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 3200U review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£55PassMark multi-core score:3726N. of physical cores:2CPU boost clock speed:3.5 GHzCPU socket:FP5TDP (Thermal design power):15 W

AMD Ryzen 3 3200U Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 5 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

4.9/10

Overall score

Score
4.9/ 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–¼ Worse than 98% of models
Score components

40%

3.6

Technical score

25%

3.6

Reviews score

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–¼Worse than 98% of processors
6.5

Value for money

Value for money
6.5/ 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–¼ Worse than 88% of models
Score components

70%

4.9

Overall score

30%

10

Price

â–¼Worse than 88%
3.6

Technical score

Technical score
3.6/ 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–¼ Worse than 94% of models
Score components

60%

2.5

Performance

18%

4.3

Architecture

10%

4.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.7

Power & Thermal

4%

8.5

Platform

1%

7.6

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 94%
3.6

Reviews score

Reviews score
3.6/ 10
✕
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
â–¼ Worse than 97% of models

3.6

Mark 7.6 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.5

Average grade

20%

8.2

Popularity

Grades by review (5)
1 review, with a printed score. 4 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 97%
?

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~ £55
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 3200U

Technical score
Technical score
3.6/ 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–¼ Worse than 94% of models
Score components:

60%

2.5

Performance

18%

4.3

Architecture

10%

4.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.7

Power & Thermal

4%

8.5

Platform

1%

7.6

Integrated graphics

3.6
Reviews score
3.6
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.5/ 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–¼ Worse than 88% of models
Score components:

70%

4.9

Overall score

30%

10

Price

6.5
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
FP5
This processor uses the FP5 CPU socket, which is older than that of 59% of processors and equal to that of 3.1% of processors.
Chipset
X570, B550, A520, X470, B450
This processor supports X570, B550, A520, X470, B450 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 68.2% of processors and equal to that of 1.5% of processors.
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, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2 instruction sets, which is broader support than 80.8% of processors and equal to that of 3.3% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
2
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 2 CPU cores, which is fewer than 80.4% of processors and equal to 19.6% of processors.
CPU threads
4
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 4 CPU threads, which is fewer than 69% of processors and equal to 25.2% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
3.5 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 3.5 GHz which is lower than that of 81.5% of processors and equal to that of 2.9% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
2x 2.6 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 2x2.6 GHz which is lower than that of 87.3% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
3,726
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 3,726 in PassMark, which is lower than 80.2% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
14 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 14 nm process node, which is older than that of 52% of processors and equal to that of 32.9% of processors.
Foundry
GlobalFoundries 14 nm
This processor is built on the GlobalFoundries 14 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 51.6% of processors and equal to that of 4.2% of processors.
L3 cache
4 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 4 MB which is smaller than that of 71.7% of processors and equal to that of 13.8% of processors.
L2 cache
1 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 1 MB which is smaller than that of 68.3% of processors and equal to that of 17% of processors.
L1 cache
192 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 192 KB which is smaller than that of 79.5% of processors and equal to that of 2.7% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4
This processor supports DDR DDR4, which is newer than that of 25.2% of processors and equal to that of 31.1% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
2,400 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,400 MHz, which is lower than that of 64.6% of processors and equal to 11.7% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2400 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-2400 MHz, which is lower than that of 67.7% of processors and equal to 10.9% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
32 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 32 GB of memory, which is less than 73% of processors and equal to 18.9% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Radeon Vega 3
Integrated GPU model
Radeon Vega 3
This processor uses the Radeon Vega 3 integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 67% of processors and equal to that in 1.6% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
3
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 3 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 92.9% of processors and equal to 2.4% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
1,200 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 1,200 MHz which is higher than that of 95.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 57.2% of processors and equal to 9.1% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
15 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 15 W which is lower than that of 79.2% of processors and equal to that of 15.1% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
15 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 15 W which is lower than that of 78.3% of processors and equal to that of 15.6% 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: 12-25 W
Show more

AMD Ryzen 3 3200U vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 66.7% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 5 °C higher temperature limit
    This processor has a higher temperature limit than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C
  • 66.7% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • More extensive crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more extensive crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES, SHA, RSA/PKA vs AES, SHA).
    AES, SHA, RSA/PKA vs AES, SHA
  • 4.55x cheaper
    AMD Ryzen 3 3200U is cheaper than the average processor (£55 vs £250).
    £55 vs £250
  • 3.43x higher GPU clock speed
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (1,200 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    1,200 MHz vs 350 MHz
  • 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
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (GlobalFoundries 14 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    GlobalFoundries 14 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 4.55x cheaper
    AMD Ryzen 3 3200U is cheaper than the average processor (£55 vs £250).
    £55 vs £250
  • More extensive crypto acceleration
    This processor offers more extensive crypto acceleration than the average processor (AES, SHA, RSA/PKA vs AES, SHA).
    AES, SHA, RSA/PKA vs AES, SHA
  • 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
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (GlobalFoundries 14 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    GlobalFoundries 14 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 3.43x higher GPU clock speed
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (1,200 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    1,200 MHz vs 350 MHz
  • 66.7% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 5 °C higher temperature limit
    This processor has a higher temperature limit than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C
  • 66.7% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (15 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    15 W vs 45 W
  • 46.3% lower review score
    Reviews score
    3.6/ 10
    ✕
    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
    â–¼ Worse than 97% of models

