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 Pro 2200G Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£110PassMark benchmark result:6632N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:3.7 GHzCPU socket:AM4TDP (Thermal design power):65 W

AMD Ryzen 3 Pro 2200G Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

4.5

Overall score

Score
4.5/ 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 74% of models
Score components

90%

4.5

Technical score

10%

?

User score

▼Worse than 74% of processors
4.5

Technical score

Technical score
4.5/ 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 69% of models
Score components

60%

3.8

Performance

18%

4.3

Cache & Architecture

10%

5.2

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.0

Power & Thermal

4%

8.3

Platform

1%

7.3

Integrated Graphics

▼Worse than 69% 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

*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.

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 2200G

Technical score
Technical score
4.5/ 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 69% of models
Score components:

60%

3.8

Performance

18%

4.3

Cache & Architecture

10%

5.2

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.0

Power & Thermal

4%

8.3

Platform

1%

7.3

Integrated Graphics

4.5
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 Pro 2200G 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
6.2/ 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 68% of models
Score components:

60%

4.5

Overall score

40%

9.9

Price

6.2
Brand name
AMD
Processor type
desktop
Processor type
desktop
▲ Better than 56% of models
This processor belongs to the desktop processor class, which is more advanced than that of 56% of processors and equal to that of 37.9% of processors.
CPU socket
AM4
CPU socket
AM4
▲ Better than 77% of models
This processor uses the AM4 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 76.5% of processors and equal to that of 9.6% 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 3.5 GHz
CPU base clock speed
4x 3.5 GHz
▲ Better than 50% of models
This processor has a base clock of 4x3.5 GHz which is higher than that of 49.8% of processors and equal to that of 1.5% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
14 nm
Semiconductor size
14 nm
▼ Worse than 51% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 14 nm process node, which is older than that of 50.6% of processors and equal to that of 33.9% of processors.
Foundry
GlobalFoundries 14 nm
Foundry
GlobalFoundries 14 nm
▼ Worse than 51% of models
This processor is built on the GlobalFoundries 14 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 50.8% of processors and equal to that of 4.4% 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
384 KB
L1 cache
384 KB
▲ 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
▼ 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
2,933 MHz
Maximum memory speed
2,933 MHz
▼ Worse than 48% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,933 MHz, which is higher than that of 46.6% of processors and equal to 5.1% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2933 MHz
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2933 MHz
▼ Worse than 53% of models
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-2933 MHz, which is lower than that of 52.5% of processors and equal to 4.4% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
?
Maximum memory capacity
64 GB
Maximum memory capacity
64 GB
▼ Worse than 44% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 64 GB of memory, which is more than 28.4% of processors and equal to 27.5% 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.
Integrated GPU model
Radeon Vega 8
Integrated GPU model
Radeon Vega 8
▲ Better than 73% of models
This processor uses the Radeon Vega 8 integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 72.9% of processors and equal to that in 3.4% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
8
Integrated GPU execution units
8
▼ Worse than 74% of models
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 8 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 74% of processors and equal to 7.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
1,100 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
1,100 MHz
★ Better than 94% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 1,100 MHz which is higher than that of 94.4% of processors and equal to that of 0.6% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode)
▲ Better than 70% of models
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 69.9% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
65 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
65 W
▼ Worse than 70% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 65 W which is higher than that of 69.9% of processors and equal to that of 16.3% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
65 W
Base power (PL1)
65 W
▼ Worse than 70% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 65 W which is higher than that of 70.1% of processors and equal to that of 16.7% 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: 45-65 W
Show more

