The Best Value CPU: Pentium Gold G5400 vs. Ryzen 3 2200G

[Julio Franco]

There are now several Coffee Lake-based Pentium Gold chips starting at just $64. So we've decided to pit it against AMD's best value CPU, the Ryzen 3 2200G which is $100 but it gets you good integrated graphics. You have to wonder what's the best value between the two platforms.

Read the full article here.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1619-pentium-gold-g5400-vs-ryzen-2200g/

 

[ET3D]

If you're interested in low power low end gaming, something like a 5400 + RX 560 at 50% power (in WattMan) should prove lower power yet faster than the 2200G. Only problem is that RX 560 prices are still not down to the $100 suggested retail price.

Not that the 2200G isn't great value (it certainly is), just a certain use case where it might not be the optimal solution.

 

[CheekyP]

I think in the vast majority of cases, the Ryzen 2200G is the better value despite being more expensive. The exception to that would be budget dGPU gaming, such as the GTX 1050 example that Steve showed. With that class of GPU, CPU speed wouldn't really matter as all games would be GPU limited, especially if you game at 1080P. So the Pentium 5400 brings a lower cost of entry point for budget gaming.

 

[ColinC]

More Expensive and higher core CPU BEATS cheaper and lower core CPU?!?!

In other news, water is wet.

 

[MaikuTech]

I think in the vast majority of cases, the Ryzen 2200G is the better value despite being more expensive. The exception to that would be budget dGPU gaming, such as the GTX 1050 example that Steve showed. With that class of GPU, CPU speed wouldn't really matter as all games would be GPU limited, especially if you game at 1080P. So the Pentium 5400 brings a lower cost of entry point for budget gaming.

Honestly I prefer the pentium, its at a good price entry point to build a good mini itx gaming rig or microatx computer system.

 

[Steve]

More Expensive and higher core CPU BEATS cheaper and lower core CPU?!?!

In other news, water is wet.

Yes, the single goal of this content was to show that the more expensive CPU is faster, job done.

 

[Vulcanproject]

If it's a budget gaming build then it has to be the Pentium, on the basis you can add a used discrete card for a little more than total cost of the AMD system that would whomp AMD's integrated.

While the integrated in the 2200G and 2400G is really impressive, it isn't quite as fast as I had hoped. I would say a large part of that is down to the limited memory bandwidth. Even if you use uber RAM for the AMD system across a wide set of games it struggles to match a mere GT1030 running with a Pentium and cheap slow DDR4.

Bearing in mind that the GT1030 isn't as fast as a 750ti. Literally a 750ti or better with the pentium is a superior gaming machine. So I would go intel with a cheap discrete card for the budget gaming as the primary usage. GTX1050 wipes the floor with both for $140, or $50 more than the AMD system here. It's twice as fast in games.

The article talks about spending $90 extra for a 250 percent increase in gaming being well worth it, then surely a $50 increase for a 200 percent increase on the AMD system in games is well, well worth it!

For everything else however the AMD system is better without gaming, but then it costs a lot more.

 

[BSim500]

"Of course, if you factor in the cost of a graphics card such as the GTX 1050, then that margin comes down to just over 20%"

^ This is probably the sticky issue for many budget gamers. As impressive as the 2200G is on both iGPU vs iGPU and with a GTX 1070 (a highly unlikely match for any sub $100 CPU), for most realistic budget gaming rigs the choice is down to 2200G iGPU vs a little more for Pentium & GTX 1050 (or basically "GT1030" @ upscaled 720p vs GTX1050 @ native 1080p). The AMD has more CPU horsepower, but on GTX1050 or lower GPU, both will be heavily GPU limited in most games anyway and +80-190% GPU performance for barely +10-15% of total $500 system cost (inc SSD, case, PSU, etc) is pretty hard to ignore (example).

Every time a new AMD APU comes out, I seriously consider buying one to play with. But one of my pet hates for very low end 720p stuff (inc APU's and GT1030's) which review sites never demonstrate the effect of is the disproportionately blurry effect of 720p upscaling - something that can only be demonstrated by comparing the monitor's output, not just capturing pre-scaled 720p screen-shots / streaming output direct from the GPU. I can live with going from 1080p Ultra to 1080p Med/Low, but blurry 720p really is just beyond the threshold of what I'd be willing to put up with (for visuals) once the "new purchase novelty" has worn off after a couple of weeks before I'd end up buying a GTX1050 minimum GPU anyway even if it's just to be able to run native 1080p/Low.

