AMD Ryzen 7 5700G APU Review: Radeon GPU Inside

Dimitriid

Posts: 948   +1,747
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.


Pretty much what I'm trying to say.
This is where there's a bit of a discrepancy here.

It is true that the graphics for the 5700g are rather weak but they're twice to three times stronger than similar intel hd graphics. For a similar intel offer you need to go to iris pro and they just won't release that for the desktop: you have to get that on just laptops or some mini pcs like the NUC devices but not something enthusiasts can actually build.

Now if you just look specifically at AAA games that came out between 2019 and 2021 then yes, the 5700g might as well be intel hd graphics because it will still be "unplayable" for the most part.

However, there's a vast library of older titles in which the intel hd would still be considered "Unplayable" but the 5700g will do the trick just fine: GTA V/Online for example is one such example. Fortnite is another. Many of the lighter titles like Overwatch might not be flatout unplayable on intel hd but actually become capable of high refresh rate with just the 5700g

So for a significant part of the games that statistically, get more people actually playing them than AAA games, the 5700g offers a very substantial benefit over 11400 or 11600 type CPUs from intel unless you step into laptop territory in which case yes, iris Pro becomes somewhat competitive but still decisively slower on average than the 5700g

For anyone that cares about just the latest and greatest there is no argument, APU graphics are still useless. But I'm not going to stand here and pretend that AAA gaming is the only name in town, I'm tired of such PC Gamer elitism.
 
That's not the logic at all. CPUs do the job very well.

It can run old and undemanding games, would you pay $360 for that? That's straight stupid.

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.
You want to talk about stupid, this is a apu. IN OTHER WORDS almost 5700x performance (maybe a 9% difference) with a gpu built in for $40 less. SO BASICALLY you're getting a discount on the performance difference and getting a built-in GPU. How is this a bad deal when a gpu-less x variant costs more?? what if your gpu just f'in dies and you have to RMA it. Are you just going to be without a pc for weeks on end while you wait to get it back? mind you, you sound like an elitest so you'd probably just run to the store and buy a new one no doubt.
 

GamerNerves

Posts: 101   +53
I'm not saying gamers should buy this CPU, but I fail to see how the gaming performance is anything but really good (with dGPU). We are talking about losing few percent of frames against a brilliant performer like R7 5800X. The iGPU is just a bonus on top. This said, the pricing is problematic and having more cache can prove to be more and more beneficial as time goes by.
 
Last edited:

Nobina

Posts: 3,291   +3,363
You want to talk about stupid, this is a apu. IN OTHER WORDS almost 5700x performance (maybe a 9% difference) with a gpu built in for $40 less. SO BASICALLY you're getting a discount on the performance difference and getting a built-in GPU. How is this a bad deal when a gpu-less x variant costs more?? what if your gpu just f'in dies and you have to RMA it. Are you just going to be without a pc for weeks on end while you wait to get it back? mind you, you sound like an elitest so you'd probably just run to the store and buy a new one no doubt.
It's around the same performance as 5700X, a CPU that doesn't exist, plus this one has integrated graphics that are only good if your dGPU dies, which I'm sure happens all the time. I'm not an elitist, I'm more interested in value which is usually somewhere in the mid-range.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 1,723   +2,036
TechSpot Elite
Honestly, I don't know who this part is for either but I also don't know why anyone would pay more for a high-end Intel non-F SKU and yet people do it. If I were to wager a guess, I would say that this CPU would probably work pretty well as an office intranet server because it has 16 threads and an IGP. For an office server/data centre, that's pretty much ideal.
 

Danny101

Posts: 1,827   +790
Honestly, I don't know who this part is for either but I also don't know why anyone would pay more for a high-end Intel non-F SKU and yet people do it. If I were to wager a guess, I would say that this CPU would probably work pretty well as an office intranet server because it has 16 threads and an IGP. For an office server/data centre, that's pretty much ideal.
Most likely. Also, good for those who do 'road warrior' work. This in your laptop? Perfect. I've worked as a catastrophe adjuster. Often 12 hour days, 7 days a week. You need the power that this would deliver managing all of the software, and playing games is really the last thing you're thinking about, unless you're at the end of your deployment. And even then, you're just ready to get home and talk to 'No One!'.
 
