AMD Ryzen 5 5600G

[W1zzard]

The Ryzen 5 5600G is AMD's most affordable entry to the Zen 3 architecture. Priced at $260, this six-core, twelve-thread processor achieves excellent performance that rivals older eight-core processors from both Intel and AMD. The integrated Vega graphics cores are much more powerful than even Intel's Xe Rocket Lake IGP.

Show full review

 

[Exilarch]

Thank you very much for the extensive iGPU tests. No one buys an APU to pair it up with a powerful (and extremely expensive) GPU. If you have the time you could give it a go with FSR and show us the benchmarks. But if this is a sign of things to come, I'm a bit excited to see what happens when AMD puts RDNA 2 on their APUs.

 

[olstyle]

Those are the same thing (one the cause, the other the effect), not two Independent Cons

• 16 MB L3 cache vs. 32 MB on Zen 3 without IGP
• Single-threaded/gaming performance slightly lower than other Zen 3 CPUs

Apart from that a great test as always.

 

[KarymidoN]

Great review! its nice to see that intel still has some good options against AMD, really looking forward for the next Releases for both companies.

 

[lightofhonor]

Thank you very much for the extensive iGPU tests. No one buys an APU to pair it up with a powerful (and extremely expensive) GPU. If you have the time you could give it a go with FSR and show us the benchmarks.

That would end up being very similar to the resolution charts. Investing in a very high end GPU will scale more like 1080p while a low end GPU will scale like 4K, though if you play with everything on low it may all scale the same anyways.

 

[newtekie1]

I feel like, in the current market, this or the 5700G are the budget CPUs for someone who wants to build a budget gaming rig. Normally I'd say the budget CPU would be the 5600X, but without an IGPU that really isn't an option right now as graphics cards are un-obtainium right now. So grab the 5600G/5700G and use the iGPU while you wait for a decent priced graphics card.

Those are the same thing (one the cause, the other the effect), not two Independent Cons

• 16 MB L3 cache vs. 32 MB on Zen 3 without IGP
• Single-threaded/gaming performance slightly lower than other Zen 3 CPUs

Cache isn't the only factor in the lower single-threaded/gaming performance. Only having a 4.4GHz single threaded boost clock is a factor as well. The other Zen3 processors all have 4.6GHz or more.

 

[tabascosauz]

Cache isn't the only factor in the lower single-threaded/gaming performance. Only having a 4.4GHz single threaded boost clock is a factor as well. The other Zen3 processors all have 4.6GHz or more.

Cache is still the bigger factor though. If that wasn't the case, the 5700G would walk all over the 5600G and jostle with the 5600X, neither of which is true.

Fortunately, it's trivially easy to apply PBO to the 5600G, more so than the 5700G. The usual +200 offset isn't hard to attain at all, which takes the 5600G to 4650MHz on the important cores, and a negative ~10 Curve Optimizer helps as well. By contrast it seems a bit harder for the 5700G to hit +200 consistently at 4850MHz, mine tops out a fair bit below that at ~4780MHz even with the help of Curve Optimizer. That, and the 5600G does run appreciably cooler under PBO, hardly any difference from stock actually.

I started out with a 5600G and swapped it for a 5700G. 7nm iGPU Vega begins needing a lot more voltage around the 2300MHz mark, so it was simply easier to sit pretty at 2300MHz with Vega 8 than work my ass off just trying to sustain 2375-2400MHz with high IF on Vega 7.

 

[HD64G]

@W1zzard , maybe a bit severe critisism on its price since by your own metrics it is one of the best CPU in vfm and includes a cooler able to work well with (that only makes it at least $20 less expensive)? And it is practically equivalent to 11600K in gaming with any not top of the line GPU while consuming much less. As you wrote, a great upgrade for older Ryzen owners and imho, the best CPU upgrade for any non-discrete GPU system.

 

[newtekie1]

Cache is still the bigger factor though.

I'm not saying it isn't the biggest factor just that it isn't the ONLY factor. Hence the two negative bullet points make sense.

 

[BSim500]

@W1zzard , maybe a bit severe critisism on its price since by your own metrics it is one of the best CPU in vfm and includes a cooler able to work well with (that only makes it at least $20 less expensive)? And it is practically equivalent to 11600K in gaming with any not top of the line GPU while consuming much less. As you wrote, a great upgrade for older Ryzen owners and imho, the best CPU upgrade for any non-discrete GPU system.