 

[mat9v]

More Expensive and higher core CPU BEATS cheaper and lower core CPU?!?!

In other news, water is wet.

Yes, the single goal of this content was to show that the more expensive CPU is faster, job done.

I think it would be great if you could mention CPU frequency of G5400 somewhere on the first page True, there is a link (and the photo does show it too) to the information but since you mention Ryzen clock it would be great to know Intel's too

 

[Notree]

I3 8100 would have been a good chip to test also.

 

[Arris]

I'm still dead against the new use of "Pentium" name for lower performance parts and that makes me biased against them. I still recommend i3 as a minimum Intel CPU for friends looking for a general use laptop, with that said the i3s have become a lot better over the last few generations.

 

[msroadkill612]

If you're interested in low power low end gaming, something like a 5400 + RX 560 at 50% power (in WattMan) should prove lower power yet faster than the 2200G. Only problem is that RX 560 prices are still not down to the $100 suggested retail price.

Not that the 2200G isn't great value (it certainly is), just a certain use case where it might not be the optimal solution.

I agree. Many love the apu, but 2200g's 8 gpu CIs & no cache currently doesnt quite cut it for their job mix.

Like you, if it were I, the rx560 would be a nice fit, & a 2600x or a firesale 1700x on a x470 series mobo (~$150).

the 4GB rx560 is now $135 opern box & $145 new on newegg. The sweetspot $250 now gets you a 4GB rx 570.

I see zen/vega being a cosy ecosystem to be part of in future, and Polaris seems to be pretty similar hardware.

I also see that for those who can live w/o thate extra power, avoiding a PITA dgpu is a blessing.

The reality is dgpu has some key inherent advantages for some, but lets not forget they are superior in others. The apu has gpu/cpu/memory controller magically integrated on a tiny SOC using Fabric bus. It makes other rigs look stone age.

Forbes : "AMD revealed many of the details regarding its Zen+ processor architecture all the way back in January during the Consumer Electronics Show. ..... There are some new 2nd Generation Ryzen 3 and Ryzen 5 CPUs and APUs listed, which further flesh out AMD’s product stack over and above the existing Ryzen 3 2200G and Ryzen 5 2400G,"

Seems a no brainer there are more muscular apuS in the wings.

So far, only a minimalist laptop pair of apuS, & then a recent souped up desktop version of same.

The main problem isnt doing it, it's that they will compete with their own dgpu products.

Privately, a big motivator for new gear is as a fun learning tool.

With the APU, you are not settling for old tech anything. The Fabric zen and vega under your hood, are exactly~ what the deep pocket big boys are rapidly adopting /supporting as their platform.

You get to go on the same ride they fund, and your learning is relevant - not about some dodo; cpu/gpu/mobo combination, which is just mental clutter.

 

[cliffordcooley]

I'm still dead against the new use of "Pentium" name for lower performance parts and that makes me biased against them. I still recommend i3 as a minimum Intel CPU for friends looking for a general use laptop, with that said the i3s have become a lot better over the last few generations.

Same here. They should go ahead and refer to Pentium and Celeron as i2 and i1. And then relabel their Atom as i0.

 

[GreenNova343]

2 small (but possibly significant) issues with the price comparison in the article:

1. The Ryzen build uses a dual-channel kit (2x4GB), but the Pentium model uses a single-channel kit (1x8GB). Using a dual-channel kit in the Pentium build would slightly increase its price.

2. While it was nice that they used MSI boards for both builds, not sure why the Mortar was necessarily picked. Yes, that's the better choice if you need more USB 3.1 ports, a built-in DisplayPort jack, an M.2 slot, & 4 RAM slots...but if you don't need those features, you can save a bit more by going with their B350M Pro-VD (which also appears to be in a similar line to the Intel board).