Last edited:

Mjswooosh

Posts: 47   +79
As someone who has been building small form factor systems almost exclusively for 15+ years, this is highly anticipated. The only "concerning" part is pricing. From a marketing perspective it probably needs to be $299 to really take off (with the 6 core variant coming in at $229, 4 core at $149). These are a little "over priced" but because they fit a niche need for people like myself I can see grabbing one, especially the 6/12 version or this 8/16 if things ever get back to normal and we see APU/CPU sales. This is drop in for a handful of my already built SFF PCs so I'm def onboard. Just get that pricing down a little and it would be a hit.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 1,723   +2,036
TechSpot Elite
These are a little "over priced" but because they fit a niche need for people like myself
What niche is that? I was just guessing at what they'd be suited for because I didn't really have an idea. I'm genuinely curious as to what a CPU like this would be ideal for other than an office intranet server PC.
 

Lew Zealand

Posts: 1,921   +2,195
TechSpot Elite
What niche is that? I was just guessing at what they'd be suited for because I didn't really have an idea. I'm genuinely curious as to what a CPU like this would be ideal for other than an office intranet server PC.

I'll answer because I've been using USFF Macs and PCs for about 15 years. I like the low power and low desk real estate requirements for all non-gaming uses. I'm using a NUC8i5 for office work and will turn on my gaming PC when the work day is done. Why use 35-50W for 8 hrs per day when I can use 5-10?

And you can do decent gaming on a 5700G.

I also started gaming on an i7 Mac Mini and moved up to a NUC5i7 and then a NUC7i7 (Iris Plus iGPU) which was notably better, then an eGPU and then built a real gaming PC.

But I still game on my now larger collection of NUCs and in fact spent a week at my Mom's gaming in the late evenings on an 8 year old MacBook Pro w/Iris Pro 5200 in Win 10, and just had to select the right games for it. Had a lot of fun.

This 5700G is wayyy better than all those USFFs and laptops at gaming and I appreciate it's potential, but it's also too CPU-heavy for that task as that's what you're *really* paying the high price for. A 6C12T for less $ is more balanced if you are looking to add a dGPU later on and a 4C8T is best for USFF gaming-only, at an even lower price. Though even that could handle a low to midrange dGPU later on for a good performance improvement. Problem is: AMD scales down the iGPU a bit along with the cores, while Intel still gives you the top end iGPU with an i5 and sometimes even an i3.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 1,723   +2,036
TechSpot Elite
I'll answer because I've been using USFF Macs and PCs for about 15 years. I like the low power and low desk real estate requirements for all non-gaming uses. I'm using a NUC8i5 for office work and will turn on my gaming PC when the work day is done. Why use 35-50W for 8 hrs per day when I can use 5-10?

And you can do decent gaming on a 5700G.

I also started gaming on an i7 Mac Mini and moved up to a NUC5i7 and then a NUC7i7 (Iris Plus iGPU) which was notably better, then an eGPU and then built a real gaming PC.

But I still game on my now larger collection of NUCs and in fact spent a week at my Mom's gaming in the late evenings on an 8 year old MacBook Pro w/Iris Pro 5200 in Win 10, and just had to select the right games for it. Had a lot of fun.

This 5700G is wayyy better than all those USFFs and laptops at gaming and I appreciate it's potential, but it's also too CPU-heavy for that task as that's what you're *really* paying the high price for. A 6C12T for less $ is more balanced if you are looking to add a dGPU later on and a 4C8T is best for USFF gaming-only, at an even lower price. Though even that could handle a low to midrange dGPU later on for a good performance improvement. Problem is: AMD scales down the iGPU a bit along with the cores, while Intel still gives you the top end iGPU with an i5 and sometimes even an i3.
Very interesting and very informative. Thanks Lew! I honestly hadn't thought of this because I've always been a full or mega-tower kinda guy. The more crap I can fit in the case, the more I like it. There is definitely a place for small form-factor and yeah, this APU would be perfect for that.
 

