# Intel Pentium Gold G5600 3.9 GHz



## W1zzard (Jul 6, 2018)

Intel's Pentium Gold G5600 processor features HyperThreading, which turns its two cores into four threads. The result is one of the most affordable entry-level CPUs that is fit for gaming. Tough competition comes in form of the AMD Ryzen 2200G, which is similarly priced, but offers four real cores.

*Show full review*


----------



## dj-electric (Jul 6, 2018)

Chip's DOA.
I'm not one to give super-harsh judgement on any piece of hardware, but this one belongs to an era before Ryzen came out.
And for budget gaming with a dedicated card, the 2300X should absolutely blast this one to the moon for the same price.

This CPU should cost 60-65$ at most, and i really hope that next gen intel would do something about the pricing of pentiums.


----------



## Disparia (Jul 6, 2018)

Heh, haven't even powered up my 4600T yet... but I'm glad I have it and not a G5600.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jul 6, 2018)

> Hyper-Threading, turns two cores into four threads



Honestly that shouldn't be listed as a plus but rather as a negative , Intel is still keen on selling overpriced dual cores.


----------



## dirtyferret (Jul 6, 2018)

I could see this as a decent blizzard budget gaming CPU for WoW, Diablo III, SC2, etc.,


----------



## Upgrayedd (Jul 6, 2018)

I went R3 2200G for home PC instead of G5600. It was cheaper at Microcenter, had 4 real cores and AM4 should be around longer.


----------



## dj-electric (Jul 6, 2018)

Upgrayedd said:


> I went R3 2200G for home PC instead of G5600. It was cheaper at Microcenter, had 4 real cores and AM4 should be around longer.


Not to mention the vastly superior iGPU


----------



## kastriot (Jul 6, 2018)

I wonder how far can intel go with this kind of arrogance.


----------



## Darksword (Jul 6, 2018)

Intel Inside.

Sucker Outside.


----------



## jabbadap (Jul 6, 2018)

dj-electric said:


> Chip's DOA.
> I'm not one to give super-harsh judgement on any piece of hardware, but this one belongs to an era before Ryzen came out.
> And for budget gaming with a dedicated card, the 2300X should absolutely blast this one to the moon for the same price.
> 
> This CPU should cost 60-65$ at most, and i really hope that next gen intel would do something about the pricing of pentiums.



Well yeah, these pricier pentiums are quite dumb buys. Comparing this to g4560(2c4t @ 3.5GHz) is quite moot point though, g5400(2c4t @ 3.7GHz) is a direct replacement for it at the same $64 msrp. And probably the only pentium one should even considering. I don't think that even media PC has anything to benefit from that bit faster intel igpu.


----------



## GoldenX (Jul 6, 2018)

The Ryzen Athlons should be similar or cheaper, right?
It's not a bad product, but it's an old idea with an old price. At the very least Intel could have added AVX to it.


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jul 7, 2018)

GoldenX said:


> The Ryzen Athlons should be similar or cheaper, right?
> It's not a bad product, but it's an old idea with an old price. At the very least Intel could have added AVX to it.



Do they still have virtualization disabled? Intel are scum bags even beyond their normal beahvior. V is/was turned off on most consumer CPUs since forever. MEANWHILE, AMD has had it enabled on every SKU afaik.

I won't think to check, not bothering to own their garbage much, and try running a simple VM only to get the error...   Literally rage inducing. It's a good thing Intel and m$ HQs are far away from me...


----------



## ShurikN (Jul 7, 2018)

Wish we could have seen how well it compares to an ocerclocked 2200G at reasonable speed of... let's say 3.9


----------



## Raendor (Jul 7, 2018)

I’ve got G4560 in node 202 secondary rig running on rog z270i paired with 1050ti connected to 1080p g-sync monitor. Though it’s a nice combo for secondary machine and I’ll move my main rig’s 6700k to it when next upgrade comes (which was the intent), I would’ve never chose it if g2200 or g2400 were available at the time (though b450 should be more refined than b350 I’d had to use then). I’m seriously looking forward to something newer than same old skylake refresh and 14nm and so far Zen 2 looks more promising than Intel’s roadmap and long platform support.


