Ryzen 3 2200G vs Ryzen 5 1600

VS

Aggregate performance score

Ryzen 5 1600
2017
6 cores / 12 threads, 65 Watt
7.73
+81.9%
Ryzen 3 2200G
2018
4 cores / 4 threads, 65 Watt
4.25

Ryzen 5 1600 outperforms Ryzen 3 2200G by an impressive 82% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Ryzen 5 1600 and Ryzen 3 2200G processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking9501366
Place by popularity4491
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.508.79
Market segmentDesktop processorDesktop processor
SeriesAMD Ryzen 5AMD Ryzen 3
Power efficiency11.256.19
Architecture codenameZen 2 (2017−2020)Raven Ridge (2017−2018)
Release date11 April 2017 (7 years ago)12 February 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$219$99

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Ryzen 3 2200G has 95% better value for money than Ryzen 5 1600.

Detailed specifications

Ryzen 5 1600 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 cores6 (Hexa-Core)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads124
Base clock speed3.2 GHz3.5 GHz
Boost clock speed3.6 GHz3.7 GHz
Bus rate4 × 8 GT/sno data
Multiplier3235
L1 cache96K (per core)128K (per core)
L2 cache512K (per core)512K (per core)
L3 cache16 MB (shared)4 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm14 nm
Die size192 mm2210 mm2
Number of transistors4,800 million4,950 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplier+-

Compatibility

Information on Ryzen 5 1600 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)1 (Uniprocessor)
SocketAM4AM4
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 5 1600 and Ryzen 3 2200G. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsXFR, FMA3, SSE 4.2, AVX2, SMTXFR, FMA3, SSE 4.2, AVX2, SMT
AES-NI++
FMA-+
AVX++
Precision Boost 2no data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 5 1600 and Ryzen 3 2200G are enumerated here.

AMD-V++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 5 1600 and Ryzen 3 2200G. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4DDR4 Dual-channel
Maximum memory size64 GB64 GB
Max memory channels22
Maximum memory bandwidth42.671 GB/s46.933 GB/s
ECC memory support++

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics card-AMD Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000)

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 5 1600 and Ryzen 3 2200G.

PCIe version3.03.0
PCI Express lanes2012

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.

Ryzen 5 1600 7.73
+81.9%
Ryzen 3 2200G 4.25

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.

Ryzen 5 1600 12277
+81.7%
Ryzen 3 2200G 6756

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.

Ryzen 5 1600 1084
+8.6%
Ryzen 3 2200G 998

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.

Ryzen 5 1600 4637
+63.3%
Ryzen 3 2200G 2839

Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.

Ryzen 5 1600 4538
Ryzen 3 2200G 4625
+1.9%

Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.

Ryzen 5 1600 25970
+55.7%
Ryzen 3 2200G 16684

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.

Ryzen 5 1600 8244
+24.2%
Ryzen 3 2200G 6636

wPrime 32

wPrime 32M is a math multi-thread processor test, which calculates square roots of first 32 million integer numbers. Its result is measured in seconds, so that the less is benchmark result, the faster the processor.

Ryzen 5 1600 6.85
+57.7%
Ryzen 3 2200G 10.8

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.

Ryzen 5 1600 13
+88.7%
Ryzen 3 2200G 7

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.

Ryzen 5 1600 1129
+95.7%
Ryzen 3 2200G 577

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.

Ryzen 5 1600 147
+1%
Ryzen 3 2200G 146

Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark 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 loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.

Ryzen 5 1600 1.65
Ryzen 3 2200G 1.68
+1.8%

TrueCrypt AES

TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.

Ryzen 5 1600 6.4
+106%
Ryzen 3 2200G 3.1

x264 encoding pass 2

x264 Pass 2 is a slower variant of x264 video compression that produces a variable bit rate output file, which results in better quality since the higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. Benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.  

Ryzen 5 1600 69
+73%
Ryzen 3 2200G 40

x264 encoding pass 1

x264 version 4.0 is a video encoding benchmark uses MPEG 4 x264 compression method to compress a sample HD (720p) video. Pass 1 is a faster variant that produces a constant bit rate output file. Its result is measured in frames per second, which means how many frames of the source video file were encoded per second.  

Ryzen 5 1600 177
Ryzen 3 2200G 184
+4%

WinRAR 4.0

WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of a popular file archiver. It contains an internal speed test, using 'Best' setting of RAR compression on large chunks of randomly generated data. Its results are measured in kilobytes per second.

Ryzen 5 1600 3430
+6.2%
Ryzen 3 2200G 3229

Geekbench 5.5 Multi-Core

Ryzen 5 1600 5425
+11.1%
Ryzen 3 2200G 4882

Blender(-)

Ryzen 5 1600 404
Ryzen 3 2200G 826
+104%

Geekbench 5.5 Single-Core

Ryzen 5 1600 950
Ryzen 3 2200G 1087
+14.4%

7-Zip Single

Ryzen 5 1600 3834
Ryzen 3 2200G 3948
+3%

7-Zip

Ryzen 5 1600 30144
+104%
Ryzen 3 2200G 14790

Geekbench 4.0 64-bit multi-core

Ryzen 5 1600 15096
+35.9%
Ryzen 3 2200G 11105

Geekbench 4.0 64-bit single-core

Ryzen 5 1600 3652
Ryzen 3 2200G 4082
+11.8%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 7.73 4.25
Recency 11 April 2017 12 February 2018
Physical cores 6 4
Threads 12 4

Ryzen 5 1600 has a 81.9% higher aggregate performance score, and 50% more physical cores and 200% more threads.

Ryzen 3 2200G, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 10 months.

The Ryzen 5 1600 is our recommended choice as it beats the Ryzen 3 2200G in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 5 1600 and Ryzen 3 2200G, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD Ryzen 5 1600
Ryzen 5 1600
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G
Ryzen 3 2200G

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


4.1 5760 votes

Rate Ryzen 5 1600 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 2284 votes

Rate Ryzen 3 2200G on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Ryzen 5 1600 or Ryzen 3 2200G, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.