AMD Ryzen 3 3100 vs Intel Core i3-9350KF Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data presents a lopsided contest, with the AMD Ryzen 3 3100 taking three of the four head-to-head benchmark wins. The most dramatic margin appears in Cinebench R15 multicore, where the AMD part scores 991 against the Intel Core i3-9350KF's 640, a gap of 35.4% in AMD's favor. This is not a marginal lead; it is a substantial multi-threaded advantage that suggests the Ryzen 3 3100 handles heavily threaded workloads with considerably more ease.

The single-core Cinebench R15 result is even more striking in relative terms. The Ryzen 3 3100 records 178 points, while the Intel chip manages only 90, giving AMD a 49.4% lead. This is counterintuitive at first glance, given that the Intel part has a higher boost clock. The data does not explain the reason, but the sheer size of the delta implies a fundamental efficiency gap in how each architecture executes this specific workload. The Intel chip's 4.60 GHz boost clock does not translate into a win here, which raises questions about IPC (instructions per clock) and thermal behavior under short bursts.

Geekbench multicore follows the same pattern: AMD wins 4898 to 4098, a 16.3% margin. This is a more moderate difference than the Cinebench R15 multicore result, but it still reinforces the narrative that the Ryzen 3 3100 is the stronger all-core performer. The Intel chip does not manage a single multicore victory across the head-to-head suite.

The one bright spot for Intel appears in Geekbench single-core, where the Core i3-9350KF scores 1534 against the Ryzen's 1395, a 10% advantage. This is the only test where the higher clock speeds and Coffee Lake architecture translate into a measurable win. The data suggests that in lightly threaded, latency-sensitive tasks, the Intel part retains a meaningful edge, even though the Cinebench R15 single-core result contradicts that trend. The inconsistency between the two single-core tests is worth noting, as it implies workload-specific behaviors rather than a blanket single-thread superiority for either chip.

Looking at the overall average benchmark scores, the two processors are remarkably close: the Intel part averages 2082, while the AMD part averages 2055. The Intel chip sits in the 46th percentile of all CPUs, and the AMD chip also sits in the 46th percentile. The nearest rivals for the Intel part include the Intel Xeon W-2123 (0.2% ahead), the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2544 (0.2% behind), and the AMD Ryzen 7 1700X (0.6% behind). For the AMD part, rivals include the Intel Core i7-8705G (0.1% behind), the Intel Core i3-10105T (0.1% behind), and the AMD Ryzen 5 3400G (0.2% behind). These deltas are tiny, indicating that both chips occupy a very crowded performance tier, but the head-to-head results show that the Ryzen 3 3100 is the clear winner within this specific pairing.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Core i3-9350KF uses the Coffee Lake architecture, built on Intel's 14 nm process node. The AMD Ryzen 3 3100 uses the Zen 2 architecture, built on TSMC's 7 nm process. The node difference is significant: 14 nm versus 7 nm, which historically correlates with efficiency and transistor density. The Intel die measures 126 mm², while the AMD die is just 74 mm², and the AMD chip contains 3,800 million transistors, a figure not listed for Intel. This density advantage likely contributes to the AMD chip's performance characteristics.

Core and thread counts differ in a way that directly impacts multi-threaded results. Both have 4 physical cores, but the Intel part supports only 4 threads (one per core), while the AMD part supports 8 threads (two per core via simultaneous multithreading). This doubling of thread count is the most obvious explanation for the AMD chip's multicore wins, though the Cinebench R15 single-core result suggests that threading alone does not account for all the performance gap.

Cache hierarchies also differ substantially. The Intel part has 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3. The AMD part has the same 64 KB L1 per core, but doubles the L2 to 512 KB per core and the L3 to 16 MB shared. The larger cache pool on the AMD side likely helps with data reuse and reduces memory traffic, which could explain some of the performance advantages in multi-threaded workloads.

Memory bandwidth favors AMD as well. The Intel chip lists 38.4 GB/s, while the AMD chip lists 51.2 GB/s, both on dual-channel DDR4. This is a 33% bandwidth advantage for AMD, which can matter in memory-intensive applications. ECC memory support also differs: the Intel part supports ECC, while the AMD part does not, a feature that may matter for specific professional use cases.

PCIe connectivity is a clear generation gap. The Intel part offers Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the AMD part offers Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only). Gen 4 doubles the bandwidth per lane, which is relevant for future storage and GPU expansion. The AMD part also has an unlocked multiplier, while the Intel part does not, meaning the Ryzen 3 3100 can be overclocked more freely, assuming adequate cooling.

