i5-8210Y vs Ryzen 3 2200G
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 3 2200G outperforms Core i5-8210Y by a whopping 146% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen 3 2200G and Core i5-8210Y processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1378 | 2042 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 8.79 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | AMD Ryzen 3 | Intel Core i5 |
| Power efficiency | 6.19 | 23.39 |
| Architecture codename | Raven Ridge (2017−2018) | Amber Lake-Y (2018−2021) |
| Release date | 8 January 2018 (6 years ago) | 30 October 2018 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $99 | $281 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Ryzen 3 2200G and Core i5-8210Y 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 4 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 3.5 GHz | 1.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.5 GHz | 3.6 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | OPI |
| Bus rate | no data | 4 GT/s |
| Multiplier | 35 | 16 |
| L1 cache | 384 KB | 128 KB |
| L2 cache | 2 MB | 512 KB |
| L3 cache | 4 MB (shared) | 4 MB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 209.78 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | 4950 Million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen 3 2200G and Core i5-8210Y 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 (Uniprocessor) | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | AM4 | FCBGA1515 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 7 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 3 2200G and Core i5-8210Y. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | XFR, FMA3, SSE 4.2, AVX2, SMT | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2 |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Speed Shift | no data | + |
| My WiFi | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Flex Memory Access | no data | + |
| Smart Response | no data | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | no data |
Security technologies
Ryzen 3 2200G and Core i5-8210Y technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
| EDB | no data | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| MPX | - | + |
| Identity Protection | - | + |
| SGX | no data | Yes with Intel® ME |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 3 2200G and Core i5-8210Y 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 Ryzen 3 2200G and Core i5-8210Y. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Dual-channel | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | 64 GB | 16 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 46.933 GB/s | 34.134 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | AMD Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) ( - 1100 MHz) | Intel UHD Graphics 617 |
| Max video memory | no data | 16 GB |
| Quick Sync Video | - | + |
| Clear Video | no data | + |
| Clear Video HD | no data | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 1.05 GHz |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Ryzen 3 2200G and Core i5-8210Y integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 3 |
| eDP | no data | + |
| DisplayPort | - | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| DVI | no data | + |
Graphics image quality
Maximum display resolutions supported by Ryzen 3 2200G and Core i5-8210Y integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.
| 4K resolution support | no data | + |
| Max resolution over HDMI 1.4 | no data | 4096x2304@24Hz |
| Max resolution over eDP | no data | 3840x2160@60Hz |
| Max resolution over DisplayPort | no data | 3840x2160@60Hz |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Ryzen 3 2200G and Core i5-8210Y integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | 12 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.5 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 3 2200G and Core i5-8210Y.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 12 | 10 |
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.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
3DMark06 CPU
3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.
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.
Blender(-)
7-Zip Single
7-Zip
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.25 | 1.73 |
| Integrated graphics card | 4.51 | 2.24 |
| Recency | 8 January 2018 | 30 October 2018 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 2 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 7 Watt |
Ryzen 3 2200G has a 145.7% higher aggregate performance score, 101.3% faster integrated GPU, and 100% more physical cores.
i5-8210Y, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 9 months, and 828.6% lower power consumption.
The Ryzen 3 2200G is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i5-8210Y in performance tests.
Note that Ryzen 3 2200G is a desktop processor while Core i5-8210Y is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 3 2200G and Core i5-8210Y, 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.
