Ryzen 3 PRO 3300U vs Ryzen 7 2700X
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 7 2700X outperforms Ryzen 3 PRO 3300U by a whopping 194% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen 7 2700X and Ryzen 3 PRO 3300U processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 698 | 1470 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 9.21 | no data |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Laptop |
| Series | AMD Ryzen 7 | AMD Ryzen 3 |
| Power efficiency | 9.94 | 23.65 |
| Architecture codename | Zen+ (2018−2019) | Picasso (2019−2022) |
| Release date | 13 April 2018 (6 years ago) | 8 April 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $329 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Ryzen 7 2700X and Ryzen 3 PRO 3300U 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 | 8 (Octa-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 16 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 3.7 GHz | 2.1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.3 GHz | 3.5 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Bus rate | 4 × 8 GT/s | no data |
| Multiplier | 37 | 21 |
| L1 cache | 768 KB | 384 KB |
| L2 cache | 4 MB | 2 MB |
| L3 cache | 16 MB (shared) | 4 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 12 nm |
| Die size | 213 mm2 | 209.78 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 4800 Million | 4940 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | + | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen 7 2700X and Ryzen 3 PRO 3300U 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 | FP5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 105 Watt | 15 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 7 2700X and Ryzen 3 PRO 3300U. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | SSE4.2, SSE4A, AMD-V, AES, AVX2, FMA3, SHA | XFR, FMA3, SSE 4.2, AVX2, SMT |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 7 2700X and Ryzen 3 PRO 3300U are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 7 2700X and Ryzen 3 PRO 3300U. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 Dual-channel | DDR4 Dual-channel |
| Maximum memory size | 64 GB | 32 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 46.933 GB/s | 38.397 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | - | AMD Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 2000/3000) |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 7 2700X and Ryzen 3 PRO 3300U.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 20 | 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 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.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 11.45 | 3.89 |
| Recency | 13 April 2018 | 8 April 2019 |
| Physical cores | 8 | 4 |
| Threads | 16 | 4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 105 Watt | 15 Watt |
Ryzen 7 2700X has a 194.3% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more physical cores and 300% more threads.
Ryzen 3 PRO 3300U, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 11 months, and 600% lower power consumption.
The Ryzen 7 2700X is our recommended choice as it beats the Ryzen 3 PRO 3300U in performance tests.
Note that Ryzen 7 2700X is a desktop processor while Ryzen 3 PRO 3300U is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 7 2700X and Ryzen 3 PRO 3300U, 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.
