AMD Ryzen 3 3100U vs AMD Ryzen 7 8700F Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data leaves no ambiguity: the AMD Ryzen 7 8700F wins all 11 head-to-head benchmark comparisons against the AMD Ryzen 3 3100U. The largest margins appear in the most compute-heavy workloads. In PassMark extended instructions, the 8700F scores 28,474 against the 3100U's 2,116, a delta of -92.6% (read as the 3100U trailing by that amount). Integer math shows a similar story: 100,371 versus 8,873, a -91.2% difference. Floating point math lands at 62,629 versus 5,854, a -90.7% gap. These are not marginal improvements; they represent roughly an order of magnitude difference in raw throughput.

Data compression and encryption follow the same pattern. The 8700F completes PassMark data compression at 378,160 versus 38,455, a -89.8% delta. Encryption shows 22,117 versus 1,972, a -91.1% delta. Random string sorting, a memory-latency-sensitive task, gives 45,425 versus 4,666, a -89.7% delta. The single-thread gap is the smallest of all measured deltas, but still substantial: 3,872 versus 1,592, a -58.9% difference. This indicates that even on a per-core basis, the newer architecture holds a decisive lead, not merely a core-count advantage.

Multithreaded performance amplifies the core-count disparity. PassMark multithread scores 30,893 for the 8700F versus 3,348 for the 3100U, a -89.2% delta. Physics simulation, which scales heavily with thread count, gives 1,553 versus 232, a -85.1% delta. Prime number finding, another parallel-friendly test, shows 98 versus 18, a -81.6% delta. The 8700F's average benchmark score of 30,746 places it in the 82nd percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the 3100U's 6,247 average sits in the 62nd percentile. The rival comparison confirms the positioning: the 8700F trades nearly evenly with the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8645HS (-0.4%), Intel Core i5-13600H (+0.6%), and Intel Core Ultra 5 225T (+0.9%), while the 3100U sits within 1.6% of the Intel Core i9-7940X and AMD EPYC 7272.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design eras. The 3100U uses the Picasso codename, built on Zen+ architecture at a 12 nm process node from GlobalFoundries. The 8700F uses the Phoenix codename, built on Zen 4 architecture at a 4 nm process node from TSMC. This process shrink explains a significant portion of the performance gap, as the 8700F fits 25,000 million transistors into a 178 mm² die, while the 3100U packs 4,940 million transistors into a larger 210 mm² die. The transistor density difference is stark: the 8700F achieves roughly five times the transistor count in a smaller physical area.

Core and thread counts diverge sharply. The 3100U provides 2 cores and 2 threads, while the 8700F provides 8 cores and 16 threads. Cache hierarchies also differ. The 3100U offers 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 4 MB of shared L3. The 8700F offers 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. The 8700F thus has double the L2 per core and quadruple the total L3, which directly benefits workloads that cycle through larger datasets.

Memory support shows a generational split. The 3100U uses DDR4 with dual-channel access and a measured memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The 8700F uses DDR5 with dual-channel access and a measured memory bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s, more than double the older platform's throughput. PCIe connectivity also advances: the 3100U runs PCIe Gen 3, while the 8700F runs PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes on the CPU. Neither processor supports ECC memory. The integrated graphics situation is noteworthy: the 3100U includes Radeon Vega 8 graphics, while the 8700F has no integrated graphics at all, requiring a discrete GPU.

The socket and form factor differ completely. The 3100U uses AMD Socket FP5, a mobile-oriented package, and is classified in the mobile market segment. The 8700F uses AMD Socket AM5, a desktop platform, and is classified in the desktop market segment. The 8700F has an unlocked multiplier, enabling overclocking, while the 3100U does not. Thermal design power also diverges: 15 W for the 3100U versus 65 W for the 8700F. The 8700F's launch MSRP is $270. Release dates place the 8700F in March 2024 and the 3100U in May 2026, an unusual inversion where the older architecture was released later in the database's timeline.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-thread performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 8700F. In PassMark single-thread testing, it scores 3,872 against the Ryzen 3 3100U's 1,592, a -58.9% delta. This advantage persists across all measured workloads, including 3DMark single-thread (1,008) and Cinebench R23 single-core (3,761) for the 8700F.

Q: How much faster is the 8700F in multi-threaded workloads?

A: The 8700F scores 30,893 in PassMark multithread versus 3,348 for the 3100U, a -89.2% delta. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the 8700F reaches 26,646, and in Geekbench multicore it scores 13,523. The 3100U has no recorded Cinebench or Geekbench scores in the database.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory type?

A: No. The 3100U supports DDR4 memory with dual-channel access and 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. The 8700F supports DDR5 memory with dual-channel access and 83.2 GB/s bandwidth. This memory bandwidth difference compounds the CPU core advantage in memory-intensive tasks.

Q: What is the transistor and die size comparison?

