AMD Ryzen 5 5600G Review: Cheapest Zen 3 CPU Yet

HardReset

Posts: 1,310   +983
In premier pro Vega can’t be used to hardware accelerate encoding but Intel can with quick sync. This is often the case, the Intel iGPU is a lot weaker but it does support more software out there. Reviewers should cover this and focus less on gaming as I agree with you that people don’t buy these things for aaa gaming.
Adobe software sucks as usual. Nothing new there.

Another question is Why it does not support generic GPU acceleration. Simple answer: it sucks.

Another POV is that there are ton's of software that do not support Quicksync. You can always cherry pick some examples but they won't change big picture.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 1,852   +2,205
TechSpot Elite
Well, the CPU performance doesn't seem too bad, being better than my R5-3600X which is still more than fast enough for any AAA game on the market. Sure, I would have little to no use for the IGP but gamers who bought Intel CPUs with their (REALLY useless) IGPs didn't whine about the fact that there were no "F" versions of Intel CPUs yet for less money.

I don't see this as a gaming product, I see it as a viable product for typical home users (read: Boomers and other non-tech-savvy people) who want a little more "Oomph!" in their system speed. Even then though, for those tasks, a 4C/8T APU with higher clock speeds would probably be better for them. I think that $260 for this isn't a bad price as long as you're in the niche that would take advantage of it. It's certainly a better value than the $360 R5-5600X because the 5600X costs almost 40% more and doesn't deliver even close to 40% more performance.
 

Shadowboxer

Posts: 1,797   +1,410
Well, the CPU performance doesn't seem too bad, being better than my R5-3600X which is still more than fast enough for any AAA game on the market. Sure, I would have little to no use for the IGP but gamers who bought Intel CPUs with their (REALLY useless) IGPs didn't whine about the fact that there were no "F" versions of Intel CPUs yet for less money.

I don't see this as a gaming product, I see it as a viable product for typical home users (read: Boomers and other non-tech-savvy people) who want a little more "Oomph!" in their system speed. Even then though, for those tasks, a 4C/8T APU with higher clock speeds would probably be better for them. I think that $260 for this isn't a bad price as long as you're in the niche that would take advantage of it. Certainly, it's a better value than the $360 R5-5600X.
Actually the Intel igpus are more useful. Especially if you don’t see see it as a gaming product. More software supports quicksync which can take advantage of the iGPU. If you’re gaming Intel is def worse but I mean it’s still a poor experience on AMD. If you are encoding video on premiere pro, Intel parts would be significantly faster as that software uses quick sync. This is something reviewers ought to mention more I think.

Also Ryzen chips sacrifice half the cache to have an iGPU and this means that they perform worse, a 5600G is slower than a 5600X as you can see in this article. Intel chips have no such trade off, adding or removing the iGPU makes no difference to its performance.
 

Bawlsdeep

Posts: 141   +153
Seems like a pointless chip. Too slow for gaming anyway.

AMD should release an APU with same performance as PS5 and Xbox SX, and they might have something of interest (for some people).

These ultra low-end APU's barely play games better than Intel CPU's with Intel HD Graphics... A dedicated GPU is needed to play newer games no matter what, unless 720p-1080p at 30 fps on low/medium is your goal.

Personally I would rather not play then.