Ryzen 5 3600 vs Ryzen 7 PRO 5750G
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen 7 PRO 5750G outperforms Ryzen 5 3600 by a substantial 38% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen 7 PRO 5750G and Ryzen 5 3600 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 455 | 702 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 8 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 22.81 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Desktop processor |
| Series | AMD Ryzen 7 | AMD Ryzen 5 |
| Power efficiency | 22.38 | 16.26 |
| Architecture codename | Cezanne PRO (Zen 3) (2021) | Matisse (2019−2020) |
| Release date | 1 June 2021 (3 years ago) | 7 July 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Ryzen 7 PRO 5750G and Ryzen 5 3600 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) | 6 (Hexa-Core) |
| Threads | 16 | 12 |
| Base clock speed | 3.8 GHz | 3.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.6 GHz | 4.2 GHz |
| Multiplier | 38 | no data |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 512K (per core) | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 16 MB | 32 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 7 nm, 12 nm |
| Die size | 180 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 95 °C | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 95 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 10,700 million | 4,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen 7 PRO 5750G and Ryzen 5 3600 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 | AM4 | AM4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen 7 PRO 5750G and Ryzen 5 3600. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | PRO, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, BMI2, ABM, FMA, ADX, SMEP, SMAP, SMT, CPB, AES-NI, RDRAND, RDSEED, SHA, SME | no data |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | + | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen 7 PRO 5750G and Ryzen 5 3600 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen 7 PRO 5750G and Ryzen 5 3600. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4 | DDR4 Dual-channel |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 128 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 51.196 GB/s | 51.196 GB/s |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) ( - 2000 MHz) | - |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen 7 PRO 5750G and Ryzen 5 3600.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | no data |
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 15.37 | 11.17 |
| Recency | 1 June 2021 | 7 July 2019 |
| Physical cores | 8 | 6 |
| Threads | 16 | 12 |
Ryzen 7 PRO 5750G has a 37.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and 33.3% more physical cores and 33.3% more threads.
The Ryzen 7 PRO 5750G is our recommended choice as it beats the Ryzen 5 3600 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen 7 PRO 5750G and Ryzen 5 3600, 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.
