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 4350G review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£160PassMark multi-core score:10953N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:4.0 GHzCPU socket:AM4TDP (Thermal design power):65 W

AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 4350G Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 5 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 4350G
6.8/10

Overall score

Score
6.8/ 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 53% of models
Score components

40%

5.3

Technical score

25%

7.8

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

8.5

Sentiment score

â–²Better than 53% of processors
7.7

Value for money

Value for money
7.7/ 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 71% of models
Score components

70%

6.8

Overall score

30%

9.7

Price

â–²Better than 71%
5.3

Technical score

Technical score
5.3/ 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–¼ Worse than 56% of models
Score components

60%

4.4

Performance

18%

5.2

Architecture

10%

7.1

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.0

Power & Thermal

4%

8.7

Platform

1%

7.5

Integrated graphics

â–¼Worse than 56%
7.8

Reviews score

Reviews score
7.8/ 10
✕
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
â–² Better than 61% of models

80%

7.8

Average grade

20%

8.2

Popularity

Grades by review (5)
1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. 4 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–²Better than 61%
?

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
  • amd-ryzen-3-pro-4350g
amd-ryzen-3-pro-4350g
Where to buy
*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.

What reviewers say about the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 4350G

Based on 1 · 4

Reviewers like the low power use and cool running, but are split on gaming, which many find underwhelming.
Praised
Mixed views
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 4350G

Technical score
Technical score
5.3/ 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–¼ Worse than 56% of models
Score components:

60%

4.4

Performance

18%

5.2

Architecture

10%

7.1

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.0

Power & Thermal

4%

8.7

Platform

1%

7.5

Integrated graphics

5.3
Reviews score
7.8
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.7/ 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 71% of models
Score components:

70%

6.8

Overall score

30%

9.7

Price

7.7
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
AMD 300 Series, AMD 400 Series, AMD 500 Series
This processor supports AMD 300 Series, AMD 400 Series, AMD 500 Series chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 72.1% of processors and equal to that of 1.9% 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
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2 instruction sets, which is broader support than 80.8% of processors and equal to that of 3.3% 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
4 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4 GHz which is lower than that of 62.1% of processors and equal to that of 4.8% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 3.8 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x3.8 GHz which is higher than that of 53.2% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
10,953
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 10,953 in PassMark, which is lower than 51% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
7 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 7 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 70.4% of processors and equal to that of 10.5% of processors.
Foundry
TSMC 7 nm
This processor is built on the TSMC 7 nm foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 55.6% of processors and equal to that of 9.2% of processors.
L3 cache
4 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 4 MB which is smaller than that of 71.7% of processors and equal to that of 13.8% 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
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
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
3,200 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 3,200 MHz, which is higher than that of 49.8% of processors and equal to 8.5% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-3200 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-3200 MHz, which is higher than that of 46.1% of processors and equal to 9.4% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
?
Maximum memory capacity
128 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 128 GB of memory, which is more than 59.3% of processors and equal to 22.8% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Radeon Vega 6
This processor uses the Radeon Vega 6 integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 68.8% of processors and equal to that in 2.1% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
6
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 6 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 83.5% of processors and equal to 6.2% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
1,700 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 1,700 MHz which is higher than that of 97.8% of processors and equal to that of 0.2% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
VP9 (HW decode)
This processor supports VP9 (HW decode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 73.9% of processors and equal to 3.5% of processors.
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
yes
This processor supports configurable TDP. 46.4% of processors offer this.
Show more
What reviewers say

AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 4350G 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
  • 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.
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Renoir vs Kaby Lake).
    Renoir vs Kaby Lake
  • 41.7% smaller process node
    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 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
  • 16.4% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.8/ 10
    ✕
    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
    â–² Better than 61% of models

    80%

    7.8

    Average grade

    20%

    8.2

    Popularity

    Grades by review (5)
    1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. 4 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    7.8 vs 6.7
  • 2x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (128 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    128 GB vs 64 GB
  • 16.4% higher review score
    Reviews score
    7.8/ 10
    ✕
    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
    â–² Better than 61% of models

