• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Ryzen 5 5600G and Ryzen 7 5700G coming in August.

Caporegime
Joined
9 Nov 2009
Posts
25,341
Location
Planet Earth
They are price at $359 and $259:
https://www.techpowerup.com/282800/amd-announces-ryzen-5000g-and-pro-5000g-desktop-processors

U1ype4vkalNGazB0.jpg


So it should work out at approximately £300 and £220,if you include VAT and current exchange rates. Changes over the CPUs include a reduction in L3 cache to 16MB abd 24 PCI-E 3.0 lanes instead of 24 PCI-E 4.0 lanes. Essentially these are the Ryzen 7 5700X and Ryzen 5 5600 non-X in the range for now.

The Ryzen 5 5600G has been compared against the Ryzen 5 5600X by UFD Tech recently:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReN06Kw4y4I


In most games tested it was between 10% slower to a few precent faster than the Ryzen 5 5600X. However,in the single MOBA tested(Valorant) it was around 50% slower.
 
The octa core Ryzen 5700G is a much more tempting CPU than the 5800X, if it does cost ~£300. I think it will become the 'go-to' gamers CPU for 2021.

I think it might make sense to sell a version without an integrated GPU, but only if AMD have the production capacity to spare.

The pricing is the AMD RRP,with VAT added and a currency conversion. It might be another £10 on top or so,but not much more IMHO.

But if the Ryzen 5 5600G vs Ryzen 5 5600X results hold true,then there are going to be some games where the CPUs pull ahead,and the lack of PCI-E 4.0 might be offputting to some. At least the Ryzen 5 5600G does pull the Zen3 price point closer to £200. Although it does appear the Ryzen 5 3600 might be soldering on for quite a while!
 
I was looking forward to these but sadly they are just as overpriced as the rest of the 5000 series. I will heed Journeys advice from another thread and try to pick up a resonably priced 4000 series for my wife's pc.

The Ryzen 3 4300GE is available from a well known UK specialist retailer for around £145.

Ideally want PC's at £500 a piece to be honest.
I think we may need to go the 4300GE route, but would rather push to 4650G as they will stay put till refresh 5 years down the line.

Think we've asked for a few different options for quotes, so we'll see what we get.

We did buy in a load of 2400G's couple of years ago and they were available and not too badly priced for the 18 we bought at the time.

Two well known UK retailers have been selling Ryzen 5 4650G and Ryzen 7 4750G based OEM desktops for between £350~£500 over the last few months.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUTcj_7sQ40

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uB4r6RfjX38
 
Last edited:
I only really see one Xenta 4650G at 450, it's got no OS. I mean I know we stick our key on them, but we always buy with licenses as it can be weird otherwise during deployment.

The Ryzen 5 3400G ones are significantly cheaper. The price fluctuates a lot though - just look on HUKD for the Ryzen 5 4650G/4600G or Ryzen 7 4750G/4700G,and there are at least 3 retailer selling different systems. I can't mention them here OFC.
 
We can't really be reactive, it's not the way purchasing works for us.
Hell, spending that much from a supplier other than the OEM we use would require 3 quote's and signatures lol

I know but the fact is there are quite a few retailers/custom builders offering the systems. One of them is system builder. Just check the deals on HUKD,and you will find the companies. They are still cheaper to buy from them,then have to import the parts from abroad,with no warranty,and duties. You are looking at £230 just to import a Ryzen 5 4650G from HK,and you might get stung for more duties,etc. If you don't mind building your own systems,a UK based retailer sells the Ryzen 3 4300GE for £145.

All the companies in question are reasonably large,and do business sales so I suspect if you contacted them about bulk purchases they will be able to do something for your workplace.
 
On the Zen3 die-lets, around half the space is cache and since for the mainstream (non-APU) CPUs they only need to use around 80mm² of TSMC's 7nm per chiplet versus around 180mm² for the APUs, the cut back on the cache. If half of 80mm² buys them 32MB then the extra 16MB would cost them around 20mm² more.
However, on the AT forums where the L3 stacked surprise has generated a lot more discussion, they managed to dig out this:
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1399770424658087941

From:
https://www.anandtech.com/show/1672...cialflow&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social
(my bold)
Anyway, that makes me wonder why on the normal ICD and APU dies they don't use the denser libraries either to save space or to add more cache. Surely mixing libraries should be possible.

