Skip to main content

Upcoming Ryzen 3 5300G May Be the Ultimate APU for 1080p Gaming

AMD Ryzen 3 5300G
AMD Ryzen 3 5300G (Image credit: hugohk/eBay)

AMD still has its Zen 3 desktop APUs under wraps, but a Chinese eBay merchant already started selling engineering samples. The AMD Ryzen 3 5300G, which was previously sold for $176.99, is no longer available on eBay, but we still have the benchmarks that were listed. 

The Zen 3 microarchitecture powers AMD's latest 7nm processors, spanning from the mobile chips to the core-heavy server offerings. While the chipmaker has already released its Ryzen 5000 mobile (Cezanne) parts, the DIY market is still awaiting the desktop variants, which may be able to compete with the best CPUs. It's expected that AMD's next-generation APUs will leverage Zen 3 cores and slot into the AM4 CPU socket. Based on AMD's history, the chips will likely come with Vega graphics but with a small generational uplift. 

The Zen 3 processor listed on eBay carries the 100-000000262-30_Y designation, which is the orderable part number, and the poster listed it as a Ryzen 3 5300G. Without AMD's confirmation though, we can't know for sure. It's possible the chip will come out as the Ryzen 3 Pro 5350G, with equal specs but bringing extra features around things like security. In any case, the chip listed should be the baby brother to the Ryzen 7 5700G or Ryzen 7 Pro 5750G.

AMD Ryzen 3 5300G Specifications

ProcessorCores / ThreadsBase Clock (GHz)L2 Cache (MB)L3 Cache (MB)TDP (W)
Ryzen 3 5300G*4 / 83.5 / ?2865
Ryzen 3 3300X4 / 83.8 / 4.321665
Ryzen 3 Pro 4350G4 / 83.8 / 4.02465
Ryzen 3 31004 / 83.6 / 3.921665
Core i3-101004 / 83.6 / 4.31665

*Specs not confirmed by AMD 

Based on the eBay listing, the Ryzen 3 3500G will arrive as a quad-core, 7nm processor with simultaneous multithreading (SMT) enabled. The APU appears to have a 3.5 GHz base clock, but the boost clock wasn't shared. It seemingly clocks in lower than its predecessors, but remember that Zen 3's performance uplift comes from the IPC advancements rather than high clock speeds. On top of that, the clock speeds should be taken with a bit of salt, since the processor in question is an engineering sample.

Cezanne offers twice the amount of L3 cache in comparison to Renoir APUs. So it's not surprising to see the Ryzen 3 5300G come equipped with an 8MB L3 cache. However, it's still two times less than what's found on Ryzen Zen 2 desktop chips.

Given the model name, the Ryzen 3 5300G should be the successor to the Ryzen 3 4300G. Unfortunately, AMD decided to reserve desktop Renoir for pre-built OEM systems. You could still pick one up from the grey market, but it doesn't come with any support or a warranty.

It's uncertain if AMD will change its mind with desktop Cezanne. However, the rumors point to the possibility of the Zen 3 APUs arriving on the DIY market.

AMD Ryzen 3 5300G Benchmarks

ProcessorCPU-Z Single ThreadCPU-Z Multi ThreadFritz Chess BenchmarkCinebench R15
Ryzen 3 5300G553.222,985.1220,0721,117
Ryzen 3 3300X5282,82419,6741,101
Ryzen 3 Pro 4350G5012,76617,831.2957.46
Ryzen 3 31004742,64517,2511,015
Core i3-10100N/A2,46116,0371,001

In CPU-Z benchmark shared on eBay, the Ryzen 3 5300G reportedly delivered 10.4% and 4.8% higher single-threaded performance than the Ryzen 3 Pro 4350G (Zen 2) and Ryzen 3 3300X (Zen 2), respectively. When it came to multi-threaded performance, the Ryzen 3 5300G was up to 7.9% faster than the Ryzen 3 Pro 4350G and up to 21.3% faster than the Core i3-10100 (Comet Lake).

The Ryzen 3 5300G's dominance also extended to the other tests, including the Fritz Chess and Cinebench R15 benchmarks. In the former, the Zen 3 APU outperformed the Ryzen 3 Pro 4350G and Core i3-10100 by 12.6% and 25.2%, respectively.

In Cinebench R15, we can see the Ryzen 3 5300G rising above the Ryzen 3 Pro 4350G by 16.7% and the Core i3-10100 by 11.6%.

1080p, Low Settings1080p, Medium Settings1080p, High Settings
Battlefield V48 fps37 fps29 fps
Battlefield 495 fps82 fps47 fps

While the Ryzen 3 5300G's processing prowess is impressive, many will probably pick up the Zen 3 APU for its gaming potential. The Ryzen 3 5300G already appears to be a decent APU for gaming at 1080p resolution, but its 720p gaming performance should be even more spectacular.

At 1080p, the Ryzen 3 5300G's Vega graphics engine reportedly pushed frame rates up to 48 frames per second (fps) on Battlefield V and 95 fps on Battlefield 4 with low settings. With medium settings, the APU's listed frame rates dropped to 37 fps and 82 fps, respectively. 

On high settings the Ryzen 3 5300G's graphical performance took a hit. The APU ran Battlefield V at 29 fps, which is just 1 fps below what we consider playable, and Battlefield 4 at 47 fps.

It's unclear why AMD is taking so long to announce desktop Cezanne. The engineering samples are evidently out in the wild already. With the current graphics card shortage, the Zen 3 APUs could be a legit option for gamers with tight budgets.