The problem is, even ignoring Intel the 5600G / 5700G have soared in price relative to AMD's other APU's they're supposed to be replacing. Eg, the 2200G & 3200G could be had for around £80 and the 2400G & 3400G for £120, whilst CPU's were like £99 for 2600 or £130 for 3600 or £125 for 10400F (all 6C/12T). The cheapest I've seen these 5600G's is £240 or literally triple what "budget Ryzen APU" was just 2 years ago, which is a high enough jump that it's basically competing with grabbing a 1050Ti / 1060 on Ebay and throwing in a cheap CPU for +40-150% higher fps for the same money and the fps/$ gap (red / green vs very bottom grey bar) almost isn't even on the same chart. The only people who really want to pay almost £250 for "halfway between GT1030 and GTX1050" performance APU's today are those who really, really want a Thin ITX cases like the Inwin Chopin or non-gamers who need a lot of cores for 2D work and no GPU. A lot of budget gamers using normal ATX / MATX sized cases though have long figured out that used 2-gen old GPU's are still a better bang-per-buck than still DDR4 bandwidth starved premium priced new APU's for low-end gaming, and trying to "future proof" a Vega based APU in 2021 isn't worth that much of a premium at the tail end of DDR4 with RDNA2 + DDR5 not that far around the corner.

 

[KarymidoN]

The problem is, even ignoring Intel the 5600G / 5700G have soared in price relative to AMD's other APU's they're supposed to be replacing. Eg, the 2200G & 3200G could be had for around £80 and the 2400G & 3400G for £120, whilst CPU's were like £99 for 2600 or £130 for 3600 or £125 for 10400F (all 6C/12T). The cheapest I've seen these 5600G's is £240 or literally triple what "budget Ryzen APU" was just 2 years ago, which is a high enough jump that it's basically competing with grabbing a 1050Ti / 1060 on Ebay and throwing in a cheap CPU for +40-150% higher fps for the same money and the fps/$ gap (red / green vs very bottom grey bar) almost isn't even on the same chart. The only people who really want to pay almost £250 for "halfway between GT1030 and GTX1050" performance APU's today are those who really, really want a Thin ITX cases like the Inwin Chopin or non-gamers who need a lot of cores for 2D work and no GPU. A lot of budget gamers using normal ATX / MATX sized cases though have long figured out that used 2-gen old GPU's are still a better bang-per-buck than still DDR4 bandwidth starved premium priced new APU's for low-end gaming, and trying to "future proof" a Vega based APU in 2021 isn't worth that much of a premium at the tail end of DDR4 with RDNA2 + DDR5 not that far around the corner.

this product will probab get stuck on the shelves and be discounted months in the future, just wait till intel releases their next gen toasters

 

[GoldenX]

Pascal starts to show its age.

 

[Naito]

Some very interesting gaming results vs the 5600X. At sub 4K resolutions there's a fairly large framerate gap in several titles between the two. Wouldn't have thought half the cache and a few hundred MHz off the boost clocks would lead to such a difference.

Edit: If the cache is the main difference giving the 5600X an advantage, it'll be interesting to see what effect the 3D V-Cache has on performance - particularly in the titles which appear to take advantage of extra cache.

 

[marios15]

Wow the intel igp frametime graph for farcry 5 is a line for amd, but becomes a spectrum for intel.

Also, you can tell which tests are affected by clockspeed and which ones by cache by comparing stock, 4.5 OC and 5600X

 

[zlobby]

Where RDNA for iGPU and mobile?

 

[_Flare]

14% slower than 5600X in 720p
5% less clocks
the left 9% because of less cache ... plausible for me

 

[billEST]

20 degree more on load . on cheap case or itx you can do french fries for the same price

intel 10 have 2666 memory

amd is out for under 250 $ competition , we have Z490 + 10400 +16G for 350 buck

 

[HD64G]

The problem is, even ignoring Intel the 5600G / 5700G have soared in price relative to AMD's other APU's they're supposed to be replacing. Eg, the 2200G & 3200G could be had for around £80 and the 2400G & 3400G for £120, whilst CPU's were like £99 for 2600 or £130 for 3600 or £125 for 10400F (all 6C/12T). The cheapest I've seen these 5600G's is £240 or literally triple what "budget Ryzen APU" was just 2 years ago, which is a high enough jump that it's basically competing with grabbing a 1050Ti / 1060 on Ebay and throwing in a cheap CPU for +40-150% higher fps for the same money and the fps/$ gap (red / green vs very bottom grey bar) almost isn't even on the same chart. The only people who really want to pay almost £250 for "halfway between GT1030 and GTX1050" performance APU's today are those who really, really want a Thin ITX cases like the Inwin Chopin or non-gamers who need a lot of cores for 2D work and no GPU. A lot of budget gamers using normal ATX / MATX sized cases though have long figured out that used 2-gen old GPU's are still a better bang-per-buck than still DDR4 bandwidth starved premium priced new APU's for low-end gaming, and trying to "future proof" a Vega based APU in 2021 isn't worth that much of a premium at the tail end of DDR4 with RDNA2 + DDR5 not that far around the corner.

