AMD Ryzen 3 30 vs AMD Ryzen AI 5 430 Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 3 30 and the AMD Ryzen AI 5 430 are both mobile processors built for thin-and-light laptops, but the benchmark data reveals two very different performance tiers. The Ryzen AI 5 430 secures an 11-to-0 sweep in the head-to-head tests, making it the clear choice for demanding workloads. The Ryzen 3 30, with its lower power envelope and older architecture, remains a functional option for basic tasks, but the recorded measurements show it trailing by significant margins across every category.

Where Each One Wins

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Ryzen AI 5 430 wins every single benchmark in the comparison. There are no tests where the Ryzen 3 30 takes the lead, so the use-case split is defined by how much performance the user needs rather than by specific workload strengths. The Ryzen AI 5 430 dominates in both single-threaded and multi-threaded operations, making it the appropriate pick for users who run productivity suites, compile code, or work with large spreadsheets. Its margin in the PassMark multi-thread test is substantial, with a score of 13320 compared to 9027 for the Ryzen 3 30, a 32.2% gap that translates to faster completion times for parallel tasks like video rendering or batch photo processing.

The Ryzen 3 30 does not win any category, but its profile suggests it can handle lighter duties without straining its 15 W thermal design power. Its data compression score of 135834 is respectable for everyday file archiving, and its floating-point math score of 14448 shows it can manage basic media work. The Ryzen AI 5 430, however, nearly doubles that floating-point result with 27193, so users who frequently touch image filters or scientific calculations should not settle for the slower part. The single-thread gap is equally telling: 3683 for the Ryzen AI 5 430 versus 2465 for the Ryzen 3 30, a 33.1% difference that affects responsiveness in everyday applications and browser-based workloads. For users who prioritize battery life over performance, the Ryzen 3 30's lower TDP of 15 W versus 28 W for the Ryzen AI 5 430 makes it the more efficient choice in theory, though the benchmark results do not include power consumption measurements.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design philosophies within AMD's mobile lineup. The Ryzen 3 30 is built on the Zen 2 architecture with the Mendocino codename, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. It features 4 cores and 8 threads with a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 4.10 GHz. The Ryzen AI 5 430, by contrast, uses the Gorgon Point codename with a Zen 5 / Zen 5c hybrid configuration, manufactured on a more advanced 4 nm process. It also has 4 cores and 8 threads, but its base clock is lower at 2.00 GHz while its boost clock reaches higher at 4.50 GHz. The higher boost ceiling on the Ryzen AI 5 430 explains its decisive single-thread advantage, as the architecture can push higher frequencies when workload demands it.

Cache configurations differ noticeably between the two. The Ryzen 3 30 offers 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a shared 4 MB L3 cache. The Ryzen AI 5 430 increases the per-core caches to 80 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2, while keeping the same 4 MB of L3. Doubling the L2 cache per core gives the Ryzen AI 5 430 a meaningful advantage in data-heavy workloads where the CPU can keep more working data close to the cores. The die size for the Ryzen 3 30 is listed as 100 mm², while the Ryzen AI 5 430 does not have a recorded die size in the database. The process node difference from 6 nm to 4 nm also contributes to the Ryzen AI 5 430's superior performance per watt potential, although the exact efficiency figures are not part of the recorded data.

Memory support further separates the two. The Ryzen 3 30 pairs with LPDDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, delivering 88.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Ryzen AI 5 430 supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X in dual-channel mode, with a slightly higher bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The Ryzen AI 5 430 also supports ECC memory, a feature absent from the Ryzen 3 30. PCIe connectivity differs as well: the Ryzen 3 30 provides Gen 3 with 4 lanes from the CPU, while the Ryzen AI 5 430 offers Gen 4 with 14 lanes. The extra PCIe lanes and newer generation on the Ryzen AI 5 430 allow for faster NVMe storage and more expansion options in capable laptops. Integrated graphics differ too, with the Ryzen 3 30 carrying a Radeon 610M and the Ryzen AI 5 430 featuring a Radeon 840M, though the database does not include graphics benchmark scores for either.

The Verdict

The recorded data leads to a straightforward conclusion: the AMD Ryzen AI 5 430 is the superior processor by every measurable metric. It wins all 11 head-to-head tests, with margins ranging from 13.2% in random string sorting to 54.5% in prime number finding. The average benchmark score reflects this dominance, with the Ryzen AI 5 430 posting 19617 against 20137 for the Ryzen 3 30, a curious inversion given the head-to-head sweep. That inversion occurs because the Ryzen 3 30's average is buoyed by its PassMark data compression score, while the Ryzen AI 5 430's average includes lower Cinebench scores that do not appear in the head-to-head list. The percentile rankings are close, 74th for the Ryzen 3 30 and 73rd for the Ryzen AI 5 430, which places both in the same general performance class among all CPUs in the database.

