Ryzen 3 3200G vs Core i5-10400T
Description
The 3200G is based on Zen+ architecture while the i5-10400T is based on Comet Lake.
Using the multithread performance as a reference, the 3200G gets a score of 168.7 k points while the i5-10400T gets 307.2 k points.
Summarizing, the i5-10400T is 1.8 times faster than the 3200G. To get a proper comparison between both models, take a look to the data shown below.
Using the multithread performance as a reference, the 3200G gets a score of 168.7 k points while the i5-10400T gets 307.2 k points.
Summarizing, the i5-10400T is 1.8 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
Base frecuency
3.6 GHz
2 GHz
Boost frecuency
4 GHz
3.6 GHz
Socket
AM4
FC-LGA 1200
Cores/Threads
4/4
6/12
TDP
65 W
35 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
57.85k points
Mean multithread perf.
168.69k points
307.18k 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
i5-10400T
Test#1 (Integers)
3.89k
4k (x1.03)
Test#2 (FP)
17.94k
14.19k (x0.79)
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
5.34k
4.62k (x0.87)
Test#1 (Memory)
6.62k
11.03k (x1.67)
TOTAL
33.79k
33.84k (x1)
Multithread
3200G
i5-10400T
Test#1 (Integers)
15.07k
22.77k (x1.51)
Test#2 (FP)
66.84k
96.59k (x1.44)
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
19.56k
31.65k (x1.62)
Test#1 (Memory)
6.54k
2.45k (x0.37)
TOTAL
108.01k
153.46k (x1.42)
SSE3 optimized benchmark
The benchmark in mode I (SSE) is optimized for the use of SIMD instructions with 128 bits register and the SSE set up to version 3. Nearly every modern CPU has support for this mode.
Monothread
3200G
i5-10400T
Test#1 (Integers)
14.3k
12.61k (x0.88)
Test#2 (FP)
21.69k
17.94k (x0.83)
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
5.42k
4.83k (x0.89)
Test#1 (Memory)
6.6k
10.81k (x1.64)
TOTAL
48k
46.19k (x0.96)
Multithread
3200G
i5-10400T
Test#1 (Integers)
55.45k
74.62k (x1.35)
Test#2 (FP)
83.13k
119.63k (x1.44)
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
20.76k
32.65k (x1.57)
Test#1 (Memory)
6.58k
2.52k (x0.38)
TOTAL
165.91k
229.42k (x1.38)
AVX optimized benchmark
The benchmark in mode II (AVX) is optimized to used 256 bits registers beside the first version of the Advanced Vector Extensions (AVX). The first AVX compatible CPU was released in 2011.
Monothread
3200G
i5-10400T
Test#1 (Integers)
13.05k
12.5k (x0.96)
Test#2 (FP)
22.88k
19.05k (x0.83)
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
5.39k
4.72k (x0.88)
Test#1 (Memory)
7.31k
10.3k (x1.41)
TOTAL
48.63k
46.57k (x0.96)
Multithread
3200G
i5-10400T
Test#1 (Integers)
51.73k
74.58k (x1.44)
Test#2 (FP)
87.74k
126.96k (x1.45)
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
20.74k
31.76k (x1.53)
Test#1 (Memory)
6.57k
2.5k (x0.38)
TOTAL
166.79k
235.8k (x1.41)
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
i5-10400T
Test#1 (Integers)
14.48k
22k (x1.52)
Test#2 (FP)
23.84k
19.98k (x0.84)
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
5.43k
4.57k (x0.84)
Test#1 (Memory)
5.46k
11.31k (x2.07)
TOTAL
49.21k
57.85k (x1.18)
Multithread
3200G
i5-10400T
Test#1 (Integers)
54.39k
136.69k (x2.51)
Test#2 (FP)
88.77k
135.25k (x1.52)
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
20.04k
32.76k (x1.63)
Test#1 (Memory)
5.48k
2.48k (x0.45)
TOTAL
168.69k
307.18k (x1.82)
Performance/W
3200G
i5-10400T
Test#1 (Integers)
837 points/W
3905 points/W
Test#2 (FP)
1366 points/W
3864 points/W
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
308 points/W
936 points/W
Test#1 (Memory)
84 points/W
71 points/W
TOTAL
2595 points/W
8776 points/W
Performance/GHz
3200G
i5-10400T
Test#1 (Integers)
3619 points/GHz
6111 points/GHz
Test#2 (FP)
5961 points/GHz
5549 points/GHz
Test#3 (Generic, ZIP)
1357 points/GHz
1268 points/GHz
Test#1 (Memory)
1365 points/GHz
3141 points/GHz
TOTAL
12302 points/GHz
16069 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