AMD Ryzen 3 8300G vs Intel Core 5 223PE Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark record for this comparison is unambiguous. Across all seventeen recorded tests, the Intel Core 5 223PE posts the higher score. The AMD Ryzen 3 8300G does not record a single win in any measured workload. That complete sweep is the dominant story of this matchup, though the margin varies considerably from one test type to the next.

In the Cinebench suite, the Intel part leads by a consistent margin. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Intel Core 5 223PE scores 2666 against the AMD Ryzen 3 8300G’s 1231, a 53.8 percent deficit for the AMD chip. The single-core R15 result shows the same gap: 376 versus 173, a 54 percent shortfall. Moving to R20, the Intel processor records 11111 in multi-core against 5131, again 53.8 percent behind, and 1568 in single-core against 724, another 53.8 percent gap. The R23 numbers repeat the pattern: 26455 versus 12217 in multi-core and 3734 versus 1724 in single-core, both exactly 53.8 percent apart. The consistency of that delta across all three Cinebench generations suggests a fixed performance ratio rather than workload-specific variation.

The PassMark suite reveals a wider spread of deltas. The closest contest is in single-threaded performance, where the Intel Core 5 223PE scores 4219 against the AMD’s 3778, a 10.5 percent edge. That is the narrowest margin of any test in the database. The widest gap appears in the prime number search workload, where Intel scores 159 against AMD’s 47, a 70.4 percent difference. Physics simulation also shows a large divide: 2493 versus 755, a 69.7 percent deficit. Floating-point math follows at 66.9 percent behind (76468 versus 25336), and integer math lands at 59.4 percent (99819 versus 40534). The remaining PassMark tests fall between those extremes: data encryption shows a 50.6 percent gap (18448 versus 9115), extended instructions 49.9 percent (24672 versus 12354), random string sorting 46.9 percent (35798 versus 19013), data compression 54.1 percent (346623 versus 158952), and multithreaded performance 55 percent (31124 versus 14018).

The aggregate benchmark score tells the same story. The AMD Ryzen 3 8300G averages 18169 points across the recorded tests, placing it in the 72nd percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Intel Core 5 223PE averages 40585 points, putting it in the 87th percentile. That places the Intel part more than two times higher in raw average score, though the percentile difference is smaller because of the shape of the distribution.

The nearest rival comparisons confirm the positioning. The AMD chip sits within 0.1 percent of the Intel Core i7-9700 (18180 points), within 0.1 percent of the Intel Core i5-1334U (18154 points), and effectively tied with the AMD Ryzen 7 5700U (18176 points) and Intel Core i7-1365U (18177 points). The Intel Core 5 223PE, meanwhile, sits within 0.1 percent of the Intel Core 7 253PE (40557 points) and Intel Xeon 6357P (40630 points), with the Intel Core Ultra X7 368H (40518 points) and AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435G (40718 points) also nearby. In other words, the AMD processor competes in the performance class of mid-range laptop and older desktop parts, while the Intel chip trades blows with far higher-end silicon.

Where Each One Wins

With zero wins out of seventeen tests, the AMD Ryzen 3 8300G has no category where it leads the Intel Core 5 223PE in raw output. That said, the data does show areas where the AMD chip is less disadvantaged, and those relative strengths matter for certain workloads.

The single-threaded PassMark test is the AMD part’s best showing. At 10.5 percent behind, the gap is small enough that real-world single-threaded responsiveness would be hard to distinguish in casual use. The AMD processor also stays closest in random string sorting, where it trails by 46.9 percent, and extended instructions, where the deficit is 49.9 percent. Those are still substantial losses, but they are the narrowest of the non-single-thread results.

The Intel Core 5 223PE, by contrast, dominates in every compute-heavy category. The prime number search workload, which stresses integer throughput and branch handling, shows the largest advantage at 70.4 percent. Physics simulation follows at 69.7 percent, indicating that the Intel part handles constraint solving and rigid body calculations far more efficiently. Floating-point math shows a 66.9 percent lead, which covers scientific computing, simulation, and rendering workloads that rely on FPU throughput. Integer math, the foundation for general productivity and compilation tasks, shows a 59.4 percent edge.

The Cinebench results, all at 53.8 percent, indicate that the Intel processor delivers roughly 2.17 times the multi-core rendering performance and the same ratio in single-core rendering. That consistency across rendering workloads suggests the architectural advantage is uniform rather than workload-specific. The multithreaded PassMark score, at 55 percent behind, aligns closely with the Cinebench multi-core numbers, confirming that the Intel part’s thread throughput advantage is stable.

For data compression, the Intel chip scores 346623 against 158952, a 54.1 percent gap. That workload benefits from both memory bandwidth and cache capacity, and the Intel part has advantages in both. Encryption shows a 50.6 percent gap, slightly smaller than the average, which may reflect the AES instruction throughput of each architecture.

The Verdict

The data directs a clear choice for compute-heavy workloads. The Intel Core 5 223PE is the faster processor in every recorded benchmark. Anyone selecting between these two parts for rendering, simulation, compilation, encryption, or general multithreaded productivity should choose the Intel part based on the measured results. The 53.8 percent Cinebench multi-core deficit alone means the AMD chip takes roughly twice as long for rendering tasks.

