AMD Ryzen 5 3501U vs AMD Ryzen 7 260 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen 7 260 records an average benchmark score of 43,717, which places it in the 88th percentile of all CPUs. The AMD Ryzen 5 3501U averages 14,320, placing it in the 69th percentile.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the multithreaded PassMark test?

A: The Ryzen 7 260 scores 28,078 in PassMark multithread, while the Ryzen 5 3501U scores 7,071. The Ryzen 7 260 leads by 74.8% in this test.

Q: What is the difference in single-thread performance?

A: The Ryzen 7 260 scores 3,736 in PassMark single-thread, compared to 2,136 for the Ryzen 5 3501U. This represents a 42.8% advantage for the Ryzen 7 260.

Q: Which processor uses a smaller manufacturing process?

A: The Ryzen 7 260 is built on a 4 nm process by TSMC, while the Ryzen 5 3501U uses a 12 nm process from GlobalFoundries.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory type?

A: No. The Ryzen 7 260 supports DDR5 memory, while the Ryzen 5 3501U supports DDR4. Memory bandwidth also differs: 89.6 GB/s for the Ryzen 7 260 versus 38.4 GB/s for the Ryzen 5 3501U.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each chip?

A: The Ryzen 7 260 has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Ryzen 5 3501U has 4 cores and 4 threads.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two mobile processors is substantial, reflecting a generational shift in AMD's design philosophy. The Ryzen 5 3501U belongs to the 3000 series and uses the Picasso codename, built on the Zen+ microarchitecture. The Ryzen 7 260 carries the Hawk Point codename and uses the Zen 4 architecture. This is not a minor revision; it is a leap across multiple generations of core design.

The manufacturing process tells a clear story. The Ryzen 5 3501U uses a 12 nm node from GlobalFoundries, while the Ryzen 7 260 uses a 4 nm node from TSMC. The transistor counts reflect this difference: the Ryzen 5 3501U packs 4,940 million transistors on a 210 mm² die, whereas the Ryzen 7 260 integrates 25,000 million transistors on a smaller 178 mm² die. The newer process allows dramatically higher transistor density, which underpins the performance gap.

Core configuration differs fundamentally. The Ryzen 5 3501U offers 4 cores with 4 threads, meaning no simultaneous multithreading. The Ryzen 7 260 doubles the core count to 8 and doubles threads to 16. Clock speeds also favor the newer part: the Ryzen 5 3501U has a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.70 GHz, while the Ryzen 7 260 starts at 3.80 GHz and boosts to 5.10 GHz.

Cache hierarchies are distinct in capacity and organization. The Ryzen 5 3501U provides 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The Ryzen 7 260 uses 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3 cache. Although the per-core L1 is smaller on the Ryzen 7 260, the larger L2 and quadrupled L3 capacity give it a clear advantage for data-heavy workloads.

Memory support diverges completely. The Ryzen 5 3501U uses DDR4 with dual-channel memory and 38.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Ryzen 7 260 uses DDR5, also dual-channel, but with 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth. PCIe connectivity differs as well: the older chip supports Gen 3, while the newer chip supports Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only).

Integrated graphics also represent different generations. The Ryzen 5 3501U includes Radeon Vega 8, while the Ryzen 7 260 includes Radeon 780M. The sockets differ: the Ryzen 5 3501U uses AMD Socket FP5, and the Ryzen 7 260 uses AMD Socket FP8.

Power targets are notably different. The Ryzen 5 3501U has a 15 W TDP, while the Ryzen 7 260 has a 45 W TDP. This explains part of the performance disparity, but the architectural improvements and higher core count are the dominant factors.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Every recorded benchmark in the comparison favors the Ryzen 7 260. The database shows 11 wins for the Ryzen 7 260 and zero for the Ryzen 5 3501U. The margins vary by workload, revealing where the architectural gap matters most.

The largest relative win comes in PassMark extended instructions. The Ryzen 7 260 scores 26,544 versus 3,274 for the Ryzen 5 3501U, a delta of 87.7%. This workload benefits enormously from the newer Zen 4 architecture, which adds support for advanced instruction sets that the Zen+ core cannot fully utilize.

Floating-point math shows a similar pattern. The Ryzen 7 260 records 59,462, compared to 12,707 for the Ryzen 5 3501U, a 78.6% advantage. Integer math is also lopsided: 96,737 versus 26,321, a 72.8% gap. These results indicate that the Ryzen 7 260 handles mathematical workloads with roughly three to four times the throughput.

Data compression favors the Ryzen 7 260 at 351,517 versus 87,380, a delta of 75.1%. Random string sorting follows at 42,383 versus 10,414, a 75.4% gap. Data encryption shows 20,267 versus 5,580, a 72.5% difference. Prime number finding is also heavily skewed: 77 versus 21, a 72.7% gap.

The multithread test delivers 28,078 for the Ryzen 7 260 against 7,071 for the Ryzen 5 3501U, a 74.8% delta. Physics simulation shows a smaller but still decisive gap: 1,218 versus 483, a 60.3% advantage. This is the narrowest margin in the comparison, suggesting that physics workloads scale less perfectly with core count and clock speed.

