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 PRO 1200 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£35PassMark multi-core score:5257N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:3.4 GHzCPU socket:AM4TDP (Thermal design power):65 W

AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1200 Review: Compare 74 technical specifications to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

6.1/10

Overall score

Score
6.1/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 71% of models
Score components

40%

4.3

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

▼Worse than 71% of processors
7.3

Value for money

Value for money
7.3/ 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 51% of models
Score components

70%

6.1

Overall score

30%

10

Price

▼Worse than 51%
4.3

Technical score

Technical score
4.3/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 76% of models
Score components

60%

3.3

Performance

18%

4.5

Architecture

10%

6.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.1

Power & Thermal

4%

8.5

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

▼Worse than 76%
?

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
▼
<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~ £35
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 PRO 1200

Technical score
Technical score
4.3/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 76% of models
Score components:

60%

3.3

Performance

18%

4.5

Architecture

10%

6.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.1

Power & Thermal

4%

8.5

Platform

1%

4.0

Integrated graphics

4.3
Reviews score
7.2
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.3/ 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 51% of models
Score components:

70%

6.1

Overall score

30%

10

Price

7.3
Processor type
desktop
This processor belongs to the desktop processor class, which is more advanced than that of 54.7% of processors and equal to that of 39.5% of processors.
CPU socket
AM4
This processor uses the AM4 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 75.1% of processors and equal to that of 9.4% of processors.
Chipset
X470, B450, X370, B350, A320
This processor supports X470, B450, X370, B350, A320 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 67.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% 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, AMD-V
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, AMD-V instruction sets, which is broader support than 85.3% of processors and equal to that of 6% 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
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
3.4 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 3.4 GHz which is lower than that of 84.6% of processors and equal to that of 2.8% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 3.1 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x3.1 GHz which is lower than that of 59% of processors and equal to that of 1.5% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
5,257
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 5,257 in PassMark, which is lower than 72% of processors and equal to 0.1% 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
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
2 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 2 MB which is smaller than that of 52.9% of processors and equal to that of 10.8% of processors.
L1 cache
384 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 384 KB which is larger than that of 44% of processors and equal to that of 15.7% 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
2,666 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,666 MHz, which is lower than that of 56.7% of processors and equal to 7.9% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
?
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
?
Maximum memory capacity
64 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 64 GB of memory, which is more than 27.2% of processors and equal to 26.1% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
no
This processor does not include integrated graphics. 85.4% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
N/A
Integrated GPU execution units
N/A
Integrated GPU base frequency
N/A
Integrated media encoders/decoders
N/A
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
65 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 65 W which is higher than that of 68% of processors and equal to that of 17% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
65 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 65 W which is higher than that of 68.1% of processors and equal to that of 17.4% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
no
This processor does not support configurable TDP. 53.7% of processors offer this.
Show more

AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1200 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 8 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (24 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    24 vs 16
  • Unlocked for overclocking
    This processor has an unlocked multiplier, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors offer this.
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • 5 °C lower CPU temperature
    This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (95 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    95 °C vs 100 °C
  • Supports ECC memory
    This processor supports ECC memory, while the average processor does not. 32% of processors support it.
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (AM4 vs FP5).
    AM4 vs FP5
  • 7.14x cheaper
    AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1200 is cheaper than the average processor (£35 vs £250).
    £35 vs £250
  • 7.14x cheaper
    AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1200 is cheaper than the average processor (£35 vs £250).
    £35 vs £250
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (AM4 vs FP5).
    AM4 vs FP5
  • Broader instruction support
    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, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • Unlocked for overclocking
    This processor has an unlocked multiplier, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors offer this.
  • 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
  • 8 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (24 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    24 vs 16
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • Supports ECC memory
    This processor supports ECC memory, while the average processor does not. 32% of processors support it.
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • 5 °C lower CPU temperature
    This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (95 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    95 °C vs 100 °C
  • 36% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,636 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,636 vs 2,558
  • 22.7% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.4 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.4 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 54.2% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (5,257 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    5,257 vs 11,469
  • 42.9% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (876 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    876 vs 1,535
  • 58.9% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (2,139 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    2,139 vs 5,209
  • 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
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Summit Ridge vs Kaby Lake).
    Summit Ridge vs Kaby Lake
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 3 years older release date
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2017 vs 2020).
    June 2017
    2017 vs 2020
  • 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
  • 22.7% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.4 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.4 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 36% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (1,636 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    1,636 vs 2,558
  • 54.2% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (5,257 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    5,257 vs 11,469
  • 58.9% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (2,139 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    2,139 vs 5,209
  • 42.9% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (876 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    876 vs 1,535
  • 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
  • 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
  • No simultaneous multithreading
    This processor does not support simultaneous multithreading, while the average processor does. 73.8% of processors support it.
  • 23.7% weaker multi-core performance
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (2,139 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    2,139 vs 2,804.5
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (4x3.1 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    4x3.1 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • More basic Turbo Core
    This processor has a more basic Turbo Core version than the average processor (1 vs 2).
    Precision Boost
    1 vs 2
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Summit Ridge vs Kaby Lake).
    Summit Ridge vs Kaby Lake
  • 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
  • 20.3% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (213 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    213 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 33.3% smaller L2 cache
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (2 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    2 MB vs 3 MB
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x8/x8, x8/x4/x4, x2/x2 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x8/x8, x8/x4/x4, x2/x2 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • 16.7% lower memory speed
    This processor has a lower maximum memory speed than the average processor (2,666 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    2,666 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • No integrated graphics
    This processor does not include integrated graphics, while the average processor does. 85.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
  • No configurable TDP
    This processor does not support configurable TDP, while the average processor does. 53.7% of processors support configurable TDP.
  • 44.4% higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W
  • 5 °C lower temperature limit
    This processor has a lower temperature limit than the average processor (95 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    95 °C vs 100 °C
  • 44.4% higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1200

  • Excellent price-to-performance ratio for entry-level and ultra-budget builds.
  • Features four physical cores, outperforming similarly priced dual-core competitors in multi-threaded tasks.
  • Highly capable of being overclocked, often reaching 3.8–4.0 GHz to match or exceed the more expensive Ryzen 3 1300X.
  • Strong thermal performance with low operating temperatures, even under load.
  • Utilises the long-lived AM4 socket, providing a clear and affordable future upgrade path to Ryzen 5 or 7 CPUs.
  • Competent performance in casual and older esports titles like 'League of Legends' and 'CS:GO'.

What customers don't like about AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1200

  • Lacks Simultaneous Multi-Threading (SMT), limiting its effectiveness in modern, highly threaded applications.
  • Relatively weak single-core performance compared to Intel's budget offerings from the same era.
  • Struggles significantly with modern AAA games (e.g., 'The Division 2', 'Hell Divers 2'), often causing stuttering or 100% CPU usage.
  • Does not include integrated graphics, requiring the additional purchase of a dedicated GPU.
  • Sensitive to RAM speeds; performance can be hindered by slower memory or single-channel configurations.
  • The 2+2 core complex (CCX) configuration in original models can introduce latency issues in specific workloads.

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1200 is an entry-level desktop processor based on the 14nm 'Zen' architecture, featuring 4 physical cores and 4 threads with a base clock of 3.1 GHz and a max boost of 3.4 GHz. Key specifications include 8MB of L3 cache, a 65W TDP, and support for dual-channel DDR4-2667 memory and ECC for enhanced data reliability. Its main pros include high energy efficiency, low thermal output, and the inclusion of enterprise-grade 'Pro' security features, making it a cost-effective solution for basic office productivity and light gaming. However, its primary cons are the lack of simultaneous multithreading (SMT), the absence of integrated graphics requiring a dedicated GPU, and limited performance in modern, highly-threaded applications.

Compare AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1200 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 PRO 1200 and other processors

No results found