AMD Ryzen 7 5700G APU Review: Radeon GPU Inside

Tom Yum

Posts: 113   +250
I think it is pretty clear what these processors are for, OEMs who want to advertise 8 core and Radeon graphics, and want to save some money on not needing a discrete GPU, or sell form factors that don't support dGPU's. And let's be honest, whilst it gets beaten by a 5600X in games (~10%), in productivity applications it is pretty competitive with the 5800X (slower yes, but close), and saves you $160 on getting a 5800x + 1030 if you just care about the processing power. Not everything needs to be suitable for 'gamers' (when have APU's ever catered for that crowd?), there is a bucket load of other use cases out there.
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,239   +894
Easily fastest 8-core part when CPU and GPU both are considered. And it gets 70/100 :D

WTF is really happening again? I admit this is not for everyone but still: some buyers want 8-core CPU with fast integrated graphics and for that purpose this is easily the best one available. Best available for certain purpose for decent price and 70/100? Oh crap.
 

Watzupken

Posts: 306   +298
I think one way to bump up iGPU performance is to utilize Sapphire Trixx Boost lets you run at a lower resolution and apply image sharpening. As this feature is anyway part of AMD software, so it actually works even if one is not using a Sapphire GPU.
 

Dimitriid

Posts: 936   +1,728
Price point it's a little bit disappointing I was hoping for at least 320 USD range. But nevertheless you do get 8 cores which as we seen on some of the other pieces recently on the site and youtube, will become more relevant down the line.

Plus and I say this on nearly every APU article, you *could* find uses for an APU that might not be built in graphics as the only source of graphics processing. For starters and this is something barely mentioned by some (And not at all here) having an APU is really important for troubleshooting purposes. And yes most reviewers and dedicated enthusiasts always assume "You can just use an older GPU you have lying around" when that's basically not the case for most users who don't have enough spare GPUs lying around. Not having a 1030 because it's built into the chip it's just better for at-home troubleshooting.

There's also some use for working with virtual machines specially for ITX system which really can't have more than one GPU anyway. If you want to save some money and build your very own itx NAS terminal with video output that's also something useful as you can repurpose pci-e for stuff like 10gb NAS or multiple m.2 to pci-e adapters, hardware raid, etc.
 
I bought a 4750G back in December (cost 7000 ZAR) and I'll be sticking with it until a more substantial upgrade comes along.

Don't get me wrong, these are awesome chips, as someone that gave up on dGPU back in 2005 the performance of these modern APUs are excellent.

If you look at where Apple is going and the performance consoles offer the dGPU = dead GPU.
 

Nobina

Posts: 3,286   +3,362
Easily fastest 8-core part when CPU and GPU both are considered. And it gets 70/100 :D

WTF is really happening again? I admit this is not for everyone but still: some buyers want 8-core CPU with fast integrated graphics and for that purpose this is easily the best one available. Best available for certain purpose for decent price and 70/100? Oh crap.
The fastest in this category is still not fast enough graphics wise. GPU is still too weak. If you don't care about graphics just buy older AMD APU and save money. If you need graphics performance, again, this is too weak. It doesn't do anything good. It is also a bit expensive for what it is. 70/100 is being generous. There might be a very small audience for this kind of APU.
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,239   +894
The fastest in this category is still not fast enough graphics wise. GPU is still too weak. If you don't care about graphics just buy older AMD APU and save money. If you need graphics performance, again, this is too weak. It doesn't do anything good. It is also a bit expensive for what it is. 70/100 is being generous. There might be a very small audience for this kind of APU.
It's much faster than anything else in this category graphics wise. Older AMD APU's have much less performance and cores. Again, discrete graphics is not for Every possible usage scenario. Using same logic, integrated graphics always sucks if it's slower than discrete graphics at same time. Means: Integrated graphics is "too slow", no matter how fast it is. Size of potential buyers should never mean anything when it comes to score. If it fits on someone's needs and does it better than any alternative and is not ridiculously priced, it should get pretty high score.