Totally flawed logic in your post my friend! Objectivity requires to compare only prices of the same time period and only MSRP or only street price. You compared discount street prices of more than a year back for 3200G (a low-end product) to the street price of the best in class APU, in this period of time that Ryzen CPU prices are all higher than the year before (mainly due to 7nm TSMC constrained production). Today in my country a bulk 3200G (no-cooler) costs ~170 euros and a retail 5600G costs ~290 euros. So, 100 euros difference isn't great when you go from 4 to 12 threads and a clearly better arch and a faster iGPU. And again, the vfm graph of this review shows that 5600G is a bargain of an APU. For anyone not in need of an APU, there is the 5600X. Both with a basic but viable cooler included.

 

[defaultluser]

Yeah, I always love it that Intel continues to preach "we will defeats AMD so hards this times, we swearz" while continuing to paste the exact same worthless 32 sp desktop gpu across their new lineup!

The excuse on Rocketry Lake was "but my dies space!,"but suddenly Alder Lake doesn't have the space for 48 or 64?

If all Intel can bring to the table is exceeding AMD' APU SP performance by 10%, while delivering 1/3 the iGPU performance (in this age of Discrete GPUs still costing several hundred dollars for GTX 960 performance), Alder Lake is doomed,

 

[auxy]

I've done a TON of benchmarking of integrated graphics solutions, and low-end graphics.

The dumb thing about this review, and most reviews of integrated graphics, is that in MOST GAMES actually see very, very small performance differences between low and high settings on integrated graphics, because those settings typically increase the VRAM usage and the shader load, neither of which are a bottleneck here!

You actually can run a lot of the games you tested in 1080p "high" or 900p "ultra" and only lose a few percentage points of performance, or in some cases none at all, and it usually looks a whole lot better, especially for texture quality. Give it a shot!

 

[defaultluser]

I've done a TON of benchmarking of integrated graphics solutions, and low-end graphics.

The dumb thing about this review, and most reviews of integrated graphics, is that in MOST GAMES actually see very, very small performance differences between low and high settings on integrated graphics, because those settings typically increase the VRAM usage and the shader load, neither of which are a bottleneck here!

You actually can run a lot of the games you tested in 1080p "high" or 900p "ultra" and only lose a few percentage points of performance, or in some cases none at all, and it usually looks a whole lot better, especially for texture quality. Give it a shot!

It's true - if you can hit the bandwidth and ROP limits f games, it's a small cost of turning on other lighter features!


This is why you can actually turn on something like FSR in integrated graphics (you get less of an improvement, but you typically have some free compute in most games) , and the higher textures usually have enough bandwidth.

You d have tyo choose which settings t turn on, but it's possible to play many games at ,medium. 1008p..

 

[msroadkill612]

"No one buys an APU to pair it up with a powerful (and extremely expensive) GPU. "

NO one savvy buys an APU to pair w/ ANY GPU

There are far better amd options for that

Much of this review is very silly - testing it being put to a foolish use

Conversely, no one savvy would buy an intel & expect a sensible modern IGP

If budget forces users to defer gpuu purchase, then yes there are compromises to the apu route, but thats life - it remains better than a marginally better cpu w/ no effective gpu from intel. Thats not an option at all.

 

[W1zzard]

I've done a TON of benchmarking of integrated graphics solutions, and low-end graphics.

The dumb thing about this review, and most reviews of integrated graphics, is that in MOST GAMES actually see very, very small performance differences between low and high settings on integrated graphics, because those settings typically increase the VRAM usage and the shader load, neither of which are a bottleneck here!

You actually can run a lot of the games you tested in 1080p "high" or 900p "ultra" and only lose a few percentage points of performance, or in some cases none at all, and it usually looks a whole lot better, especially for texture quality. Give it a shot!

You are absolutely right, but it's too complicated for the scope of this review I think.

Picking mixed settings for every game takes a lot of time. Do I pick good settings for Intel IGP? Or GTX 1060? Or the tested product? Is that cherry-picking? Also there's no baseline for what's "right", and communicating all those settings is another can of worms.

 

[defaultluser]

"No one buys an APU to pair it up with a powerful (and extremely expensive) GPU. "

NO one savvy buys an APU to pair w/ ANY GPU

There are far better amd options for that

Much of this review is very silly - testing it being put to a foolish use

Conversely, no one savvy would buy an intel & expect a sensible modern IGP

If budget forces users to defer gpuu purchase, then yes there are compromises to the apu route, but thats life - it remains better than a marginally better cpu w/ no effective gpu from intel. Thats not an option at all.

Well, if Zen 4 "GPU for all" leak is any indication, AMD is going to close the performance gap on APU CPU performance next gen.

Intel will look even stupider serving us stale 32 eus versus RDNA2

 

[seth1911]

If anyone want to play on the IGP there is no reason to get a 5600G, a 5300G is most times with IGP OC on pair with the 5600 IGP OC oh wait a 5300G is for OEM only

But Amd have the right way: dont buy a 5300G for 150$, buy the 5600G for 280$.




A friend bought a new (not 2. Hand) Ryzen 3 4300G for about 117$ , and yeah @ OC it is 10% slower than the 5600G IGP @ OC.
117$ vs 280$