Ryzen 3 2200G vs i7-6820EQ
Aggregate performance score
Core i7-6820EQ outperforms Ryzen 3 2200G by a minimal 4% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core i7-6820EQ and Ryzen 3 2200G processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1345 | 1378 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.65 | 8.79 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Intel Core i7 | AMD Ryzen 3 |
| Power efficiency | 9.27 | 6.19 |
| Architecture codename | Skylake (2015−2016) | Raven Ridge (2017−2018) |
| Release date | 12 October 2015 (9 years ago) | 12 February 2018 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $378 | $99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Ryzen 3 2200G has 1252% better value for money than i7-6820EQ.
Detailed specifications
Core i7-6820EQ and Ryzen 3 2200G 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 | 8 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 3.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.8 GHz | 3.7 GHz |
| Bus type | DMI 3.0 | no data |
| Bus rate | 4 × 8 GT/s | no data |
| Multiplier | 28 | 35 |
| L1 cache | 256 KB | 128K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 8 MB | 4 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 122 mm2 | 210 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | no data | 4,950 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Core i7-6820EQ and Ryzen 3 2200G 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 (Uniprocessor) | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | no data | AM4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i7-6820EQ and Ryzen 3 2200G. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | XFR, FMA3, SSE 4.2, AVX2, SMT |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | - | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | + | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| TSX | + | - |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Core i7-6820EQ and Ryzen 3 2200G technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i7-6820EQ and Ryzen 3 2200G are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-d | + | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i7-6820EQ and Ryzen 3 2200G. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | LPDDR3-1866 | DDR4 Dual-channel |
| Maximum memory size | 64 GB | 64 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 34.134 GB/s | 46.933 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | Intel HD Graphics 530 | AMD Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) ( - 1100 MHz) |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i7-6820EQ and Ryzen 3 2200G.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.41 | 4.25 |
| Integrated graphics card | 2.60 | 4.51 |
| Recency | 12 October 2015 | 12 February 2018 |
| Threads | 8 | 4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 65 Watt |
i7-6820EQ has a 3.8% higher aggregate performance score, 100% more threads, and 44.4% lower power consumption.
Ryzen 3 2200G, on the other hand, has 73.5% faster integrated GPU, and an age advantage of 2 years.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Core i7-6820EQ and Ryzen 3 2200G.
Be aware that Core i7-6820EQ is a notebook processor while Ryzen 3 2200G is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core i7-6820EQ and Ryzen 3 2200G, 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.