  • webtourist
    when when when they will put them on the market ???
    Reply
  • InvalidError
    Why no launch yet? The simplest reason would be too much of a backlog on other more profitable 7nm parts. There may also be some contractual obligations to catch up on Series-S/X and PS5 SoC shipments getting in the way of launching 7nm desktop APUs.
    Reply
  • digitalgriffin
    AMD is making too much money on the other parts. Plus the silicon differences between the desktop variants and mobile is minimal. And laptop demand is a high priority for AMD right now. They want to maintain their growth momentum with intel's IGP catching up.

    I'm guessing laptops will get the lion share of these APUs. But I would still love to have one <$200 that's faster than my 3400G
    Reply
  • twotwotwo
    Guessing there'll be some desktop APUs because some chips don't hit the voltage/frequency curves required to be U or H chips but work when you throw enough watts at them. But those might go into a few OEM-only systems, like apparently happened with 4xxx, if they don't produce enough of them to keep them even intermittently available at retail.

    And maybe the general public doesn't get more APU toys until the supply issues let up (which doesn't look imminent) and then they're still probably pricier than the 3xxx gen. To be fair about pricing, these should perform a lot better than the Zen+ APUs, so not necessarily a bad deal if they cost somewhat more.

    I would really like to be wrong! I got a little ASRock box with a 3200G years ago and the modern equivalent would still be nice. Small, quiet, good bang for buck, runs Linux happily, minimal fuss.
    Reply
  • tharkis842
    This is cool, don't get me wrong, but honestly, if manufacturers aren't going to put out low end GPU's to fill the segments left open by the 3060/6700, then APU's like this need to be more robust to fill that space. Most of the focus in the GPU market seems to be at the Enthusiast level and above anymore. Currently, in my daughters PC, there's not much reason to "upgrade" from her current 1050 Ti. There isn't anything else that has such a low power but performs as well, which kinda makes me sad. These "refreshes" haven't really added much over the years.
    Reply
  • InvalidError
    tharkis842 said:
    if manufacturers aren't going to put out low end GPU's to fill the segments left open by the 3060/6700, then APU's like this need to be more robust to fill that space.
    APUs can't compete with something like the 1050Ti which has more than double the dedicated VRAM bandwidth, they are not even on par with the GT1030. Right now, APUs would need GDDR6 or HBM2E on-package and double transistor budget allocated to the IGP to replace anything but the bottom-end dGPUs.

    DDR5 will roughly double the peak bandwidth available to IGPs and we may see IGPs approaching the performance of a GTX1650. By the time DDR5 becomes affordable though, 1650-level performance may not be worth much unless you are only playing older games at 1080p60 mid-ish details.
    Reply
  • mrv_co
    It must be super frustrating for the people at AMD coming up with all these great designs and not being able to get them to market en masse due to the ongoing manufacturing bottlenecks.
    Reply
  • InvalidError
    mrv_co said:
    It must be super frustrating for the people at AMD coming up with all these great designs and not being able to get them to market en masse due to the ongoing manufacturing bottlenecks.
    I read somewhere that Apple has dumped some of its 7nm WSPM in favor of 5nm and 3nm with AMD and Microtek picking most of those up, so AMD may have a few thousand extra 7nm wafers per month to play with in the near future. Every little bit helps.
    Reply
  • tharkis842
    InvalidError said:
    APUs can't compete with something like the 1050Ti which has more than double the dedicated VRAM bandwidth, they are not even on par with the GT1030. Right now, APUs would need GDDR6 or HBM2E on-package and double transistor budget allocated to the IGP to replace anything but the bottom-end dGPUs.

    DDR5 will roughly double the peak bandwidth available to IGPs and we may see IGPs approaching the performance of a GTX1650. By the time DDR5 becomes affordable though, 1650-level performance may not be worth much unless you are only playing older games at 1080p60 mid-ish details.
    I'm aware that they can't compete..that's what I'm complaining about. The tech is available and advanced enough, the power draw is low enough to make it happen for an SOC, especially an SOC that would go into a desktop or low power gaming laptop. Memory bandwidth is only one part of the equation. Core counts and frequency are just as important, GPU core counts for APU's have been stuck for years now. And like I'd mentioned, for a lower power system, to not have an upgrade path for going on 5 years now is incredibly disappointing.

    The point I was making, is that the low end segment for stand alone GPU's isn't being advanced any where near the rate that top tier and mid level cards are, and since they're not advancing like the rest of the GPU market, there needs to be a viable low power option for people who either want to focus on power draw/heat/noise, or having a mini/micro build that doesn't need an add in card if nVidia/AMD aren't going to produce for that segment.
    Reply
  • InvalidError
    tharkis842 said:
    GPU core counts for APU's have been stuck for years now. And like I'd mentioned, for a lower power system, to not have an upgrade path for going on 5 years now is incredibly disappointing.
    Shader count for IGPs cannot increase without sufficient DRAM bandwidth to support it. Affordable DDR4 that would make sense to put in a budget system has only gotten about 33% faster since DDR4 got introduced, so IGPs cannot get a whole lot faster. GDDRx on the other hand has gotten about twice as fast over the same time period.

    While the tech to put GDDRx or HBM on the CPU package exists, it would require either that the motherboard provides the necessary power rails to support on-package DRAM though the socket or that the CPU does on-package voltage regulation. AFAIK, there are no signs of such considerations in the AM4 pinout so on-package DRAM likely isn't an option, neither is it on LGA1200 where most of the extra pins can easily be explained by the extra HSIO lanes and extra power/ground for PCIe 4.0.

    The next decent step up in IGP performance will come when affordable DDR5 becomes readily available and gives IGPs another 30-50% more bandwidth to work with.
    Reply