AMD Athlon PRO 300U

The AMD Athlon PRO 300U is a mobile 2-core, 4-thread processor in the Raven Ridge 2 line, built on the Zen architecture by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. It has a 2.40 GHz base clock and a 3.30 GHz boost clock, a 15W TDP, and integrated Radeon Vega 3 graphics. Its average benchmark score is 1193, which places it at the 34th percentile of all CPUs. Released on 2019-04-07, it remains in Active production.

Platform and Compatibility

The Athlon PRO 300U is designed around AMD Socket FP5, and its market segment is Mobile. This immediately sets expectations for the platform: it is not a desktop part, and any upgrade discussion has to start with the FP5 socket rather than the CPU alone. Memory support is DDR4 over a dual-channel bus, with ECC memory not supported. The cache layout is 128 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 4 MB of shared L3. That modest cache pool is consistent with a two-core mobile processor. The CPU also includes the Radeon Vega 3 integrated GPU, meaning a system built around it can use that integrated graphics for display without a separate graphics card. The multiplier is unlocked false, so there is no supported per-core overclocking path. The production status is Active, and the architecture is Zen under the Raven Ridge 2 codename.

The practical upgrade story is therefore limited by the mobile platform. Socket FP5 is a specific mobile socket, and the processor is firmly positioned in the lower part of the performance field by its 34th percentile rank. Anyone planning around this chip should treat the entire platform as the upgrade boundary, not just the socket. The memory interface is dual-channel DDR4, which is a useful baseline for office-class systems, and the absence of ECC support makes it a poor fit for workstation-style memory validation workloads. The 14 nm process and GlobalFoundries fabrication are part of the platform’s identity, but the load-bearing compatibility facts are the socket, memory type, and integrated graphics.

Power and Thermals

The Athlon PRO 300U carries a 15W TDP. That is a low-power mobile-class figure, and it is the single most important number for thermal design. A 15W processor does not need a high-airflow desktop tower cooler, large radiator, or aggressive fan curve. It is firmly in the territory where a modest, quiet cooling solution in a compact mobile chassis should be enough to keep the chip within its operating envelope. The 14 nm process and 2-core/4-thread configuration keep the heat density low enough that the thermal package can stay small. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 3468 suggests the chip can still load all threads, but the 15W specification frames the expectation: this is not a sustained high-power part. It is the kind of CPU used in lighter mobile systems where low power draw and manageable thermals are priorities.

The combination of 15W TDP and integrated Radeon Vega 3 graphics also means the total system power budget stays low. That matters for fan noise, chassis size, and battery-oriented system design, though the database does not provide battery or noise figures. What the data does show is that the CPU sits in a low TDP class, and the cooling tier implied by that is small, quiet, and modest. It is not the right part for a multi-hundred-watt custom loop or a massive air tower; it is a processor for the low-power end of the market.

Benchmark Performance

The Athlon PRO 300U’s benchmark results are consistent across several Cinebench versions. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 349. In Cinebench R20, the multi-core score is 1456, and the single-core score is 205. In Cinebench R23, the multi-core score is 3468, and the single-core score is 489. Its average benchmark score across the database is 1193. That average is almost exactly matched by its nearest rivals. The AMD Opteron 3365 averages 1194, the AMD Opteron 6234 averages 1191, the Intel Core i3-1005G1 averages 1190, and the Intel Core i3-7320 averages 1187.

The deltaPct values quantify how tight this cluster is. The Athlon PRO 300U is 0.1% behind the Opteron 3365, 0.2% ahead of the Opteron 6234, 0.2% ahead of the Intel Core i3-1005G1, and 0.5% ahead of the Intel Core i3-7320. In practical terms, all five of these processors are effectively equivalent in aggregate benchmark performance. A 0.5% difference is not a difference a user would notice in normal workloads. The more meaningful number is the 34th percentile rank, which shows that most CPUs in the database score higher. The Athlon PRO 300U is not a fast part by modern aggregate standards; it is a capable low-power mobile processor that happens to land in a very tight rival cluster.