----------



## GoldenX (Jul 7, 2018)

TheGuruStud said:


> Do they still have virtualization disabled? Intel are scum bags even beyond their normal beahvior. V is/was turned off on most consumer CPUs since forever. MEANWHILE, AMD has had it enabled on every SKU afaik.
> 
> I won't think to check, not bothering to own their garbage much, and try running a simple VM only to get the error...   Literally rage inducing. It's a good thing Intel and m$ HQs are far away from me...



They have normal virtualization, but I think it's missing on the most advanced features.


----------



## EatingDirt (Jul 7, 2018)

This CPU... doesn't make much sense at $95.

At $100 the 2200g is a better value because of the added option of an actual usable GPU for the casual gamer. The small 2.7% disadvantage  at 1080p for the 2200g in gaming can easily be made up for by the ability to overclock it.


----------



## Upgrayedd (Jul 7, 2018)

dj-electric said:


> Not to mention the vastly superior iGPU


Figured it was a given since Llano. Lol mine is at 1400x900 VGA.


----------



## Emu (Jul 7, 2018)

EatingDirt said:


> This CPU... doesn't make much sense at $95.
> 
> At $100 the 2200g is a better value because of the added option of an actual usable GPU for the casual gamer. The small 2.7% disadvantage  at 1080p for the 2200g in gaming can easily be made up for by the ability to overclock it.


Unless I missed something, they didn't even test the iGPU, all of the gaming tests were done with a GTX1080.  The iGPU in the 2200G blows away any of Intel's HD iGPUs in terms of performance.  If you want a cheap-as-chips light gaming machine with no discrete GPU then the 2200G wins hands down over the Pentium Gold.


----------



## GoldenX (Jul 7, 2018)

Plus the driver benefits, Intel doesn't offer enhanced sync or video recording on their software, just a simple control panel without profiles.
It's time for more than just good hardware, Intel will have to (gasp!) spend money on software.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon (Jul 7, 2018)

I wouldn't bother with this crap... either a quad core ryzen or if you can spare the money, an i3 8100 are both infinitely better value at this point.

That said, the 4 thread ryzens are pretty weak, especially for quad cores, probably the combination of low frequency and the bad latency due to still being dual CCX.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Jul 7, 2018)

this isn't a terribly bad processotr if you're building a NAS system. But yes, AMD's Ryzen APU is the better pick, which is already obvious so let's not bash Intel or AMD for their decisions coz they have the final say, not us consumers.


----------



## Kissamies (Jul 7, 2018)

With a little lower price tag this would be an excellent budget gaming CPU like the G4560 was. I even ran 970 SLI with it and it had a nice boost over one 970, even with that G4560.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon (Jul 7, 2018)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> this isn't a terribly bad processotr if you're building a NAS system. But yes, AMD's Ryzen APU is the better pick, which is already obvious so let's not bash Intel or AMD for their decisions coz they have the final say, not us consumers.



Agree but I would personally just look for a SB-HSW era dual core if that is the use case. You aren't really going to get much use out of the better connectivity on any of the newer chipsets and the per core performance is only up by around 20% since then. Meanwhile you shouldn't have trouble fishing them out of disused office PCs or on the used market for under $40...


----------



## Nuke Dukem (Jul 7, 2018)

Emu said:


> all of the gaming tests were done with a GTX1080.



Nah fam, it's the 1080 Ti, check out the "Test Setup" page or compare the FPS results vs any other recent CPU review. I'm guessing @W1zzard was a bit hungry while he wrote the review, so he ate that Ti bit from the graphs


----------



## Caring1 (Jul 7, 2018)

Pointless gaming tests are pointless.
People that buy basic CPU's like this aren't going to install a top tier GPU to game.
Tests should have been done based on Integrated graphics alone, why list integrated as a positive if it's not tested!


----------



## bug (Jul 7, 2018)

A refresh of a refresh of a refresh. And yet, if you're building a system just for web browsing, this still beats every Ryzen out there. Not much of a market, but it's there.


----------



## jabbadap (Jul 7, 2018)

bug said:


> A refresh of a refresh of a refresh. And yet, if you're building a system just for web browsing, this still beats every Ryzen out there. Not much of a market, but it's there.



Intel igpus are quite good at video codec support, so in simple htpc for i.e. netflix 4k these things are enough. Though not those ~$90 ones. Cheapest one and celerons.


----------



## Nihilus (Jul 7, 2018)

$100 for a dual core is shameful in 2018.