    80%

    7.8

    Average grade

    20%

    8.2

    Popularity

    Grades by review (5)
    1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. 4 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    7.8 vs 6.7
  • 18.1% higher sentiment score
    8.5 vs 7.2
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (AM4 vs FP5).
    AM4 vs FP5
  • 10 higher clock multiplier
    This processor has a higher clock multiplier than the average processor (38 vs 28). The average processor has a clock multiplier of 28.
    38 vs 28
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Renoir vs Kaby Lake).
    Renoir vs Kaby Lake
  • 41.7% smaller process node
    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
    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
  • 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.
  • 2x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (128 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    128 GB vs 64 GB
  • Supports ECC memory
    This processor supports ECC memory, while the average processor does not. 32% of processors support it.
  • 4.86x higher GPU clock speed
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (1,700 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    1,700 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 45.9% less L3 per core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 9.1% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (4 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    4 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (VP9 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    VP9 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • 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
  • 55.6% smaller L3 cache
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (4 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    4 MB vs 9 MB
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • 9.1% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (4 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    4 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • 14.6% weaker multi-core performance
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (2,394 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    2,394 vs 2,804.5
  • 11.5% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (4,610 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    4,610 vs 5,209
  • 4.7% lower Cinebench R20 single-core score
    This processor has a lower Cinebench R20 single-core score than the average processor (467 vs 490). The average processor scores 490 in Cinebench R20 single-core.
    467 vs 490
  • 45.9% less L3 per core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 55.6% smaller L3 cache
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (4 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    4 MB vs 9 MB
  • 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
  • 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 (x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16, x8/x8, x8/x4/x4 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (VP9 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    VP9 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • 75% fewer GPU execution units
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (6 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    6 vs 24
  • 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

Video reviews

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

5.0
Iceberg Tech
≈ estimated
20/08/2021
Hands-on review · 13-game benchmarks and RAM tests
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 4350G can be playable with fast RAM, but a cheap graphics card or a better CPU is the smarter buy.
8.0
Tech Notice
≈ estimated
30/11/2020
Hands-on review · benchmarks, editing and thermals
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 4350G is a good budget chip for a PC without a graphics card, but it struggles with heavy rendering.
9.0
Avenyet's Tech Workshop
≈ estimated
06/11/2020
Hands-on review · benchmarks, gaming and power tests
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 4350G is a solid, power-efficient budget APU worth getting if you can find one.
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded
Shop video
Not graded
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

8.0
computerbase.de
≈ estimated
15/10/2020
Benchmark test · Efficient quad-core
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 4350G is an efficient quad-core, up to 20 percent faster than its predecessor, but it has the weakest built-in graphics of the three.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 4350G

  • Capable integrated Radeon Vega 6 graphics can handle many games at 1080p on low/medium settings without a discrete GPU.
  • Highly power-efficient Zen 2 architecture with low idle power consumption, suitable for 24/7 headless servers or mini-PCs.
  • Solid multitasking performance for its class due to 4 cores and 8 threads.
  • Excellent for budget home office builds and emulation (e.g., RPCS3, CEMU).
  • Supports ECC memory, which is a rare and valuable feature for mission-critical systems or NAS builds.

What customers don't like about AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 4350G

  • Primarily an OEM/tray-only part, making it difficult to find at retail in some regions.
  • Locked multiplier significantly limits its manual overclocking potential compared to non-Pro Ryzen chips.
  • Limited L3 cache (only 4MB) can lead to performance bottlenecks in certain gaming scenarios.
  • Requires a B550 or A520 motherboard for official support, as it is incompatible with many older B450 boards.
  • PCI-Express Gen 3 support only, which may limit the bandwidth of newer high-end GPUs if added later.

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 4350G is a 7nm Zen 2-based desktop APU featuring 4 cores and 8 threads, with a 3.8 GHz base clock and a 4.0 GHz boost frequency. Designed for the AM4 socket, it includes integrated Radeon Vega 6 graphics clocked at 1700 MHz, a 65W TDP, and support for up to 128GB of dual-channel DDR4-3200 memory. Its main advantages include high power efficiency, strong multi-threaded performance for a quad-core chip, and a capable iGPU that can handle popular titles like GTA V or CS:GO without a dedicated graphics card. However, its primary drawbacks are the limited 4MB of L3 cache, lack of PCIe 4.0 support, and its status as an OEM-focused part, which can make it harder to find in retail markets compared to standard consumer models.

Compare AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 4350G 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 4350G and other processors

No results found