The $60 CPU Question: AMD Athlon 200GE or Intel Pentium Gold G5400? A Review
by Ian Cutress on January 14, 2019 8:00 AM ESTGaming: Integrated Graphics
Despite being the ultimate joke at any bring-your-own-computer event, gaming on integrated graphics can ultimately be as rewarding as the latest mega-rig that costs the same as a car. The desire for strong integrated graphics in various shapes and sizes has waxed and waned over the years, with Intel relying on its latest ‘Gen’ graphics architecture while AMD happily puts its Vega architecture into the market to swallow up all the low-end graphics card sales. With Intel poised to make an attack on graphics in the next few years, it will be interesting to see how the graphics market develops, especially integrated graphics.
An AMD APU Base Layout
The two processors on test today have very different attitudes towards integrated graphics. The AMD Athlon 200GE uses the latest Vega architecture, designed for high performance, even if AMD only uses 192 streaming processors in this design. Intel on the other hand is using its older Gen 9 graphics architecture, built for mobile processors, and is using a baseline GT1 configuration when most Intel desktop processors have GT2.
| AMD vs Intel at ~$60 | ||
| AMD Athlon 200GE |
Intel Pentium Gold G5400 |
|
| Cores / Threads | 2 / 4 | 2 / 4 |
| Microarchitecture | Zen | Coffee Lake |
| Motherboards | X470, X370, B450 B350, A320, A300 |
Z390, Z370, Q370 H370, B360, H310 |
| CPU Frequency | 3.2 GHz | 3.7 GHz |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB/core | 256 KB/core |
| L3 Cache | 2 MB / core | 2 MB / core |
| Integrated Graphics | Vega 3 192 SPs |
UHD 610 12 EUs (96 ALUs) |
| DDR4 Support | DDR4-2933 | DDR4-2666 |
| GPU Frequency | Up to 1000 MHz | 350-1050 MHz |
| TDP | 35 W | 54 W (2-core die version) 58 W (4-core die version)* |
| Price | $55 (SRP) | $64 (1k/u) |
| * Intel harvests both 2+2 and 4+2 dies to make G5400 parts. It's impossible to know which one you have without removing the lid and measuring the die area. | ||
Intel does have a small ray of hope here – caches are important when it comes to integrated graphics, so while the 200GE has a bigger L2 cache (512KB vs 256KB) and faster main memory (DDR4-2666 vs DDR4-2400), the AMD L3 cache is a victim cache whereas the Intel L3 cache is a fully inclusive cache that can pre-fetch data. It’s a slim chance, but Intel should take what it can.
For our integrated graphics testing, we take our ‘IGP’ category settings for each game and loop the benchmark round for five minutes apiece, taking as much data as we can from our automated setup.
That was a white wash. AMD’s worst win was 48% in both Ashes and F1 2018, while its best wins were in Far Cry 5 at 122.2% and Civilization 6 at 112.1%.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
95 Comments
View All Comments
perdomot - Saturday, January 19, 2019 - link
How does the author of this article not know that the price of the G5400 is in the $120+ range? At that price, the 1300x would be the appropriate comparison and it clearly smokes the Intel cpu in the benches. The author needs a reprimand for this poor work.mito0815 - Thursday, January 24, 2019 - link
Oh ffs. Been a while since I was around, and OH WOULD YOU LOOK AT THAT, the AMD shilling and -fanboyism in the comments has become just as unbearable as I'd imagined. People, he set up two budget CPUs on a comparable level (AMD strong in GPU, Intel a tad bit stronger in CPU performance & clock) against each other...nothing more, nothing less. Store prices for Intel CPU's being so inflated isn't really Intel's fault now, is it? The intended stock prices are still very much comparable. By your logic, AMD would've not been quite the price/performance god you all worship during the mining GPU price explosion now, would it?But no, all you guys want is an article with some AMD CPU coming out on top, no matter how it's done. Get over yourselves. By the looks of it, while GPU is still a sore point with AMD, Ryzen 2 seems to look good so far. Wait for that and don't go all rampant now.
kkilobyte - Saturday, January 26, 2019 - link
The article title starting with: "The $60 CPU question", it is not unreasonable 'fanboi-ism' to expect that the article is comparing CPUs costing, well, around $60.And the issue is not about Intel being guilty or not of the current high prices.
The problem is that the article draws conclusions that simply don't match reality, precisely because it doesn't adress the current discrepancy between the street prices and the manufacturer's suggested one. It would have taken a single paragraph to explain that.
My issue about the article is that, unlike what you are writing, it doesn't compare CPUs of similar (price) level. What it does is comparing CPUs of similar *theorical* price levels, but draws a conclusion as if those were the commonly seen street prices. This is dishonest and misleading.
watersb - Saturday, February 9, 2019 - link
Thanks for this review. I usually build low-end systems (PCs for family members), buy off-lease enterprise stuff (test servers), or used Apple or Lenovo gear (rebuilds and workstation projects).Budget gamng gear for the kids, then help them upgrade graohics card later, seems to be the one remaining path to "gaming enthusiast" hobby.
Everyone else gets a Chromebook. And a Raspberry Pi.
Dr Hasan - Tuesday, November 26, 2019 - link
Why are all products are old and prices too. Athlon 3000g is 50$ rayzen 2200g is less than 100$