OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v3.0
Processors Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Processors Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Processors Methodology v3.0

AMD Ryzen 3 210 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£60PassMark multi-core score:13295N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:4.7 GHzCPU socket:FP8TDP (Thermal design power):28 W

AMD Ryzen 3 210 Review: Compare 74 technical specifications to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

7.0/10

Overall score

Score
7.0/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 59% of models
Score components

40%

6.5

Technical score

25%

?

Reviews scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.2, the mark of a weaker model in this category

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.0, the mark of a weaker model in this category

â–²Better than 59% of processors
7.9

Value for money

Value for money
7.9/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 81% of models
Score components

70%

7.0

Overall score

30%

10

Price

â–²Better than 81%
6.5

Technical score

Technical score
6.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 60% of models
Score components

60%

5.9

Performance

18%

6.9

Architecture

10%

7.4

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.6

Power & Thermal

4%

8.1

Platform

1%

8.0

Integrated graphics

â–²Better than 60%
?

Reviews score

Reviews score
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Grades by review (0)
We have not found an independent test of this model yet. Until we do, its review part counts as 7.2.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
No expert tests yet
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • No image
No image
Where to buy
    N/A~ £60
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD Ryzen 3 210

Technical score
Technical score
6.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 60% of models
Score components:

60%

5.9

Performance

18%

6.9

Architecture

10%

7.4

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.6

Power & Thermal

4%

8.1

Platform

1%

8.0

Integrated graphics

6.5
Reviews score
7.2
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.9/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 81% of models
Score components:

70%

7.0

Overall score

30%

10

Price

7.9
Processor type
mobile
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 6.9% of processors and equal to that of 47.7% of processors.
CPU socket
FP8
This processor uses the FP8 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 49.9% of processors and equal to that of 2.2% of processors.
Chipset
N/A
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V instruction sets, which is broader support than 69.3% of processors and equal to that of 7.1% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
4
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 4 CPU cores, which is fewer than 52.8% of processors and equal to 27.5% of processors.
CPU threads
8
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 8 CPU threads, which is more than 33.4% of processors and equal to 18.8% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
4.7 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.7 GHz which is higher than that of 64.8% of processors and equal to that of 4% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
1x 3.6 GHz & 3x 2.8 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 1x3.6 GHz & 3x2.8 GHz which is lower than that of 62.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
13,295
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 13,295 in PassMark, which is higher than 54.3% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
3 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 3 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 94.6% of processors and equal to that of 4.6% of processors.
Foundry
TSMC 4 nm
This processor is built on the TSMC 4 nm foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 86.4% of processors and equal to that of 7.8% of processors.
L3 cache
8 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 8 MB which is smaller than that of 50.7% of processors and equal to that of 11.5% of processors.
L2 cache
4 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 4 MB which is larger than that of 53.6% of processors and equal to that of 9.2% of processors.
L1 cache
256 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 256 KB which is smaller than that of 60.4% of processors and equal to that of 18.1% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR5
This processor supports DDR DDR5, which is newer than that of 64.2% of processors and equal to that of 12.8% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
7,500 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 7,500 MHz, which is higher than that of 92.2% of processors and equal to 3.6% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR5-5600 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR5-5600 MHz, which is higher than that of 77.4% of processors and equal to 6.2% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
256 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 256 GB of memory, which is more than 89% of processors and equal to 8.8% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
AMD Radeon 740M
Integrated GPU model
Radeon 740M
This processor uses the Radeon 740M integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 92.5% of processors and equal to that in 1.3% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
4
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 4 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 90.1% of processors and equal to 2.8% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
800 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 800 MHz which is higher than that of 86.6% of processors and equal to that of 6.3% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
AV1 (HW decode/encode)
This processor supports AV1 (HW decode/encode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 59.6% of processors and equal to 1.5% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
28 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 28 W which is lower than that of 67.9% of processors and equal to that of 7.1% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
28 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 28 W which is lower than that of 67.7% of processors and equal to that of 7% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
yes
This processor supports configurable TDP. 46.4% of processors offer this.
cTDP: 15-30 W
Show more