The AMD Ryzen 3 8300G has its own strengths that the benchmark data supports, even if they are not captured in raw scores. It uses a 4 nm process from TSMC, while the Intel part uses a 10 nm process from Intel. It draws the same 65 W TDP as the Intel chip, so the performance gap comes with equal rated power consumption. The AMD part also includes the Radeon 740M integrated graphics, whereas the Intel chip includes UHD Graphics 730; the database records no iGPU benchmarks for either part, so no direct comparison is possible from this data.

The AMD chip’s lower average benchmark score places it at the 72nd percentile, which is respectable for a 65 W desktop processor. The Intel part’s 87th percentile is clearly higher. For users who prioritize single-threaded responsiveness above all else, the Intel chip still wins, but by a much narrower 10.5 percent. For mixed workloads where rendering or math is not the primary task, the AMD chip is closer to competitive, though it never pulls ahead.

The launch MSRP for the AMD Ryzen 3 8300G is $176. The launch MSRP for the Intel Core 5 223PE is $232. The database records these figures but provides no price-performance metric.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core 5 223PE has 8 cores and 16 threads. The AMD Ryzen 3 8300G has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: How do the boost clocks compare?

A: The Intel Core 5 223PE boosts to 5.20 GHz. The AMD Ryzen 3 8300G boosts to 4.90 GHz. The base clocks are 2.90 GHz for Intel and 3.40 GHz for AMD.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest gap is in the PassMark prime number search, where the Intel Core 5 223PE leads by 70.4 percent (159 versus 47).

Q: What is the smallest performance gap between the two?

A: The smallest gap is in the PassMark single-thread test, where the Intel Core 5 223PE leads by 10.5 percent (4219 versus 3778).

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes. Both the AMD Ryzen 3 8300G and the Intel Core 5 223PE support ECC memory. Both use dual-channel memory buses. The AMD part supports DDR5 only, while the Intel part supports both DDR4 and DDR5.

Q: How do the cache configurations differ?

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 8300G has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3. The Intel Core 5 223PE has 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design lineages and process nodes. The AMD Ryzen 3 8300G uses the Zen 4 architecture under the Phoenix2 codename, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The transistor count is 20,900 million on a die size of 137 mm². The Intel Core 5 223PE uses the Bartlett Lake codename under the Core 5 generation, built on a 10 nm process at Intel. The database records no transistor count or die size for the Intel part.

The AMD chip fits the AMD Socket AM5, while the Intel chip fits Intel Socket 1700. Both parts are locked (multiplier not unlocked) and both are active production desktop parts. The AMD part launched on 2024-01-07 with a launch MSRP of $176 and part number 100-000001492. The Intel part launched on 2026-03-08 with a launch MSRP of $232 and part number SA4QF.

The core counts differ substantially. The AMD part has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Intel part has 8 cores and 16 threads. That 2x core and thread advantage is the most direct explanation for the multithreaded performance gaps. The Intel part also has a higher boost clock at 5.20 GHz versus 4.90 GHz, though the AMD part starts from a higher base clock at 3.40 GHz versus 2.90 GHz.

Cache hierarchies differ in both size and organization. The AMD part uses 64 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, with 8 MB of shared L3. The Intel part uses 80 KB of L1 per core and 2 MB of L2 per core, with 24 MB of shared L3. The Intel part’s L3 cache is three times larger, which shows up in data compression and random string sorting workloads where working sets exceed the AMD part’s cache capacity.

Memory support diverges as well. The AMD Ryzen 3 8300G supports DDR5 only, with dual-channel access and a recorded memory bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s. The Intel Core 5 223PE supports both DDR4 and DDR5, also dual-channel, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 89.6 GB/s. The Intel part’s higher bandwidth figure gives it a modest advantage in memory-bound tasks.

PCIe connectivity differs. The AMD part provides Gen 4 with 14 lanes from the CPU. The Intel part provides Gen 5 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The Intel part’s newer PCIe generation and higher lane count give it more headroom for expansion devices, though the database records no expansion benchmarks.

The integrated GPUs differ. The AMD part includes the Radeon 740M. The Intel part includes UHD Graphics 730. The database records no graphics benchmarks for either iGPU, so no performance comparison is possible from the available data.

Both parts run at 65 W TDP. Both support ECC memory. Both are desktop market segment parts with active production status. The process node difference, 4 nm versus 10 nm, means the AMD chip packs its 20,900 million transistors into a 137 mm² die, while the Intel chip’s larger process node would require a larger die for a comparable transistor count, though the database does not record the Intel die size.

The nearest rival data reinforces the architectural positioning. The AMD Ryzen 3 8300G sits in a performance cluster with the AMD Ryzen 7 5700U, Intel Core i7-1365U, Intel Core i7-9700, and Intel Core i5-1334U, all within 0.1 percent of each other in average score. That cluster represents a mainstream performance tier. The Intel Core 5 223PE sits with the Intel Core 7 253PE, Intel Xeon 6357P, Intel Core Ultra X7 368H, and AMD Ryzen AI 5 PRO 435G, a much higher-performance cluster. The 0.1 to 0.3 percent deltas within each cluster indicate that the two test subjects are representative of their respective tiers, rather than outliers.

The benchmark record shows no scenario where the AMD processor wins. The Intel part’s advantages in core count, cache size, memory bandwidth, and PCIe generation all align with its higher scores. The AMD part’s advantages are limited to its smaller process node, its higher base clock, and its lower launch MSRP. For any workload measured in this database, the Intel Core 5 223PE delivers more performance.