Intel Rolls Out the 4 GHz Pentium Gold G5620 Processor

[newtekie1]

It may not be a feature but I don't remember AMD ever "relocking" such chips or cards, I could be wrong though.

The ability to overclock these chips was caused by an error in the AGESA, I suspect the error will be fixed in the next AGESA version AMD releases. And, yes, they have done this in the past. IIRC, they had a similar issue with the AM1 platform.

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

I can see a market for this.

I have a full gaming desktop now, but if I were to redo it, I would get a pentium like this, which is more then fast enough for normal tasks and can play older games with no issue. Not everyone plays the latest and greatest or most demanding games.

If one wants to make a sub $500-600 desktop that can play games like Civ V, GoG games, and normal tasks, but wants the additional power over a tiny iGPU, the pentium is a great chip. The AMD chip makes sense if you want AMD graphics and are OK with toning details down, but the pentium fills in the space between that and ryzen5 style builds.

 

[unikin]

Oh, People rejoice! Intel has granted us 4 Ghz 2 core CPU for only 100 bucks! The problem is I can get 4 Ghz 6 core 1600x for 140 quits right now. One more proof Intel doesn't give a fuck about retail market anymore.

 

[Turmania]

Actually I don't mind this cpu. I could make a real low power full HD gaming system with gtx 1050ti. 75w for gpu around 40w for cpu.low budget, low power consumption good for beginners gaming system.

 

[GoldenX]

This CPU is aimed at low-budget PC, NUCs and thin clients. Basically, none of the things you've mentioned matter.
What matters is: it's cheap, it's quite fast (waaaay faster than that 200GE) and it says "Intel" on the package.

AVX matters to anyone. Intel still is a cheap bastard, and a cut down 2 core Ryzen is beating them up. The Pentium is no longer faster than AMD low end offers, that are also cheaper and consume less.
Reality check.

 

[Gasaraki]

So much for my 4Ghz Northwood : (

LOL. I loved that thing. I had one too.

I don't even know why people are putting the Athlon 200GE as the competitor. It's absolute shit. This chip will be way faster. The Ryzen 2200G is a better choice as a competition.

 

[Dave65]

This CPU is aimed at low-budget PC, NUCs and thin clients. Basically, none of the things you've mentioned matter.
What matters is: it's cheap, it's quite fast (waaaay faster than that 200GE) and it says "Intel" on the package.

Intel on the package is the biggest issue.

 

[jabbadap]

LOL. I loved that thing. I had one too.

I don't even know why people are putting the Athlon 200GE as the competitor. It's absolute shit. This chip will be way faster. The Ryzen 2200G is a better choice as a competition.

Well yeah we are talking about totally different price class products. You are right 2200G is more direct competitor for this than some half the price Athlon.

How is vega's current video codec support? Intel igpus have had upper hand on video codecs compared to amd igpus and I don't think there's enough compute power for madVR with any igpus out there.

 

[TheGuruStud]

100 bucks for this garbage? Seriously, I say this all the time, but intel is actually doing drugs. This is proof.

 

[dirtyferret]

As someone who uses 200GE on a daily basis alongside my 8th gen intel i3 hp 15" school laptop, I actually feel like the 200GE is pretty sugglish in all honesty. Chrome takes a couple seconds longer to load, etc etc. I find myself always going for the 8th gen Intel laptop

the 200GE single core performance is sluggish and most everyday tasks needs good single core performance (web browsing, MS office)

 

[Gasaraki]

Well yeah we are talking about totally different price class products. You are right 2200G is more direct competitor for this than some half the price Athlon.

How is vega's current video codec support? Intel igpus have had upper hand on video codecs compared to amd igpus and I don't think there's enough compute power for madVR with any igpus out there.

Are we talking about different price class products? The 2200G is $99. This Pentium is ~$100.

Intel iGPUs have better video codec for sure. Just by looking at Plex, it even prefers the Intel iGPU transcoder over the nVidia encoder.

 

[TheGuruStud]

Are we talking about different price class products? The 2200G is $99. This Pentium is ~$100.

Intel iGPUs have better video codec for sure. Just by looking at Plex, it even prefers the Intel iGPU transcoder over the nVidia encoder.

The last time I saw Intel igpu quality it was abysmal. I wouldn't even watch it. Use a real cpu and forget gpu.