The process node and foundry differences are stark: Intel uses its own 14 nm process, while AMD uses TSMC's 7 nm process. The smaller node typically enables higher transistor density and better power efficiency. The TDP figures reflect this: the Intel part draws 91 W, while the AMD part draws 65 W. The lower power draw of the AMD chip, combined with its higher performance in most benchmarks, suggests a significant efficiency advantage, though the database does not provide direct power measurements.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for most users: the AMD Ryzen 3 3100. It wins three of the four head-to-head benchmarks, including both multicore tests and the Cinebench R15 single-core test. The margins are often large, with a 35.4% lead in Cinebench R15 multicore and a 49.4% lead in Cinebench R15 single-core. The Geekbench multicore win of 16.3% further cements its position. The AMD part also offers a lower TDP (65 W versus 91 W), a smaller die, and a more advanced 7 nm process node.

The Intel Core i3-9350KF's only win is Geekbench single-core, with a 10% margin. This is a real advantage, but it is limited to a single test. The Intel part also has a higher boost clock (4.60 GHz versus 3.90 GHz) and supports ECC memory, which the AMD part does not. For users who prioritize ECC support or who run specific single-threaded applications that favor the Intel architecture, the Core i3-9350KF may still be worth considering.

However, the overall average benchmark scores are nearly identical (2082 versus 2055), and both parts sit in the same 46th percentile. This means that the two chips are broadly comparable in aggregate performance, but the Ryzen 3 3100 delivers its performance more consistently across the tested workloads. The Intel part's higher clock speed does not translate into a dominant single-thread performance across all tests, which is a notable finding.

Given the data, the Ryzen 3 3100 is the recommended choice for users who value multi-threaded performance, lower power draw, and modern platform features like PCIe Gen 4. The Intel part is the choice for users who need ECC memory support or who have workloads that specifically benefit from its Geekbench single-core lead. The database does not provide pricing context beyond launch MSRP (stated once here: Intel at $173, AMD at $99), but the performance data alone makes the AMD part the stronger all-rounder.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU wins in multi-threaded workloads?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 3100 wins all multicore head-to-head tests. It scores 991 versus 640 in Cinebench R15 multicore (a 35.4% lead) and 4898 versus 4098 in Geekbench multicore (a 16.3% lead).

Q: Which CPU has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i3-9350KF has a boost clock of 4.60 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen 3 3100 has a boost clock of 3.90 GHz. Despite this, the AMD chip wins the Cinebench R15 single-core test.

Q: Do both CPUs have the same number of cores?

A: Yes, both have 4 physical cores. However, the Intel part supports 4 threads, while the AMD part supports 8 threads, which contributes to the AMD chip's multi-threaded advantage.

Q: Which CPU supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Core i3-9350KF supports ECC memory, while the AMD Ryzen 3 3100 does not.

Q: What is the process node difference?

A: The Intel part uses a 14 nm process node, while the AMD part uses a 7 nm process node. The AMD chip also has a smaller die (74 mm² versus 126 mm²) and contains 3,800 million transistors (not listed for Intel).

Q: Which CPU has a higher memory bandwidth rating?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 3100 lists 51.2 GB/s, while the Intel Core i3-9350KF lists 38.4 GB/s, both on dual-channel DDR4.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 3 3100 is the clear winner in multi-threaded scenarios. Its 8 threads, larger cache (16 MB L3 versus 8 MB), and higher memory bandwidth (51.2 GB/s versus 38.4 GB/s) make it the better choice for video rendering, compilation, streaming, and any workload that scales with thread count. The Cinebench R15 multicore result (991 versus 640) and Geekbench multicore result (4898 versus 4098) both support this conclusion. The AMD part also wins the Cinebench R15 single-core test (178 versus 90), which suggests that even in some lightly threaded tasks, the Zen 2 architecture is more efficient.

The Intel Core i3-9350KF wins in the Geekbench single-core test (1534 versus 1395), a 10% margin. This indicates that for certain latency-sensitive applications, such as legacy games or specific scientific software that relies on high single-thread performance, the Intel chip may offer a smoother experience. The Intel part also has the advantage of ECC memory support, which is a requirement for some workstation and server environments, and it has a higher boost clock (4.60 GHz), which could help in bursty workloads that respond to clock speed.

The Intel part is also the only one of the two with a production status that is end-of-life, while the AMD part is listed as active. This could matter for platform longevity and availability, though the database does not provide further details on that front.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i3-9350KF | AMD Ryzen 3 3100 |

|----------------|----------------------|------------------|

| Threads | 4 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 4.00 GHz | 3.60 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.60 GHz | 3.90 GHz |

| TDP | 91 W | 65 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1151 | AMD Socket AM4 |

| Architecture | Coffee Lake | Zen 2 |

| Codename | Coffee Lake | Matisse |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 7 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| Die Size | 126 mm² | 74 mm² |

| Transistors | Not listed | 3,800 million |

| L2 Cache | 256 KB (per core) | 512 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 8 MB (shared) | 16 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 38.4 GB/s | 51.2 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 4, 16 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Launch MSRP | $173 | $99 |