AMD Ryzen 3 Pro 2200G vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • Includes stock cooler
    Cooler included
    yes
    ▲ Better than 74% of models
    This processor includes a stock cooler, the average processor does not. 25.9% of processors include a stock cooler.
  • 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.
  • 5 °C lower CPU temperature
    CPU temperature
    95 °C
    ▲ Better than 72% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    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
    ECC memory support
    yes
    ▲ Better than 68% of models
    This processor supports ECC memory, the average processor does not. 32.5% of processors support ECC memory.
  • Modern CPU socket
    CPU socket
    AM4
    ▲ Better than 77% of models
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (AM4 vs FP4).
    AM4 vs FP4
  • Broader instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, AMD-V
    ▲ Better than 85% 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, AMD-V 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, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • 3.14x higher GPU clock speed
    Integrated GPU base frequency
    1,100 MHz
    ★ Better than 94% of models
    Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (1100 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    1,100 MHz vs 350 MHz
  • Modern CPU socket
    CPU socket
    AM4
    ▲ Better than 77% of models
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (AM4 vs FP4).
    AM4 vs FP4
  • Broader instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, AMD-V
    ▲ Better than 85% 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, AMD-V 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, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA
  • 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.
  • Supports ECC memory
    ECC memory support
    yes
    ▲ Better than 68% of models
    This processor supports ECC memory, the average processor does not. 32.5% of processors support ECC memory.
  • 3.14x higher GPU clock speed
    Integrated GPU base frequency
    1,100 MHz
    ★ Better than 94% of models
    Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (1100 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    1,100 MHz vs 350 MHz
  • Includes stock cooler
    Cooler included
    yes
    ▲ Better than 74% of models
    This processor includes a stock cooler, the average processor does not. 25.9% of processors include a stock cooler.
  • 5 °C lower CPU temperature
    CPU temperature
    95 °C
    ▲ Better than 72% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    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
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Raven Ridge
    ▼ Worse than 85% of models
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Raven Ridge vs Kaby Lake).
    Raven Ridge vs Kaby Lake
  • 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
  • 28.6% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    1,050
    ▼ Worse than 73% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,050 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,050 vs 1,471
  • 28% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    352
    ▼ Worse than 81% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (352 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    352 vs 489
  • 40.6% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    2,869
    ▼ Worse than 63% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (2,869 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    2,869 vs 4,829
  • 37.3% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    6,632
    ▼ Worse than 63% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (6,632 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    6,632 vs 10,572.5
  • 18.6% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    2035
    ▼ Worse than 68% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2035 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    2,035 vs 2,500
  • 6.4% worse value for money
    AMD Ryzen 3 Pro 2200G has worse value for money than the average processor (6.17 vs 6.6).
    6.17 vs 6.56
  • 2 years older release date
    Release date
    2018
    ▼ Worse than 62% of models
    Market range: <2k – >2k
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2018 vs 2020).
    May 2018
    2018 vs 2020
  • 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
  • 28.6% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    1,050
    ▼ Worse than 73% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,050 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,050 vs 1,471
  • 28% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    Cinebench R20 single-core benchmark score
    352
    ▼ Worse than 81% of models
    Market range: <282 – >775
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (352 vs 489). The average processor scores 489 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    352 vs 489
  • 37.3% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    6,632
    ▼ Worse than 63% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (6,632 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    6,632 vs 10,572.5
  • 40.6% lower multi-core score
    Geekbench 6 multi-core benchmark score
    2,869
    ▼ Worse than 63% of models
    Market range: <763 – >14k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (2,869 vs 4,829). The average processor scores 4,829 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    2,869 vs 4,829
  • 18.6% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    2035
    ▼ Worse than 68% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2035 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    2,035 vs 2,500
  • 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.
  • 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
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Raven Ridge
    ▼ Worse than 85% of models
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Raven Ridge vs Kaby Lake).
    Raven Ridge vs Kaby Lake
  • 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
  • 16.7% larger process node
    Semiconductor size
    14 nm
    ▼ Worse than 51% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    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
  • 18.6% larger die size
    Die size
    210 mm²
    ▼ 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
    ▼ 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
    ▼ 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
  • 8 fewer PCIe lanes
    PCIe lane count
    8
    ▼ Worse than 92% of models
    Market range: <10 – >30
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (8 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    8 vs 16
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    PCIe bifurcation modes
    x16
    ▼ Worse than 65% of models
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4).
    x16 vs x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4
  • 66.7% fewer GPU execution units
    Integrated GPU execution units
    8
    ▼ Worse than 74% of models
    Market range: <6 – >64
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (8 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    8 vs 24
  • Narrower media codec support
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), VC-1 (HW decode)
    ▲ Better than 70% 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), VC-1 (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), VC-1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
  • 44.4% higher base power
    Base power (PL1)
    65 W
    ▼ Worse than 70% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    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 TJ Max
    Maximum operating temperature (TJ Max)
    95 °C
    ▼ Worse than 73% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a lower TJ Max than the average processor (95 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor has a TJ Max of 100 °C.
    95 °C vs 100 °C
  • 44.4% higher TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    65 W
    ▼ Worse than 70% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    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

