| | | | | | |

Ryzen 3 3200G vs Core i5-10400F


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

Using the multithread performance as a reference, the 3200G gets a score of 168.7 k points while the i5-10400F gets 370 k points.

Summarizing, the i5-10400F 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
a0653
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
68.14k points
Mean multithread perf.
168.69k points
369.97k points

Non-optimized benchmark
The benchmark in Mode 0 (FPU) measures cpu performance with non-optimized software. It uses the basic µinstructions from the i386 architecture with the i387 floating point unit. This mode is compatible with all CPUs so it's practical to compare very different CPUs
Monothread
3200G
i5-10400F
Test#1 (Integers)
3.89k
4.3k (x1.11)
Test#2 (FP)
17.94k
16.56k (x0.92)
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
5.34k
5.25k (x0.98)
Test#1 (Memory)
6.62k
12.61k (x1.91)
TOTAL
33.79k
38.72k (x1.15)

Multithread

3200G

i5-10400F
Test#1 (Integers)
15.07k
18.1k (x1.2)
Test#2 (FP)
66.84k
79.16k (x1.18)
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
19.56k
26.75k (x1.37)
Test#1 (Memory)
6.54k
13.81k (x2.11)
TOTAL
108.01k
137.82k (x1.28)

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
i5-10400F
Test#1 (Integers)
14.48k
26.28k (x1.82)
Test#2 (FP)
23.84k
23.38k (x0.98)
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
5.43k
5.52k (x1.02)
Test#1 (Memory)
5.46k
12.96k (x2.37)
TOTAL
49.21k
68.14k (x1.38)

Multithread

3200G

i5-10400F
Test#1 (Integers)
54.39k
163.67k (x3.01)
Test#2 (FP)
88.77k
159.74k (x1.8)
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
20.04k
39k (x1.95)
Test#1 (Memory)
5.48k
7.56k (x1.38)
TOTAL
168.69k
369.97k (x2.19)

Performance/W
3200G
i5-10400F
Test#1 (Integers)
837 points/W
2518 points/W
Test#2 (FP)
1366 points/W
2457 points/W
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
308 points/W
600 points/W
Test#1 (Memory)
84 points/W
116 points/W
TOTAL
2595 points/W
5692 points/W

Performance/GHz
3200G
i5-10400F
Test#1 (Integers)
3619 points/GHz
6112 points/GHz
Test#2 (FP)
5961 points/GHz
5438 points/GHz
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
1357 points/GHz
1283 points/GHz
Test#1 (Memory)
1365 points/GHz
3014 points/GHz
TOTAL
12302 points/GHz
15847 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