OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v1.0
Processors Methodology v1.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are evaluated mathematically under Frontumo Processors Methodology v1.0 using verified laboratory benchmarks, technical specifications, and authentic consumer ratings with 0% commercial bias.
Explore Processors Methodology v1.0

AMD Ryzen 3 3350U Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£400PassMark benchmark result:5709N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:3.5 GHzCPU socket:FP5TDP (Thermal design power):15 W

AMD Ryzen 3 3350U Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

4.9

Overall score

Score
4.9/ 10
✕
What it is
An overall evaluation of the processor's quality, based on technical analyses and user reviews.
When it matters
When you need a quick reference to identify the best processors on the market.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 65% of models
Score components

90%

4.9

Technical score

10%

?

User score

â–¼Worse than 65% of processors
4.9

Technical score

Technical score
4.9/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
Score components

60%

4.5

Performance

18%

4.4

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.7

Power & Thermal

4%

8.2

Platform

1%

7.1

Integrated Graphics

â–¼Worse than 62% of processors
?

User score

User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

  • No image
No image

Best prices

    N/A~ £400

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 3350U

Technical score
Technical score
4.9/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
Score components:

60%

4.5

Performance

18%

4.4

Cache & Architecture

10%

4.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.7

Power & Thermal

4%

8.2

Platform

1%

7.1

Integrated Graphics

4.9
User score
User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

?
Popularity
Popularity
1.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator based on the number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you prefer to choose a processor reviewed and selected by many other buyers.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Popularity:
AMD Ryzen 3 3350U has a popularity score of 1 point, which is higher than that of 0% of products in this category.
1.0
Value for money
Value for money
5.9/ 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–¼ Worse than 80% of models
Score components:

60%

4.9

Overall score

40%

8.4

Price

5.9
Brand name
AMD
Processor type
mobile
Processor type
mobile
â–¼ Worse than 44% of models
This processor belongs to the mobile processor class, which is more advanced than that of 7.3% of processors and equal to that of 48.6% of processors.
CPU socket
FP5
CPU socket
FP5
â–¼ Worse than 57% of models
This processor uses the FP5 CPU socket, which is older than that of 57.2% of processors and equal to that of 3.3% of processors.
Chipset
X570, B550, A520, X470, B450, B350
Chipset
X570, B550, A520, X470, B450, B350
â–² Better than 70% of models
This processor supports X570, B550, A520, X470, B450, B350 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 69.7% of processors.
CPU architecture
x86-64
CPU architecture
x86-64
â–² Better than 2% of models
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.7% of processors and equal to that of 98.3% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
4
N. of physical cores
4
â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 4 CPU cores, which is fewer than 50.7% of processors and equal to 28.5% of processors.
CPU threads
4
CPU threads
4
â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 4 CPU threads, which is fewer than 67.4% of processors and equal to 26.5% of processors.
Threads per core
1
Threads per core
1
â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
Market range: <0 – >2.5
This processor offers 1 threads per core, which is fewer than 69.8% of processors and equal to 30.2% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
3.5 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
3.5 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 80% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 3.5 GHz which is lower than that of 80.4% of processors and equal to that of 3.1% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 2.1 GHz
CPU base clock speed
4x 2.1 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 72% of models
This processor has a base clock of 4x2.1 GHz which is lower than that of 71.9% of processors and equal to that of 1.1% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
12 nm
Semiconductor size
12 nm
â–² Better than 49% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 12 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 49.5% of processors and equal to that of 2.8% of processors.
Foundry
GlobalFoundries 12 nm
Foundry
GlobalFoundries 12 nm
â–² Better than 49% of models
This processor is built on the GlobalFoundries 12 nm foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 49.3% of processors and equal to that of 2.9% of processors.
L3 cache
4 MB
L3 cache
4 MB
â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 4 MB which is smaller than that of 70.2% of processors and equal to that of 14.6% of processors.
L2 cache
2 MB
L2 cache
2 MB
â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 2 MB which is smaller than that of 51% of processors and equal to that of 11.2% of processors.
L1 cache
384 KB
L1 cache
384 KB
â–² Better than 45% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 384 KB which is larger than that of 44.9% of processors and equal to that of 15.7% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4
DDR memory version
DDR4
â–¼ Worse than 42% of models
This processor supports DDR DDR4, which is newer than that of 26.3% of processors and equal to that of 31.7% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
2,400 MHz
Maximum memory speed
2,400 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,400 MHz, which is lower than that of 63% of processors and equal to 12.4% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2400 MHz
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2400 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 66% of models
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-2400 MHz, which is lower than that of 66.4% of processors and equal to 11.5% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
32 GB
Maximum memory capacity
32 GB
â–¼ Worse than 72% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 32 GB of memory, which is less than 71.9% of processors and equal to 19.5% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
Integrated graphics
yes
â–² Better than 12% of models
This processor includes integrated graphics. 12.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
Integrated GPU model
Radeon Vega 6
Integrated GPU model
Radeon Vega 6
â–² Better than 68% of models
This processor uses the Radeon Vega 6 integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 68.5% of processors and equal to that in 2.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
6
Integrated GPU execution units
6
â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 6 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 83.8% of processors and equal to 6.3% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 58% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 300 MHz which is lower than that of 58.1% of processors and equal to that of 37.9% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode)
â–² Better than 56% of models
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 56.2% of processors and equal to 9.5% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
15 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
15 W
â–² Better than 78% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 15 W which is lower than that of 78% of processors and equal to that of 16% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
15 W
Base power (PL1)
15 W
â–² Better than 77% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 15 W which is lower than that of 77.2% of processors and equal to that of 16.3% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
yes
Configurable TDP
yes
â–² Better than 47% of models
This processor supports configurable TDP. 47.3% of processors support configurable TDP.
Show more