Video reviews

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

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

C
cpubenchmark.net
2024 (Last updated)
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 2200G vs Ryzen 3 2200G - PerformanceTest
C
cpubenchmark.net
22/10/2026
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 2200G vs Intel i5-7500 - CPU Benchmarks
C
cpubenchmark.net
01/05/2018
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 2200G - CPU Benchmarks
H
hardwarecooking.fr
25/01/2018
Summary of the review
First reviews of the AMD Ryzen 5 2400G (comparisons with 2200G)
(Translated)Show original
T
tomshardware.fr
20/02/2018
Summary of the review
Ryzen 5 2400G Review: Delidding and Liquid Metal Thermal Paste (including 2200G)
(Translated)Show original
M
minimachines.net
22/06/2018
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G: Entry-level reaches a new level
(Translated)Show original
H
hardware.fr
21/02/2018
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen 5 2400G and Ryzen 3 2200G: Are APUs Back?
(Translated)Show original
C
cowcotland.com
16/03/2018
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G Processor Review: Introduction
(Translated)Show original
M
muycomputer.com
11/03/2018
Summary of the review
Ryzen 3 2200G APU Analysis: The Value of Balance
(Translated)Show original
G
geeknetic.es
15/02/2018
Summary of the review
Performance Analysis: AMD RYZEN 3 2200G with RX VEGA 8 Graphics
(Translated)Show original
S
spaziogames.it
18/03/2019
Summary of the review
Ryzen 3 2200G Review: AMD's All-Rounder
(Translated)Show original
M
multiplayer.it
12/02/2018
Summary of the review
Ryzen 5 2400G and Ryzen 3 2200G review - Multiplayer.it
(Translated)Show original
T
tomshw.it
11/02/2018
Summary of the review
Review of the Ryzen 5 2400G and Ryzen 3 2200G: When Zen Meets Vega
(Translated)Show original
H
hardware.info
12/02/2018
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G Boxed Processor - Hardware Info
(Translated)Show original
T
techtesters.eu
12/02/2018
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G and Ryzen 5 2400G Review
(Translated)Show original
T
tweakers.net
12/02/2018
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen 5 2400G and Ryzen 3 2200G Review
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

What we like about AMD Ryzen 3 Pro 2200G

  • Excellent value for money, especially for budget-conscious builders
  • Strong integrated Radeon Vega 8 graphics that can handle eSports and light gaming at 720p/1080p without a dedicated GPU
  • Energy-efficient performance with a low TDP (35W), making it ideal for compact HTPCs and small form factor builds
  • Uses the versatile AM4 socket, providing a wide range of compatible motherboards and an easy upgrade path
  • Decent performance for everyday office productivity, multitasking, and multimedia tasks
  • Includes a capable Wraith Stealth stock cooler in the box
  • Supports ECC memory and AMD GuardMI technology, offering extra security and stability for professional use

What we don't like about AMD Ryzen 3 Pro 2200G

  • Lacks SMT (Simultaneous Multithreading), limiting it to 4 cores and 4 threads, which hinders performance in heavy multitasking or CPU-intensive apps
  • Struggles with modern, demanding AAA games at high settings
  • Integrated graphics performance is heavily dependent on having fast, dual-channel RAM, which can add to the total build cost
  • Single-core performance trails behind some comparable Intel competitors like the Core i3-8100
  • Limited overclocking potential compared to non-PRO models due to a locked multiplier on some variants

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 2200G is a quad-core, four-thread desktop APU based on the 14nm Zen architecture (Raven Ridge), designed for the AM4 socket. It features a 3.5 GHz base clock with a boost up to 3.7 GHz, 4MB of L3 cache, and a 65W TDP. Its primary characteristic is the integrated Radeon Vega 8 graphics with 8 GPU cores clocked at 1100 MHz, making it a capable budget-friendly solution for office productivity and light 1080p or 720p gaming without a discrete graphics card. Key pros include its exceptional value, support for ECC memory in the 'PRO' model, unlocked multiplier for easy overclocking, and superior integrated graphics compared to contemporary Intel competitors. However, main cons include a lack of simultaneous multithreading (SMT), which limits multitasking performance, and a reduced L3 cache compared to non-APU Ryzen 3 chips, which can impact performance in cache-sensitive applications.

Compare AMD Ryzen 3 Pro 2200G 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 2200G and other processors

No results found