Fun with numbers:
1. Given the same cache and similar clocks/HT/generation, doubling the number of cores on an Intel increases the price 2.33x.  
 eg The 7300 was $150 and the 7700x was $350.

2. Tripling the cores increase the price 3.5x which is also 2.33x(3/2).
eg. This for $100 and the 8700k for $350.

3. Quadrupling the cores SHOULD increase the price 4.66x 
This means don't be surprised if the new 8 core launches for $466 if this little turd stays at $100.


----------



## Tsukiyomi91 (Jul 7, 2018)

maybe you're just overthinking about how Intel is throwing their price around when AMD is beating them in both budget & mid range PC hardware market... I highly doubt we'll see a mainstream 8-core Intel processor for $460+ when AMD's top of the line 2nd gen Ryzen 7 goes for around US$300 a pop. In all honesty, with AMD now being competitive again & proven so, Intel won't be crazy enough to pull off such stunt & then throw some lame-ass PR response.


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 7, 2018)

ShurikN said:


> Wish we could have seen how well it compares to an ocerclocked 2200G at reasonable speed of... let's say 3.9


https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_3_2200G_Vega_8/19.html
Numbers are in this review, easy to compare



Nuke Dukem said:


> so he ate that Ti bit from the graphs


fuuuuuuuuuuck.. how could I miss that. It has been like that for whole 2018 I think, and nobody ever mentioned it



Caring1 said:


> People that buy basic CPU's like this aren't going to install a top tier GPU to game.


You have $x and can buy slow CPU + GTX 1080 Ti or fast CPU + GTX 1080. What would you choose?


----------



## JoniISkandar (Jul 7, 2018)

GorbazTheDragon said:


> I wouldn't bother with this crap... either a quad core ryzen or if you can spare the money, an i3 8100 are both infinitely better value at this point.
> 
> That said, the 4 thread ryzens are pretty weak, especially for quad cores, probably the combination of low frequency and the bad latency due to still being dual CCX.



PRETTY WEAK ??? Bad Latency ?? ryzen 2200G is SINGLE CCX, no latency across core with Powerfull GPU in 100$ price range,,

G5600 is not bad product but the price is only 5 dollar bellow 2200G


----------



## Nihilus (Jul 7, 2018)

Tsukiyomi91 said:


> maybe you're just overthinking about how Intel is throwing their price around when AMD is beating them in both budget & mid range PC hardware market... I highly doubt we'll see a mainstream 8-core Intel processor for $460+ when AMD's top of the line 2nd gen Ryzen 7 goes for around US$300 a pop. In all honesty, with AMD now being competitive again & proven so, Intel won't be crazy enough to pull off such stunt & then throw some lame-ass PR response.



That being said, AMD has been better about doubling cores = double the price even with HEDT (ignoring the 1800x as it was akin to Intel's 8086k).

Intel seems to be consistently over a 2x margin on the mainstream and WAY higher than that on HEDT.  Just compare a 7800x to a 7920x for example.


----------



## bug (Jul 7, 2018)

JoniISkandar said:


> PRETTY WEAK ??? Bad Latency ?? ryzen 2200G is *SINGLE CCX*, no latency across core with Powerfull GPU in 100$ price range,,
> 
> G5600 is not bad product but the price is only 5 dollar bellow 2200G


I find it hard to believe AMD would do that for a single SKU. Got any sources for that?
That chip is also significantly slower at 3.2GHz. It will boost to 3.6, but not on all cores, whereas this one right here does 3.9 ootb.
Not sating one is necessarily better than the other, the choice still comes down to whether you need more CPU or IGP power, availability and the total cost of the platform around where you live.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jul 7, 2018)

dirtyferret said:


> I could see this as a decent blizzard budget gaming CPU for WoW, Diablo III, SC2, etc.,



Well yay a 2018 product that works well running a decade old games from a single developer.

Throwing money at your screen yet?  



bug said:


> I find it hard to believe AMD would do that for a single SKU. Got any sources for that?
> That chip is also significantly slower at 3.2GHz. It will boost to 3.6, but not on all cores, whereas this one right here does 3.9 ootb.
> Not sating one is necessarily better than the other, the choice still comes down to whether you need more CPU or IGP power, availability and the total cost of the platform around where you live.



No, sorry. A few hundred mhz versus 2 additional physical cores isnt comparable. HT is not that much of an equalizer and the 2200G 2 core clocks are close enough.

