The $60 CPU Question: AMD Athlon 200GE or Intel Pentium Gold G5400? A Review
by Ian Cutress on January 14, 2019 8:00 AM ESTPower Consumption: TDP Doesn't Matter
Regular readers may have come across a recent article I wrote about the state of power consumption and the magic 'TDP' numbers that Intel writes on the side of its processors. In that piece, I wrote that the single number is often both misleading and irrelevant, especially for the new Core i9 parts sitting at the top of Intel's offerings. These parts, labeled 95W, can go beyond 160W easily, and motherboard manufacturers don't adhere to Intel official specifications on turbo time. Users without appropriate cooling could hit thermal saving performance states very quickly.
Well, I'm here to tell you that the TDP numbers for the G5400 and 200GE are similarly misleading and irrelevant, but in the opposite direction.
On the official specification lists, the Athlon 200GE is rated at 35W - all of AMD's GE processors are rated at this value. The Pentium G5400 situation is a bit more complex, as it offers two values: 54W or 58W, depending on if the processor has come from a dual-core design (54W) or a cut down quad-core design (58W). There's no real way to tell which one you have without taking the heatspreader off and seeing how big the silicon is.
For our power tests, we probe the internal power registers during a heavy load (in this case, POV-Ray), and see what numbers spit out. Both Intel and AMD have been fairly good in recent memory in keeping these registers open, showing package, core, and other power values. TDP relates to the full CPU package, so here's what we see with a full load on both chips:
That was fairly anticlimactic. Both CPUs have power consumption numbers well below the rated number on the box - AMD at about half, and Intel below half. So when I said those numbers were misleading and irrelevant, this is what I mean.
Truth be told, we can look at this analytically. AMD's big chips have eight cores with hyperthreading have a box number of 105W and a tested result of 117W. That's at high frequency (4.3 GHz) and all cores, so if we cut that down to two cores at the same frequency, we get 29W, which is already under the 200GE TDP. Scale the frequency back, as well as the voltage, and remember that it's a non-linear relationship, and it's quite clear to see where the 18W peak power of the 200GE comes from. The Intel chip is similar.
So why even rate it that high?
Several reasons. Firstly, vendors will argue that TDP is a measure of cooling capacity, not power (technically true), and so getting a 35W or 54W cooler is overkill for these chips, helping keep them cool and viable for longer (as they might already be rejected silicon). Riding close to the actual power consumption might give motherboard vendors more reasons to cheap out on power delivery on the cheapest products too. Then there's the argument that some chips, the ones that barely make the grade, might actually hit that power value at load, so they have to cover all scenarios. There's also perhaps a bit of market expectation: if you say it's an 18W processor, people might not take it seriously.
It all barely makes little sense but there we are. This is why we test.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
95 Comments
View All Comments
Ryan Smith - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link
To be sure, the normal price on the G5400 is ~$64. Past that, we have no specific control over whatever pricing shenanigans Amazon and its partners are up to at any given moment.Irata - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link
Define "normal". Yes, the MSRP (manufacturer's suggested retail price) is $64, but you cannot - and have not been able to for a while - find the G5400 anywhere near this price (for stores that actually have them in stock).In terms of pricing - it's not just Amazon or Newegg - many posters here checked sites in various countries and it is more expensive everywhere.
So imho, "normal" pricing would be the actual street price. And if you look at current prices, the Athlon GE's counterpart is actually a lower clocked 2C2T Celeron G4920 with half the G5400's L3 cache or alternatively, the G5400's counterpart would be the Ryzen 2200G / Ryzen 3
As Ian stated that he bought this in Retail - where and when ?
It would have good to either base the review on actually available parts / street prices or add a caveat stating that the G5400 is not available for the msrp.
yannigr2 - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link
Bravo, you said everything.People will read this review, go to ANY shop, see the processor at double price and buy a Celeron. because the review told them that the Intel processor is faster in most tasks. This is how consumers behave, especially when they don't have technical knowledge. That's how an RTX 2080Ti sells a GTX 1050 when the RX 570 is faster in every way.
This article is posted for a specific reason, and that's not a fair comparison.
JMO
shabby - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link
That's your excuse? We're not first graders here, when an article is based on the price you better make sure no shenanigans affect the price, try harder next time.drzzz - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link
What a crappy response Ryan. Given the entire mess about pricing that was made over the i7-7700K a few years ago by this very site. Arguing that street price is the valid metric vice MSRP at the time. Given the article was released without even one editor's note about the G5400 not being available anywhere for the MSRP was just a mistake. Own up to it and correct the article. When I can get a 2400G for the same price as the G5400 there is no comparison in performance or value. Looking at how much of the comments are about the price issues vice any other point from the article and face palm is all I can think about.yannigr2 - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link
Really? Is Amazon dictation the G5400 price on the planet? I thought Intel was doing it. Because there is no chance to find this processor at that price on the planet. At least not as new.It WAS nice reading Anandtech this last 15 years.
SaturnusDK - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link
No Ryan. The "normal" price is not $64. It's the 1k unit price. You'll probably never see this retail at less than $69... at best.The_Assimilator - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link
FFS, all you dipshits complaining "bu... bu... but... G5400 isn't $60" should actually look at the MSRP on Intel's site: https://ark.intel.com/products/129951/Intel-Pentiu...I agree that the chip isn't selling at anywhere near that due to shortages, but Ian has to take a baseline from somewhere and MSRP makes the most sense.
Irata - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link
Point taken about the baseline but what's the point of the review if you cannot get the CPU for the MSRP ? The one that's closest price wise is actually a Celeron G 4920.The alternative would have been to either mention that current prices are a lot higher or post the article once the G5400 is again available for MSRP.
Haawser - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link
When RX series GPUs were being pushed into stratospheric pricing by mining did reviews quote their 'normal' price, or the price people could actually buy them at ? So why are the rules suddenly different when the situation is reversed and it's the AMD product that's the cheaper option ?