AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G vs Intel Core 5 211TE Comparison

AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G and Intel Core 5 211TE occupy different positions in the desktop processor stack, and the benchmark data reflects that split. The AMD part wins 14 of 17 direct comparisons, while the Intel part takes 3. The overall average benchmark score for the AMD processor is 17,278, placing it in the 71st percentile of all CPUs. The Intel processor records an average of 15,370, which lands in the 69th percentile. These are close overall positions, but the distribution of wins shows two very different performance profiles.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G dominates in single-threaded and data-oriented workloads. Its PassMark single-thread score of 3,550 is 152.1% above the Intel Core 5 211TE's 1,408, the largest margin in the entire comparison. The AMD part also leads in data compression (150,567 vs 133,434, a 12.8% advantage), data encryption (8,607 vs 7,231, a 19% advantage), and random string sorting (19,703 vs 14,838, a 32.8% advantage). Extended instruction workloads show a 32.9% lead for AMD (11,451 vs 8,615), and integer math goes to AMD by 9.7% (37,292 vs 33,991).

The Intel Core 5 211TE wins in three specific areas: prime number finding, floating-point math, and physics simulation. The PassMark find prime numbers test shows Intel at 72 versus AMD's 47, a 34.7% difference in Intel's favor. Floating-point math goes to Intel at 26,150 versus 23,374, a 10.6% lead. The largest Intel win comes in the physics test, where it scores 1,278 against AMD's 772, a 39.6% advantage. These wins suggest the Intel part handles certain compute-heavy, mathematically intensive tasks better despite its lower overall average.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design approaches. The AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G uses the Zen 4 architecture with the Phoenix2 codename, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC with 20,900 million transistors on a 137 mm² die. It has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Intel Core 5 211TE uses the Bartlett Lake codename, built on a 10 nm process at Intel with a 215 mm² die size. It offers 10 cores and 16 threads, more than double the core count of the AMD part.

Cache layouts differ significantly. The AMD processor provides 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel processor provides 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel part has 2.5 times the L3 capacity, which helps in workloads that benefit from larger working sets.

Memory support also diverges. The AMD part supports DDR5 only, with dual-channel memory and a recorded bandwidth of 83.2 GB/s. The Intel part supports both DDR4 and DDR5, also dual-channel, with a slightly lower recorded bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. PCIe connectivity shows Intel with a newer generation: Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes versus AMD's Gen 4 with 14 CPU lanes.

The integrated graphics differ: AMD uses the Radeon 740M, while Intel uses UHD Graphics 730. The AMD processor has a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz, while the Intel part runs at 1.70 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost. The AMD part has a 65 W TDP; the Intel part has a 45 W TDP. The AMD part releases on 2024-04-15, the Intel part on 2025-01-12. The Intel part has a launch MSRP of $221; no launch MSRP is recorded for the AMD part.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite shows consistent, narrow AMD leads across all six tests. In Cinebench R15 multicore, AMD scores 1,245 versus Intel's 1,229, a 1.3% margin. Single-core R15 shows AMD at 175 versus 173, a 1.2% edge. Cinebench R20 multicore gives AMD 5,190 versus 5,124, again 1.3%. The R20 single-core test shows 732 versus 723, a 1.2% lead. Cinebench R23 multicore has AMD at 12,359 versus 12,201, a 1.3% difference, and R23 single-core shows 1,744 versus 1,722, also 1.3%. These margins are small but consistent: AMD wins every Cinebench test by roughly the same percentage.

The PassMark suite reveals where the architectures really diverge. The AMD part's 152.1% lead in single-thread performance is remarkable given the Intel part's higher core count. The AMD part also shows a 14.4% lead in the multithread test (13,368 vs 11,685), meaning its 4 cores and 8 threads outperform Intel's 10 cores and 16 threads in this particular aggregate measure. That result indicates the AMD cores are substantially more efficient per thread.

The Intel wins are equally notable for their magnitude. The physics test shows Intel at 1,278 versus 772, a 39.6% gap. Prime number finding gives Intel a 34.7% edge. Floating-point math shows Intel ahead by 10.6%. These three wins suggest that the Intel part's additional cores and larger cache help in specific mathematical workloads, even though the AMD part wins the broader multithread test.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on every major specification field. Core count: 4 versus 10. Thread count: 8 versus 16. Base clock: 3.40 GHz versus 1.70 GHz. Boost clock: 4.90 GHz versus 4.80 GHz. TDP: 65 W versus 45 W. Socket: AMD Socket AM5 versus Intel Socket 1700. Process node: 4 nm versus 10 nm. Die size: 137 mm² versus 215 mm². L3 cache: 8 MB versus 20 MB. Memory support: DDR5 only versus DDR4 and DDR5. PCIe: Gen 4 with 14 lanes versus Gen 5 with 16 lanes. Integrated graphics: Radeon 740M versus UHD Graphics 730. Release date: 2024-04-15 versus 2025-01-12. The Intel part has a recorded launch MSRP of $221; no such figure exists for the AMD part.

FAQ

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

A: The AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G scores 3,550 in PassMark single-thread, which is 152.1% higher than the Intel Core 5 211TE's 1,408.

Q: Does the Intel processor ever beat the AMD processor in any benchmark?

A: Yes, the Intel Core 5 211TE wins 3 of 17 tests: PassMark find prime numbers (72 vs 47), floating-point math (26,150 vs 23,374), and physics (1,278 vs 772).

Q: How do the Cinebench results compare?

A: The AMD processor wins all six Cinebench tests, from R15 through R23, with margins between 1.2% and 1.3% in both single-core and multicore.

Q: What is the difference in core and thread counts?

A: The Intel Core 5 211TE has 10 cores and 16 threads, while the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The Intel Core 5 211TE has 20 MB of shared L3 cache, compared to 8 MB on the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The AMD processor supports DDR5 only. The Intel processor supports both DDR4 and DDR5.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split by workload type. The AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 8300G is the stronger choice for single-threaded tasks, data compression, encryption, sorting, and extended instruction workloads. Its 152.1% single-thread advantage and 14.4% multithread lead over a processor with 6 more cores and 8 more threads indicate very high per-core efficiency. The AMD part also wins all Cinebench tests, suggesting stronger all-around rendering and general compute performance.

The Intel Core 5 211TE is the better option for physics simulation, prime number finding, and floating-point math. Its 39.6% physics lead and 34.7% prime number lead are substantial. The larger 20 MB L3 cache and higher core count likely contribute to these wins. The Intel part also carries a lower 45 W TDP versus 65 W on the AMD side, which matters for power-constrained systems.

The overall average benchmark score favors the AMD processor (17,278 vs 15,370), and the AMD part sits in the 71st percentile versus the 69th for Intel. The nearest rivals for the AMD part include the Intel Core i5-12450H (0.2% behind) and the AMD Ryzen 3 210 (0.2% ahead). The Intel part's nearest rivals include the AMD EPYC 7543 (0.7% ahead) and the AMD EPYC 7702P (1.6% behind). These surrounding scores confirm that both processors sit in a similar performance class, but the AMD part edges ahead in the aggregate.

For users whose workloads match the AMD part's strengths, the choice is straightforward. For those running physics-heavy calculations or floating-point math, the Intel part delivers clearly superior results in those specific tests, even though it loses the overall average comparison. The recorded data supports either selection depending on which benchmark profile matters more.