Ryzen 3 3250U vs Ryzen 5 PRO 3500U
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 5 PRO 3500U outperforms Ryzen 3 3250U by an impressive 84% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen 5 PRO 3500U and Ryzen 3 3250U processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1329 | 1768 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 96 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | AMD Ryzen 5 | AMD Ryzen 3 |
| Power efficiency | 27.82 | 15.14 |
| Architecture codename | Picasso (2019−2022) | Picasso (2019−2022) |
| Release date | 8 April 2019 (5 years ago) | 6 January 2020 (4 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Ryzen 5 PRO 3500U and Ryzen 3 3250U 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) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 8 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 2.1 GHz | 2.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.7 GHz | 3.5 GHz |
| Bus type | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Multiplier | 21 | 26 |
| L1 cache | 128K (per core) | 128K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 4 MB (shared) | 4 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 12 nm |
| Die size | 209.78 mm2 | 246 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 95 °C |
| Number of transistors | 4940 Million | 4500 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | + |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen 5 PRO 3500U and Ryzen 3 3250U 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 |
| Socket | FP5 | FP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 15 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 5 PRO 3500U and Ryzen 3 3250U. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | XFR, FMA3, SSE 4.2, AVX2, SMT | 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 | - | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 5 PRO 3500U and Ryzen 3 3250U are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 5 PRO 3500U and Ryzen 3 3250U. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Dual-channel | DDR4 |
| Maximum memory size | 32 GB | 32 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 38.397 GB/s | 38.397 GB/s |
| 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 RX Vega 3 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 5 PRO 3500U and Ryzen 3 3250U.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 12 | 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 15 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.
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.
Geekbench 5.5 Multi-Core
Blender(-)
Geekbench 5.5 Single-Core
7-Zip Single
7-Zip
WebXPRT 3
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.41 | 2.40 |
| Integrated graphics card | 4.50 | 2.98 |
| Recency | 8 April 2019 | 6 January 2020 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Threads | 8 | 4 |
Ryzen 5 PRO 3500U has a 83.8% higher aggregate performance score, 51% faster integrated GPU, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.
Ryzen 3 3250U, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 8 months.
The Ryzen 5 PRO 3500U is our recommended choice as it beats the Ryzen 3 3250U in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 5 PRO 3500U and Ryzen 3 3250U, 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.