To put above in perspective:I use mobile phone that has excellent features, very affordable price and is generally pretty much perfect for me. But because it has "pretty small audience", it was bad buy 🤔
 

Nobina

Posts: 3,286   +3,362
It's much faster than anything else in this category graphics wise. Older AMD APU's have much less performance and cores. Again, discrete graphics is not for Every possible usage scenario. Using same logic, integrated graphics always sucks if it's slower than discrete graphics at same time. Means: Integrated graphics is "too slow", no matter how fast it is. Size of potential buyers should never mean anything when it comes to score. If it fits on someone's needs and does it better than any alternative and is not ridiculously priced, it should get pretty high score.

To put above in perspective:I use mobile phone that has excellent features, very affordable price and is generally pretty much perfect for me. But because it has "pretty small audience", it was bad buy 🤔
Not to drag on about this, I think you can get an Intel CPU with an iGPU of similar processing power for less. You will have worse Intel HD graphics, you won't play games on it but you won't on this APU either, unless you like playing at barely 30 FPS at the lowest possible settings. Also it's a bit expensive for what it is IMO.

Integrated graphics is "too slow", no matter how fast it is
Pretty much what I'm trying to say.
 

meric

Posts: 320   +334
Easily fastest 8-core part when CPU and GPU both are considered. And it gets 70/100 :D

WTF is really happening again? I admit this is not for everyone but still: some buyers want 8-core CPU with fast integrated graphics and for that purpose this is easily the best one available. Best available for certain purpose for decent price and 70/100? Oh crap.
I agree %100. I play on android emulator or pc games that are usually not very heavy on graphics (ie divinity) and this chip would be all I need. iGPU performance is more or less similar to a Radeon 550 which is plenty for many people.
 

hahahanoobs

Posts: 3,600   +1,710
AMD needed a mainstream APU.
Even with 7nm they couldn't get a full CPU die + cache. They bought ATi for just this. Fusion.

No Fusion here. Their attempts have been futile.
Niche use cases won't make this product worth the money for enough people. The suggestions I've seen here are all things techies and nerds would do. Not the majority. AMD needed something like this to compete with Intel and get attention from OEMs.

Prior to this, AMD used weaker CPU's on their APUs, and the results were far worse. Beating Intel in graphics means nothing when the CPU is so weak and unsuitable for drop-in dgpu upgrades.

I was gonna stay quiet, but....
Now Valve wants to use a 4C/8T Zen 2 CPU @ 800p with no upgrade path, a transition layer (Proton), no hardware upgradability and no Steam Deck optimizations for games.

Good luck everybody.
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,239   +894
Not to drag on about this, I think you can get an Intel CPU with an iGPU of similar processing power for less. You will have worse Intel HD graphics, you won't play games on it but you won't on this APU either, unless you like playing at barely 30 FPS at the lowest possible settings. Also it's a bit expensive for what it is IMO.
In other words, more speed doesn't matter when it's "not enough".

Using that logic, AMD and Intel should stop releasing new CPU's because new CPU's won't be "speedy enough" compared to previous ones "(y) (Y)"

PC was always and is still all about getting More Speed.
Pretty much what I'm trying to say.
This GPU is quite OK for not so demanding games on low resolutions.

There is also another question why Intel bothered to release Iris graphics chips with ultra expensive eDRAM. Reason: more GPU speed. Still, "not speedy enough"...
 

Danny101

Posts: 1,827   +790
There may be a day when my builds will be solely based on the APU, integrated variety. Although, if I want to stay current in the gaming arena, that day hasn't arrived, and unlikely never will unless Intel can get their IG's up to snuff and push AMD to actually compete in this space.
 

Nobina

Posts: 3,286   +3,362
In other words, more speed doesn't matter when it's "not enough".

Using that logic, AMD and Intel should stop releasing new CPU's because new CPU's won't be "speedy enough" compared to previous ones "(y) (Y)"
That's not the logic at all. CPUs do the job very well.
This GPU is quite OK for not so demanding games on low resolutions
It can run old and undemanding games, would you pay $360 for that? That's straight stupid.
There is also another question why Intel bothered to release Iris graphics chips with ultra expensive eDRAM. Reason: more GPU speed. Still, "not speedy enough"...
They have to keep releasing faster versions until one day it becomes good enough to replace lower end dedicated GPUs. They can't just jump 400% in one generation.
 

Lew Zealand

Posts: 1,919   +2,187
TechSpot Elite
In isolation, this is a pretty good product. Maybe 9/10. 8 good CPU cores, 8 decent (for an iGPU) GPU cores. But it's a jack of all trades and master of nothing at a pretty high price. So it doesn't solve a problem that many people have, making it a 7/10 for lack of use cases.

