AMD Ryzen 5 3400G vs Intel Core i3-8350K Comparison

Intel Core i3-8350K vs AMD Ryzen 5 3400G: the data shows a split personality matchup. The AMD Ryzen 5 3400G wins the majority of head-to-head benchmarks, taking 6 of 8 tests, with dominant leads in every Cinebench workload. However, the Intel Core i3-8350K strikes back decisively in Geekbench, winning both single-core and multi-core tests by margins exceeding 30%. This is not a simple victor, but a case of two processors optimized for different measurement methodologies.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more threads?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 3400G has 8 threads, while the Intel Core i3-8350K has 4 threads. Both have 4 physical cores.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two?

A: The Intel Core i3-8350K has an average benchmark score of 2096, while the AMD Ryzen 5 3400G scores 2059. This puts them nearly identical, with the Intel part leading by roughly 1.8%.

Q: Which CPU wins in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 3400G wins decisively, scoring 7835 compared to the Intel Core i3-8350K's 5884, a gap of 24.9%.

Q: Which CPU wins in Geekbench single-core?

A: The Intel Core i3-8350K wins by a wide margin, scoring 1564 versus the AMD Ryzen 5 3400G's 1101, a difference of 42.1%.

Q: Do both processors have integrated graphics?

A: Yes. The Intel Core i3-8350K includes UHD Graphics 630, while the AMD Ryzen 5 3400G features Radeon RX Vega 11.

Q: Are both CPUs unlocked for overclocking?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core i3-8350K and the AMD Ryzen 5 3400G have an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The architecture story is one of contrasting design philosophies. The Intel Core i3-8350K is built on Intel's Coffee Lake architecture using a 14 nm process node. It operates on the Intel Socket 1151 platform. The AMD Ryzen 5 3400G, by contrast, uses the Zen+ architecture (codenamed Picasso) on a 12 nm node from GlobalFoundries, fitting the AMD Socket AM4.

Core and thread counts differ significantly. The Intel part provides 4 cores and 4 threads, meaning no simultaneous multithreading. The AMD part also has 4 cores but doubles the thread count to 8 via SMT. This thread advantage directly explains the AMD's multi-threaded Cinebench superiority.

Cache hierarchies are distinct. The Intel Core i3-8350K allocates 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, with a shared 8 MB L3 cache. The AMD Ryzen 5 3400G uses 96 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 per core, but only 4 MB of shared L3. The smaller L3 on AMD is notable, yet the larger per-core L1 and L2 help offset it.

The silicon dies differ physically. Intel's die measures 126 mm², while AMD's Picasso die is 210 mm² and contains 4,940 million transistors. AMD uses its 12 nm process, which is a refinement over the older 14 nm node, though Intel's smaller die suggests a more compact design.

Memory bandwidth favors AMD. The Ryzen 5 3400G supports dual-channel DDR4 with a theoretical bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s, while the Intel part manages 38.4 GB/s. Both support ECC memory, but only on the Intel side; the AMD part does not list ECC support.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The Intel Core i3-8350K provides PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The AMD Ryzen 5 3400G lists PCIe Gen 3 without a specific lane count in the data.

Production status separates them further. The Intel Core i3-8350K is end-of-life, released in October 2017. The AMD Ryzen 5 3400G remains active, released in July 2019. This means the AMD part is a more recent design with ongoing availability.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 5 3400G dominates rendering workloads. Every Cinebench test, from R15 to R23, shows the AMD part winning by roughly 25%. This includes both multicore and single-core variants. The 8 threads clearly provide a substantial advantage in the highly parallel Cinebench render engine. For users running CPU-based rendering, video encoding, or other threaded content creation tasks, the data consistently points to the AMD part.

The Intel Core i3-8350K wins in Geekbench. Both Geekbench multicore and single-core tests go to Intel, with the single-core margin at 42.1% and multicore at 33.8%. Geekbench tends to emphasize memory latency, integer performance, and certain single-threaded operations. The Intel architecture's lower latency and higher clock speed (4.00 GHz base, no boost listed) clearly deliver results there.

The split is stark: AMD wins all Cinebench, Intel wins all Geekbench. This suggests that the choice depends on the primary workload. If the user's software suite is built around Cinebench-like rendering, the AMD Ryzen 5 3400G is the stronger pick. If the software relies on Geekbench-style integer and memory performance, the Intel Core i3-8350K takes over.

The average benchmark scores are close, 2096 for Intel versus 2059 for AMD, meaning the overall aggregate is nearly neutral. But that average hides the workload-specific divergence. The data does not support a universal winner; it supports a workload-dependent split.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ across several core specifications. Clock speeds show the Intel part at a fixed 4.00 GHz base clock with no boost clock listed, while the AMD part has a 3.70 GHz base and a 4.20 GHz boost clock. This gives AMD a higher maximum frequency.

