AMD Ryzen 3 3200G vs Intel Core i5-3470 Comparison

The AMD Ryzen 3 3200G and Intel Core i5-3470 are both quad-core, quad-thread desktop processors, yet they represent vastly different eras of design philosophy. The Ryzen 3 3200G, a 3000 series part built on the Zen+ architecture, is a modern, active product, while the i5-3470 is an older Ivy Bridge chip that is now end-of-life. Benchmark data shows the Ryzen 3 3200G dominates the comparison, winning 18 of the 19 head-to-head tests, with the Intel chip managing only a single, narrow victory. This creates an interesting dynamic: a modern entry-level processor thoroughly outperforming a former mid-range workhorse across nearly every measurable workload.

Where Each One Wins

The data paints a clear picture of workload distribution between these two CPUs. The AMD Ryzen 3 3200G is the decisive winner in almost every category, from synthetic multi-core rendering to single-threaded responsiveness and cryptographic tasks. Its wins are not marginal; they are often substantial, with deltas exceeding 50% in several Cinebench tests. This makes it the obvious choice for any modern application that leverages current instruction sets or benefits from higher per-core performance.

The Intel Core i5-3470’s only claim to fame in this matchup is the `passmark_find_prime_numbers` test, where it scores 28 against the AMD’s 23, a delta of -17.9% in favor of Intel. This is a highly specific workload that measures raw integer calculation loops, an area where the older Ivy Bridge architecture appears to hold a strange advantage. Beyond this singular outlier, the i5-3470 does not win any other benchmark. For general productivity, content creation, or even everyday multitasking, the data consistently points to the Ryzen 3 3200G as the superior performer.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental architectural gap between these two processors explains the benchmark results. The AMD Ryzen 3 3200G is built on a 12 nm process at GlobalFoundries, packing 4,940 million transistors onto a 210 mm² die. Its architecture is Zen+, codenamed Picasso, which is a refined version of the first-gen Zen design. In contrast, the Intel Core i5-3470 uses Intel’s 22 nm process, with a much smaller 1,400 million transistors on a 160 mm² die, based on the Ivy Bridge architecture. This generational leap in manufacturing and design gives the AMD chip a significant efficiency and performance headroom.

Cache configurations also differ notably. The Ryzen 3 3200G features a larger L1 cache at 96 KB per core and L2 cache at 512 KB per core, but its shared L3 cache is only 4 MB. The i5-3470 counters with smaller per-core caches (64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2) but a larger 6 MB shared L3 cache. Furthermore, the platforms diverge completely: the Ryzen uses AMD Socket AM4 with DDR4 memory support, while the Intel part uses Socket 1155 with DDR3 memory. The AMD chip also has an unlocked multiplier, making it overclockable, a feature the locked Intel chip lacks. The integrated graphics differ as well, with the Ryzen featuring Radeon Vega 8 and the Intel featuring HD 2500.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are lopsided, with the Ryzen 3 3200G winning every Cinebench iteration. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the AMD scores 600 against Intel’s 398, a 50.8% advantage. This trend continues in R20 and R23, where the Ryzen leads by 50.6% and 50.5% respectively. Single-core performance tells a similar story, with the Ryzen winning by 50% in R15, 50.4% in R20, and 50.5% in R23. This consistency across rendering workloads indicates a fundamental per-core performance advantage, not just a multi-threaded scaling benefit.

Geekbench results reinforce this dominance, though with smaller margins. In Geekbench multicore, the Ryzen scores 2833 versus 2015, a 40.6% lead. The single-core gap narrows to 23.6%, with scores of 884 and 715 respectively. PassMark tests show the most extreme outlier: `passmark_data_encryption`, where the Ryzen scores 4475 against a mere 1189 for the Intel, a staggering 276.4% difference. This suggests a massive acceleration in cryptographic instructions on the newer architecture. Other significant wins for the AMD include 35.7% in integer math, 31.9% in extended instructions, and 20.1% in floating-point math. The only Intel win, `passmark_find_prime_numbers`, shows a 17.9% advantage, which is a curious anomaly in an otherwise one-sided dataset.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ on nearly every core specification, starting with their clock speeds. The AMD Ryzen 3 3200G has a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.00 GHz, while the Intel Core i5-3470 operates at a lower 3.20 GHz base and 3.60 GHz boost. Power consumption also favors the newer chip, with the Ryzen having a 65 W TDP compared to the Intel’s 77 W TDP. This means the AMD processor delivers more performance while drawing less power, a signal of its advanced 12 nm process.

Memory support is a major differentiator: the Ryzen uses DDR4, while the i5 is limited to DDR3. The Intel chip does list a memory bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s, a figure not provided for the AMD part, but the newer memory standard likely offers advantages. The PCIe implementation also differs, with the AMD using Gen 3 and the Intel using Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The Ryzen’s integrated graphics, Radeon Vega 8, is a more capable solution than the Intel HD 2500. Finally, the production status and release dates highlight their generational gap: the Ryzen was released on 2019-07-06 and remains active, while the i5 was released on 2012-05-31 and is end-of-life. The Intel chip has a launch MSRP of $184, a detail not available for the AMD part.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core rendering tasks?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 3200G is significantly faster. In Cinebench R23 multicore, it scores 5955 versus Intel’s 3957, a 50.5% advantage. Similar leads are seen in R15 and R20 multicore tests.

Q: Is the Intel Core i5-3470 better at any single benchmark?

A: Yes, it wins the `passmark_find_prime_numbers` test with a score of 28 compared to the AMD’s 23, representing a 17.9% lead for Intel in that specific workload.

Q: How do the two chips compare in single-threaded performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 3200G leads in all single-thread tests. In Geekbench single-core, it scores 884 versus 715, a 23.6% advantage. The gap is even larger in Cinebench R23 single-core, at 50.5%.

Q: What are the memory type differences between them?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 3200G supports DDR4 memory, while the Intel Core i5-3470 supports DDR3. Both use a dual-channel memory bus, but the memory standard itself is a key platform difference.

Q: Does the AMD processor have a power consumption advantage?

A: Yes, the Ryzen 3 3200G has a 65 W TDP, while the Intel Core i5-3470 has a 77 W TDP. This indicates the AMD chip is more power-efficient despite offering higher performance.

Q: Are these processors overclockable?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 3200G has an unlocked multiplier, meaning it is overclockable. The Intel Core i5-3470 does not have an unlocked multiplier, so it is locked and not officially overclockable.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unequivocal: the AMD Ryzen 3 3200G is the superior processor for virtually all workloads. It wins 18 out of 19 head-to-head comparisons, often by wide margins, including a 50.8% lead in Cinebench R15 multicore and a 276.4% lead in data encryption. For users building a system today, the Ryzen 3 3200G offers a modern platform with DDR4 support, a lower 65 W TDP, and an unlocked multiplier for overclocking. Its active production status means it is a viable current purchase, whereas the i5-3470 is end-of-life.

The Intel Core i5-3470’s sole victory in prime number finding is a fascinating quirk but does not translate to real-world usability. Its older architecture, higher power draw, and DDR3 memory limit make it a poor choice for modern builds. The data suggests anyone considering these two should pick the AMD Ryzen 3 3200G, as it delivers better performance in rendering, math, and encryption tasks, all while being more power-efficient. The i5-3470 remains a historical artifact, only relevant for legacy systems or niche integer-loop workloads.