How It Compares

AMD Opteron 3365

The Opteron 3365 has an average score of 1194, with a deltaPct of -0.1. This is the only nearest rival that leads the Athlon PRO 300U, and it does so by the smallest margin in the group. The two parts are effectively inseparable in aggregate performance. If the benchmark scores were the only consideration, there would be no practical reason to choose one over the other.

AMD Opteron 6234

The Opteron 6234 averages 1191, and the Athlon PRO 300U is 0.2% ahead. This is another dead heat. The two processors are different products from different eras of AMD’s lineup, but the aggregate data puts them within a rounding error of each other. The Opteron 6234’s score is not meaningfully higher or lower in a real-world context.

Intel Core i3-1005G1

The Intel Core i3-1005G1 averages 1190, with a deltaPct of 0.2. The Athlon PRO 300U and this Intel mobile processor are essentially tied, with a fifth of a percent separating their aggregate benchmark scores. For a mobile part, matching a competing Intel mobile chip this closely is significant: the score gap is small enough that other factors such as graphics, memory support, and platform design will decide which system is better.

Intel Core i3-7320

The Intel Core i3-7320 averages 1187, and the Athlon PRO 300U is 0.5% ahead. This is the largest gap in the nearest-rival group, but it is still only half a percentage point. The Athlon PRO 300U leads this rival, yet the lead is far too small to call it a class difference. The two chips should be treated as comparable in raw aggregate performance.

Single-Thread vs Multi-Thread Behavior

The single-core and multi-core results show a predictable pattern for a 2-core/4-thread processor. Cinebench R20 multi-core is 1456 against a single-core score of 205. Cinebench R23 multi-core is 3468 against a single-core score of 489. The multi-core scores are much higher, but the absolute values remain low. The R23 multi-core score of 3468 reflects a chip with only two physical cores and four threads. Workloads that can use all four threads will score higher than single-threaded workloads, but the ceiling is low.

For single-thread-heavy tasks, the R20 single-core score of 205 and the R23 single-core score of 489 are the relevant numbers. These are modest scores, and they explain why the chip sits at the 34th percentile. Many everyday applications are not fully multi-threaded, and in those cases the processor is relying on the single-core performance of its Zen cores. The 4 MB shared L3 cache is large relative to the core count but still small in absolute terms. The data suggests a CPU that can handle light-to-moderate threaded work without collapsing, but one that will not compete with higher-core-count or higher-clock processors. The multi-core advantage is present, but it is a 2-core advantage, not a multi-core powerhouse.

Who Should Consider It

The Athlon PRO 300U is best suited to mobile systems where low power and light daily workloads matter more than peak performance. The Cinebench R23 single-core score of 489 is enough for office-style productivity, document work, spreadsheets, and lightly threaded applications. The integrated Radeon Vega 3 GPU means a separate discrete GPU is not required for basic display output. The 15W TDP reinforces the mobile positioning.

For creation workloads, the picture is more cautious. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 3468 and the R20 multi-core score of 1456 are not numbers that indicate heavy rendering or sustained all-thread creation workloads. Light image editing, audio work, or occasional content consumption could fit, but long-running CPU-heavy renders will hit the processor’s limits. The 34th percentile rank across all CPUs is a useful warning: most processors in the database outperform it.

For gaming, the data is CPU-focused and includes no graphics benchmarks. The Radeon Vega 3 iGPU is the only graphics solution in the fact pack, and the Cinebench scores do not measure GPU performance. What the CPU scores do show is a low aggregate performer at the 34th percentile. Combined with integrated graphics, this part should not be expected to handle high-end gaming loads. It is more of an entry-level mobile processor for everyday tasks, where its low TDP and integrated graphics make it a reasonable fit for basic portable systems. Users who need heavy multi-threaded rendering, supported ECC memory, or overclocking should look elsewhere, because the data shows no ECC support and a locked multiplier.