AMD Ryzen 3 3350U vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • 66.7% lower base power
    Base power (PL1)
    15 W
    â–² Better than 77% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    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 TJ Max
    Maximum operating temperature (TJ Max)
    105 °C
    â–² Better than 84% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a higher TJ Max than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor has a TJ Max of 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C
  • 64.7% faster Blender rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    638.36
    â–² Better than 67% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (638.4 vs 387.66). The average processor needs 387.66 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    638.36 vs 387.66
  • 66.7% lower TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    15 W
    â–² Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    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
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    AES-NI, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Secure Processor, SME, SEV
    â–² Better than 56% of models
    This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Secure Processor, SME, SEV vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
    AES-NI, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Secure Processor, SME, SEV vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
  • Supports Turbo Core
    Turbo Core version
    3.0
    â–² Better than 85% of models
    This processor supports Turbo Core, the average processor does not. 1.00% of processors support Turbo Core.
    Precision Boost
    3.0 vs 2.0
  • More advanced foundry
    Foundry
    GlobalFoundries 12 nm
    â–² Better than 49% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (GlobalFoundries 12 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    GlobalFoundries 12 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 1 more supported displays
    Maximum supported displays
    4
    â–² Better than 56% of models
    Market range: <1 – >6
    This processor has more supported displays than the average processor (4 vs 3). The average processor supports 3 displays.
    4 vs 3
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    AES-NI, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Secure Processor, SME, SEV
    â–² Better than 56% of models
    This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Secure Processor, SME, SEV vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
    AES-NI, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Secure Processor, SME, SEV vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
  • 64.7% faster Blender rendering
    Blender (bmw27) benchmark result
    638.36
    â–² Better than 67% of models
    Market range: <97 – >1.3k
    This processor has a lower Blender BMW27 render time than the average processor (638.4 vs 387.66). The average processor needs 387.66 for the Blender BMW27 test.
    638.36 vs 387.66
  • Supports Turbo Core
    Turbo Core version
    3.0
    â–² Better than 85% of models
    This processor supports Turbo Core, the average processor does not. 1.00% of processors support Turbo Core.
    Precision Boost
    3.0 vs 2.0
  • More advanced foundry
    Foundry
    GlobalFoundries 12 nm
    â–² Better than 49% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (GlobalFoundries 12 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    GlobalFoundries 12 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 1 more supported displays
    Maximum supported displays
    4
    â–² Better than 56% of models
    Market range: <1 – >6
    This processor has more supported displays than the average processor (4 vs 3). The average processor supports 3 displays.
    4 vs 3
  • 66.7% lower base power
    Base power (PL1)
    15 W
    â–² Better than 77% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    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 TJ Max
    Maximum operating temperature (TJ Max)
    105 °C
    â–² Better than 84% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a higher TJ Max than the average processor (105 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor has a TJ Max of 100 °C.
    105 °C vs 100 °C
  • 66.7% lower TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    15 W
    â–² Better than 78% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    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
  • 18.6% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    3.5 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 80% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.5 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    3.5 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 38% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    912
    â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (912 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    912 vs 1,471
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Picasso
    â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Picasso vs Kaby Lake).
    Picasso vs Kaby Lake
  • 24.2% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1,895
    â–¼ Worse than 75% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,895 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,895 vs 2,500
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    4
    â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • 46% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    5,709
    â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (5,709 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    5,709 vs 10,572.5
  • 41.7% less L3 per core
    L3 per core
    1 MB/core
    â–¼ Worse than 81% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • 4 fewer CPU threads
    CPU threads