Dual cores are simply past history and should be avoided, this Pentium is too weak and offers less on every workload.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon (Jul 7, 2018)

JoniISkandar said:


> PRETTY WEAK ??? Bad Latency ?? ryzen 2200G is SINGLE CCX, no latency across core with Powerfull GPU in 100$ price range,,
> 
> G5600 is not bad product but the price is only 5 dollar bellow 2200G


I agree that the 2200G shouldn't have the CCX issue, yet it performs even worse than the 1300X which is a bit strange to me.

And also a bit odd I find is how much the SMT gain is on the AMD parts.

I personally would be eyeing the 8/12 thread ryzens though or maybe the i3 8100 for gaming purposes. I am not convinced by iGPUs because of the increased expenditure on motherboard and memory, you can get decent dGPUs second hand for very good prices. But then again the 22/2400G are compellingly priced even if you buy a dGPU.


----------



## Caring1 (Jul 7, 2018)

W1zzard said:


> You have $x and can buy slow CPU + GTX 1080 Ti or fast CPU + GTX 1080. What would you choose?


The fastest CPU (and most cores) with the best Integrated graphics I could afford. I gave up true gaming years ago so don't personally require a dedicated Graphics Card.


----------



## Nihilus (Jul 7, 2018)

GorbazTheDragon said:


> I agree that the 2200G shouldn't have the CCX issue, yet it performs even worse than the 1300X which is a bit strange to me.
> 
> And also a bit odd I find is how much the SMT gain is on the AMD parts.
> 
> I personally would be eyeing the 8/12 thread ryzens though or maybe the i3 8100 for gaming purposes. I am not convinced by iGPUs because of the increased expenditure on motherboard and memory, you can get decent dGPUs second hand for very good prices. But then again the 22/2400G are compellingly priced even if you buy a dGPU.



The single ccx hits it in some tests as it has less cache.  They do typically overclock better, though.


----------



## ShurikN (Jul 7, 2018)

Vayra86 said:


> Dual cores are simply past history and should be avoided, this Pentium is too weak and offers less on every workload.


Dual cores still have a place in the market, but not at $95


----------



## bug (Jul 7, 2018)

Vayra86 said:


> No, sorry. A few hundred mhz versus 2 additional physical cores isnt comparable. HT is not that much of an equalizer and the 2200G 2 core clocks are close enough.
> 
> Dual cores are simply past history and should be avoided, this Pentium is too weak and offers less on every workload.


Do we have benches showing 4 physical cores are actually faster than 2 cores + HT? So much faster than it can mitigate almost half a GHz worth of raw HP?
Sure 4 physical cores is ideal, but HT isn't automatically a performance bottleneck.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jul 7, 2018)

bug said:


> Do we have benches showing 4 physical cores are actually faster than 2 cores + HT? So much faster than it can mitigate almost half a GHz worth of raw HP?
> Sure 4 physical cores is ideal, but HT isn't automatically a performance bottleneck.



Lack of cores = stutterfest. Its the reason a quad no longer cuts it for high refresh either; other processes interfere with the game load. On a dual core that effect is much stronger - game engines can fully utilize not one core, but up to four these days and HT only works when that is not the case.

Benches dont run things in the background. At the same time 3.4-3.6 Ghz is more than fine for 30-60fps gaming. You only need the higher clocks for high refresh which is not what these products are aiming for at all.


----------



## GoldenX (Jul 7, 2018)

The APUs are a single CCX, the rest of the space is used for the GPU. But the advantage of less latency is mitigated by the reduced cache.
Both the first R3 Ryzen and the APUs can be nicely overclocked to 4GHz on the stock heatsink.



Vayra86 said:


> Lack of cores = stutterfest. Its the reason a quad no longer cuts it for high refresh either; other processes interfere with the game load. On a dual core that effect is much stronger - game engines can fully utilize not one core, but up to four these days and HT only works when that is not the case.
> 
> Benches dont run things in the background. At the same time 3.4-3.6 Ghz is more than fine for 30-60fps gaming. You only need the higher clocks for high refresh which is not what these products are aiming for at all.



I always have few processes on the background, mostly just the drivers interfaces, so that depends per user, that makes a quad core enough for normal gaming. I supose a normal Windows 10 Home/Pro installation is a lot more bloated.