AMD Ryzen 3 210 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Hawk Point vs Kaby Lake).
    Hawk Point vs Kaby Lake
  • 44.4% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,693 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,693 vs 2,558
  • 75% smaller process node
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (3 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    3 nm vs 12 nm
  • 4x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (256 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    256 GB vs 64 GB
  • 2.34x higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (7,500 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    7,500 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • Mixed big and small cores
    This processor uses a big.LITTLE design, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors use one.
  • 91% higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (89.6 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    89.6 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (4 vs 3).
    4 vs 3
  • 4.17x cheaper
    AMD Ryzen 3 210 is cheaper than the average processor (£60 vs £250).
    £60 vs £250
  • 8.1% better value for money
    AMD Ryzen 3 210 has better value for money than the average processor (7.88 vs 7.3).
    7.88 vs 7.29
  • 5 years newer release date
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2025 vs 2020).
    February 2025
    2025 vs 2020
  • Supports heterogeneous scheduling
    This processor uses heterogeneous multi-processing, while the average processor does not. 24.8% of processors use it.
  • 44.4% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,693 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,693 vs 2,558
  • 6.8% higher boost clock
    This processor has a higher boost clock speed than the average processor (4.7 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    4.7 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 24.9% higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (6,505 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    6,505 vs 5,209
  • 15.9% higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (13,295 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    13,295 vs 11,469
  • 9.4% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,680 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,680 vs 1,535
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Hawk Point vs Kaby Lake).
    Hawk Point vs Kaby Lake
  • 75% smaller process node
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (3 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    3 nm vs 12 nm
  • Mixed big and small cores
    This processor uses a big.LITTLE design, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors use one.
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (TSMC 4 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    TSMC 4 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 2x more L2 per core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 4.22x more transistors
    This processor has more transistors than the average processor (20.9 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    20.9 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • 22.6% smaller die size
    This processor has a lower die size than the average processor (137 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    137 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 8.1% more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 4x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (256 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    256 GB vs 64 GB
  • 2.34x higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (7,500 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    7,500 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 91% higher memory bandwidth
    This processor has a higher memory bandwidth than the average processor (89.6 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    89.6 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (4 vs 3).
    4 vs 3
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR5 vs DDR4).
    DDR5 vs DDR4
  • Higher JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a higher JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR5-5600 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR5-5,600 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • Better integrated GPU
    This processor uses a better integrated GPU than the average processor (Radeon 740M vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Radeon 740M vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • 2.29x higher GPU clock speed
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (800 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    800 MHz vs 350 MHz
  • 1 more supported displays
    This processor has more supported displays than the average processor (4 vs 3). The average processor supports 3 displays.
    4 vs 3
  • 37.8% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (28 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    28 W vs 45 W
  • 37.8% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (28 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    28 W vs 45 W
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SME, TSME vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SME, TSME vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (AV1 (HW decode/encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    AV1 (HW decode/encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • 33.3% smaller L1 cache
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (256 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    256 KB vs 384 KB
  • 2 fewer PCIe lanes
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (14 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    14 vs 16
  • 83.3% fewer GPU execution units
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (4 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    4 vs 24
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (1x3.6 GHz & 3x2.8 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    1x3.6 GHz & 3x2.8 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • Older TPM support
    This processor supports an older TPM version than the average processor (fTPM 2 vs PTT 2).
    fTPM 2.0 vs PTT 2.0
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SME, TSME vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SME, TSME vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • Older TPM support
    This processor supports an older TPM version than the average processor (fTPM 2 vs PTT 2).
    fTPM 2.0 vs PTT 2.0
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (1x3.6 GHz & 3x2.8 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    1x3.6 GHz & 3x2.8 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 33.3% smaller L1 cache
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (256 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    256 KB vs 384 KB
  • 2 fewer PCIe lanes
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (14 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    14 vs 16
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (AV1 (HW decode/encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    AV1 (HW decode/encode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • 83.3% fewer GPU execution units
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (4 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    4 vs 24

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

Not graded

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Ryzen 3 210

  • Efficient 4nm manufacturing process resulting in low power consumption (28W default TDP)
  • Strong single-core performance with a high boost clock up to 4.7 GHz
  • Uses modern Zen 4 architecture providing a double-digit IPC improvement over older generations
  • Supports high-speed memory including LPDDR5x-7500 and DDR5-5600
  • Includes updated instruction set support such as AVX-512 for specialized workloads
  • Equipped with capable Radeon 740M integrated graphics that supports AV1 decoding/encoding

What customers don't like about AMD Ryzen 3 210

  • Lacks Ryzen AI functionality found in higher-tier 'Hawk Point' processors
  • Limited multi-threaded performance due to a 4-core configuration (1 Zen 4 core + 3 Zen 4c cores)
  • Processor is soldered to the motherboard, meaning it cannot be upgraded in the future
  • The multiplier is locked, preventing user overclocking
  • Integrated graphics performance is unimpressive for modern gaming, limited to simple titles at 720p
  • PCI-Express lanes are limited to version 4.0 with only 14 total lanes

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 3 210 is a modern entry-to-mid-range laptop processor based on the 'Hawk Point' architecture, utilizing a hybrid configuration of 4 cores (1 Zen 4 and 3 Zen 4c) and 8 threads. It features a base clock of 3.0 GHz with a max boost up to 4.7 GHz, supported by 4 MB of L2 and 8 MB of L3 cache, all manufactured on an efficient 4nm process with a default TDP of 28W. Its main characteristics include an integrated AMD Radeon 740M GPU and support for high-speed DDR5-5600 or LPDDR5x-7500 memory and PCIe 4.0. The primary pros are its high energy efficiency and strong single-core boost performance for daily productivity. However, its main cons include lack of support for Ryzen AI, relatively weak gaming performance from the 4-core iGPU, and the fact that it is a soldered-down (non-upgradeable) component with no support for overclocking.

Compare AMD Ryzen 3 210 with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of AMD Ryzen 3 210 and other processors

No results found