Ryzen 3 3200U vs Core i3-4000M
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 3 3200U outperforms Core i3-4000M by a whopping 115% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core i3-4000M and Ryzen 3 3200U processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 2263 | 1657 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Core i3 | AMD Ryzen 3 |
| Architecture codename | Haswell (2013−2015) | Picasso-U (Zen) |
| Release date | 4 September 2013 (10 years ago) | 6 January 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $225 | no data |
| Current price | $154 (0.7x MSRP) | $488 |
Detailed specifications
Core i3-4000M and Ryzen 3 3200U basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 2 (Dual-core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 4 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 2.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 3.5 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 128K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256K (per core) | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 3 MB (shared) | 4 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 12 nm |
| Die size | 118 mm2 | 246 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | 105 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,400 million | 4500 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Core i3-4000M and Ryzen 3 3200U compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | FCPGA946 | FP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 37 Watt | 15 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i3-4000M and Ryzen 3 3200U. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2 | DDR4-2400 RAM, PCIe 3, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, BMI2, ABM, FMA, ADX, SMEP, SMAP, SMT, CPB, AES-NI, RDRAND, RDSEED, SHA, SME |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| FMA | no data | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
| TSX | - | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | no data |
| Status | Discontinued | no data |
Security technologies
Core i3-4000M and Ryzen 3 3200U technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
| Secure Key | + | no data |
| Identity Protection | + | no data |
| Anti-Theft | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i3-4000M and Ryzen 3 3200U are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
| VT-d | - | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
| EPT | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i3-4000M and Ryzen 3 3200U. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4 |
| Maximum memory size | 32 GB | 64 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 38.397 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | Intel HD Graphics 4600 | AMD Radeon RX Vega 3 |
| Max video memory | 2 GB | no data |
| Quick Sync Video | + | no data |
| Graphics max frequency | 1.1 GHz | no data |
| InTru 3D | + | no data |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Core i3-4000M and Ryzen 3 3200U integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 3 | no data |
| eDP | + | no data |
| DisplayPort | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | no data |
| VGA | + | no data |
Graphics image quality
Maximum display resolutions supported by Core i3-4000M and Ryzen 3 3200U integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.
| Max resolution over HDMI 1.4 | 3840x2160@60Hz | no data |
| Max resolution over DisplayPort | 3840x2160@60Hz | no data |
| Max resolution over VGA | 2880x1800@60Hz | no data |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Core i3-4000M and Ryzen 3 3200U integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | 11.2/12 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.3 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i3-4000M and Ryzen 3 3200U.
| PCIe version | 2 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 16 | 12 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Ryzen 3 3200U outperforms Core i3-4000M by 115% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
Ryzen 3 3200U outperforms Core i3-4000M by 115% in Passmark.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
Ryzen 3 3200U outperforms Core i3-4000M by 8% in GeekBench 5 Single-Core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
Ryzen 3 3200U outperforms Core i3-4000M by 4% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core
Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.
Benchmark coverage: 20%
Ryzen 3 3200U outperforms Core i3-4000M by 19% in Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core.
Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.
Benchmark coverage: 19%
Ryzen 3 3200U outperforms Core i3-4000M by 15% in Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core.
3DMark06 CPU
3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.
Benchmark coverage: 19%
Ryzen 3 3200U outperforms Core i3-4000M by 21% in 3DMark06 CPU.
wPrime 32
wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.
Benchmark coverage: 18%
Core i3-4000M outperforms Ryzen 3 3200U by 43% in wPrime 32.
Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.
Benchmark coverage: 15%
Ryzen 3 3200U outperforms Core i3-4000M by 39% in Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core.
Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core
Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.
Benchmark coverage: 15%
Ryzen 3 3200U outperforms Core i3-4000M by 36% in Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core.
x264 encoding pass 2
x264 Pass 2 is a slower variant of x264 video compression that produces a variable bit rate output file, which results in better quality since the higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. Benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.
Benchmark coverage: 13%
Ryzen 3 3200U outperforms Core i3-4000M by 29% in x264 encoding pass 2.
x264 encoding pass 1
x264 version 4.0 is a video encoding benchmark uses MPEG 4 x264 compression method to compress a sample HD (720p) video. Pass 1 is a faster variant that produces a constant bit rate output file. Its result is measured in frames per second, which means how many frames of the source video file were encoded per second.
Benchmark coverage: 13%
Ryzen 3 3200U outperforms Core i3-4000M by 24% in x264 encoding pass 1.
Geekbench 3 32-bit multi-core
Benchmark coverage: 5%
Ryzen 3 3200U outperforms Core i3-4000M by 61% in Geekbench 3 32-bit multi-core.
Geekbench 3 32-bit single-core
Benchmark coverage: 5%
Ryzen 3 3200U outperforms Core i3-4000M by 62% in Geekbench 3 32-bit single-core.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.15 | 2.47 |
| Integrated graphics card | 1.84 | 2.97 |
| Recency | 4 September 2013 | 6 January 2019 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 37 Watt | 15 Watt |
The Ryzen 3 3200U is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i3-4000M in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core i3-4000M and Ryzen 3 3200U, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