3. Although Ryzen does benefit from faster RAM, I thought Techspot's testing didn't show that much of a benefit beyond DDR4-3000 (or at least not as much of a benefit to justify the additional expense). That might not seem that important on a mid-range to high-end system, where you're going to be spending hundreds of dollars...but if you're buying a budget machine, by definition when you balance your performance vs. cost equation you're going to focus as much as possible on minimizing expense.

Based on PCPartPicker, the Intel build (https://pcpartpicker.com/list/6zdwzY) from this article runs you $214 USD, while a modified version of the Ryzen build (https://pcpartpicker.com/list/q4k329) runs you $258. That's a difference of $44 USD. The only problem? If you want a dedicated GPU that might bring the Pentium's performance up to match the R3, you're going to spend at least $96 USD (https://pcpartpicker.com/products/video-card/#sort=price&c=396,71,309,394,420) for the GT 1030. Let's do the math: $214 + $96 = $310; $310 > $258. So...for the Pentium to match the R3 2200G in performance by getting a dedicated GPU, you have to spend more money. Now, maybe $310 isn't that much of a stretch for your budget...but if your budget is $250, & you have maybe a 10% leeway on it, does the Pentium build really just save you money, or do you sacrifice performance for cash that won't even get you a budget GPU?

 

[hood6558]

I'm still dead against the new use of "Pentium" name for lower performance parts and that makes me biased against them. I still recommend i3 as a minimum Intel CPU for friends looking for a general use laptop, with that said the i3s have become a lot better over the last few generations.

Same here. They should go ahead and refer to Pentium and Celeron as i2 and i1. And then relabel their Atom as i0.

I was thinking the same thing when I read that post. What about further segmentation using i4, i6, and i8 (perhaps designating actual core count?). No the logical naming scheme would confuse people after years of i3-i5-i7. But I love your "i0" for Atom - Atoms are not that bad,but they are the bottom of the heap. The Pentium and Celeron brands are synonymous with old low performance chips that were only considered high-end for a short time, years ago. Let it go, Intel - it's a new ball game, so come up with a clever new naming scheme.

 

[Sausagemeat]

This is an odd comparison. In the UK an i3 8100 is cheaper than a 2200G. Same in the USA. Why not compare those? They even have the same 4C/4T config, how much closer do you want two CPU's? I understand that price isnt everything when buying but you seem to be avoiding the obvious comparison!

With all due respect I get the impression that this is an attempt to mislead your readers.

Looking at how close the 2 core Pentium does against the 2200G its clear the 8100 would have wiped the floor with it (it does, there are tests on other sites). Also Iits amusing how you describe Intels integrated graphics as "pathetic" yet describe the Vega 8 as "impressive. Lets face it at <60fps on PUBG at 720p the AMD solution is only a bit less pathetic and not good enough for a full HD gamer, I wasnt that impressed! Its much more impressive that that "pathetic" graphics chip exists on Intels complete line up as what feels like an afterthought.

I initially thought these APU's would make great office systems and as someone who is a SYSSUP for a FTSE 100 company I think I have a little bit of an idea of what im talking about. However after some analysis I dont think the APU's are very good at all. The i3 is faster and its cheaper and office users dont need the extra graphics power of the 2200G.

AMD need to put a graphics chip on its higher end parts because right now no IT dept is going to bother with Ryzen if it needs to provide and support a graphics card for each system that uses it.

Articles like this mislead consumers. Most will be better off with an i3 which will cost them less. That same i3 would also benefit more from a GPU upgrade than the 2200G. Also any information on thunderbolt? Does the APU support it with only 8 lanes? Consumers might want to know if they cant stick in an add in card on the APU. Id like to know, I do know Intel dropped the thunderbolt licence fee last year, so are we getting thunderbolt on all these new parts?

Oh and just to clarify, at the time of writing this comment, in the UK an i3 8100 is £99, a 2200G is £110 and a G5400 is £55. Also first gen Ryzen parts are being sold dirt cheap here too, so cheap that it makes Ryzen 2 a rip off by comparison.

But I dont want to flame too hard, the comparison appears to be well put together and I have no reason to believe that the numbers are inaccurate. Just come on man, consumers interests are more important than AMD's welfare. Also you seem staunch at comparing price points for higher end stuff but when it comes to lower end stuff you arent? Whats that about? If anything it should be the other way around!

