Ryzen 7 2800H vs i5-3210M
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 7 2800H outperforms Core i5-3210M by a whopping 225% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core i5-3210M and Ryzen 7 2800H processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2112 | 1211 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Core i5 | AMD Ryzen 7 |
| Power efficiency | 4.19 | 10.61 |
| Architecture codename | Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) | Raven Ridge (Zen) (2018) |
| Release date | 1 June 2012 (12 years ago) | 10 September 2018 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $225 | no data |
Detailed specifications
Core i5-3210M and Ryzen 7 2800H 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 | 2 (Dual-core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 8 |
| Base clock speed | 2.5 GHz | 3.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.1 GHz | 3.3 GHz |
| Bus rate | 5 GT/s | no data |
| Multiplier | no data | 33 |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 384 KB |
| L2 cache | 256K (per core) | 2 MB |
| L3 cache | 3 MB (shared) | 4 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 118 mm2 | 209.78 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 105 °C | 95 °C |
| Number of transistors | no data | 4950 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Core i5-3210M and Ryzen 7 2800H 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 | 1 | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | FCPGA988 | FP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 45 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i5-3210M and Ryzen 7 2800H. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® AVX | MMX (+), SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, SSE4A, AES, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, SHA |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| My WiFi | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 2.0 | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Flex Memory Access | + | no data |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
| FDI | + | no data |
| Fast Memory Access | + | no data |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Core i5-3210M and Ryzen 7 2800H technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
| Secure Key | + | no data |
| Identity Protection | + | - |
| Anti-Theft | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i5-3210M and Ryzen 7 2800H are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
| VT-d | + | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
| EPT | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i5-3210M and Ryzen 7 2800H. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4 |
| Maximum memory size | 32 GB | 32 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 51.196 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | Intel HD Graphics 4000 | AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 |
| Quick Sync Video | + | - |
| Clear Video HD | + | no data |
| Graphics max frequency | 1.1 GHz | no data |
| InTru 3D | + | no data |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Core i5-3210M and Ryzen 7 2800H integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 3 | no data |
| eDP | + | no data |
| DisplayPort | + | - |
| HDMI | + | - |
| SDVO | + | no data |
| CRT | + | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i5-3210M and Ryzen 7 2800H.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 16 | 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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.58 | 5.14 |
| Integrated graphics card | 1.18 | 5.47 |
| Recency | 1 June 2012 | 10 September 2018 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 4 |
| Threads | 4 | 8 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 45 Watt |
i5-3210M has 28.6% lower power consumption.
Ryzen 7 2800H, on the other hand, has a 225.3% higher aggregate performance score, 363.6% faster integrated GPU, an age advantage of 6 years, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 57.1% more advanced lithography process.
The Ryzen 7 2800H is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i5-3210M in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core i5-3210M and Ryzen 7 2800H, 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.
