Ryzen 3 2200G vs Apple M3 Max 16-Core
Aggregate performance score
Apple M3 Max 16-Core outperforms Ryzen 3 2200G by a whopping 508% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing M3 Max 16-Core and Ryzen 3 2200G processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 194 | 1378 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 8.79 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Apple M3 | AMD Ryzen 3 |
| Power efficiency | 31.36 | 6.19 |
| Architecture codename | no data | Raven Ridge (2017−2018) |
| Release date | 30 October 2023 (1 year ago) | 8 January 2018 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
M3 Max 16-Core 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 | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 16 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 2.748 GHz | 3.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.06 GHz | 3.5 GHz |
| Multiplier | no data | 35 |
| L1 cache | no data | 384 KB |
| L2 cache | no data | 2 MB |
| L3 cache | no data | 4 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 3 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | no data | 209.78 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 92000 Million | 4950 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | - |
Compatibility
Information on M3 Max 16-Core 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) | 78 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by M3 Max 16-Core 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 M3 Max 16-Core and Ryzen 3 2200G are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by M3 Max 16-Core 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 Compare | Apple M3 Max 40-Core GPU | AMD Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) ( - 1100 MHz) |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by M3 Max 16-Core and Ryzen 3 2200G.
| PCIe version | no data | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 12 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
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.
Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.
Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core
Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.
Geekbench 5.5 Multi-Core
Geekbench 5.5 Single-Core
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 25.85 | 4.25 |
| Recency | 30 October 2023 | 8 January 2018 |
| Physical cores | 16 | 4 |
| Threads | 16 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 3 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 78 Watt | 65 Watt |
Apple M3 Max 16-Core has a 508.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 366.7% more advanced lithography process.
Ryzen 3 2200G, on the other hand, has 20% lower power consumption.
The M3 Max 16-Core is our recommended choice as it beats the Ryzen 3 2200G in performance tests.
Be aware that Apple M3 Max 16-Core is a notebook processor while Ryzen 3 2200G is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Apple M3 Max 16-Core and Ryzen 3 2200G, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