Top S

Posts: 32   +27
Is this the ideal choice for an SFF Linux machine with a dGPU passthough to virtualized Windows?
 

Shadowboxer

Posts: 1,717   +1,322
It’s actually quite refreshing to see a reviewer saying that 30fps is not playable on a PC. I’ve played barely anything at less than 60fps on PC and I wince every time a game drops down that low. PCs are more sensitive to this as I seem to be able to tolerate 30fps on my switch lite.
 

Lew Zealand

Posts: 1,921   +2,195
TechSpot Elite
It’s actually quite refreshing to see a reviewer saying that 30fps is not playable on a PC. I’ve played barely anything at less than 60fps on PC and I wince every time a game drops down that low. PCs are more sensitive to this as I seem to be able to tolerate 30fps on my switch lite.

I was recently gouging my eyes out, uh I mean testing an R5 240 I found, and that thing can actually play 2013's Tomb Raider at 720p low, plus med textures and shadows, and look and play decently. But only if you OC the thing by 25% on the cores and 35% on the memory, which gets you to 55fps from its stock of 43fps. 43 was just annoying to play while 55 was OK.

I don't get how people can play at 30fps other than maybe MSFS, maybe they choose some games that somehow tolerate that, but none of the games typically tested here seem to be good candidates for that.
 
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.

I agree - for gaming. For other uses, it has an 8-core for multitasking, enough graphics power to handle most non-gaming video tasks, and consumes only 65W.

Medium-intensity work applications seem like where this processor is best suited as a fit. Ie., more intensive than Word and Excel, but less intensive than rendering or compiling huge C++ projects. Low energy consumption for the power offered, and could be packed into a pretty compact form factor.
 

scavengerspc

Posts: 1,583   +1,600
TechSpot Elite
I agree - for gaming. For other uses, it has an 8-core for multitasking, enough graphics power to handle most non-gaming video tasks, and consumes only 65W.

Medium-intensity work applications seem like where this processor is best suited as a fit. Ie., more intensive than Word and Excel, but less intensive than rendering or compiling huge C++ projects. Low energy consumption for the power offered, and could be packed into a pretty compact form factor.
Agreed. It is a considerable gain on the CPU performance side, so I don't see the whiny tears from some.
 
"Bottom line, it’s going to be rare that the Ryzen 7 5700G will ever make sense for gamers."

And it doesn't necessarily have to. I am not a gamer, but I need a powerful machine for everyday work, which involves content creation, video and audio editing, running virtual machines, etc. I'd still want to connect up to three 4K displays, so I'd need a GPU with some combination of three DisplayPort/HDMI ports.

My next best bet would be getting an 5800X (which does have PCIe 4.0 and a larger L32 cache) and a GPU with three digital ports, which sets me back another $150 or more. Then I'd run something like a GTX 1650 that would idle 99% of the time and just drive my displays.

Or I could get a 5700G and an ASUS Pro board (HDMI and 2x DisplayPort) and be on my merry way. I don't need PCIe 4.0 and I can live with the 5700G hving a smaller L3 cache, plus TDP is at 65W vs. 105W.

So yeah, the APU might be very well suited to power compact workstations for content creators, developers, IT architects and the like.
 
For gaming... what's up with everything needing to be for gamers? 5700G and 5600G are perfect processors for small builds that cannot fit dGPU. If you insist on gaming with that thing there are plenty of mitx projects in youtube done with this processor that uses emulator.

It was also a bit sad to bring up that you could get dGPU cheaper from eBay. Wasn't sure if he also meant that comparison to the intel part as well. Used part is not same as buying new part.

This did not mention anything about the purpose people are actually buying these, which to my understanding is small form factor builds where you cannot fit dGPU, or you want to reserve that 1 PCIe slot for something else than gfx card.