Thread count differs: Intel has 4 threads, AMD has 8. TDP is another differentiator: Intel draws 91 W, AMD draws 65 W. The AMD part is more power-efficient on paper.

Socket and platform differ: Intel uses Socket 1151, AMD uses Socket AM4. Process node differs: 14 nm for Intel, 12 nm for AMD. Foundry differs as well: Intel uses its own fabs, AMD uses GlobalFoundries.

Transistor count and die size are only listed for AMD: 4,940 million transistors and 210 mm². Intel's die is 126 mm² with no transistor count given.

Cache sizes differ: Intel has 8 MB shared L3, AMD has 4 MB shared L3. Per-core L1 and L2 are larger on AMD (96 KB and 512 KB) versus Intel (64 KB and 256 KB).

Memory bandwidth differs: Intel at 38.4 GB/s, AMD at 46.9 GB/s. ECC support is present on Intel, absent on AMD.

Integrated graphics differ: Intel uses UHD Graphics 630, AMD uses Radeon RX Vega 11. The AMD Vega 11 is generally considered more capable for gaming, though the data does not include specific graphics benchmarks.

Release dates differ significantly: Intel from October 2017, AMD from July 2019. Production status also differs: Intel is end-of-life, AMD is active.

Both have unlocked multipliers. Both support DDR4 dual-channel memory. Both list PCIe Gen 3, though Intel specifies 16 lanes from the CPU.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a consistent pattern across the Cinebench suite. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the AMD Ryzen 5 3400G scores 789 against Intel's 593, a delta of 24.8% in AMD's favor. The R15 single-core test shows AMD at 111 versus Intel's 83, a 25.2% lead.

Cinebench R20 repeats the pattern. Multicore: AMD 3290, Intel 2471, delta 24.9%. Single-core: AMD 464, Intel 348, delta 25.0%. Cinebench R23 continues it. Multicore: AMD 7835, Intel 5884, delta 24.9%. Single-core: AMD 1106, Intel 830, delta 25.0%.

The consistency is striking. Across six Cinebench tests, the AMD advantage hovers between 24.8% and 25.2%. This suggests a fundamental architectural edge in this workload, likely driven by the extra threads. The single-core wins are less intuitive, but the data is clear: AMD's Zen+ cores outperform Intel's Coffee Lake cores in Cinebench's single-threaded test.

Geekbench flips the script entirely. In Geekbench multicore, the Intel Core i3-8350K scores 4992 against AMD's 3731, a 33.8% lead. In Geekbench single-core, Intel scores 1564 against AMD's 1101, a 42.1% lead. These are enormous margins, far larger than AMD's Cinebench wins.

The overall win count: AMD takes 6 wins, Intel takes 2. But the magnitude matters. Intel's two wins are by 33.8% and 42.1%, while AMD's six wins are all around 25%. In aggregate, the average benchmark scores nearly cancel out: 2096 for Intel, 2059 for AMD. The Intel average is slightly higher because its two massive wins outweigh AMD's six moderate ones.

Neither CPU has a perfect record. The data shows a clear trade-off: choose AMD for Cinebench-style rendering, choose Intel for Geekbench-style integer and memory workloads.

The Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 5 3400G is the better choice for users whose workloads mirror Cinebench. It wins every Cinebench test by about 25%, both multicore and single-core. The 8 threads, higher memory bandwidth at 46.9 GB/s, and larger per-core cache contribute to this consistent lead. It also runs at a lower TDP of 65 W and remains in active production, making it a more future-proof purchase.

The Intel Core i3-8350K is the better choice for Geekbench-style workloads. It wins Geekbench multicore by 33.8% and single-core by 42.1%. The higher base clock of 4.00 GHz, combined with the Coffee Lake architecture's lower latency, drives these results. It also supports ECC memory, which the AMD part does not.

For a general-purpose user, the data is ambiguous. The average scores are nearly tied, 2096 versus 2059. The percentile ranking is identical, both at the 46th percentile among all CPUs. Neither part is a clear overall winner.

The decisive factor should be the specific software. If the user's applications are known to scale with Cinebench-like multithreading, the AMD Ryzen 5 3400G delivers a 25% advantage. If the applications are Geekbench-like in their memory and integer sensitivity, the Intel Core i3-8350K offers a 35-40% advantage.

The AMD part has the edge in thread count, memory bandwidth, and power efficiency. The Intel part has the edge in raw single-threaded Geekbench performance, ECC support, and a smaller die. The AMD part is active and newer, while the Intel part is end-of-life.

The verdict: pick based on workload, not on average scores. The data shows a clear partition, with AMD winning rendering and Intel winning Geekbench-style tests. For mixed use, the AMD part's broader win count and active status may hold more appeal, but the Intel part's massive Geekbench margins should not be ignored.