AMD Ryzen 3 30 vs Intel Core 7 251E Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a deeply one-sided comparison, but with an unusual caveat: the AMD Ryzen 3 30 has a full benchmark suite, while the Intel Core 7 251E has no recorded benchmark scores in the database. The head-to-head benchmark table is empty, and the win counts for both processors stand at zero. This means the quantitative comparison rests entirely on the AMD side, with the Intel part's performance profile remaining unmeasured.

The AMD Ryzen 3 30 delivers a multithread score of 9027 in the PassMark suite. Its single-thread score is 2465, reported twice in the database under slightly different test labels. Integer math performance reaches 29846, while floating point math is lower at 14448. Data compression scores 135834, which is the highest single result recorded for this chip. Data encryption hits 6461, extended instructions reach 6075, random string sorting finishes at 14431, and prime number finding returns 20. Physics simulation scores 436.

The average benchmark score for the Ryzen 3 30 is 20137. That places it at the 74th percentile among all CPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core Ultra 7 165U with an average score of 20249, which is 0.6% higher than the Ryzen part. The AMD EPYC 7713P averages 20024, 0.6% lower. The Intel Core i7-9700K averages 20271, 0.7% higher, and the Intel Core i7-11800H averages 19998, 0.7% lower. The Ryzen 3 30 sits effectively in the middle of this cluster, within a single percentage point of all four rivals.

The Intel Core 7 251E, by contrast, has no benchmark scores recorded. Its average benchmark score is 0, and its percentile ranking is 50. The database contains no nearest rival data for it, and its head-to-head results are empty. This is not a statement about its actual capability; it is a statement about data availability. The Ryzen 3 30 has a measurable performance profile, while the Intel part does not.

What can be said with numbers is limited to the AMD side. The Ryzen 3 30's multithread score of 9027 is its most direct throughput indicator. The single-thread score of 2465 shows modest per-core performance. The data compression result of 135834 dominates its other integer workloads, suggesting strong memory or cache behavior in that specific test. The prime number score of 20 is exceptionally low, which reflects the test's sensitivity to the chip's architecture rather than a general weakness.

Because the Intel Core 7 251E has no scores, no delta percentages exist between the two parts. The database cannot confirm whether the Intel chip would outperform the AMD chip, match it, or fall behind. The largest measurable wins in this comparison belong exclusively to the Ryzen 3 30, but only because it is the only participant with recorded data.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear but unusual verdict: the AMD Ryzen 3 30 is the only processor in this comparison with a measurable performance record. Any user relying on benchmark results would find the Ryzen 3 30 to be the verifiable option. Its 74th percentile standing among all CPUs, combined with an average score of 20137, puts it in respectable company. The nearest rival data confirms it trades blows with the Intel Core Ultra 7 165U, the AMD EPYC 7713P, the Intel Core i7-9700K, and the Intel Core i7-11800H, all within 0.7% of its average score.

The Intel Core 7 251E offers no benchmark evidence in the database. Its percentile of 50 is a default value, not a measured ranking. Its average score of 0 is an absence of data. For a user who demands measured outcomes, the Ryzen 3 30 is the only choice that can be supported by numbers.

For a user who prioritizes the Intel part's specifications, the Core 7 251E does have structural advantages on paper. It uses 24 cores and 32 threads, a 65 W TDP, a 5.60 GHz boost clock, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. These are substantial figures. But the database contains no test results to confirm how those specifications translate into performance. The verdict from the recorded data is that the Ryzen 3 30 wins by default in every measurable category, while the Intel part remains an unverified contender.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 30 has an average benchmark score of 20137. The Intel Core 7 251E has an average benchmark score of 0, meaning no benchmark results are recorded for it.

Q: How does the AMD Ryzen 3 30 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Ryzen 3 30 sits within 0.7% of four rivals. The Intel Core Ultra 7 165U is 0.6% higher, the Intel Core i7-9700K is 0.7% higher, the AMD EPYC 7713P is 0.6% lower, and the Intel Core i7-11800H is 0.7% lower.

Q: What is the multithread performance of the AMD Ryzen 3 30?

A: The Ryzen 3 30 scores 9027 in the PassMark multithread test. Its single-thread score is 2465.

Q: Does the Intel Core 7 251E have any recorded benchmark results?

A: No. The database lists no benchmarks for the Intel Core 7 251E, and its average benchmark score is 0.