Single-thread performance shows the smallest relative difference. The Ryzen 7 260 scores 3,736 versus 2,136 for the Ryzen 5 3501U, a 42.8% lead. This gap is still substantial, but it indicates that per-core improvements, while significant, are less dramatic than the multi-threaded scaling advantages.

The Ryzen 7 260 also has Cinebench results in the database, which the Ryzen 5 3501U lacks. In Cinebench R23, the Ryzen 7 260 scores 17,211.5 multicore and 1,770.5 single-core. In Cinebench R15, it scores 2,747.5 multicore and 276.5 single-core. These numbers provide additional context for its position in the 88th percentile.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification field. The Ryzen 5 3501U has 4 cores and 4 threads, while the Ryzen 7 260 has 8 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks are 2.10 GHz versus 3.80 GHz, and boost clocks are 3.70 GHz versus 5.10 GHz. TDP is 15 W versus 45 W.

Process node differs: 12 nm from GlobalFoundries for the Ryzen 5 3501U, 4 nm from TSMC for the Ryzen 7 260. Transistors are 4,940 million versus 25,000 million. Die size is 210 mm² versus 178 mm².

Cache configuration differs in every level. L1 per core is 96 KB versus 64 KB. L2 per core is 512 KB versus 1 MB. L3 shared is 4 MB versus 16 MB.

Memory support changes from DDR4 to DDR5. Memory bandwidth is 38.4 GB/s versus 89.6 GB/s. PCIe support moves from Gen 3 to Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only).

Integrated graphics differ: Radeon Vega 8 versus Radeon 780M. Socket changes from AMD Socket FP5 to AMD Socket FP8. The codename shifts from Picasso to Hawk Point, and the architecture moves from Zen+ to Zen 4.

Both processors are active in production, both target the mobile segment, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. Neither has a launch MSRP recorded in the database. ECC memory is not supported by either.

The Verdict

The recorded data presents an unambiguous outcome. The Ryzen 7 260 outperforms the Ryzen 5 3501U in every single benchmark in the database, with an average score of 43,717 versus 14,320. The percentile ranking confirms the separation: 88th versus 69th percentile of all CPUs.

The Ryzen 5 3501U's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Ryzen Embedded V2546 with an average score of 14,336 and a delta of 0.1%, the AMD Ryzen 3 7320C at 14,277 with a delta of 0.3%, the Intel Core 7 160UL at 14,232 with a delta of 0.6%, and the Intel Core i5-10400F at 14,185 with a delta of 1%. The Ryzen 5 3501U sits comfortably within this cluster, just barely above or below its direct competitors.

The Ryzen 7 260's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 7745 at 43,704 with a 0% delta, the AMD Ryzen 7 170 at 43,689 with a 0.1% delta, the AMD Ryzen AI 9 465 at 43,431 with a 0.7% delta, and the AMD Ryzen AI Max PRO 385 at 43,326 with a 0.9% delta. The Ryzen 7 260 sits at the top of this group, matching the performance of these higher-end parts.

For users selecting between these two, the data suggests that the Ryzen 7 260 is the appropriate choice for workloads that benefit from high core counts, large caches, fast memory, and modern instruction sets. The Ryzen 5 3501U remains a functional option for lighter tasks, but its 4-core, 4-thread configuration and older architecture place it in a different performance class entirely.

Where Each One Wins

The Ryzen 7 260 wins in every measured category, so the use-case split is defined by the degree of advantage rather than by any specific Ryzen 5 3501U victory.

For single-threaded responsiveness, the Ryzen 7 260 leads by 42.8%. This covers everyday tasks like application launching, web browsing, and general desktop interaction. The margin is large enough that even lightly threaded software will feel noticeably faster on the Ryzen 7 260.

For multi-threaded productivity workloads, the Ryzen 7 260 leads by 74.8% in PassMark multithread. Video encoding, compilation, and simulation tasks that can use 16 threads will see the largest benefit. The Ryzen 5 3501U, limited to 4 threads, cannot scale to these workloads effectively.

For memory-intensive operations, the Ryzen 7 260 offers 89.6 GB/s of bandwidth versus 38.4 GB/s, and 16 MB of L3 cache versus 4 MB. Data compression and random string sorting, where the Ryzen 7 260 leads by 75.1% and 75.4% respectively, benefit directly from these resources.

For encryption and security workloads, the Ryzen 7 260 leads by 72.5% in data encryption. The newer architecture includes improved cryptographic instruction support, making this a clear area of superiority.

For floating-point and integer computation, the Ryzen 7 260 leads by 78.6% and 72.8% respectively. Scientific computing, financial modeling, and engineering software will all favor the Ryzen 7 260 heavily.

The Ryzen 5 3501U does not win any benchmark, but its 15 W TDP suggests it could fit in more power-constrained designs. The database does not include battery life or thermal measurements, so this remains a qualitative observation based on the TDP specification alone.

The narrowest gap, 60.3% in physics simulation, still represents a decisive advantage for the Ryzen 7 260. Even in the workloads where the Ryzen 5 3501U comes closest, it remains far behind. Users who require the highest available performance should select the Ryzen 7 260. Users constrained by power limits or system size might consider the Ryzen 5 3501U, but they should expect a significant performance trade-off.