Ian Cutress did a video which summarised it well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16s1s0B3eog

 
I'd estimate a RX560 or just below a GTX 1050 since that's what the revamped Vega CUs in Renoir performed close to, and Cezanne is just reusing Vega. Clock speeds are up a little though.
An RX560 is faster because the IGP is bottlenecked by memory bandwidth. This is a comparison of the Ryzen 7 4750G against the RX560:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoCMGuColt8
 
Have AMD given any technical reasons why these chips are monolithic instead of adding the GPU portion as a chiplet?

Some details of why are mentioned here:
https://www.anandtech.com/show/1570...k-business-with-the-ryzen-9-4900hs-a-review/2

For the chiplet design, going that route for expensive processors actually helps with costs, yields, and frequency binning. This has also enabled AMD to launch these products earlier, with the end result being better per-core performance (through binning), taking advantage of different process nodes, and providing an overall chip with more die area than a single chip can provide.

The downside of this chiplet design is often internal connectivity. In a chiplet design you have to go ‘off-chip’ to get to anywhere else, which incurs a power and a latency deficit. Part of what AMD did for the chiplet designs is to minimize that, with AMD’s Infinity Fabric connecting all the parts together, with the goal of the IF to offer a low energy per bit transfer and still be quite fast. In order to get this to work on these processors, AMD had to rigidly link the internal fabric frequency to the memory frequency.

With a monolithic design, AMD doesn’t need to apply such rigid standards to maintain performance. In Ryzen Mobile 4000, the Infinity Fabric remains on the silicon, and can slow down / ramp up as needed, boosting performance, decreasing latency, or saving power. The other side is that the silicon itself is bigger, which might be worse for frequency binning or yield, and so AMD took extra steps to help keep the die size small. AMD was keen to point out in its Tech Day for Ryzen Mobile that it did a lot of work in Physical Design, as well as collaborating with TSMC who actually manufactures the designs, in order to find a good balance between die size, frequency, and efficiency.
 
On the AT threads on the 3D stacked cache thread:
https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/64mb-v-cache-on-59xx-zen3-average-15-in-games.2594096/
And the Zen4 speculation thread:
https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/speculation-zen-4-epyc-4-genoa-ryzen-6000.2571425/
there is some talk about the power requirements of chiplets with a PCB like the current AM4 desktop parts and the 3D stacked cache.
The distances and power required to talk to an off-chip part over Infinity Fabric is huge compared to talking to the 3D stached cache, the distances are higher, the voltages too and there, AFAIK, the need to translate everything from parallel to serial.

You don't need to look at the speculation,AMD told AT the reasons why! Just look at the AT Ryzen 4000 APU review. AMD pretty much said its down to IF power draw,and having to strictly link it to memory frequency with chiplets. With a monolithic die,AMD said they can delink the memory and IF,and then be able to dynamically downclock the IF when required hence reducing the power draw.
 
Last edited:
The Ryzen 5 2400G/3400G also were £150 parts IIRC,so looking at the IGP improvements alone,the Ryzen 5 5600G doesn't look so hot in that regard as it will be around the £220 level(if you look at the USD price),especially when the Core i5 11400F/10400F and Ryzen 5 5600X bracket it. However,as a package it looks really nice as a general purpose jack of all trades,master of none part. I think the biggest strength is for media and SFF systems,where it does appear to tick most boxes - also in prebuilt systems,we might get some £400~£500 ones and this would be a good base part.
 
Only just got around to glancing at that (I hate video 'reviews'), and the iGPU is only about 6.5% faster (in an ideal world Vega 8 / Vega 7 should be +1/7th, so 14%).
I guess that is as good as we can expected without a lot of memory tweaking.
While am as disappointed as everyone else that there is no Vega 11 (or RDNA2), there are obviously other bottlenecks.
Would be nice CPU to tweak and put into some kind of NUC like those ASRock DeskMini X300 things (okay 1.9 litres is a bit bigger than most NUCs but it does take two 2.5" drives), the price is a bit too high for me and impulse buying.
Found one interesting thing in their dGPU tests:
tGxkNf6.png

The mins for Cyberpunk are better on the 5700G than the 5800X, but that was the only place I found the APU pulling ahead of the CCD CPUs.
Silly of them to sort results by Avg rather than Mins anyhow.
I would love to see Fallout 4 tested on both! That game is really latency sensitive!
 
Back
Top Bottom