    4
    â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
    Market range: <4 – >24
    This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (4 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    4 vs 8
  • 60% more expensive
    AMD Ryzen 3 3350U is more expensive than the average processor (£400 vs £250).
    £400 vs £250
  • 10.5% worse value for money
    AMD Ryzen 3 3350U has worse value for money than the average processor (5.94 vs 6.6).
    5.94 vs 6.56
  • Older TPM support
    TPM type
    fTPM 2.0
    â–¼ Worse than 59% of models
    This processor supports an older TPM version than the average processor (fTPM 2 vs PTT 2).
    fTPM 2.0 vs PTT 2.0
  • 18.6% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    3.5 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 80% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.5 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    3.5 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 38% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    912
    â–¼ Worse than 79% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (912 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    912 vs 1,471
  • 46% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    5,709
    â–¼ Worse than 68% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (5,709 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    5,709 vs 10,572.5
  • 24.2% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    1,895
    â–¼ Worse than 75% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,895 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    1,895 vs 2,500
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    4
    â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • 4 fewer CPU threads
    CPU threads
    4
    â–¼ Worse than 67% of models
    Market range: <4 – >24
    This processor has fewer CPU threads than the average processor (4 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    4 vs 8
  • No multithreading support
    Multithreading
    no
    â–¼ Worse than 74% of models
    This processor does not support multithreading, the average processor does. 74.2% of processors support multithreading.
  • Lower base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    4 x 2.1 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 72% of models
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x2.1 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    4x2.1 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 1 fewer threads per core
    Threads per core
    1
    â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
    Market range: <0 – >2.5
    This processor has fewer threads per core than the average processor (1 vs 2). The average processor offers 2 threads per core.
    1 vs 2
  • 7 lower clock multiplier
    Clock multiplier
    21
    â–¼ Worse than 74% of models
    Market range: <16 – >38
    This processor has a lower clock multiplier than the average processor (21 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    21 vs 28
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Picasso
    â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Picasso vs Kaby Lake).
    Picasso vs Kaby Lake
  • 41.7% less L3 per core
    L3 per core
    1 MB/core
    â–¼ Worse than 81% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • 18.6% larger die size
    Die size
    210 mm²
    â–¼ Worse than 69% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    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
  • 50% smaller L3 cache
    L3 cache
    4 MB
    â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
    Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (4 MB vs 8 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 8 MB.
    4 MB vs 8 MB
  • 20% smaller L2 cache
    L2 cache
    2 MB
    â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (2 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    2 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • 4 fewer PCIe lanes
    PCIe lane count
    12
    â–¼ Worse than 81% of models
    Market range: <10 – >30
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (12 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    8 usable lanes
    12 vs 16
  • 50% less memory capacity
    Maximum memory capacity
    32 GB
    â–¼ Worse than 72% of models
    Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
    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
    Max memory speed (JEDEC)
    DDR4-2400 MHz
    â–¼ Worse than 66% of models
    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
  • 18.2% lower memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    2,400 MHz
    â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2400 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
    2,400 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
  • 16.2% lower memory bandwidth
    Maximum memory bandwidth
    38.4 GB/s
    â–¼ Worse than 61% of models
    Market range: <25 GB/s – >100 GB/s
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (38.4 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 45.8 GB/s.
    38.4 GB/s vs 45.8 GB/s
  • 75% fewer GPU execution units
    Integrated GPU execution units
    6
    â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
    Market range: <6 – >64
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (6 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    6 vs 24
  • Narrower media codec support
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode)
    â–² Better than 56% of models
    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)).
    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)
  • 5 °C higher CPU temperature
    CPU temperature
    105 °C
    â–¼ Worse than 84% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    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