 

[Evernessince]

This is an odd comparison. In the UK an i3 8100 is cheaper than a 2200G. Same in the USA. Why not compare those? They even have the same 4C/4T config, how much closer do you want two CPU's? I understand that price isnt everything when buying but you seem to be avoiding the obvious comparison!

With all due respect I get the impression that this is an attempt to mislead your readers.

Looking at how close the 2 core Pentium does against the 2200G its clear the 8100 would have wiped the floor with it (it does, there are tests on other sites). Also Iits amusing how you describe Intels integrated graphics as "pathetic" yet describe the Vega 8 as "impressive. Lets face it at <60fps on PUBG at 720p the AMD solution is only a bit less pathetic and not good enough for a full HD gamer, I wasnt that impressed! Its much more impressive that that "pathetic" graphics chip exists on Intels complete line up as what feels like an afterthought.

I initially thought these APU's would make great office systems and as someone who is a SYSSUP for a FTSE 100 company I think I have a little bit of an idea of what im talking about. However after some analysis I dont think the APU's are very good at all. The i3 is faster and its cheaper and office users dont need the extra graphics power of the 2200G.

AMD need to put a graphics chip on its higher end parts because right now no IT dept is going to bother with Ryzen if it needs to provide and support a graphics card for each system that uses it.

Articles like this mislead consumers. Most will be better off with an i3 which will cost them less. That same i3 would also benefit more from a GPU upgrade than the 2200G. Also any information on thunderbolt? Does the APU support it with only 8 lanes? Consumers might want to know if they cant stick in an add in card on the APU. Id like to know, I do know Intel dropped the thunderbolt licence fee last year, so are we getting thunderbolt on all these new parts?

Oh and just to clarify, at the time of writing this comment, in the UK an i3 8100 is £99, a 2200G is £110 and a G5400 is £55. Also first gen Ryzen parts are being sold dirt cheap here too, so cheap that it makes Ryzen 2 a rip off by comparison.

But I dont want to flame too hard, the comparison appears to be well put together and I have no reason to believe that the numbers are inaccurate. Just come on man, consumers interests are more important than AMD's welfare. Also you seem staunch at comparing price points for higher end stuff but when it comes to lower end stuff you arent? Whats that about? If anything it should be the other way around!

No everyone in the world lives in the UK. The author can only publish an article in one currency, it's up to the reader to check local prices. You are flaming the author for not being able to do the impossible.

The 2200G beats the Pentium in multi-threaded workloads and the more expensive i3 while only have a negligible single threaded disadvantage in some applications. In addition, the platform is upgradeable, which will save businesses money. Intel's consumer platform on the otherhand only has about an 8th month lifespan. This is turn increases costs as upgrades are more expensive and time consuming.

If you are coming from a business perspective the only advantage those intel processors have is maturity, which some business prefer. That alone though is not enough to overlook the advantages of the Ryzen processor.

The i3 8100 trades blows with first gen Ryzen 3 chips, let alone 2nd gen ones which have higher clocks and better IPC.

 

[Stark]

"And don't try to tell me no one does these tasks on quad-core CPUs, because I know they do."

I laughed a little too hard than I would have liked at this,
Thanks for the review Steve it was something on my mind since launch of Intel chips. Good work.

 

[ET3D]

The 2200G is quite decent for older games and family gaming, something the Pentium isn't. I think it's the first AMD APU that's both a decent entry level on its own and usable with a discrete GPU. While the Pentium + discrete GPU would be better, I think that the difference in price for the base configuration is overstated. The 2200G is still usable (and still much better than a Pentium on its own) even with a $50 A320 motherboard and DDR4-2400. Sure, that's not optimal, but for someone who's not an enthusiast and just wants to play some games, it's a workable solution.

 

[CheekyP]

No everyone in the world lives in the UK. The author can only publish an article in one currency, it's up to the reader to check local prices. You are flaming the author for not being able to do the impossible.

