Ryzen 3 2200G vs Ryzen 7 H 255
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 7 H 255 outperforms Ryzen 3 2200G by a whopping 322% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 474 | 1620 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 8.79 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | no data | AMD Ryzen 3 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 6.31 |
| Designer | AMD | AMD |
| Manufacturer | no data | GlobalFoundries |
| Architecture codename | Hawk Point-H (Zen 4) | Raven Ridge (2017−2019) |
| Release date | no data | 12 February 2018 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
Ryzen 7 H 255 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 | 8 (Octa-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 16 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 3.8 GHz | 3.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.9 GHz | 3.7 GHz |
| Multiplier | no data | 35 |
| L1 cache | no data | 128K (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 4 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | no data | 14 nm |
| Die size | no data | 210 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | no data | 4,950 million |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | - |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen 7 H 255 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 | no data | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | no data | AM4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 8 MB + 16 MB | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 7 H 255 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 | - | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 7 H 255 and Ryzen 3 2200G are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 7 H 255 and Ryzen 3 2200G. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR4 Dual-channel |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 64 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 46.933 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | AMD Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) ( - 1100 MHz) |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 7 H 255 and Ryzen 3 2200G.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 12 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.
Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 16.11 | 3.82 |
| Physical cores | 8 | 4 |
| Threads | 16 | 4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 8 Watt | 65 Watt |
Ryzen 7 H 255 has a 321.7% higher aggregate performance score, 100% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and 712.5% lower power consumption.
The AMD Ryzen 7 H 255 is our recommended choice as it beats the AMD Ryzen 3 2200G in performance tests.
Be aware that Ryzen 7 H 255 is a notebook processor while Ryzen 3 2200G is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
