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 4300U Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£110PassMark benchmark result:7348N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:3.7 GHzCPU socket:FP6TDP (Thermal design power):15 W

AMD Ryzen 3 4300U Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

4.7

Overall score

Score
4.7/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 69% of models
Score components

90%

4.7

Technical score

10%

?

User score

▼Worse than 69% of processors
4.7

Technical score

Technical score
4.7/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 65% of models
Score components

60%

3.6

Performance

18%

5.4

Cache & Architecture

10%

6.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.7

Power & Thermal

4%

8.3

Platform

1%

7.3

Integrated Graphics

▼Worse than 65% 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

  • No image
No image

Best prices

    N/A~ £110

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 4300U

Technical score
Technical score
4.7/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 65% of models
Score components:

60%

3.6

Performance

18%

5.4

Cache & Architecture

10%

6.3

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.7

Power & Thermal

4%

8.3

Platform

1%

7.3

Integrated Graphics

4.7
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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 99% of models
Popularity:
AMD Ryzen 3 4300U 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
6.3/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 63% of models
Score components:

60%

4.7

Overall score

40%

9.9

Price

6.3
Brand name
AMD
Processor type
mobile
Processor type
mobile
▼ 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
FP6
CPU socket
FP6
▼ Worse than 53% of models
This processor uses the FP6 CPU socket, which is older than that of 52.7% of processors and equal to that of 4.4% of processors.
Chipset
X570, B550, A520, X470, B450, X370, B350, A320
Chipset
X570, B550, A520, X470, B450, X370, B350, A320
▲ Better than 74% of models
This processor supports X570, B550, A520, X470, B450, X370, B350, A320 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 73.8% of processors and equal to that of 4.5% of processors.
CPU architecture
x86-64
CPU architecture
x86-64
▲ 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
▼ 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
▼ 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
▼ 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
3.7 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
3.7 GHz
▼ Worse than 73% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 3.7 GHz which is lower than that of 72.7% of processors and equal to that of 3.9% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 2.7 GHz
CPU base clock speed
4x 2.7 GHz
▼ Worse than 64% of models
This processor has a base clock of 4x2.7 GHz which is lower than that of 63.9% of processors and equal to that of 1.4% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
7 nm
Semiconductor size
7 nm
▲ Better than 72% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 7 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 71.5% of processors and equal to that of 10.9% of processors.
Foundry
TSMC 7 nm
Foundry
TSMC 7 nm
▲ Better than 57% of models
This processor is built on the TSMC 7 nm foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 56.7% of processors and equal to that of 9.4% of processors.
L3 cache
4 MB
L3 cache
4 MB
▼ 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
▼ 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
256 KB
L1 cache
256 KB
▼ Worse than 59% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 256 KB which is smaller than that of 59.4% of processors and equal to that of 18.6% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4/LPDDR4
DDR memory version
DDR4/LPDDR4
▲ Better than 60% of models
This processor supports DDR DDR4/LPDDR4, which is newer than that of 60.5% of processors and equal to that of 2.6% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
4,266 MHz
Maximum memory speed
4,266 MHz
▲ Better than 62% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 4,266 MHz, which is higher than that of 61.5% of processors and equal to 2.5% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR4-4266 MHz
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
LPDDR4-4266 MHz
▲ Better than 59% of models
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to LPDDR4-4266 MHz, which is higher than that of 58.6% of processors and equal to 2.2% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
32 GB
Maximum memory capacity
32 GB
▼ 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
▲ Better than 12% of models
This processor includes integrated graphics. 12.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
AMD Radeon Graphics 320SP
Integrated GPU model
Radeon Vega 5
Integrated GPU model
Radeon Vega 5
▲ Better than 68% of models
This processor uses the Radeon Vega 5 integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 68.3% of processors and equal to that in 0.1% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
5
Integrated GPU execution units
5
▼ Worse than 90% of models
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 5 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 90.2% of processors and equal to 0.1% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
400 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
400 MHz
▲ Better than 69% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 400 MHz which is higher than that of 68.7% of processors and equal to that of 7.9% 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)
▲ 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
▲ 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
▲ 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
▲ Better than 47% of models
This processor supports configurable TDP. 47.3% of processors support configurable TDP.
cTDP: 7,000 W
Show more