The 2200G beats the Pentium in multi-threaded workloads and the more expensive i3 while only have a negligible single threaded disadvantage in some applications. In addition, the platform is upgradeable, which will save businesses money. Intel's consumer platform on the otherhand only has about an 8th month lifespan. This is turn increases costs as upgrades are more expensive and time consuming.

If you are coming from a business perspective the only advantage those intel processors have is maturity, which some business prefer. That alone though is not enough to overlook the advantages of the Ryzen processor.

The i3 8100 trades blows with first gen Ryzen 3 chips, let alone 2nd gen ones which have higher clocks and better IPC.

The APUs are still 14nm so technically not Zen+ despite being a 2000 series chip.

The lower cache means they are actually a bit slower than a Ryzen 3 at the same clocks

No everyone in the world lives in the UK. The author can only publish an article in one currency, it's up to the reader to check local prices. You are flaming the author for not being able to do the impossible.

The 2200G beats the Pentium in multi-threaded workloads and the more expensive i3 while only have a negligible single threaded disadvantage in some applications. In addition, the platform is upgradeable, which will save businesses money. Intel's consumer platform on the otherhand only has about an 8th month lifespan. This is turn increases costs as upgrades are more expensive and time consuming.

If you are coming from a business perspective the only advantage those intel processors have is maturity, which some business prefer. That alone though is not enough to overlook the advantages of the Ryzen processor.

The i3 8100 trades blows with first gen Ryzen 3 chips, let alone 2nd gen ones which have higher clocks and better IPC.

The i3 8100 would beat the 2200G in most CPU intensive tasks, as it still has the higher IPC and they are clocked similarly. An overclocked 2200G would close the gap, but at stock the 8100 is the superior CPU, especially for gaming. The 8100 is comparable to a 2400G for dGPU gaming performance from the reviews that I've seen.

The 2200G isn't really a 2nd gen Ryzen as it's still made on the 14nm process and hence tops out around 3.9 - 4.0GHz when overclocked. It also doesn't have higher IPC than a Ryzen 3, in fact gaming performance is generally a bit lower as it has a much smaller L3 cache.

 

[Evernessince]

The APUs are still 14nm so technically not Zen+ despite being a 2000 series chip.

The lower cache means they are actually a bit slower than a Ryzen 3 at the same clocks


The i3 8100 would beat the 2200G in most CPU intensive tasks, as it still has the higher IPC and they are clocked similarly. An overclocked 2200G would close the gap, but at stock the 8100 is the superior CPU, especially for gaming. The 8100 is comparable to a 2400G for dGPU gaming performance from the reviews that I've seen.

The 2200G isn't really a 2nd gen Ryzen as it's still made on the 14nm process and hence tops out around 3.9 - 4.0GHz when overclocked. It also doesn't have higher IPC than a Ryzen 3, in fact gaming performance is generally a bit lower as it has a much smaller L3 cache.

Just because the 2200G isn't on the 12nm doesn't mean it isn't Ryzen+

https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/amd/ryzen_3/2200g

It has the upgraded memory controller as it officially supports up to 2933 while the Ryzen 1000 series only officially supports up to 2666. In addition Raven Ridge has precision boost 2 and sports higher clocks then first gen parts.

You don't need to take my word for it, the review is here

https://www.techspot.com/review/1574-amd-ryzen-5-2400g-and-ryzen-3-2200g/page4.html

dGPU performance is irrelevant for APUs. If the intel chip needs a separate $100 GPU just to compete with an APU and double the cost of the rig then you just made saving money on an APU pointless. You can overclock the 2200G to the point where it matches a 8100 with a 1030.

https://www.techspot.com/article/1579-overclocking-guide-ryzen-3-2200g/

Save yourself the $100 and upgrade your CPU again 3 years down the line thanks to AM4 lasting multiple generations.

 

[theruck]

So you finally found one Intel CPU which can be worse than a Ryzen

 

[Cryoburner]

This is an odd comparison. In the UK an i3 8100 is cheaper than a 2200G. Same in the USA. Why not compare those? They even have the same 4C/4T config, how much closer do you want two CPU's? I understand that price isnt everything when buying but you seem to be avoiding the obvious comparison!

With all due respect I get the impression that this is an attempt to mislead your readers.

