versus 3 MB per core. The L1 cache is 64 KB per core versus 192 KB per core. The process node is 4 nm versus 3 nm. The transistor count is 20,900 million versus 17,800 million. The die size is 137 mm² versus 243 mm². Memory bandwidth is 89.6 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s. ECC support is absent on the AMD part, present on the Intel part. PCIe generation is Gen 4 versus Gen 5, with lane counts of 14 versus 20. The socket is AMD Socket FP7 versus Intel Socket 1851. The market segment is Mobile versus Desktop. The part numbers are 100-000001612 for the AMD chip and SRQD4 for the Intel chip.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285 wins every benchmark in the recorded data. The strongest margins are in prime number calculation (-89.3%), floating point math (-87.9%), and data encryption (-81.7%). These are heavily multi-threaded workloads that scale with core count and memory bandwidth. The Intel part also wins all Cinebench tests, both multi-core and single-core, with deltas around -77.1%. The PassMark single-thread test is the only area where the AMD part approaches parity, with a delta of -23.7%. This suggests the AMD Zen 4 core is reasonably efficient in basic single-threaded integer work, but the Intel core still holds a substantial lead.

The AMD Ryzen 3 210 has no benchmark wins, but its profile suggests a different role. It is a mobile processor with a 28 W TDP, while the Intel part is a desktop processor with a 65 W TDP. The AMD part uses 4 nm process technology and has a smaller die at 137 mm². The Intel part uses 3 nm process technology and has a larger die at 243 mm². The AMD part integrates its memory controller and graphics into a compact package for the Socket FP7. The Intel part targets desktop workloads where power and die size are less constrained.

The average benchmark score places the AMD part among mid-range chips. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 4500, the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G, the Intel Core 7 150U, and the Intel Core i5-12450H. All of these sit within 0.5% of its average score of 17,321. The Intel part sits among server and workstation parts, with the AMD EPYC 8224P, the AMD EPYC 4545P, the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755X3D, and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 9755 as its nearest rivals. All of these sit within 0.3% of its average score of 75,488. The percentile rankings confirm the separation: 71st percentile for the AMD part, 95th percentile for the Intel part. For workloads that demand maximum multi-threaded throughput, encryption, compression, or rendering, the Intel part is the clear choice. The AMD part is positioned for low-power mobile use where the 28 W TDP and integrated Radeon 740M graphics are the primary considerations.