Ryzen 3 2200G vs Ryzen AI 9 HX 370
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 outperforms Ryzen 3 2200G by a whopping 426% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 and Ryzen 3 2200G processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 231 | 1368 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 91 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 8.79 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | no data | AMD Ryzen 3 |
| Power efficiency | 75.54 | 6.19 |
| Architecture codename | Strix Point (2024) | Raven Ridge (2017−2018) |
| Release date | July 2024 (recently) | 12 February 2018 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 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 cores | 12 (Dodeca-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 24 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 2 GHz | 3.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 5.1 GHz | 3.7 GHz |
| Bus rate | 54 MHz | no data |
| Multiplier | no data | 35 |
| L1 cache | 80 KB (per core) | 128K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 24 MB (shared) | 4 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 4 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | no data | 210 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 4,950 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | - |
Compatibility
Information on Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 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 configuration | 1 | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | FP8 | AM4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 28 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 and Ryzen 3 2200G. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | USB 4, XDNA 2 NPU (50 TOPS), SMT, AES, AVX, AVX2, AVX512, FMA3, MMX (+), SHA, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, SSE4A | XFR, FMA3, SSE 4.2, AVX2, SMT |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | - | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Precision Boost 2 | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 and Ryzen 3 2200G are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 and Ryzen 3 2200G. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR5 | DDR4 Dual-channel |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 64 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 46.933 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card Compare | AMD Radeon 890M | AMD Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) ( - 1100 MHz) |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 and Ryzen 3 2200G.
| PCIe version | 4.0 | 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.
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.
Geekbench 5.5 Multi-Core
Blender(-)
Geekbench 5.5 Single-Core
7-Zip Single
7-Zip
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 22.35 | 4.25 |
| Integrated graphics card | 21.51 | 4.50 |
| Physical cores | 12 | 4 |
| Threads | 24 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 4 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 28 Watt | 65 Watt |
Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 has a 425.9% higher aggregate performance score, 378% faster integrated GPU, 200% more physical cores and 500% more threads, a 250% more advanced lithography process, and 132.1% lower power consumption.
The Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 is our recommended choice as it beats the Ryzen 3 2200G in performance tests.
Be aware that Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 is a notebook processor while Ryzen 3 2200G is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 and Ryzen 3 2200G, 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.