More viable would be something with this (or an RDNA2) iGPU with 6C12T for only slightly more than the 10400F: maybe $199 list, not $260. Otherwise Steve's point about the 10400F & used 1060-3 is spot on. Those are the much better $360 solution for inexpensive PC gaming right now.
 

Dyper

Posts: 37   +22
Perfect CPU choice for me.

I need replacements for my i7’s, 5700G’s have a larger cache.
Intel just wouldn’t come through since my i7 4790k’s. More 8MB cache is what my apps needed.
Sure more cores more heat & more money for 14nm. Sorry Intel.

5700G w/ the ASRock Rack workstation 1U boards is perfect.

Thanks AMD Thanks TechSpot
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,239   +894
That's not the logic at all. CPUs do the job very well.
Upcoming CPU's will not offer huge improvement vs current ones. More speed needed to be worthwhile release.
It can run old and undemanding games, would you pay $360 for that? That's straight stupid.
It's not if you need 8 cores and integrated graphics.

Some people actually bought Intel's i7-4950HQ CPU for $650. Even more bought i7-5775C. Compared to cheaper offerings those offered much better integrated graphics, not much else.

Obviously those buyers were equally stupid as Ryzen 5 5700G buyers are.
They have to keep releasing faster versions until one day it becomes good enough to replace lower end dedicated GPUs. They can't just jump 400% in one generation.
eDRAM was so expensive it was very well known Intel won't release much more CPU's using that. Last model was released around 5 years ago. eDRAM versions was just for that time, they had no impact on future releases. Still Intel bothered to release them. Speed for present time, but nothing to use in future. Why?
In isolation, this is a pretty good product. Maybe 9/10. 8 good CPU cores, 8 decent (for an iGPU) GPU cores. But it's a jack of all trades and master of nothing at a pretty high price. So it doesn't solve a problem that many people have, making it a 7/10 for lack of use cases.
Like I said above about my phone, lack of usable scenarios should never be reason for low score. If product is best available for scenario I want, I'd give it good score, no matter if anyone else uses it. Simple.
 

Tantor

Posts: 188   +333
Good article, well written with lots of good info. However, I don't entirely agree with Steve Walton's definition of the terms 'gamer' and 'value'.

"Bottom line, it’s going to be rare that the Ryzen 7 5700G will ever make sense for gamers."

Here's the truth. There is a world of devoted gamers who do not need high frame rates. My daughter is an avid fan of League of Legends, Civ VI, and Terraria. My wife plays Two Point Hospital and various solitaire games. Does their preference for non graphics intensive games disqualify them as 'gamers'? I play a lot of Dominions 5.

A quick look at the Steam survey shows that only 13% of gamers have 8 core cpus. Clearly the 5700g, on a purely CPU basis, would be a significant upgrade for many.

The 5700g is excellent for small computers where space is at a premium and the graphic needs are moderate. You get a respectable octo-core coupled with very decent graphics capability. All in one chip, no need to mess with a video card. If you have a 400 or higher series AMD mobo, it's a simple drop-in.

A gamer is someone who spends a significant amount of time playing computer games. Gamers value anything that enhances their gaming experience, which is dependent on the types of games they prefer. My wife and daughter value their small, lightweight computers which take little space, and enhance their gaming experience.
 
5700G is not a gamer CPU. Not everyone wants top shelf compute and heat their house at the same time, so get over your gaming infatuation. These however do make really good Proxmox CPU's by providing good core counts with reasonable TDP. Rather than buy a used Intel based rack server with their 1000W PSU's and 125W TDP's, you can get a cheap CPU with 16 threads and 4 SSD's in a small case and run several OS'es and networks at the same time without the huge power bill. Niche perhaps...but a use case that doesn't require the latest GPU, just high perf IPC.
 
In the table at the beginning, 5700G is said to have 32mb L3 cache, which contradicts the article's note on halved cache.
 

Mr Majestyk

Posts: 819   +728
The point of the 5700G is it OC's very well and I can't believe you didn't show it's true potential. It might be questionable value at stock settings, but that changes fast when OC'd. Hopefully when you set this up on a custom rig and not HP cr@p you can do some proper testing while OC'd.