AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 3400GE vs Intel Core i3-10300 Comparison

The Verdict

The data shows a clear, if narrow, victory for the Intel Core i3-10300. Across every recorded benchmark, the Intel part posts a higher score, with the margin sitting consistently around 3.4% to 4.2%. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 3400GE wins none of the head-to-head tests. For a builder prioritizing raw compute throughput in a desktop, the i3-10300 is the straightforward pick based on these measurements.

However, the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 3400GE is not without its own rationale. It operates at a 35W TDP compared to the Intel chip's 62W TDP, a substantial difference that suggests a cooler-running, lower-power platform. The AMD part also supports ECC memory, a feature the Intel chip lacks. For a system where power efficiency, platform reliability features, and a more capable integrated GPU matter more than a few percentage points of CPU benchmark performance, the Ryzen 5 PRO 3400GE becomes the defensible choice.

In short: pick the Intel Core i3-10300 for the best recorded CPU benchmark scores. Pick the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 3400GE for lower power draw, ECC memory support, and a stronger integrated graphics unit.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design philosophies and manufacturing processes. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 3400GE is built on the Zen+ architecture, codenamed Picasso, and fabricated on a 12 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The Intel Core i3-10300 uses the Comet Lake architecture, also its codename, and is manufactured on a 14 nm process at Intel. This means the AMD chip uses a smaller transistor node, while the Intel part relies on a more mature, larger node.

The transistor counts and die sizes tell a different story. The AMD chip integrates 4,940 million transistors on a 210 mm² die. The Intel chip does not have recorded transistor or die size data in the database. Cache configurations also differ significantly. AMD allocates 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and a shared 4 MB L3 cache. Intel gives each core 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2, but doubles the shared L3 to 8 MB. This larger L3 pool on the Intel side could help in workloads that repeatedly access a moderate-sized dataset.

Memory support is similar in kind but not in bandwidth. Both support DDR4 memory over a dual-channel bus. AMD records a memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s, while Intel records 42.7 GB/s. The AMD chip also supports ECC memory, which the Intel part does not. For PCIe, both are Gen 3, but the Intel listing specifies 16 lanes from the CPU, whereas the AMD listing does not specify a lane count.

The integrated graphics differ substantially. AMD pairs the Ryzen 5 PRO 3400GE with the Radeon RX Vega 11, a Vega-based iGPU with 11 compute units. Intel uses the UHD Graphics 630. The database does not provide direct iGPU benchmark scores, but the architecture and naming suggest the AMD solution is aimed at more demanding graphical tasks. The AMD chip is also unlocked? No, the multiplier is locked for both. The release dates are separated by about seven months, with AMD launching in September 2019 and Intel in April 2020.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i3-10300 has a boost clock of 4.40 GHz, while the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 3400GE boosts to 4.00 GHz. Intel also has a higher base clock at 3.70 GHz versus 3.30 GHz.

Q: Does the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 3400GE support ECC memory?

A: Yes. The database lists ECC memory support as true for the AMD part. The Intel Core i3-10300 does not support ECC memory.

Q: Which chip is more power-efficient according to the recorded data?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 3400GE has a TDP of 35W, which is significantly lower than the Intel Core i3-10300's 62W TDP. This suggests the AMD chip will generate less heat and require a less aggressive cooling solution.

Q: What is the L3 cache difference between the two?

A: The Intel Core i3-10300 has 8 MB of shared L3 cache, while the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 3400GE has 4 MB of shared L3 cache. Intel's chip has double the L3 capacity.

Q: Which CPU performs better in single-core Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core i3-10300 scores 944 in Cinebench R23 single-core, compared to 911 for the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 3400GE. That is a 3.5% advantage for Intel.

Q: Are both processors using the same socket?

A: No. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 3400GE uses AMD Socket AM4, while the Intel Core i3-10300 uses Intel Socket 1200.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two processors:

• Base Clock: AMD 3.30 GHz vs Intel 3.70 GHz
• Boost Clock: AMD 4.00 GHz vs Intel 4.40 GHz
• TDP: AMD 35W vs Intel 62W
• Socket: AMD Socket AM4 vs Intel Socket 1200
• Architecture: Zen+ vs Comet Lake
• Process Node: 12 nm vs 14 nm
• Foundry: GlobalFoundries vs Intel
• Transistors: 4,940 million vs not recorded
• Die Size: 210 mm² vs not recorded
• L1 Cache: 96 KB per core vs 64 KB per core
• L2 Cache: 512 KB per core vs 256 KB per core
• L3 Cache: 4 MB shared vs 8 MB shared
• Memory Bandwidth: 46.9 GB/s vs 42.7 GB/s
• ECC Memory: True vs False
• PCIe: Gen 3 vs Gen 3, 16 Lanes (CPU only)
• Integrated Graphics: Radeon RX Vega 11 vs UHD Graphics 630
• Release Date: 2019-09-29 vs 2020-04-29
• Part Number: YD340BC6M4MFH vs SRH3J

Both chips have 4 cores and 8 threads, support DDR4 memory over a dual-channel bus, and have a locked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records six head-to-head comparisons, and the Intel Core i3-10300 wins all six. The margins are uniform and narrow, which makes the overall picture easy to summarize.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, Intel scores 673 against AMD's 650, a 3.4% lead. In single-core R15, Intel scores 95 versus 91, a 4.2% lead. Moving to Cinebench R20, Intel takes multi-core at 2808 versus 2711 (3.5% ahead) and single-core at 396 versus 382 (also 3.5% ahead). In Cinebench R23, Intel again wins multi-core with 6687 versus 6457 (3.4% ahead) and single-core with 944 versus 911 (3.5% ahead).

The Geekbench scores are not part of the head-to-head table, but the individual benchmark entries show AMD at 3318 multi-core and 1110 single-core. Intel does not have recorded Geekbench scores in this database. The overall averages reflect the same trend: AMD has an average benchmark score of 1954, while Intel sits at 1934. Interestingly, the AMD part has a slightly higher average score despite losing every head-to-head test, which is explained by its Geekbench results pulling the average up.

The percentile ranks are close: AMD sits at the 44th percentile of all CPUs, Intel at the 43rd percentile. This places both in the same performance tier in the database's broader ranking, despite Intel's consistent win in the direct comparisons.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i3-10300 wins everywhere the database measures CPU compute. It is ahead in every Cinebench version, both single-core and multi-core, by margins of 3.4% to 4.2%. For workloads that rely on raw CPU throughput, such as video encoding, 3D rendering, or heavy multitasking, the recorded data says Intel is the faster processor. The larger 8 MB L3 cache and higher clocks likely contribute to this, though the database does not provide causal analysis.

The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 3400GE wins in areas outside the CPU benchmark suite. Its 35W TDP makes it the better fit for compact, low-power, or thermally constrained builds. The ECC memory support makes it suitable for systems where data integrity is prioritized, such as a small home server or a workstation doing long compute jobs. The Radeon RX Vega 11 integrated graphics is a more robust iGPU than Intel's UHD Graphics 630, making the AMD part a better choice for a system that will run light games or GPU-accelerated tasks without a discrete card.

There is also a platform consideration. The AMD part uses Socket AM4, which offers a broader upgrade path across multiple generations. The Intel part uses Socket 1200, which is specific to its generation. The database does not record upgrade paths, but the socket difference is a practical factor for a builder planning a future CPU swap.

In summary: Intel wins the benchmark scoreboard outright. AMD wins the efficiency and feature contest. The choice between them depends on whether the priority is the last few percent of CPU performance or a lower-power, ECC-capable platform with a stronger integrated GPU.