The Ryzen AI 5 430 is the pick for anyone who needs real processing power in a mobile form factor. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 8130 and single-core score of 1797 demonstrate strong capability for both parallel and latency-sensitive tasks. The Ryzen 3 30 has no such Cinebench entries in the database, so its rendering performance cannot be compared directly, but the PassMark data shows it would fall well short. Users who primarily browse the web, edit documents, and stream video could make do with the Ryzen 3 30, especially if the 15 W TDP leads to longer battery life in a thin chassis. The Ryzen AI 5 430, with its 28 W TDP, demands more power but delivers 32.2% more multi-thread performance and 33.1% more single-thread performance in the PassMark suite. For a benchmark-driven recommendation, the Ryzen AI 5 430 is the default choice, and the Ryzen 3 30 only makes sense when the lower power draw is a priority and the performance deficit is acceptable.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The AMD Ryzen AI 5 430 boosts to 4.50 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen 3 30 reaches 4.10 GHz.

Q: How much faster is the Ryzen AI 5 430 in single-threaded performance?

A: The Ryzen AI 5 430 scores 3683 in the PassMark single-thread test, which is 33.1% faster than the Ryzen 3 30's 2465.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Ryzen AI 5 430 supports ECC memory, but the Ryzen 3 30 does not.

Q: What are the process nodes for these two CPUs?

A: The Ryzen 3 30 is built on a 6 nm process, while the Ryzen AI 5 430 uses a 4 nm process, both from TSMC.

Q: Which CPU has more L3 cache?

A: Both processors have 4 MB of L3 cache. The Ryzen AI 5 430 has larger L1 and L2 caches per core, with 80 KB and 1 MB respectively, compared to 64 KB and 512 KB for the Ryzen 3 30.

Q: How does the Ryzen AI 5 430 compare to the Ryzen 5 5500 in average score?

A: The Ryzen AI 5 430 has an average benchmark score of 19617, which is 0.1% higher than the AMD Ryzen 5 5500's 19593.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results show a consistent pattern of Ryzen AI 5 430 superiority, but the margins vary widely by workload. The largest gap appears in the prime number finding test, where the Ryzen AI 5 430 scores 44 against 20 for the Ryzen 3 30, a 54.5% difference. This test relies heavily on integer execution and branch prediction, areas where the Zen 5 architecture in the Ryzen AI 5 430 clearly outperforms the older Zen 2 design. The extended instructions test shows a 47% gap, with the Ryzen AI 5 430 scoring 11455 versus 6075, indicating large improvements in SIMD and cryptographic instruction handling. Floating-point math follows closely with a 46.9% margin, scoring 27193 against 14448, which matters for scientific computing and any workload that uses heavy mathematical operations.

The physics test, which simulates rigid body dynamics, shows the Ryzen AI 5 430 at 726 versus 436, a 39.9% advantage. This test benefits from both high single-thread performance and efficient multi-core scaling. The multi-thread test itself shows a 32.2% gap, with scores of 13320 and 9027 respectively. Single-thread performance, measured at 3683 against 2465, shows a 33.1% difference, confirming that the Ryzen AI 5 430's higher boost clock and newer architecture provide meaningful gains in latency-sensitive tasks. Integer math shows a 24.7% gap, with 39637 versus 29846, a smaller but still substantial margin. Data encryption shows a 14.9% difference, with 7591 against 6461. Data compression, the smallest margin in the suite, shows the Ryzen AI 5 430 at 158912 versus 135834, a 14.5% gap that still favors the newer part. Random string sorting completes the sweep with a 13.2% margin, scoring 16623 against 14431.

The Ryzen 3 30's nearest rivals in the database include the Intel Core Ultra 7 165U with an average score of 20249 and a delta of -0.6%, the AMD EPYC 7713P at 20024 with a 0.6% delta, the Intel Core i7-9700K at 20271 with a -0.7% delta, and the Intel Core i7-11800H at 19998 with a 0.7% delta. These close margins place the Ryzen 3 30 in a competitive position against those desktop and mobile parts from previous generations. The Ryzen AI 5 430, meanwhile, sits near the AMD Ryzen 5 5500 at 19593 with a 0.1% delta, the Intel Core i5-12500 at 19668 with a -0.3% delta, the Intel Core i5-11600KF at 19723 with a -0.5% delta, and the Intel Core i7-10700F at 19499 with a 0.6% delta. The benchmark results indicate that the Ryzen AI 5 430 competes with desktop processors from a few generations back despite being a mobile chip, while the Ryzen 3 30 aligns with mid-range parts from the same era. The data supports a clear hierarchy: the Ryzen AI 5 430 is the stronger performer across the board, and the Ryzen 3 30 serves as a lower-power alternative for less demanding use cases.