Intel Pentium Gold G5600 3.9 GHz

[bug]

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]

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]

$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]

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]

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

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Vayra86]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.