    3.6

    Mark 7.6 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.5

    Average grade

    20%

    8.2

    Popularity

    Grades by review (5)
    1 review, with a printed score. 4 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    3.6 vs 6.7
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • 67.5% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (3,726 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    3,726 vs 11,469
  • 71.1% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,508 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,508 vs 5,209
  • 20.5% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.5 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.5 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 73.2% weaker multi-core performance
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (751 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    751 vs 2,804.5
  • 30.7% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,773 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,773 vs 2,558
  • 48.2% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (795 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    795 vs 1,535
  • 46.3% lower review score
    Reviews score
    3.6/ 10
    ✕
    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
    â–¼ Worse than 97% of models

    3.6

    Mark 7.6 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.5

    Average grade

    20%

    8.2

    Popularity

    Grades by review (5)
    1 review, with a printed score. 4 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    3.6 vs 6.7
  • 12.9% worse value for money
    AMD Ryzen 3 3200U has worse value for money than the average processor (6.46 vs 7.3).
    6.46 vs 7.29
  • 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
  • 4 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (2 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    2 vs 6
  • 67.5% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (3,726 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    3,726 vs 11,469
  • 71.1% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (1,508 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    1,508 vs 5,209
  • 20.5% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.5 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.5 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 73.2% weaker multi-core performance
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (751 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    751 vs 2,804.5
  • 30.7% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,773 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,773 vs 2,558
  • 48.2% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (795 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    795 vs 1,535
  • 36.9% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (309 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    309 vs 490
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (2x2.6 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    2x2.6 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 2 fewer performance cores
    This processor has fewer performance cores than the average processor (2 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    2 vs 4
  • 4 fewer CPU threads
    This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (4 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    4 vs 8
  • More basic Turbo Core
    This processor has a more basic Turbo Core version than the average processor (1 vs 2).
    Turbo Boost
    1 vs 2
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Picasso vs Kaby Lake).
    Picasso vs Kaby Lake
  • 66.7% smaller L2 cache
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (1 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    1 MB vs 3 MB
  • 16.7% larger process node
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (14 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    14 nm vs 12 nm
  • 55.6% smaller L3 cache
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (4 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    4 MB vs 9 MB
  • 50% smaller L1 cache
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (192 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    192 KB vs 384 KB
  • 18.6% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (210 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    210 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 4 fewer PCIe lanes
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (12 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    10 usable lanes
    12 vs 16
  • 25% lower memory speed
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2,400 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    2,400 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 18.1% lower memory bandwidth
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (38.4 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    38.4 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • 50% less memory capacity
    This processor has fewer maximum memory capacity than the average processor (32 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    32 GB vs 64 GB
  • Lower JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a lower JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR4-2400 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR4-2,400 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • 87.5% fewer GPU execution units
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (3 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    3 vs 24
  • 5 °C higher CPU temperature
    This processor has a higher CPU temperature than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C

Video reviews

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

8.0
ETA PRIME
≈ estimated
05/01/2020
Hands-on review · gaming benchmarks and everyday use
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 3 3200U offers good value for everyday use and light gaming, but it is not really a gaming machine.
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict
Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded
Overview video
Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

7.7
notebookcheck.biz
✓ explicit
02/05/2020
Lab test · Office laptop
Verdict
The Asus M509DA is a portable Ryzen 3 laptop that handles office work and web browsing well, held back by its dim screen and short battery life.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Ryzen 3 3200U

  • Excellent value for budget-conscious buyers and entry-level laptops
  • Handles everyday tasks like web browsing, emails, and office apps smoothly
  • Energy efficient with low power consumption (15W TDP), leading to decent battery life
  • Integrated Radeon Vega 3 graphics allow for light gaming on low settings
  • Capable of streaming 1080p video (YouTube, Netflix) without lag

What customers don't like about AMD Ryzen 3 3200U

  • Limited to 2 cores and 4 threads, which hinders heavy multitasking
  • Unsuitable for modern AAA gaming or demanding creative work like 4K video editing
  • Performance is significantly improved only when paired with dual-channel RAM
  • Based on older 14nm architecture, making it less future-proof than newer Ryzen series
  • Can heat up quickly under sustained heavy loads, potentially leading to thermal throttling

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 3 3200U is an entry-level mobile processor built on the 14nm Zen microarchitecture, featuring 2 physical cores and 4 threads via simultaneous multithreading. It operates at a base frequency of 2.6 GHz with a boost clock of up to 3.5 GHz and includes integrated Radeon Vega 3 graphics with 3 GPU cores running at 1200 MHz. Key pros include its high power efficiency with a low 15W TDP, support for up to 64GB of DDR4-2400 RAM, and solid performance for everyday office tasks and light 2D gaming. However, its main cons are its limited dual-core configuration, which struggles with modern multi-threaded workloads, and its older architecture that is no longer competitive for contemporary high-end gaming or intensive creative applications.

Compare AMD Ryzen 3 3200U 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 3200U and other processors

No results found