Looking at how close the 2 core Pentium does against the 2200G its clear the 8100 would have wiped the floor with it (it does, there are tests on other sites). Also Iits amusing how you describe Intels integrated graphics as "pathetic" yet describe the Vega 8 as "impressive. Lets face it at <60fps on PUBG at 720p the AMD solution is only a bit less pathetic and not good enough for a full HD gamer, I wasnt that impressed! Its much more impressive that that "pathetic" graphics chip exists on Intels complete line up as what feels like an afterthought.

I initially thought these APU's would make great office systems and as someone who is a SYSSUP for a FTSE 100 company I think I have a little bit of an idea of what im talking about. However after some analysis I dont think the APU's are very good at all. The i3 is faster and its cheaper and office users dont need the extra graphics power of the 2200G.

AMD need to put a graphics chip on its higher end parts because right now no IT dept is going to bother with Ryzen if it needs to provide and support a graphics card for each system that uses it.

Articles like this mislead consumers. Most will be better off with an i3 which will cost them less. That same i3 would also benefit more from a GPU upgrade than the 2200G. Also any information on thunderbolt? Does the APU support it with only 8 lanes? Consumers might want to know if they cant stick in an add in card on the APU. Id like to know, I do know Intel dropped the thunderbolt licence fee last year, so are we getting thunderbolt on all these new parts?

Oh and just to clarify, at the time of writing this comment, in the UK an i3 8100 is £99, a 2200G is £110 and a G5400 is £55. Also first gen Ryzen parts are being sold dirt cheap here too, so cheap that it makes Ryzen 2 a rip off by comparison.

But I dont want to flame too hard, the comparison appears to be well put together and I have no reason to believe that the numbers are inaccurate. Just come on man, consumers interests are more important than AMD's welfare. Also you seem staunch at comparing price points for higher end stuff but when it comes to lower end stuff you arent? Whats that about? If anything it should be the other way around!

This is complete misinformation. Checking PCPartPicker, which tracks pricing in both US and UK online retailers, the Ryzen 2200G is less expensive in both countries. In the US, the 2200G is around $100, while the i3-8100 is around $119. In the UK, the 8100 similarly costs £10-20 more at every retailer listed. The 2200G should be around £90 shipped, not £110. You repeat numerous times throughout your post that the i3 is cheaper, when that's clearly not the case.

And if you reread the introductory paragraphs, you'll see that the point was to compare what they deemed to be the "best value" budget processor from each company's lineup. They're looking to help answer the question of whether it's worth the price difference to move up to the Ryzen 2200G over a Pentium. Sure, they could extend that a bit further to also compare the even higher-priced i3-8100, but they had to draw the line somewhere.

 

[CheekyP]

Yet despite being '''Zen+' as you say it still performs worse than a Ryzen 3 clock for clock in gaming.

Meanwhile the REAL Zen+ chips aka 2600/2700 have a true and measurable IPC advantage over 1st gen Ryzen and can clock 200MHz higher on average.

At best the APUs can be considered a hybrid between 1st and 2nd gen Ryzen, so no they can't be considered true Zen+ chips.

dGPU performance is most definitely relevant, unless you are saying every 2200G owner is forever limited to the APU for gaming, which is ridiculous. The APU is suitable for older, less demanding titles, but throw any modern AAA title at it and you are forced to run at 720P, and often at low settings as well, in order to get playable framerates. It's completely reasonable to expect a 2200G owner to own a dGPU - either as an upgrade to the APU or as an upfront purchase along with the CPU. Not everyone wants to play at 720P you know...

That being said, the difference between a 8100 and 2200G in gaming would be slight with a GTX 1060 / RX 580 class card, as even at 1080P those cards would be the bottleneck the majority of the time. It's only when you move up to the GTX 1070 like Steve did in this review that you would see noticeable seperation between the two CPUs.

 

[Cycloid Torus]

Interesting how close the performance of the Xeon w3550 (used $10) is to the G5400. (https://technical.city/en/cpu/Xeon-W3550-vs-Pentium-Gold-G5400) Imagine buying a working Dell t3500 with a w3503 chip (about $50-$60) and then spending $10 more to get a W3550 or better.

Electricity cost might be an issue as w3550 is a 130w part.