The AMD Ryzen 7 5700G, Ryzen 5 5600G, and Ryzen 3 5300G Review

135 Comments

View All Comments

• mode_13h - Tuesday, August 10, 2021 - link

  > that hot, expensive Gen 4 M.2 NVMe SSD you want to use on your new
  > motherboard will not achieve the speed you paid dearly for.
  
  None of the 1st gen PCIe 4.0 M.2 NVMe SSDs did, in fact. A lot of them still don't. And if you're not running it at PCIe 4.0, then it's probably also running a bit cooler.

• alfatekpt - Monday, August 9, 2021 - link

  Currently 5600G and 5600X are at the same price in my country. Should I get the 5600G? I already have a GPU so having an integrated one is only useful in case the GPU breaks or needs to go under warranty and I still can use the PC...

• mode_13h - Tuesday, August 10, 2021 - link

  I wouldn't get the G. The X is faster in every single benchmark, and sometimes substantially! Plus, you get PCIe 4.0, in case that's ever of interest.
  
  If you just want a backup GPU, so you're not completely dead in the water, then maybe pick up a used low-end model (especially when GPU prices cool off, a bit). I'm seeing used RX 550's for < $100, which is roughly performance-equivalent.
  
  If you don't care about performance, then you can go even older. I have a HD 5450 as a sort of last-resort fallback, and those are CHEAP! That's pre-GCN, but I know it still works on Linux. I think it shouldn't be too hard to find something a bit newer that's also cheap, though. Or, if you have some friends who would loan you an obsolete GPU in a pinch, that's also an option worth considering.

• phoenix_rizzen - Monday, August 9, 2021 - link

  The "Ryzen 5 APUs (65W)" table on page 1 lists the Ryzen 5 CPUs with 8 cores / 16 threads. Should be 6/12 instead.

• plonk420 - Tuesday, August 10, 2021 - link

  thanks for the core to core latency tests! looks like RPCS3 will definitely benefit from it \o/

• Oxford Guy - Wednesday, August 11, 2021 - link

  ‘In our largest sub-test, the Intel processors crack on ahead,’
  
  Did I miss the stuff about performance-per-watt?
  
  If an Intel chip needs a boatload more power to do the barely faster work, how is that a victory for Intel’s chip?
  
  Performance-per-watt is important when we’re dealing with today’s 14nm vs. ‘7nm’ situation.
  
  There should be an entire page devoted to performance-per-watt.

• mode_13h - Thursday, August 12, 2021 - link

  There is indeed a page on power consumption, but the most revealing charts only compared the three AMD 5000G-series processors to each other. That was a painful omission.
  
  Intel got included in the peak power chart, but we all know that peak power is hardly the whole story.

• Oxford Guy - Thursday, August 12, 2021 - link

  ‘There is indeed a page on power consumption’
  
  Indeed, there is no page on performance-per-watt — and the article continues this site’s erroneous tradition of claiming that getting a slightly higher score in a benchmark whilst using a ton more power constitutes a victory.
  
  Context is key. These articles should pay more mind to practical context, rather than things like pumping 1.45 volts into Rocket Lake and ignoring power consumption failure (vis-a-vis the competition) when examining a benchmark.

• mode_13h - Friday, August 13, 2021 - link

  FWIW, I was trying to agree with you. Their "Power Consumption" page had several key omissions.

• Oxford Guy - Sunday, August 15, 2021 - link

  Regardless... peak power isn’t enough to constitute a page on performance per watt.