AMD Ryzen 5 230 vs AMD Ryzen 5 3501U Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multi-threaded performance?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 230 dominates in multi-threaded workloads. It scores 19,411 in Passmark multithread, which is 174.5% higher than the Ryzen 5 3501U's 7,071. The 230 also has 6 cores and 12 threads versus 4 cores and 4 threads on the 3501U.

Q: How large is the single-thread performance gap?

A: The Ryzen 5 230 leads by 66.6% in Passmark single-thread, scoring 3,558 against the 3501U's 2,136. This reflects the much higher 4.90 GHz boost clock on the 230 versus 3.70 GHz on the 3501U.

Q: What is the difference in integrated graphics?

A: The Ryzen 5 230 uses Radeon 760M graphics, while the Ryzen 5 3501U uses Radeon Vega 8. The 760M is a newer graphics architecture paired with DDR5 memory support, while the Vega 8 uses DDR4.

Q: Which processor has better memory bandwidth?

A: The Ryzen 5 230 supports DDR5 with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Ryzen 5 3501U supports DDR4 with 38.4 GB/s. That is a 133.3% difference in theoretical memory bandwidth.

Q: How do the two compare in data compression workloads?

A: The Ryzen 5 230 scores 218,588 in Passmark data compression, which is 150.2% higher than the 3501U's 87,380. The 230 also wins encryption by 138% and extended instructions by 377%.

Q: Which processor has the higher overall benchmark percentile?

A: The Ryzen 5 230 sits at the 78th percentile among all CPUs, while the Ryzen 5 3501U sits at the 69th percentile. The average benchmark score for the 230 is 25,782 versus 14,320 for the 3501U.

Architecture Differences

The Ryzen 5 230 and Ryzen 5 3501U come from different eras of AMD design. The 230 uses Zen 4 architecture on a 4 nm TSMC process with the Hawk Point codename. The 3501U uses Zen+ architecture on a 12 nm GlobalFoundries process with the Picasso codename. This generational leap explains most of the performance gap.

Core configuration differs sharply. The 230 has 6 physical cores with simultaneous multithreading, yielding 12 threads. The 3501U has 4 physical cores without SMT, yielding only 4 threads. The 230's transistor count is 25,000 million on a 178 mm² die, while the 3501U uses 4,940 million transistors on a 210 mm² die. The 230 packs far more transistors into a smaller area.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. The 230 provides 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. The 3501U has 96 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and only 4 MB of shared L3. The 230's larger L3 pool is crucial for repeated data access patterns.

Memory support reflects the architectural split. The 230 uses DDR5 with dual-channel 89.6 GB/s bandwidth. The 3501U uses DDR4 with dual-channel 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. PCIe connectivity differs too: the 230 offers Gen 4 with 20 CPU lanes, while the 3501U offers Gen 3.

Clock speeds are substantially different. The 230 has a 3.50 GHz base clock and 4.90 GHz boost. The 3501U has a 2.10 GHz base and 3.70 GHz boost. The 230's boost clock is 32.4% higher, which directly drives its single-thread advantage.

Socket compatibility separates the two. The 230 mounts on AMD Socket FP8, while the 3501U uses AMD Socket FP5. These are not interchangeable, meaning motherboard selection locks in one or the other.

Power envelopes differ as well. The 230 has a 28 W TDP, while the 3501U has a 15 W TDP. The 230 draws more power but delivers proportionally more performance per clock.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows the Ryzen 5 230 wins all 11 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. No test favors the 3501U. The smallest margin is in Passmark physics, where the 230 leads by 98.3% with 958 points against 483. The largest margin is in extended instructions, where the 230 leads by 377% with 15,618 points against 3,274.

Single-thread performance shows a 66.6% lead for the 230, with 3,558 versus 2,136. This is the smallest relative gap in the entire comparison. The 230's higher boost clock and newer architecture combine to deliver this advantage.

Multi-thread workloads amplify the difference. Passmark multithread shows 19,411 for the 230 versus 7,071 for the 3501U, a 174.5% lead. The combination of more cores, more threads, and higher clocks makes the 230 roughly 2.7 times faster in heavily threaded tasks.