 

[jabbadap]

Are we talking about different price class products? The 2200G is $99. This Pentium is ~$100.

Intel iGPUs have better video codec for sure. Just by looking at Plex, it even prefers the Intel iGPU transcoder over the nVidia encoder.

Uhm, maybe my Finnglish is failing me ones again, but that was what I meant to say. And afaik I did not mean video codec encoders, codecs support by the decoder.

 

[Metroid]

i'm a lot more on the ryzen 2600 for $164.

 

[Space Lynx]

Are we talking about different price class products? The 2200G is $99. This Pentium is ~$100.

Intel iGPUs have better video codec for sure. Just by looking at Plex, it even prefers the Intel iGPU transcoder over the nVidia encoder.

I think you both veered off topic... the 200GE ryzen costs $55 off amazon, thats where I bought mine.

 

[notb]

The problem with your reasoning is that all the other Pentium chips are 54W (or 35W for -T SKUs) and this one is 65W. That implies that this one should have substantially higher heat output than the others.

It doesn't imply anything. It may suggest a higher power draw at best.
Other possibilities? For example: "hey, we have too many TDP values, let's rename everything to 35, 65 or 95 Watts"
Anyway, TDP of this Pentium is only important in case some OEM wants to put them into a USSF case with limited cooling.
In most SI PCs it will be cooler by the Intel's stock cooler anyway.

The comparison to the 200GE is somewhat asinine as this chip will cost practically double... compare to a 2200G (which might be cheaper still) and it's not so rosy for Intel anymore.

I don't see the point of arguments like that one.
It will be faster, so why shouldn't it cost more? Anyway, Intel can sell stuff for more than AMD can. We all know this.
If Intel and AMD today decided to sell bananas, AMD could ask $0.50 and Intel could ask $1. And Intel would sell more. That's the whole point of having a stronger brand.

As someone who uses 200GE on a daily basis alongside my 8th gen intel i3 hp 15" school laptop, I actually feel like the 200GE is pretty sugglish in all honesty. Chrome takes a couple seconds longer to load, etc etc. I find myself always going for the 8th gen Intel laptop

Yeah, looking at the reviews, it's a lot like the old FX or weak ULV mobile chips. So it's really slow by today standards. Apps will take long to open, but more importantly: it will really affect web browsing, which is possibly the most important use for such PCs today.
Honestly, I don't know why AMD made this CPU so slow. Ryzen may not be shining in single-thread, but is better than this thing. Weird decision. They could have made it better without risking Ryzen 3 sales.

AVX matters to anyone. Intel still is a cheap bastard, and a cut down 2 core Ryzen is beating them up. The Pentium is no longer faster than AMD low end offers, that are also cheaper and consume less.

AVX really doesn't matter in this CPU. Anyway, I wasn't talking about performance. I meant what clients want. And if you think they'll know what AVX is, you must have skipped a dose.
Seriously, I'd me amazed if half of Penium buyers understand what HT/SMT is.
And what about you? Do you undestand how AVX works?

 

[GoldenX]

AVX really doesn't matter in this CPU. Anyway, I wasn't talking about performance. I meant what clients want. And if you think they'll know what AVX is, you must have skipped a dose.
Seriously, I'd me amazed if half of Penium buyers understand what HT/SMT is.
And what about you? Do you undestand how AVX works?

Yes, and I don't see the point in limiting software compatibility for the latest extensions only because you don't have a proper way of segmenting your own market. Why don't we just remove DX11 and DX12/Vulkan compatibility from low end GPUs too? DX9/8/7 is enough for office work.
We should also only support .mp3 on Windows, why do you need anything else?
Your argument is valid for Atom based CPUs (Celeron and Pentium "Silver" ones), not for main desktop ones.

Also, $100 for a cut-down 65W dual core, this is no longer 2007.

 

[hat]

I agree, the price is too high for this product. For the same price, I can buy a 2200G right now and get similar clockspeeds, double the cores (and threads), a better IGP and also not have a gimped instruction set. And it will be overclockable, should I put it in an OC friendly board.

Intel only has two advantages: mindshare, and superior per core performance on their top end CPUs... and I feel like they're about to lose the latter advantage when Ryzen 2 hits, unless they work out their 10nm issues very quickly and it's significantly better than their current 14nm node. Without that, AMD is set to knock them back down to where they were in the Netburst era... you know, when their product was so inferior they had to bribe OEMs to carry it exclusively so they could maintain good sales figures.