----------



## EatingDirt (Jul 7, 2018)

bug said:


> A refresh of a refresh of a refresh. And yet, if you're building a system just for web browsing, this still beats every Ryzen out there. Not much of a market, but it's there.



If someone were to buy a CPU for only web browsing, this is not the CPU they should be getting(see G4560 for $55). I'd also like to point out that for browsing, any CPU is acceptable on the list, as no one would actually notice the difference between the fastest CPU in Mozilla Kraken @ 916.9ms verses the slowest @ 1349.9. The difference between those is a entire 0.4 seconds.


----------



## bug (Jul 7, 2018)

Vayra86 said:


> Lack of cores = stutterfest. Its the reason a quad no longer cuts it for high refresh either; other processes interfere with the game load. On a dual core that effect is much stronger - game engines can fully utilize not one core, but up to four these days and HT only works when that is not the case.
> 
> Benches dont run things in the background. At the same time 3.4-3.6 Ghz is more than fine for 30-60fps gaming. You only need the higher clocks for high refresh which is not what these products are aiming for at all.


So no proof, mostly guess work


----------



## MadMan007 (Jul 7, 2018)

The only thing I'm surprised about is the absence of any talk about power consumption in the summary. I know motherboards can affect that a lot, but that's why you guys measure CPU-only consumption. While this particular CPU is too expensive, it looks like there's a good TCO argument for the cheaper and only slightly slower Pentiums. More iGP tests would also be appreciated - for a light gaming CPU using iGP, a better direct comparison would have been nice.


----------



## Mr B (Jul 8, 2018)

surprised you don't need a new motherboard to support the chip.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jul 8, 2018)

bug said:


> So no proof, mostly guess work common sense



FTFY

If you really want proof... take a look at these differences alone it should tell you enough

https://www.techspot.com/review/1619-pentium-gold-g5400-vs-ryzen-2200g/page3.html

And when it comes to igp it gets beyond silly
https://www.techspot.com/review/1619-pentium-gold-g5400-vs-ryzen-2200g/page4.html

So, recap: there is NO workload where the Pentium is a better choice regardless of the clockspeed difference. I really didn't need these benches to tell me this... and I'm surprised you even considered otherwise to be honest.


----------



## Evildead666 (Jul 8, 2018)

GoldenX said:


> They have normal virtualization, but I think it's missing on the most advanced features.


https://ark.intel.com/products/129945/Intel-Pentium-Gold-G5600-Processor-4M-Cache-3_90-GHz

They seem to have all of the neccessary virtualisation for most use cases.
Its ony the Trusted Execution stuff that is left out, and VPro, which is left out of all of the Consumer chipsets and stuff anyway.


----------



## bug (Jul 8, 2018)

Vayra86 said:


> FTFY
> 
> If you really want proof... take a look at these differences alone it should tell you enough
> 
> ...


There's still this, that says there is, but ok: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Pentium_Gold_G5600/10.html
To be completely honest, I don't think that Pentium somehow flexes unknown muscle in those scenarios, but rather they don't multithread that well. All I'm saying is there's a bit of silver lining, for this otherwise sorry excuse of a chip.
Also, that "dual-core doesn't cut it for _high-refresh_ gaming, because other processes interfere with _game loading_" gem, I'll remember for a while


----------



## Nuke Dukem (Jul 8, 2018)

W1zzard said:


> fuuuuuuuuuuck.. how could I miss that. It has been like that for whole 2018 I think, and nobody ever mentioned it



It's funny - I had just noticed, but the other guy beat me to it, while at the same time clearly not aware of the mix-up  Anyhow, the problem starts with the 2600X/2700X reviews, so that's only 8 x 4 = 32 graph images to fix


----------



## GoldenX (Jul 8, 2018)

Evildead666 said:


> https://ark.intel.com/products/129945/Intel-Pentium-Gold-G5600-Processor-4M-Cache-3_90-GHz
> 
> They seem to have all of the neccessary virtualisation for most use cases.
> Its ony the Trusted Execution stuff that is left out, and VPro, which is left out of all of the Consumer chipsets and stuff anyway.



Yup, good to know.
AVX is still missing thou, and that's a very useful extension.