Integer math shows 67,257 for the 230 against 26,321 for the 3501U, a 155.5% lead. Floating point math shows 38,993 against 12,707, a 206.9% lead. The 230 handles both integer and floating point workloads with a wide margin.

Data compression favors the 230 at 218,588 versus 87,380, a 150.2% lead. Data encryption shows 13,280 versus 5,580, a 138% lead. Random string sorting shows 26,019 versus 10,414, a 149.8% lead. Prime number finding shows 66 versus 21, a 214.3% lead.

The 230 also wins in the Cinebench suite, though those results are recorded separately. In Cinebench R23, the 230 scores 17,857 multi-core and 2,521 single-core. The 3501U has no recorded Cinebench results in the database, so direct comparison is limited to Passmark tests.

The Verdict

The data clearly separates these two processors. The Ryzen 5 230 outperforms the Ryzen 5 3501U in every recorded benchmark. The 230 delivers 80.0% higher average benchmark score, with 25,782 against 14,320. It also holds a 78th percentile ranking against the 3501U's 69th percentile.

The 230 is the correct choice for users who need strong multi-threaded performance, faster memory bandwidth, and modern features like PCIe Gen 4. The 3501U's only advantages are lower TDP and a smaller physical footprint in terms of power draw. For users constrained to a 15 W thermal envelope, the 3501U remains functional, but the 230's 28 W budget buys substantially more performance.

The 3501U remains relevant only for legacy platforms on Socket FP5. Users with existing FP5 motherboards and DDR4 memory can use the 3501U as a drop-in replacement. The 230 requires a newer FP8 motherboard and DDR5 memory, which raises the platform cost.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 5 230 | AMD Ryzen 5 3501U |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 6 | 4 |

| Threads | 12 | 4 |

| Base clock | 3.50 GHz | 2.10 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.90 GHz | 3.70 GHz |

| TDP | 28 W | 15 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket FP8 | AMD Socket FP5 |

| Architecture | Zen 4 | Zen+ |

| Codename | Hawk Point | Picasso |

| Process node | 4 nm | 12 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 25,000 million | 4,940 million |

| Die size | 178 mm² | 210 mm² |

| L1 cache | 64 KB per core | 96 KB per core |

| L2 cache | 1 MB per core | 512 KB per core |

| L3 cache | 16 MB shared | 4 MB shared |

| Memory support | DDR5 | DDR4 |

| Memory bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s | 38.4 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 20 lanes | Gen 3 |

| Integrated graphics | Radeon 760M | Radeon Vega 8 |

| Part number | 100-000001726 | YM3501C4T4MFG |

| Release date | 2025-01-05 | 2026-05-31 |

The 230 is a newer part in the database, with a release date of January 2025. The 3501U has a recorded release date of May 2026, which places it later in the database timeline despite its older architecture. Both are listed as active in production.

Where Each One Wins

The Ryzen 5 230 wins in every category measured. For multi-threaded productivity, the 230 leads by 174.5% in Passmark multithread. For single-thread responsiveness, it leads by 66.6%. For memory-intensive workloads, the 230's DDR5 support with 89.6 GB/s bandwidth versus 38.4 GB/s on the 3501U gives it a clear edge.

The 230 is the pick for compiled code, video encoding, spreadsheet recalculation, and any workload that scales across cores. Its 12 threads handle parallel tasks far better than the 3501U's 4 threads. The 230 also wins in encryption and compression, making it suitable for file archiving and secure data handling.

The 3501U has no benchmark wins in the recorded data. Its only practical advantage is the 15 W TDP, which suits fanless designs or very power-constrained laptops. It also uses DDR4, which may be cheaper or more available on legacy platforms. For users with Socket FP5 motherboards already in hand, the 3501U avoids a platform migration.

The 230's 28 W TDP is still modest for a mobile processor, and its 4 nm process node keeps efficiency reasonable. The 3501U's 12 nm process is older and less efficient per clock. The 230 delivers roughly 80% higher average performance while drawing only 86.7% more power, which is a favorable trade.

Benchmark percentile data reinforces the split. The 230 sits at the 78th percentile among all CPUs, meaning it outperforms most desktop and mobile processors. The 3501U at the 69th percentile sits closer to mainstream territory. Users who need top-tier mobile performance should select the 230. Users who need minimal power draw on an older platform have only the 3501U.