A: The 8700F contains 25,000 million transistors on a 178 mm² die using TSMC's 4 nm process. The 3100U contains 4,940 million transistors on a 210 mm² die using GlobalFoundries' 12 nm process. The 8700F achieves higher transistor density in a smaller physical footprint.

Q: Does either processor include integrated graphics?

A: Yes for the 3100U, which includes Radeon Vega 8 integrated graphics. The 8700F has no integrated graphics (listed as N/A). This means the 8700F requires a discrete GPU for display output, while the 3100U can operate without one.

Q: How do the two processors compare in their nearest rival scores?

A: The 8700F's average benchmark score of 30,746 places it alongside the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 8645HS (30,879, -0.4%), Intel Core i5-13600H (30,548, +0.6%), and Intel Core Ultra 5 225T (30,468, +0.9%). The 3100U's 6,247 average places it near the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X (6,231, +0.3%), AMD EPYC 7272 (6,186, +1%), and Intel Core i9-10920X (6,347, -1.6%).

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every measured specification. Core count: 2 versus 8. Thread count: 2 versus 16. Base clock: 1.90 GHz versus 4.10 GHz. Boost clock: 3.20 GHz versus 5.00 GHz. TDP: 15 W versus 65 W. Socket: AMD Socket FP5 versus AMD Socket AM5. Codename: Picasso versus Phoenix. Generation: Zen+ versus Zen 4. Process node: 12 nm versus 4 nm. Foundry: GlobalFoundries versus TSMC. Transistors: 4,940 million versus 25,000 million. Die size: 210 mm² versus 178 mm². L1 cache: 96 KB per core versus 64 KB per core. L2 cache: 512 KB per core versus 1 MB per core. L3 cache: 4 MB shared versus 16 MB shared. Memory support: DDR4 versus DDR5. Memory bandwidth: 38.4 GB/s versus 83.2 GB/s. PCIe: Gen 3 versus Gen 4 with 20 lanes. Integrated graphics: Radeon Vega 8 versus N/A. Market segment: Mobile versus Desktop. Multiplier: locked versus unlocked. Part number: YM3100C4T2OFG versus 100-000001590. Release date: May 2026 versus March 2024. The 8700F also has a launch MSRP of $270, while the 3100U has no recorded launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a one-sided comparison. The Ryzen 7 8700F wins every recorded head-to-head test, with deltas ranging from -58.9% (single-thread) to -92.6% (extended instructions). The 8700F's 82nd percentile ranking against all CPUs, combined with an average score of 30,746, places it in a different performance class than the 3100U's 62nd percentile and 6,247 average. The architectural gap, spanning two process nodes (12 nm versus 4 nm), two memory generations (DDR4 versus DDR5), and a fourfold core count increase, explains the magnitude of the differences.

For workloads that depend on parallel execution, the 8700F delivers roughly nine to twelve times the throughput of the 3100U depending on the specific test. For single-threaded tasks, the advantage narrows to roughly 2.4 times, still a decisive margin. The 3100U's only advantages are its lower 15 W TDP, which suits mobile or low-power scenarios, and its integrated Radeon Vega 8 graphics, which eliminates the need for a separate GPU in basic display tasks. The 8700F requires a discrete GPU but compensates with far higher compute capability, an unlocked multiplier for overclocking, and modern PCIe Gen 4 connectivity.

Where Each One Wins

The Ryzen 7 8700F wins in every computational domain measured by the database. Data compression (378,160 versus 38,455), encryption (22,117 versus 1,972), extended instruction workloads (28,474 versus 2,116), prime number finding (98 versus 18), floating point math (62,629 versus 5,854), integer math (100,371 versus 8,873), multithreaded throughput (30,893 versus 3,348), physics simulation (1,553 versus 232), random string sorting (45,425 versus 4,666), and single-thread performance (3,872 versus 1,592) all favor the 8700F. The 8700F also holds additional database entries for 3DMark threaded tests, Cinebench R15/R20/R23, and Geekbench, all absent for the 3100U. The 8700F's 16 MB of L3 cache and 83.2 GB/s memory bandwidth make it suited for large dataset processing, while its 5.00 GHz boost clock and unlocked multiplier support high-frequency and overclocked operation.

The Ryzen 3 3100U wins in efficiency-oriented scenarios. Its 15 W TDP is one quarter of the 8700F's 65 W, making it suitable for thermally constrained mobile systems. Its integrated Radeon Vega 8 graphics means a system built around it does not require a separate GPU for display output, whereas the 8700F has no integrated graphics and mandates a discrete adapter. The 3100U's DDR4 support and Socket FP5 form factor align with older, lower-cost laptop platforms. For workloads that never exceed two threads or single-channel memory patterns, the 3100U can function, but the database's recorded benchmarks show no test where it outperforms the 8700F. The 8700F is the clear choice for desktop computing, content creation, and any task that scales with cores, threads, cache, or memory bandwidth.