AMD Ryzen 3 30 vs Intel Core i5-11600K Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a decisive picture: the Intel Core i5-11600K wins all 11 head-to-head comparisons against the AMD Ryzen 3 30, with no benchmark going the other way. The largest margins appear in compute-heavy workloads. In PassMark extended instructions, the Intel part scores 17,615 versus 6,075 for the AMD chip, a 190% advantage. The same 190% delta appears in find prime numbers, where the Intel CPU posts 58 against 20. These are not marginal differences; they indicate a fundamental gap in raw computational throughput.

Floating-point math shows a similar story. The i5-11600K delivers 38,269 in PassMark floating point math, while the Ryzen 3 30 manages 14,448 — a 164.9% difference. Integer math is also lopsided: 64,664 versus 29,846, a 116.7% gap. PassMark multithreaded performance follows with 19,527 against 9,027, a 116.3% delta. Physics scores mirror this trend, with the Intel chip at 944 and the AMD at 436, a 116.5% difference.

Data-oriented tasks show smaller but still substantial gaps. Data compression favors the i5-11600K at 242,740 versus 135,834, a 78.7% lead. Random string sorting shows a 93.1% advantage, with scores of 27,870 and 14,431. Data encryption is closer in relative terms but still decisive: 12,212 versus 6,461, an 89% delta.

Single-thread performance narrows the gap considerably, though the Intel part still wins. In PassMark single-thread, the i5-11600K scores 3,344 against 2,465 for the Ryzen 3 30, a 35.7% advantage. This is the most competitive category in the entire comparison, yet it remains a clear win for Intel.

The average benchmark scores tell a nuanced story. The i5-11600K has an average score of 19,786, while the Ryzen 3 30 averages 20,137. Despite losing every head-to-head test, the AMD chip has a higher average score by 1.8%. This apparent contradiction stems from the different benchmark suites available for each processor — the Intel part has 25 recorded benchmarks, while the AMD part has only 11, covering a different mix of workloads. The Intel chip's percentile ranking of 73 versus the AMD's 74 also reflects this, with both sitting near the same tier overall.

# Where Each One Wins

The i5-11600K wins in every category where both processors have comparable benchmark data. For multi-threaded productivity, the 11600K's 6 cores and 12 threads outpace the Ryzen 3 30's 4 cores and 8 threads in every measured workload. PassMark multithread shows a 116.3% lead, and the data compression test reveals a 78.7% edge. These are workloads that scale with core count and thread count, and the Intel part simply has more of both.

For single-thread responsiveness, the 11600K also takes the win, albeit by a smaller margin. The 35.7% advantage in PassMark single-thread reflects the Intel chip's higher boost clock of 4.90 GHz versus the AMD's 4.10 GHz. This matters for everyday tasks that rely on per-core speed rather than parallel throughput.

The Ryzen 3 30 has no benchmark wins to claim. However, its profile suggests a different use case. With a TDP of 15 watts versus the Intel's 125 watts, the AMD chip is designed for power-constrained environments. The Ryzen 3 30 is a mobile processor on AMD Socket FT6, while the i5-11600K is a desktop chip on Intel Socket 1200. The data shows the Intel part is faster in every measured metric, but the AMD part operates in a completely different power envelope. For workloads that prioritize efficiency over absolute performance, the Ryzen 3 30's 6 nm process node and LPDDR5 memory support make it a viable option, though the benchmark data does not capture power efficiency directly.

The average benchmark score anomaly — where the Ryzen 3 30 scores higher than the i5-11600K despite losing every head-to-head test — suggests that the AMD chip's benchmark suite includes workloads not shared with the Intel part. This means the Ryzen 3 30 may have strengths in areas not covered by the common test set, but within the head-to-head comparisons, the i5-11600K is unambiguously superior.

# FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in single-threaded performance?

A: The Intel Core i5-11600K wins in PassMark single-thread with a score of 3,344 versus 2,465 for the AMD Ryzen 3 30, a 35.7% advantage.

Q: How large is the multi-threaded performance gap?

A: In PassMark multithread, the i5-11600K scores 19,527 against 9,027 for the Ryzen 3 30, representing a 116.3% lead for the Intel processor.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the AMD Ryzen 3 30 wins?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the Intel Core i5-11600K winning all 11 shared benchmarks, with zero wins for the AMD processor.

Q: Why does the AMD Ryzen 3 30 have a higher average benchmark score despite losing every head-to-head test?

A: The Ryzen 3 30 has an average score of 20,137 versus 19,786 for the i5-11600K. This is because each processor has a different set of benchmarks in its database — the Intel part has 25 entries while the AMD part has 11 — so the averages reflect different workload mixes.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth between the two?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 30 supports LPDDR5 with 88.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel Core i5-11600K supports DDR4 with 51.2 GB/s. The AMD chip has a 72% higher memory bandwidth figure.

Q: How do the processor's percentile rankings compare?

A: The Ryzen 3 30 ranks at the 74th percentile among all CPUs, while the i5-11600K ranks at the 73rd percentile. These are nearly identical, reflecting the fact that the AMD chip's average score is slightly higher.

# Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification category. The Intel Core i5-11600K has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the AMD Ryzen 3 30 has 4 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks are 3.90 GHz for the Intel part versus 2.40 GHz for the AMD part. Boost clocks are 4.90 GHz and 4.10 GHz, respectively. TDP is dramatically different: 125 watts for the Intel chip versus 15 watts for the AMD chip.

The sockets are incompatible: Intel Socket 1200 for the i5-11600K, AMD Socket FT6 for the Ryzen 3 30. Memory support also diverges, with the Intel part using DDR4 and the AMD part using LPDDR5. Memory bandwidth is 51.2 GB/s for Intel and 88.0 GB/s for AMD. PCIe support differs as well: the i5-11600K offers Gen 4 with 20 lanes, while the Ryzen 3 30 offers Gen 3 with 4 lanes.

Integrated graphics are present on both: UHD Graphics 750 on the Intel chip, Radeon 610M on the AMD chip. The market segments are different — the i5-11600K is a desktop part, while the Ryzen 3 30 is mobile. Production status also differs: the Intel chip is end-of-life, while the AMD chip is active. The Intel part has an unlocked multiplier; the AMD part does not. The launch MSRP for the Intel chip is $262; the AMD chip has no launch MSRP listed. Release dates are 2021-03-15 for Intel and 2025-09-30 for AMD.

# Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is substantial. The Intel Core i5-11600K uses Rocket Lake architecture on a 14 nm process node, fabricated by Intel. The die size is 276 mm². The AMD Ryzen 3 30 uses Zen 2 architecture on a 6 nm process node, fabricated by TSMC, with a die size of 100 mm². The AMD chip is built on a significantly smaller process node and has a much smaller die.

Cache hierarchies differ in size and organization. The Intel part has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD part has 64 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 4 MB of shared L3 cache. While the Intel chip has more L1 per core and more total L3, the AMD chip has twice the L2 per core.

The generation names reflect different lineages: the Intel chip is from Core i5 (Rocket Lake-S), while the AMD chip is from Ryzen 3 (Zen 2, Mendocino). The Intel part has a part number of SRKNU, while the AMD part's part number is listed as unknown. The Intel chip's 14 nm process with a 276 mm² die contrasts sharply with the AMD chip's 6 nm process and 100 mm² die, indicating very different manufacturing approaches and transistor density strategies. The AMD chip's smaller process node likely contributes to its much lower TDP of 15 watts, though the benchmark data does not directly measure power efficiency.