Q: What is the percentile ranking for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 30 ranks at the 74th percentile among all CPUs. The Intel Core 7 251E is at the 50th percentile, which is a default value rather than a measured result.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core 7 251E has a boost clock of 5.60 GHz, compared to 4.10 GHz for the AMD Ryzen 3 30.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification field. The AMD Ryzen 3 30 uses 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Core 7 251E uses 24 cores and 32 threads. Base clocks are close: 2.40 GHz for the AMD part and 2.10 GHz for the Intel part. Boost clocks diverge significantly, with the Intel chip reaching 5.60 GHz against the AMD chip's 4.10 GHz. The TDP also differs sharply: 15 W for the Ryzen 3 30 and 65 W for the Core 7 251E.

The AMD processor uses AMD Socket FT6, while the Intel processor uses Intel Socket 1700. Memory support differs as well: the Ryzen 3 30 supports LPDDR5, while the Core 7 251E supports both DDR4 and DDR5. Memory bandwidth is nearly identical, with 88.0 GB/s on the AMD side and 89.6 GB/s on the Intel side. ECC memory support is absent on the AMD chip and present on the Intel chip.

PCIe connectivity is a major split. The Ryzen 3 30 offers PCIe Gen 3 with 4 lanes, while the Core 7 251E offers PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes. The integrated graphics differ: the AMD part uses Radeon 610M, and the Intel part uses UHD Graphics 770. The market segment also differs, with the Ryzen 3 30 listed as Mobile and the Core 7 251E listed as Desktop. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $384. The multiplier is locked on both processors. The Intel part has a part number of SRQDUQ657, while the AMD part's part number is listed as unknown. The release dates differ by several months, with the Intel part released in January and the AMD part in September.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between the two chips is substantial. The AMD Ryzen 3 30 uses the Zen 2 architecture under the Mendocino codename, built on a 6 nm process at TSMC. Its die size is 100 mm². The Intel Core 7 251E uses the Bartlett Lake codename, built on a 10 nm process at Intel, with a die size of 257 mm². The AMD chip's generation is listed as Ryzen 3 (Zen 2, Mendocino), while the Intel chip's generation is Core 7 (Bartlett Lake).

Cache configurations are very different. The Ryzen 3 30 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 cache per core, and 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Core 7 251E has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of L2 cache per core, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part's L3 cache is nine times larger on paper. The AMD part has no listed architecture field, while the Intel part also has no explicit architecture field, but the codename and generation data provide the relevant context.

The foundry split is notable: AMD uses TSMC, while Intel uses its own foundry. The process node difference (6 nm versus 10 nm) gives the AMD chip a density advantage in theory, though the Intel chip compensates with far more cores and a much larger die. The Ryzen 3 30's smaller cache and lower core count reflect its mobile-oriented design. The Core 7 251E's larger cache and core count reflect its desktop positioning.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 3 30 wins in every category where the database has recorded results. Its measurable strengths include a 9027 multithread score, a 2465 single-thread score, and an average benchmark score of 20137. It also wins on efficiency indicators, with a 15 W TDP, a 6 nm process node, and a 100 mm² die size. Its 74th percentile ranking is a verified position. For workloads involving data compression, its 135834 score is the standout result. Integer math at 29846 and floating point math at 14448 round out a solid general-purpose profile. Random string sorting at 14431 and extended instructions at 6075 add further evidence of balanced capability.

The Intel Core 7 251E wins on specification-based categories. It has more cores, more threads, a higher boost clock, a larger L3 cache, PCIe Gen 5 with 16 lanes, and ECC memory support. Its TDP of 65 W indicates a higher power envelope, which typically supports sustained high-load operation. Its 36 MB of L3 cache and 2 MB per-core L2 cache suggest strong cache behavior for data-heavy workloads. Its 5.60 GHz boost clock is the highest single clock figure in this comparison. The Intel part also supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, giving it broader platform compatibility. Its UHD Graphics 770 is the integrated graphics option, and its desktop market segment suggests it is designed for stationary builds.

The practical split is straightforward. The Ryzen 3 30 is the verified performer for anyone who needs measured results. The Core 7 251E is the unverified specification leader for anyone who trusts architectural advantages over benchmark data. The database currently contains no evidence to resolve that tension. The Ryzen 3 30 wins on data availability, percentile ranking, and every recorded workload. The Core 7 251E wins on paper specifications, core count, cache size, and platform features. Without benchmark results for the Intel part, the performance comparison remains incomplete.