Ryzen 3 2300U vs i5-750
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 3 2300U outperforms Core i5-750 by a whopping 120% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core i5-750 and Ryzen 3 2300U processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2089 | 1524 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.15 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | Core i5 (Desktop) | AMD Ryzen 3 |
| Power efficiency | 1.58 | 22.07 |
| Architecture codename | Lynnfield (2009−2010) | Raven Ridge (2017−2018) |
| Release date | 8 September 2009 (15 years ago) | 8 January 2018 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $150 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Core i5-750 and Ryzen 3 2300U 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 2.66 GHz | 2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.2 GHz | 2 GHz |
| Bus rate | 2500 MHz | no data |
| Multiplier | no data | 20 |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 384 KB |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 2 MB |
| L3 cache | 8 MB (shared) | 4 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 296 mm2 | 209.78 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 73 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 774 million | 4950 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Core i5-750 and Ryzen 3 2300U 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 | FCLGA1156,LGA1156 | FP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 15 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i5-750 and Ryzen 3 2300U. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.2 | XFR, FMA3, SSE 4.2, AVX2, SMT |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 1.0 | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
| PAE | 36 Bit | no data |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Core i5-750 and Ryzen 3 2300U technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i5-750 and Ryzen 3 2300U 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 i5-750 and Ryzen 3 2300U. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4 Dual-channel |
| Maximum memory size | 16 GB | 32 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 21 GB/s | 38.397 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | N/A | AMD Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 2000/3000) |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i5-750 and Ryzen 3 2300U.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 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.
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.
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.
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.
Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.65 | 3.63 |
| Recency | 8 September 2009 | 8 January 2018 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 15 Watt |
Ryzen 3 2300U has a 120% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 221.4% more advanced lithography process, and 533.3% lower power consumption.
The Ryzen 3 2300U is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i5-750 in performance tests.
Note that Core i5-750 is a desktop processor while Ryzen 3 2300U is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core i5-750 and Ryzen 3 2300U, 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.