Average Joe may not know AMD as well as they know Intel (even if they just don't recognize AMD at all and they remember hearing Intel somewhere before), but Dell, HP etc are not run by Average Joes, and they're likely to choose the better hardware for their product. Average Joe also doesn't care about AVX, but for those of us who do (like... TPU forum members), we might list that as a con, and being that we are indeed discussing it on TPU, I find it a valid con.

One thing Average Joe does care about is price. I have built a few systems for a few people in my time, and not one of them has ever been Intel, unless I already had Intel hardware laying around that I wasn't using. And nobody has ever told me that the computer I built for them sucks, or they hate it because it doesn't say Intel. Instead, I heard about how they were happy that I saved them money by building a computer compared to what they would have had to pay for a Dell or something at the time... and price is one area where this product definitely fails. Doubly so that it's a dual core in the year 2019, and even more so (to a lesser degree) that it doesn't even support instruction sets that have been common for years, and present in the competition's cheap products.

I feel bad for this chip, actually. It's so bad compared to what it could have been. I'd consider it for $50, but at $100, I'd feel like an idiot for not buying the 2200g.

 

[GoldenX]

I feel bad for this chip, actually. It's so bad compared to what it could have been. I'd consider it for $50, but at $100, I'd feel like an idiot for not buying the 2200g.

But then what do we do with all these Celerons?

 

[Prima.Vera]

Do we have a review yet somewhere? Thanks!

 

[hat]

But then what do we do with all these Celerons?

Perhaps they should be $30?

 

[jabbadap]

I agree, the price is too high for this product. For the same price, I can buy a 2200G right now and get similar clockspeeds, double the cores (and threads), a better IGP and also not have a gimped instruction set. And it will be overclockable, should I put it in an OC friendly board.

Intel only has two advantages: mindshare, and superior per core performance on their top end CPUs... and I feel like they're about to lose the latter advantage when Ryzen 2 hits, unless they work out their 10nm issues very quickly and it's significantly better than their current 14nm node. Without that, AMD is set to knock them back down to where they were in the Netburst era... you know, when their product was so inferior they had to bribe OEMs to carry it exclusively so they could maintain good sales figures.

Average Joe may not know AMD as well as they know Intel (even if they just don't recognize AMD at all and they remember hearing Intel somewhere before), but Dell, HP etc are not run by Average Joes, and they're likely to choose the better hardware for their product. Average Joe also doesn't care about AVX, but for those of us who do (like... TPU forum members), we might list that as a con, and being that we are indeed discussing it on TPU, I find it a valid con.

One thing Average Joe does care about is price. I have built a few systems for a few people in my time, and not one of them has ever been Intel, unless I already had Intel hardware laying around that I wasn't using. And nobody has ever told me that the computer I built for them sucks, or they hate it because it doesn't say Intel. Instead, I heard about how they were happy that I saved them money by building a computer compared to what they would have had to pay for a Dell or something at the time... and price is one area where this product definitely fails. Doubly so that it's a dual core in the year 2019, and even more so (to a lesser degree) that it doesn't even support instruction sets that have been common for years, and present in the competition's cheap products.

I feel bad for this chip, actually. It's so bad compared to what it could have been. I'd consider it for $50, but at $100, I'd feel like an idiot for not buying the 2200g.

2200g is 4c/4t processor and this pentium is 2c/4t processor so thread count is the same. I do agree that 2200g is better buy for the same money, so this should be $80 max and i3 8100 more close to $100.

 

[hat]

I missed that detail... but hell, I still stand by my point.

 

[Midland Dog]

I know where your coming from mate but technically no. This has 4Ghz stock. Please quote me if I'm wrong?

fair enough but all g3258s can do 4.0ghz on stock coolers too remember that

 

[GoldenX]

As someone who uses 200GE on a daily basis alongside my 8th gen intel i3 hp 15" school laptop, I actually feel like the 200GE is pretty sugglish in all honesty. Chrome takes a couple seconds longer to load, etc etc. I find myself always going for the 8th gen Intel laptop

Ubuntu version and SSD brand? I have Ubuntu both on an i3 5005U and a R3 1200, I can't see any difference when comparing them on normal/office use.