----------



## mahanddeem (Jul 9, 2018)

Hi, I have a question please. When you compare CPUs, do you use Intel stock core clock settings? i.e. for example 7700K all cores at 4.3Ghz when on full load?
What about 1080ti? boost clock during gaming tests?
Thanks


----------



## Nihilus (Jul 9, 2018)

Vayra86 said:


> FTFY
> 
> If you really want proof... take a look at these differences alone it should tell you enough
> 
> ...



Glad someone posted these as my net here on vacation gas been slow.  Our friend also doesn't realize that these CPU test are done in a vacuum for consistency.  Even basic users have a few background processes working.  In the few cases where the pentium does edges out RR, the cpu utilization is maxed out to do so with the RR able to perform other simple tasks such as file transferring.



bug said:


> There's still this, that says there is, but ok: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Pentium_Gold_G5600/10.html
> To be completely honest, I don't think that Pentium somehow flexes unknown muscle in those scenarios, but rather they don't multithread that well. All I'm saying is there's a bit of silver lining, for this otherwise sorry excuse of a chip.
> Also, that "dual-core doesn't cut it for _high-refresh_ gaming, because other processes interfere with _game loading_" gem, I'll remember for a while



Clearly a focus on memory latency, the slowest Intels will match the fastest AMDs in that test.  A 7990xe will probably get spanked in that test too due to the similiar mesh vs ring archetecture.  As for user experience, the difference between the highest and lowest is minimium.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jul 9, 2018)

bug said:


> To be completely honest, I don't think that Pentium somehow flexes unknown muscle in those scenarios, but rather they don't multithread that well. All I'm saying is there's a bit of silver lining, for this otherwise sorry excuse of a chip.
> Also, that "dual-core doesn't cut it for _high-refresh_ gaming, because other processes interfere with _game loading_" gem, I'll remember for a while



You misquoted (and still misunderstand) - game *load*. Workload. As in, you lack threads to keep low and consistent frame times. Do remember it, and give it a shot sometime, you'll see.



bug said:


> There's still this, that says there is, but ok: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Pentium_Gold_G5600/10.html



So you can 'browse the web' quicker than you can on a Ryzen 7.  Oh wait, every bottom barrel CPU actually offers the exact same and has done so far the past.... dunno, 10~15 years? And I even dare say that for 'just a dirt cheap web browsing machine' you're better off with a 2200G. Its well worth the extra investment. Double core count and better IGP for 30 bucks. I mean... even the most basic user will have use for a decent IGP at some point.


----------



## unclesharkey (Jul 9, 2018)

Upgrayedd said:


> I went R3 2200G for home PC instead of G5600. It was cheaper at Microcenter, had 4 real cores and AM4 should be around longer.




MicroCenter has the G5400 listed as a quad core with 4 threads on their website. ;-P


----------



## Upgrayedd (Jul 9, 2018)

unclesharkey said:


> MicroCenter has the G5400 listed as a quad core with 4 threads on their website. ;-P


Yeah, I almost bought it because of that. I thought "when did Intel sneak a 4 core Pentium?"


----------



## AlwaysHope (Jul 10, 2018)

I'm surprised at the limited instructions sets compared with decade old LGA775 cpus. Even AMD's FX line had significantly more from it's 2011 tech > http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Bulldozer/AMD-FX-Series FX-4100.html
If they are aiming this at the budget builds, then they presume end users won't be using a wide variety of modern apps.


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 10, 2018)

AlwaysHope said:


> then they presume end users won't be using a wide variety of modern apps.


Which applications are that?


----------



## Ravenmaster (Jul 10, 2018)

I hope this means they're going to stop making Atom and Celeron CPU's and replace them with these Pentium Gold ones.


----------



## jabbadap (Jul 10, 2018)

Ravenmaster said:


> I hope this means they're going to stop making Atom and Celeron CPU's and replace them with these Pentium Gold ones.



Nah, they have already released two core coffee lake Celerons.


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 10, 2018)

jabbadap said:


> coffee lake Celerons.


I have them all here, but they are too slow for any serious reviewing with games. Everything stutters like hell, so I'll skip testing them


----------



## bug (Jul 10, 2018)

W1zzard said:


> I have them all here, but they are too slow for any serious reviewing with games. Everything stutters like hell, so I'll skip testing them


Maybe come up with a specific test suite for low-end CPUs? Something like HTPC usage, usage as a media server, usage as a router... If you get enough of these CPUs, it may be worth it.
I imagine there are a lot of people out there who won't mind knowing which codecs a CPU (or APU) can handle, how well it can handle network traffic, how much cooling it needs and such. Things you don't usually care about when buying an i5 or better.


