AMD Ryzen 3 3200G vs Intel Core i9-9960X Comparison

The Intel Core i9-9960X and the AMD Ryzen 3 3200G sit at opposite ends of the desktop spectrum, yet their average benchmark scores land nearly identically—6938 vs. 6931, a 0.1% difference. This statistical tie in the aggregate metric, however, masks a complete divergence in workload behavior. The data shows a 16-core, 32-thread Skylake-X flagship against a 4-core, 4-thread Zen+ APU; one is designed for sustained multi-threaded throughput, the other for low-power general computing with integrated graphics. Their head-to-head results reveal that the average score is a misleading summary, as the i9-9960X wins all eight direct comparisons, often by margins exceeding 300%.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark split is unambiguous: the Intel Core i9-9960X wins every single head-to-head test in the FACT PACK, taking all 8 direct comparisons. Its dominance is most pronounced in multi-threaded workloads, where its 16 cores and 32 threads produce scores that are roughly four times higher than the Ryzen 3 3200G’s. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the i9-9960X scores 25120 against 5955, a 321.8% advantage. This makes the Intel part the clear choice for rendering, video encoding, compilation, simulation, and any other task that scales with core count.

The Ryzen 3 3200G’s wins are not in raw performance but in its feature set and efficiency profile. It is the only one of the two with integrated graphics (Radeon Vega 8), allowing a system to run without a discrete GPU. Its 65 W TDP is dramatically lower than the i9-9960X’s 165 W, and it uses a dual-channel memory bus on the AMD Socket AM4 platform. While it loses every computational benchmark, its 4 cores are sufficient for basic desktop responsiveness, and its 3.60 GHz base clock is higher than the i9-9960X’s 3.10 GHz base. The Ryzen part also has a lower 210 mm² die size and is built on a 12 nm process, versus the Intel’s 484 mm² die on 14 nm.

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The Intel Core i9-9960X uses the Skylake-X architecture, built on a 14 nm process by Intel, with a 484 mm² die. It packs 16 cores and 32 threads, with 64 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core, plus 22 MB of shared L3 cache. It supports quad-channel DDR4 memory, providing 85.3 GB/s of memory bandwidth, and offers 44 PCIe Gen 3 lanes from the CPU. Its socket is Intel Socket 2066, and it was released in October 2018, now marked as end-of-life.

The AMD Ryzen 3 3200G uses the Zen+ architecture, specifically the Picasso codename, built on a 12 nm process by GlobalFoundries. It has 4 cores and 4 threads, with 96 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 per core, plus 4 MB of shared L3 cache. It uses a dual-channel DDR4 memory bus and supports PCIe Gen 3, though the lane count is not specified in the data. It features integrated Radeon Vega 8 graphics, a capability entirely absent from the Intel part. The Ryzen chip is manufactured with 4,940 million transistors on a 210 mm² die, and it remains in active production.

These architectural choices explain the performance gap. The i9-9960X’s quad-channel memory and 22 MB L3 cache feed 32 threads, while the 3200G’s smaller cache and dual-channel bus limit its multi-threaded scaling. The Intel part’s 4.50 GHz boost clock is higher than the Ryzen’s 4.00 GHz boost, giving it a single-thread edge as well. Both CPUs have unlocked multipliers, but the i9-9960X launched at $1684 MSRP, while the Ryzen 3 3200G has no launch MSRP listed in the data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest margins come in Cinebench multi-core tests. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the i9-9960X posts 10550 against the 3200G’s 2501, a 321.8% lead. The pattern repeats in Cinebench R15 multi-core (2532 vs. 600, a 322% delta) and Cinebench R23 multi-core (25120 vs. 5955, a 321.8% delta). These results are consistent—the Intel part is roughly 4.2 times faster in multi-threaded rendering workloads.