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

C
cpubenchmark.net
29/03/2026
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen 3 3350U - CPU Benchmarks
N
notebookcheck.net
01/07/2023
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen 3 3350U vs Intel Core i5-1240P vs AMD Ryzen 5 3580U Would you like me to look for laptop-specific reviews that feature this processor, such...
C
cpubenchmark.net
29/03/2026
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen 3 3350U vs Intel i3-1115G4 - CPU Benchmarks
C
cpubenchmark.net
30/03/2026
Summary of the review
Intel i5-7440EQ vs AMD Ryzen 3 3350U - CPU Benchmarks
C
cpubenchmark.net
Sin fecha
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen 3 3350U - CPU Performance Benchmarks
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

What we like about AMD Ryzen 3 3350U

  • Excellent value for budget-conscious users, students, and office workers
  • Strong performance in daily productivity tasks like web browsing, Word, and PowerPoint
  • Efficient 15W TDP leads to low power consumption and impressive battery life in laptops
  • Integrated Radeon Vega 6 graphics handle light gaming (e.g., Minecraft, Roblox) better than many budget Intel counterparts
  • Remains relatively cool and quiet during standard operation
  • Supports virtualization (AMD-V) for those needing basic VM capabilities

What we don't like about AMD Ryzen 3 3350U

  • Lacks SMT/Hyper-threading (4 cores, 4 threads), limiting its multi-threaded performance compared to Ryzen 5 or Core i5
  • Struggles with modern AAA games and intensive 3D rendering
  • Often paired with low stock RAM (4GB) which can bottleneck the processor's performance
  • Older Zen+ architecture is less efficient and slower than newer Zen 2 or Zen 3 mobile chips
  • Can experience performance dips over long-term use if the cooling system is not maintained

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 3 3350U is a mobile quad-core processor based on the 12nm Zen+ 'Picasso' architecture, designed primarily for thin mid-range laptops. It features 4 cores and 4 threads with a base clock speed of 2.1 GHz and a maximum boost frequency of up to 3.5 GHz, supported by 4MB of L3 cache and a 15W TDP. A key pro is its integrated Radeon RX Vega 6 graphics, which offers decent performance for daily tasks and light entry-level gaming compared to competitors in its class. However, main cons include the lack of multi-threading (SMT), which limits its performance in heavy multitasking workloads, and its reliance on older architecture compared to more recent Ryzen generations.

Compare AMD Ryzen 3 3350U 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 3350U and other processors

No results found