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 210 review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£80PassMark multi-core score:12155N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:3.2 GHzCPU socket:FP8TDP (Thermal design power):28 W

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

6.9/10

Overall score

Score
6.9/ 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–² Better than 56% of models
Score components

40%

6.3

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

â–²Better than 56% of processors
7.8

Value for money

Value for money
7.8/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 77% of models
Score components

70%

6.9

Overall score

30%

10

Price

â–²Better than 77%
6.3

Technical score

Technical score
6.3/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 57% of models
Score components

60%

5.7

Performance

18%

6.8

Architecture

10%

6.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.6

Power & Thermal

4%

8.4

Platform

1%

8.2

Integrated graphics

â–²Better than 57%
?

Reviews score

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

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • No image
No image
Where to buy
    N/A~ £80
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 210

Technical score
Technical score
6.3/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 57% of models
Score components:

60%

5.7

Performance

18%

6.8

Architecture

10%

6.6

Memory & PCIe

7%

7.6

Power & Thermal

4%

8.4

Platform

1%

8.2

Integrated graphics

6.3
Reviews score
7.2
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.8/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 77% of models
Score components:

70%

6.9

Overall score

30%

10

Price

7.8
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.
laptop
CPU socket
FP8
This processor uses the FP8 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 49.9% of processors and equal to that of 2.2% of processors.
Chipset
N/A
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, AVX-512, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V instruction sets, which is broader support than 69.3% of processors and equal to that of 7.1% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
4
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 4 CPU cores, which is fewer than 52.8% of processors and equal to 27.5% of processors.
CPU threads
8
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 8 CPU threads, which is more than 33.4% of processors and equal to 18.8% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
3.2 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 3.2 GHz which is lower than that of 90.1% of processors and equal to that of 1.9% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
1x 3.6 GHz & 3x 2.8 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 1x3.6 GHz & 3x2.8 GHz which is lower than that of 62.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.1% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
12,155
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 12,155 in PassMark, which is higher than 51.1% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
4 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 4 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 86.8% of processors and equal to that of 7.7% of processors.
Foundry
TSMC 4 nm
This processor is built on the TSMC 4 nm foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 86.4% of processors and equal to that of 7.8% of processors.
L3 cache
8 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 8 MB which is smaller than that of 50.7% of processors and equal to that of 11.5% of processors.
L2 cache
4 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 4 MB which is larger than that of 53.6% of processors and equal to that of 9.2% of processors.
L1 cache
256 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 256 KB which is smaller than that of 60.4% of processors and equal to that of 18.1% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR5
This processor supports DDR DDR5, which is newer than that of 64.2% of processors and equal to that of 12.8% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
7,500 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 7,500 MHz, which is higher than that of 92.2% of processors and equal to 3.6% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR5-5600 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR5-5600 MHz, which is higher than that of 77.4% of processors and equal to 6.2% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
N/A
Maximum memory capacity
256 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 256 GB of memory, which is more than 89% of processors and equal to 8.8% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
?
Integrated GPU execution units
4
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 4 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 90.1% of processors and equal to 2.8% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
800 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 800 MHz which is higher than that of 86.6% of processors and equal to that of 6.3% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
?
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
28 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 28 W which is lower than that of 67.9% of processors and equal to that of 7.1% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
28 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 28 W which is lower than that of 67.7% of processors and equal to that of 7% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
yes
This processor supports configurable TDP. 46.4% of processors offer this.
cTDP: 15-30 W
Show more

AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 210 vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Hawk Point vs Kaby Lake).
    Hawk Point vs Kaby Lake
  • 56.8% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,407 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,407 vs 1,535
  • 33% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,401 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,401 vs 2,558
  • 4x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (256 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    256 GB vs 64 GB
  • 2.34x higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (7,500 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    7,500 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • 66.7% smaller process node
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (4 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    4 nm vs 12 nm
  • Mixed big and small cores
    This processor uses a big.LITTLE design, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors use one.
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (4 vs 3).
    4 vs 3
  • 3.13x cheaper
    AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 210 is cheaper than the average processor (£80 vs £250).
    £80 vs £250
  • 5 years newer release date
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2025 vs 2020).
    March 2025
    2025 vs 2020
  • Supports heterogeneous scheduling
    This processor uses heterogeneous multi-processing, while the average processor does not. 24.8% of processors use it.
  • 56.8% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2,407 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,407 vs 1,535
  • 33% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,401 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,401 vs 2,558
  • 34.2% higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (6,993 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    6,993 vs 5,209
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Hawk Point vs Kaby Lake).
    Hawk Point vs Kaby Lake
  • 66.7% smaller process node
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (4 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    4 nm vs 12 nm
  • Mixed big and small cores
    This processor uses a big.LITTLE design, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors use one.
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (TSMC 4 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    TSMC 4 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 2x more L2 per core
    This processor has more L2 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core). The average processor provides 0.5 MB/core of L2 cache per core.
    1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core
  • 4.22x more transistors
    This processor has more transistors than the average processor (20.9 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    20.9 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • 8.1% more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 4x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (256 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    256 GB vs 64 GB
  • 2.34x higher memory speed
    This processor has a higher maximum memory speed than the average processor (7,500 MHz vs 3,200 MHz). The average processor supports memory speed of 3,200 MHz.
    7,500 MHz vs 3,200 MHz
  • Newer PCIe version
    This processor supports a newer PCIe version than the average processor (4 vs 3).
    4 vs 3
  • Newer DDR support
    This processor supports a newer DDR generation than the average processor (DDR5 vs DDR4).
    DDR5 vs DDR4
  • Higher JEDEC memory speed
    This processor has a higher JEDEC memory speed than the average processor (DDR5-5600 MHz vs DDR4-3200 MHz). The average processor supports JEDEC memory speed of DDR4-3200 MHz.
    DDR5-5,600 MHz vs DDR4-3,200 MHz
  • 2.29x higher GPU clock speed
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (800 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    800 MHz vs 350 MHz
  • 1 more supported displays
    This processor has more supported displays than the average processor (4 vs 3). The average processor supports 3 displays.
    4 vs 3
  • 37.8% lower base power
    This processor has a lower base power draw than the average processor (28 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    28 W vs 45 W
  • 37.8% lower TDP
    This processor has a lower TDP than the average processor (28 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    28 W vs 45 W
  • 27.3% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 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
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • 23.7% lower memory bandwidth
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (35.8 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    35.8 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • 33.3% smaller L1 cache
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (256 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    256 KB vs 384 KB
  • 2 fewer PCIe lanes
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (14 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    14 vs 16
  • 83.3% fewer GPU execution units
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (4 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    4 vs 24
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (1x3.6 GHz & 3x2.8 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    1x3.6 GHz & 3x2.8 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • Older TPM support
    This processor supports an older TPM version than the average processor (fTPM 2 vs PTT 2).
    fTPM 2.0 vs PTT 2.0
  • 27.3% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    3.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • Lower base clock
    This processor has a lower base clock than the average processor (1x3.6 GHz & 3x2.8 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    1x3.6 GHz & 3x2.8 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 33.3% smaller L1 cache
    This processor has a lower L1 cache than the average processor (256 KB vs 384 KB). The average processor has L1 cache of 384 KB.
    256 KB vs 384 KB
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • 23.7% lower memory bandwidth
    This processor has a lower memory bandwidth than the average processor (35.8 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s). The average processor offers memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.
    35.8 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
  • 2 fewer PCIe lanes
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (14 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    14 vs 16
  • 83.3% fewer GPU execution units
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (4 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    4 vs 24

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 210

  • Highly energy efficient with a low Default TDP of 28W (configurable down to 15W)
  • Includes modern enterprise security and manageability through AMD PRO Technologies
  • Solid multitasking for its class with 4 cores and 8 threads (on the newer 210 model)
  • Built on advanced 4nm TSMC FinFET technology for improved efficiency and heat management
  • Competitive clock speeds with a max boost up to 4.7 GHz for responsive everyday use
  • Integrated Radeon graphics are capable of handling basic professional workflows and high-resolution displays

What customers don't like about AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 210

  • Limited for modern gaming; struggles with newer, hardware-intensive titles
  • Performance is largely considered entry-level, suitable only for everyday office tasks and light content creation
  • Confusion in the market due to similar naming with the much older and weaker 2-core 2100GE models
  • Locked multiplier prevents easy overclocking for enthusiasts seeking extra performance
  • Lower L3 cache (8 MB) compared to higher-tier Ryzen processors may bottleneck some heavy workloads

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 2100GE is an entry-level desktop processor from the Raven Ridge family, launched in Q2 2019, utilizing the Zen microarchitecture and a 14nm manufacturing process. It features 2 cores and 4 threads with a base clock frequency of 3.2 GHz (boostable to 3.6 GHz), 4MB of L3 cache, and integrated Radeon Vega 3 graphics. Main pros include its low 35W TDP, making it highly energy-efficient for compact office builds, and its inclusion in the AMD PRO lineup which offers enhanced security and manageability features for enterprise environments. Primary cons are its limited dual-core performance, which is no longer competitive for modern gaming or heavy multitasking, its locked multiplier that prevents overclocking, and its reliance on the older Zen architecture.

Compare AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 210 with other processors

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

Graphic comparison of AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 210 and other processors

No results found