Single-core results show a smaller but still substantial gap. In Geekbench single-core, the i9-9960X scores 1396 versus 884, a 57.9% advantage—the smallest delta in the entire comparison. However, Cinebench single-core tests show a much larger spread: R23 single-core is 3546 vs. 840 (322.1%), R20 single-core is 1489 vs. 352 (323%), and R15 single-core is 357 vs. 84 (325%). This suggests that the i9-9960X’s higher boost clock and larger cache yield disproportionate gains in Cinebench’s single-threaded workload, while Geekbench’s single-core test is less sensitive to those differences.

Geekbench multi-core shows a 271.1% advantage for Intel (10512 vs. 2833), which is slightly smaller than the Cinebench multi-core margins but still overwhelming. The Ryzen 3 3200G’s only competitive showing is in Geekbench single-core, where it trails by less than 60%. Across all eight head-to-head tests, the i9-9960X wins with deltas ranging from 57.9% to 325%. The Ryzen part has no wins, and its average benchmark score of 6931 is nearly identical to the i9-9960X’s 6938 only because the Ryzen’s PassMark suite results (e.g., 2185 in single-thread, 7007 in multithread) pull its average up relative to the Intel’s Cinebench-heavy profile.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core i9-9960X has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the AMD Ryzen 3 3200G has 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the i9-9960X scores 25120 versus 5955 for the Ryzen 3 3200G, a 321.8% lead. Similar margins appear in Cinebench R15 (322%) and R20 (321.8%) multi-core tests.

Q: Does the Ryzen 3 3200G have any advantage in raw benchmark scores?

A: No. The Intel Core i9-9960X wins all eight direct head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The Ryzen’s average score of 6931 is only 0.1% lower than the Intel’s 6938, but that average is skewed by the Ryzen’s PassMark results, which are not part of the head-to-head set.

Q: Which CPU supports integrated graphics?

A: Only the AMD Ryzen 3 3200G has integrated graphics, specifically Radeon Vega 8. The Intel Core i9-9960X has no integrated graphics listed in the data.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth differences?

A: The Intel Core i9-9960X uses a quad-channel memory bus with 85.3 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD Ryzen 3 3200G uses a dual-channel bus, and its bandwidth is not listed in the FACT PACK.

Q: Which CPU is more power-efficient based on TDP?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 3200G has a 65 W TDP, while the Intel Core i9-9960X has a 165 W TDP. The Ryzen also uses a smaller 210 mm² die on a 12 nm process, versus the Intel’s 484 mm² die on 14 nm.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is decisive: the Intel Core i9-9960X is the superior processor for any compute-intensive task. It wins every single head-to-head test, with multi-core advantages exceeding 320% in Cinebench and 271% in Geekbench. Its 16 cores, 32 threads, 22 MB L3 cache, and quad-channel memory bus make it the only choice for rendering, scientific computing, or heavy multitasking. The 57.9% single-core lead in Geekbench further confirms that the Intel part is faster even in lightly threaded scenarios, despite the Ryzen’s higher base clock.

The AMD Ryzen 3 3200G wins on platform flexibility and efficiency, not performance. Its integrated Radeon Vega 8 graphics and 65 W TDP make it suitable for a compact, low-power desktop where a discrete GPU is unnecessary. Its 4 cores and 4 threads handle basic office work, web browsing, and light media playback, but the data shows it falls far behind in every computational benchmark. The 3200G’s average benchmark score of 6931 is nearly identical to the i9-9960X’s 6938, but that parity is an artifact of the averaging method—the two CPUs occupy the same percentile (63rd) among all CPUs, yet they achieve it through entirely different workload distributions.

For buyers prioritizing raw throughput, the i9-9960X is the unambiguous pick, despite its higher launch MSRP of $1684 and end-of-life status. For those who need a low-cost, low-power APU with no discrete graphics requirement, the Ryzen 3 3200G is the functional choice. There is no middle ground in the data: the i9-9960X dominates every benchmark, and the 3200G offers nothing in the head-to-head results beyond its integrated graphics and lower thermal envelope. The verdict is clear—select the Intel part for performance, the AMD part for its integrated GPU and efficiency.