----------



## W1zzard (Jul 10, 2018)

bug said:


> Something like HTPC usage, usage as a media server, usage as a router


Any CPU will be fine for that. I'm using a 4 generations old Celeron in my media PC and never had any issues


----------



## bug (Jul 10, 2018)

W1zzard said:


> Any CPU will be fine for that. I'm using a 4 generations old Celeron in my media PC and never had any issues


Yes, but I was thinking more about stuff like "this can handle 4k HDR video with xxx%CPU to spare", "this can/can't handle dual gigabit streams", "this can/can't handle VP9/HEVC". Or this can do the job while passively cooled, that one can't stuff like that.
(Just trying to come up with stuff that users can't easily find somewhere else - and probably failing)


----------



## jabbadap (Jul 10, 2018)

W1zzard said:


> Any CPU will be fine for that. I'm using a 4 generations old Celeron in my media PC and never had any issues



Are you using it with discrete gpu or just igpu. I would presume igpu too weak i.e. madVR and that old cleron does not have hevc/vp9 decoders.


----------



## GorbazTheDragon (Jul 10, 2018)

Very poor metric @bug

The problem with the stutter/multithreading thing is that a) background processes are unpredictable and hard to monitor and b) are only a problem when there are either so many of them that the constant thread switching undermines the performance of the core (its in the order of dozens of simultaneous threads) or that a bunch of them pop up as high priority at the same time and eat a lot of CPU time, in which case any processor with a limited amount of total IPC will stutter. Not to mention that it is extremely difficult to measure the stutter itself, and specific programs can have major effects...

I still stand by that for any low performance workload you are way better off getting second hand parts because of the way better cost, both CPU and GPU.

Unfortunately this CPU is not compelling both relative to present lineups, and relative to second hand lineups.


----------



## RichF (Jul 10, 2018)

W1zzard said:
			
		

> Enthusiasts generally prefer soldered dies. Gamers don't care as long as their machines are quiet enough.


 It seems to me that most enthusiasts (aside from the workstation niche) are gamers.


----------



## AlwaysHope (Jul 11, 2018)

W1zzard said:


> Which applications are that?



AMD proprietary instruction sets don't seem to be popular with devs this decade unfortunately & who the heck knows what any end user is going to run on their machines?
It would be in the interests of hardware vendors to manufacture products that have as much market appeal as possible. 

In any case, the cpuz screenshot from that review does not do the chip justice if CPU world specs are anything to go by..
http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Pentium_Dual-Core/Intel-Pentium G5600.html


----------



## crow1001 (Jul 11, 2018)

> Gaming is the only area where the G5600 is faster than the Ryzen 3 2200G.



lol no.

Need to get up with the times wizzard and update your review to include min FPs where these dual cores fall on their ass compared to true quads.  The Pentium is not faster than the 2200G for gaming.









https://www.techspot.com/review/1619-pentium-gold-g5400-vs-ryzen-2200g/page3.html


----------



## GorbazTheDragon (Jul 13, 2018)

RichF said:


> It seems to me that most enthusiasts (aside from the workstation niche) are gamers.


Ends up coming to how casual/hardcore the gamers are. A lot of ppl play games 6+ hours a day for the games and don't really care at all about their hardware as long as it works.

A lot of "hardware enthusiasts" do play games but not with nearly the same level of investment.


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Jul 14, 2018)

This is one of the rare occasions where Intel releases a CPU that is more or less DOA when it hits the market. The Ryzen 2200G ensure that, and older Celerons are a better bet than this vastly overpriced product.


----------



## Enterprise24 (Jul 16, 2018)

W1zzard said:


> I have them all here, but they are too slow for any serious reviewing with games. Everything stutters like hell, so I'll skip testing them



This is so true. I had this system for fun and GTA V is still stutter like hell with 980 Ti.

Even The Sims 3 (2009) is much smoother on G4560 (stock) than this.


----------



## micropage7 (Jul 16, 2018)

Ravenmaster said:


> I hope this means they're going to stop making Atom and Celeron CPU's and replace them with these Pentium Gold ones.


still dunno, but i think intel would put that in different position since pentium is placed for basic task and I series for higher level


----------

