| | | | | | |

Ryzen 3 3200G vs Core i5-10400


Description
The 3200G is based on Zen+ architecture while the i5-10400 is based on Comet Lake.

Using the multithread performance as a reference, the 3200G gets a score of 168.7 k points while the i5-10400 gets 372.2 k points.

Summarizing, the i5-10400 is 2.2 times faster than the 3200G. To get a proper comparison between both models, take a look to the data shown below.

Specs
CPUID
810f81
a0655
Core
Picasso
Comet Lake-S
Architecture
Base frecuency
3.6 GHz
2.9 GHz
Boost frecuency
4 GHz
4.3 GHz
Socket
AM4
LGA 1200
Cores/Threads
4/4
6/12
TDP
65 W
65 W
Cache L1 (d+i)
4x64+4x32 kB
6x32+6x32 kB
Cache L2
4x512 kB
6x256 kB
Cache L3
4096 kB
12288 kB
Date
July 2019
April 2020
Mean monothread perf.
49.21k points
68.04k points
Mean multithread perf.
168.69k points
372.19k 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
i5-10400
Test#1 (Integers)
14.48k
26.43k (x1.83)
Test#2 (FP)
23.84k
23.89k (x1)
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
5.43k
5.63k (x1.04)
Test#1 (Memory)
5.46k
12.1k (x2.22)
TOTAL
49.21k
68.04k (x1.38)

Multithread

3200G

i5-10400
Test#1 (Integers)
54.39k
163.14k (x3)
Test#2 (FP)
88.77k
161.5k (x1.82)
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
20.04k
39.94k (x1.99)
Test#1 (Memory)
5.48k
7.6k (x1.39)
TOTAL
168.69k
372.19k (x2.21)

Performance/W
3200G
i5-10400
Test#1 (Integers)
837 points/W
2510 points/W
Test#2 (FP)
1366 points/W
2485 points/W
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
308 points/W
615 points/W
Test#1 (Memory)
84 points/W
117 points/W
TOTAL
2595 points/W
5726 points/W

Performance/GHz
3200G
i5-10400
Test#1 (Integers)
3619 points/GHz
6146 points/GHz
Test#2 (FP)
5961 points/GHz
5555 points/GHz
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
1357 points/GHz
1309 points/GHz
Test#1 (Memory)
1365 points/GHz
2814 points/GHz
TOTAL
12302 points/GHz
15824 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.


Test#1 (Integers) [points vs time]

grafica bm.hardlimit.com


Test#2 (FP) [points vs time]

grafica bm.hardlimit.com


Test#3 (Generic, ZIP) [points vs time]

grafica bm.hardlimit.com


Test#1 (Memory) [points vs time]

grafica bm.hardlimit.com

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.


Test#1 (Integers) [points vs time]

grafica bm.hardlimit.com


Test#2 (FP) [points vs time]

grafica bm.hardlimit.com


Test#3 (Generic, ZIP) [points vs time]

grafica bm.hardlimit.com


Test#1 (Memory) [points vs time]

grafica bm.hardlimit.com

Hardlimit Benchmark Central - Ver. 3.11.4