AMD Ryzen 3 4300U vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • 66.7% lower base power
    Base power (PL1)
    15 W
    ▲ 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
  • Supports memory overclocking
    Memory overclocking
    yes
    ▲ Better than 56% of models
    This processor supports memory overclocking, the average processor does not. 43.6% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Renoir
    ▲ Better than 57% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Renoir vs Kaby Lake).
    Renoir vs Kaby Lake
  • 41.7% smaller process node
    Semiconductor size
    7 nm
    ▲ Better than 72% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (7 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    7 nm vs 12 nm
  • 5 °C higher TJ Max
    Maximum operating temperature (TJ Max)
    105 °C
    ▲ 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
    ▲ 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
  • Newer DDR support
    DDR memory version
    DDR4/LPDDR4
    ▲ Better than 60% of models
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/LPDDR4 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/LPDDR4 vs DDR4
  • More advanced foundry
    Foundry
    TSMC 7 nm
    ▲ Better than 57% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (TSMC 7 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    TSMC 7 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    AES-NI, SHA, SMAP, SMEP, Secure Processor, SME, TSME
    ▲ Better than 56% of models
    This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, SMAP, SMEP, Secure Processor, SME, TSME vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
    AES-NI, SHA, SMAP, SMEP, Secure Processor, SME, TSME vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
  • Broader instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2
    ▲ Better than 80% of models
    This processor supports a broader instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2 vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Renoir
    ▲ Better than 57% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Renoir vs Kaby Lake).
    Renoir vs Kaby Lake
  • 41.7% smaller process node
    Semiconductor size
    7 nm
    ▲ Better than 72% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (7 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    7 nm vs 12 nm
  • More advanced foundry
    Foundry
    TSMC 7 nm
    ▲ Better than 57% of models
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (TSMC 7 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    TSMC 7 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • Supports memory overclocking
    Memory overclocking
    yes
    ▲ Better than 56% of models
    This processor supports memory overclocking, the average processor does not. 43.6% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • Newer DDR support
    DDR memory version
    DDR4/LPDDR4
    ▲ Better than 60% of models
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR4/LPDDR4 vs DDR4).
    DDR4/LPDDR4 vs DDR4
  • 45.4% higher memory speed
    Maximum memory speed
    4,266 MHz
    ▲ Better than 62% of models
    Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (4266 MHz vs 2933 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 2933 MHz.
    4,266 MHz vs 2,933 MHz
  • 1 more supported displays
    Maximum supported displays
    4
    ▲ 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
    ▲ 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
    ▲ 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
    ▲ 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
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    4
    ▼ 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
  • 14% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    3.7 GHz
    ▼ Worse than 73% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.7 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    3.7 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 46.2% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    1,502
    ▼ Worse than 71% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (1,502 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    1,502 vs 2,791
  • 41.7% less L3 per core
    L3 per core
    1 MB/core
    ▼ 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
    ▼ 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
    ▼ Worse than 74% of models
    This processor does not support multithreading, the average processor does. 74.2% of processors support multithreading.
  • 30.5% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    7,348
    ▼ Worse than 60% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (7,348 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    7,348 vs 10,572.5
  • 30.3% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    3,365
    ▼ Worse than 60% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (3,365 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    3,365 vs 4,829
  • Older TPM support
    TPM type
    fTPM 2.0
    ▼ 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
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    4
    ▼ 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
  • 14% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    3.7 GHz
    ▼ Worse than 73% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.7 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    3.7 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 46.2% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    1,502
    ▼ Worse than 71% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (1,502 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    1,502 vs 2,791
  • 4 fewer CPU threads
    CPU threads
    4
    ▼ 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
  • 30.5% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    7,348
    ▼ Worse than 60% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (7,348 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    7,348 vs 10,572.5
  • No multithreading support
    Multithreading
    no
    ▼ Worse than 74% of models
    This processor does not support multithreading, the average processor does. 74.2% of processors support multithreading.
  • 30.3% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    3,365
    ▼ Worse than 60% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (3,365 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    3,365 vs 4,829
  • 14.7% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    1,255
    ▼ Worse than 61% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,255 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,255 vs 1,471
  • 8.2% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    2,294
    ▼ Worse than 57% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,294 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    2,294 vs 2,500
  • 50% lower bus transfer rate
    Bus transfer rate
    4 GT/s
    ▼ Worse than 85% of models
    Market range: <4 GT/s – >19 GT/s
    This processor has a lower bus transfer rate than the average processor (4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s). The average processor offers bus transfer rate of 8 GT/s.
    4 GT/s vs 8 GT/s
  • 1 fewer threads per core
    Threads per core
    1
    ▼ 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
  • Lower base clock
    CPU base clock speed
    4 x 2.7 GHz
    ▼ Worse than 64% of models
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x2.7 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz).
    4x2.7 GHz vs 4x3.3 GHz
  • 41.7% less L3 per core
    L3 per core
    1 MB/core
    ▼ 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
  • 50% smaller L3 cache
    L3 cache
    4 MB
    ▼ 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
  • 33.3% smaller L1 cache
    L1 cache
    256 KB
    ▼ Worse than 59% of models
    Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
    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
  • 20% smaller L2 cache
    L2 cache
    2 MB
    ▼ 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
  • 50% less memory capacity
    Maximum memory capacity
    32 GB
    ▼ 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
  • 79.2% fewer GPU execution units
    Integrated GPU execution units
    5
    ▼ Worse than 90% of models
    Market range: <6 – >64
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (5 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    5 vs 24
  • Narrower media codec support
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode)
    ▲ 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
    ▼ 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

