Ryzen 3 3200G vs Athlon 3000G
Description
Both models 3200G and 3000G are based on Zen+ architecture.
Zen+ is the second generation of Ryzen processors. It uses the 12nm process by GlobalFoundries. Other than that, the die is the same than first generation Zen. It comes with 64kB of L1 cache and 512kB of L2 cache per core. There are 3 variants: Pinnacle Ridge (desktop), Colfax (high-end desktop) and Picasso (APU).
Using the multithread performance as a reference, the 3200G gets a score of 168.7 k points while the 3000G gets 95.8 k points.
Summarizing, the 3200G is 1.8 times faster than the 3000G. To get a proper comparison between both models, take a look to the data shown below.
Zen+ is the second generation of Ryzen processors. It uses the 12nm process by GlobalFoundries. Other than that, the die is the same than first generation Zen. It comes with 64kB of L1 cache and 512kB of L2 cache per core. There are 3 variants: Pinnacle Ridge (desktop), Colfax (high-end desktop) and Picasso (APU).
Using the multithread performance as a reference, the 3200G gets a score of 168.7 k points while the 3000G gets 95.8 k points.
Summarizing, the 3200G is 1.8 times faster than the 3000G. To get a proper comparison between both models, take a look to the data shown below.
Specs
CPUID
810f81
810f81
Core
Picasso
Picasso
Base frecuency
3.6 GHz
3.5 GHz
Boost frecuency
4 GHz
3.5 GHz
Socket
AM4
AM4
Cores/Threads
4/4
2/4
TDP
65 W
35 W
Cache L1 (d+i)
4x64+4x32 kB
2x64+2x32 kB
Cache L2
4x512 kB
2x512 kB
Cache L3
4096 kB
4096 kB
Date
July 2019
November 2019
Mean monothread perf.
49.21k points
43.82k points
Mean multithread perf.
168.69k points
95.84k points
AVX2 optimized benchmark
The benchmark in mode III (AVX2), like AVX1, is optimized to used 256 bits registers beside the second version of the Advanced Vector Extensions (AVX). The first AVX2 compatible CPU was released in 2013.
Monothread
3200G
3000G
Test#1 (Integers)
14.48k
13.02k (x0.9)
Test#2 (FP)
23.84k
20.56k (x0.86)
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
5.43k
4.81k (x0.89)
Test#1 (Memory)
5.46k
5.43k (x1)
TOTAL
49.21k
43.82k (x0.89)
Multithread
3200G
3000G
Test#1 (Integers)
54.39k
27.29k (x0.5)
Test#2 (FP)
88.77k
49.37k (x0.56)
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
20.04k
13.57k (x0.68)
Test#1 (Memory)
5.48k
5.61k (x1.02)
TOTAL
168.69k
95.84k (x0.57)
Performance/W
3200G
3000G
Test#1 (Integers)
837 points/W
780 points/W
Test#2 (FP)
1366 points/W
1411 points/W
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
308 points/W
388 points/W
Test#1 (Memory)
84 points/W
160 points/W
TOTAL
2595 points/W
2738 points/W
Performance/GHz
3200G
3000G
Test#1 (Integers)
3619 points/GHz
3719 points/GHz
Test#2 (FP)
5961 points/GHz
5873 points/GHz
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
1357 points/GHz
1374 points/GHz
Test#1 (Memory)
1365 points/GHz
1553 points/GHz
TOTAL
12302 points/GHz
12519 points/GHz
Monothread performance graph
Monothread performance graphics gives the performance vs time. They are useful to measure the time it takes to the CPU to reach the maximum performance.
Usually, CPU's performance will be steady during these tests but if it has a slow frequency strategy, the first samples will show a lower score.
Usually, CPU's performance will be steady during these tests but if it has a slow frequency strategy, the first samples will show a lower score.
Test#1 (Integers) [points vs time]
Test#2 (FP) [points vs time]
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP) [points vs time]
Test#1 (Memory) [points vs time]
Multithread performance graph
Multithread graphs measure the performance against a heavy load during certain time.
If CPU's TDP doesn't limit the frequency and the machine is properly cooled, performance should remain steady vs time. Otherwise, the performance score will oscillate or decrease over time.
If CPU's TDP doesn't limit the frequency and the machine is properly cooled, performance should remain steady vs time. Otherwise, the performance score will oscillate or decrease over time.
Test#1 (Integers) [points vs time]
Test#2 (FP) [points vs time]
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP) [points vs time]
Test#1 (Memory) [points vs time]
Hardlimit Benchmark Central - Ver. 3.11.4