Ryzen 5 PRO 7640HS vs Ryzen 3 2200G

Aggregate performance score

Ryzen 3 2200G
2018
4 cores / 4 threads, 65 Watt
4.25
Ryzen 5 PRO 7640HS
2023
6 cores / 12 threads, 54 Watt
14.34
+237%

Ryzen 5 PRO 7640HS outperforms Ryzen 3 2200G by a whopping 237% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Ryzen 3 2200G and Ryzen 5 PRO 7640HS processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking1368500
Place by popularity91not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation8.79no data
Market segmentDesktop processorLaptop
SeriesAMD Ryzen 3AMD Phoenix (Zen 4, Ryzen 7040)
Power efficiency6.1925.13
Architecture codenameRaven Ridge (2017−2018)Phoenix (Zen4) (2023)
Release date12 February 2018 (6 years ago)5 January 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$99no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Ryzen 3 2200G and Ryzen 5 PRO 7640HS 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)6 (Hexa-Core)
Threads412
Base clock speed3.5 GHz4.3 GHz
Boost clock speed3.7 GHz5 GHz
Multiplier35no data
L1 cache128K (per core)384 KB
L2 cache512K (per core)6 MB
L3 cache4 MB (shared)16 MB
Chip lithography14 nm4 nm
Die size210 mm2178 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data100 °C
Number of transistors4,950 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data

Compatibility

Information on Ryzen 3 2200G and Ryzen 5 PRO 7640HS 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)no data
SocketAM4no data
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt54 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 3 2200G and Ryzen 5 PRO 7640HS. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsXFR, FMA3, SSE 4.2, AVX2, SMTno data
AES-NI+-
FMA+-
AVX+-
Precision Boost 2+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 3 2200G and Ryzen 5 PRO 7640HS are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 3 2200G and Ryzen 5 PRO 7640HS. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4 Dual-channelno data
Maximum memory size64 GBno data
Max memory channels2no data
Maximum memory bandwidth46.933 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card
Compare
AMD Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000)AMD Radeon 760M

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 3 2200G and Ryzen 5 PRO 7640HS.

PCIe version3.0no data
PCI Express lanes12no data

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 2200G 4.25
Ryzen 5 PRO 7640HS 14.34
+237%

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.

Ryzen 3 2200G 6755
Ryzen 5 PRO 7640HS 22778
+237%

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.

Ryzen 3 2200G 998
Ryzen 5 PRO 7640HS 2269
+127%

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.

Ryzen 3 2200G 2839
Ryzen 5 PRO 7640HS 8572
+202%

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.

Ryzen 3 2200G 4625
Ryzen 5 PRO 7640HS 6888
+48.9%

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.

Ryzen 3 2200G 16684
Ryzen 5 PRO 7640HS 39399
+136%

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.

Ryzen 3 2200G 6636
Ryzen 5 PRO 7640HS 12948
+95.1%

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.

Ryzen 3 2200G 7
Ryzen 5 PRO 7640HS 22
+224%

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.

Ryzen 3 2200G 577
Ryzen 5 PRO 7640HS 1863
+223%

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.

Ryzen 3 2200G 146
Ryzen 5 PRO 7640HS 249
+71.1%

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark 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 loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.

Ryzen 3 2200G 1.68
Ryzen 5 PRO 7640HS 2.97
+76.8%

TrueCrypt AES

TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.

Ryzen 3 2200G 3.1
Ryzen 5 PRO 7640HS 10.4
+235%

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.  

Ryzen 3 2200G 40
Ryzen 5 PRO 7640HS 110
+176%

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.  

Ryzen 3 2200G 184
Ryzen 5 PRO 7640HS 264
+43.5%

WinRAR 4.0

WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of a popular file archiver. It contains an internal speed test, using 'Best' setting of RAR compression on large chunks of randomly generated data. Its results are measured in kilobytes per second.

Ryzen 3 2200G 3229
Ryzen 5 PRO 7640HS 6717
+108%

Geekbench 5.5 Multi-Core

Ryzen 3 2200G 4882
Ryzen 5 PRO 7640HS 8863
+81.6%

Blender(-)

Ryzen 3 2200G 826
+206%
Ryzen 5 PRO 7640HS 270

Geekbench 5.5 Single-Core

Ryzen 3 2200G 1087
Ryzen 5 PRO 7640HS 1748
+60.9%

7-Zip Single

Ryzen 3 2200G 3948
Ryzen 5 PRO 7640HS 5892
+49.2%

7-Zip

Ryzen 3 2200G 14790
Ryzen 5 PRO 7640HS 51096
+245%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.25 14.34
Integrated graphics card 4.50 14.90
Recency 12 February 2018 5 January 2023
Physical cores 4 6
Threads 4 12
Chip lithography 14 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 54 Watt

Ryzen 5 PRO 7640HS has a 237.4% higher aggregate performance score, 231.1% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 4 years, 50% more physical cores and 200% more threads, a 250% more advanced lithography process, and 20.4% lower power consumption.

The Ryzen 5 PRO 7640HS is our recommended choice as it beats the Ryzen 3 2200G in performance tests.

Note that Ryzen 3 2200G is a desktop processor while Ryzen 5 PRO 7640HS is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 3 2200G and Ryzen 5 PRO 7640HS, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD Ryzen 3 2200G
Ryzen 3 2200G
AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 7640HS
Ryzen 5 PRO 7640HS

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


4 2284 votes

Rate Ryzen 3 2200G on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 14 votes

Rate Ryzen 5 PRO 7640HS on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Ryzen 3 2200G or Ryzen 5 PRO 7640HS, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.