Video reviews

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

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

L
laptopmedia.com
16/07/2020
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen 3 4300U vs Ryzen 5 4500U – the bigger the (40%) better
L
laptopmedia.com
14/07/2020
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen 3 4300U vs Ryzen 7 3700U – last year's champ is today's “nothing special”
L
laptopmedia.com
16/01/2021
Summary of the review
[Comparison] Intel Core i3-1115G4 vs AMD Ryzen 3 4300U – The AMD processor is much better in both CPU and GPU benchmarks
L
laptopmedia.com
08/07/2020
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen 3 4300U vs Ryzen 5 3500U – the old mid-ranger beaten by the new budget king
L
laptopmedia.com
01/09/2020
Summary of the review
[Comparison] AMD Ryzen 3 4300U vs Intel Core i5-9300H – less consumption vs more power
N
notebookcheck.net
18/06/2020
Summary of the review
Ryzen 3 4300U makes Intel's Core i3 look old - Acer Swift 3 SF314-42 in review
L
laptopmedia.com
08/07/2020
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen 3 4300U vs Ryzen 5 3500U - Zen to Victory!
(Translated)Show original
L
laptopmedia.com
18/06/2021
Summary of the review
All our articles with the amd ryzen 3 4300u tag
(Translated)Show original
A
android-mt.ouest-france.fr
19/02/2026
Summary of the review
NiPoGi Pinova P1 Review: The entry-level mini PC shaker (Ryzen 4300U)
(Translated)Show original
L
lesnumeriques.com
11/02/2021
Summary of the review
Lab Test – Acer Aspire 5 A515-44: Its AMD Ryzen 3 4300U processor holds its own
(Translated)Show original
A
androidpc.es
22/10/2026
Summary of the review
Lenovo IdeaPad 3 14: Budget laptop with AMD Ryzen 3 4300U processor
(Translated)Show original
T
tweakers.net
20/08/2020
Summary of the review
Laptop Best Buy Guide: Back to School Edition
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

What we like about AMD Ryzen 3 4300U

  • Excellent value for the price, especially for budget-conscious buyers
  • Strong single-core and multi-core performance for its class, outperforming some older high-end desktop and laptop CPUs
  • Highly power-efficient 7nm architecture with a low 15W TDP, contributing to better battery life and cooler operation
  • Capable of handling light to medium workloads such as Adobe Photoshop and office applications effectively
  • Integrated Radeon Vega 5 graphics allow for playable frame rates in e-sports and older AAA titles at lower settings

What we don't like about AMD Ryzen 3 4300U

  • Lacks SMT (Simultaneous Multithreading), meaning it is limited to 4 cores and 4 threads, which can impact heavy multitasking
  • Performance may be bottlenecked by newer, more demanding game releases
  • Potential power management issues in certain laptop models, such as problems with 'modern standby'
  • Graphics performance is highly dependent on system configuration; single-channel RAM can significantly reduce FPS
  • Outperformed by newer budget alternatives like the Ryzen 3 5300U, which includes hyperthreading

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 3 4300U is a budget-friendly mobile processor released in early 2020, built on the 7nm Zen 2 'Renoir' architecture. It features 4 physical cores and 4 threads with a base clock speed of 2.7 GHz that can boost up to 3.7 GHz, alongside 4MB of L3 cache and a standard 15W TDP (configurable between 10W and 25W). Its primary strengths include strong power efficiency for thin-and-light laptops and reliable integrated Radeon RX Vega 5 graphics that handle casual gaming and HD video editing better than many entry-level competitors. However, its main drawbacks are the lack of multi-threading (SMT) support, which can limit performance in highly parallel professional workloads, and its increasingly dated status compared to newer generations that offer significantly higher core counts and faster architectures.

Compare AMD Ryzen 3 4300U 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 4300U and other processors

No results found