AMD Ryzen 7 5700G APU Pictured, Powered On and Tested

News
By
published

Looks good, works well.

AMD
(Image credit: AMD)

AMD has never launched its desktop Ryzen 4000-series 'Renoir' processors for the  retail market officially (although they are available), so many DIYers are closely following the fate of AMD's yet-to-be-announced Ryzen 5000-series 'Cezanne' APUs for desktops and whether they are coming to stores so they can compete with the best CPUs. The chances look good as a final, production-level version of the Ryzen 7 5700G processor was recently pictured and even tested by a website. 

AMD's Ryzen 7 5700G is an eight-core Zen 3-based APU clocked at 3.80 GHz – 4.60 GHz and equipped with a 16MB L3 cache as well as AMD Radeon Vega 8 graphics with 512 stream processors clocked at 2.0 GHz. A production-level (aka not ready for sale or use) version of the Ryzen 7 5700G obtained by Chiphell looks just like any other Ryzen processor and carries the 100-000000263 OPN code (which confirms that this code does not belong to a Pro APU). CPU-Z screenshots made by the website confirm that we are dealing with  Cezanne silicon as well as general specifications of the product.

(Image credit: AMD)

The journalists also ran some basic benchmarks on the Ryzen 7 5700G, including CPU-Z (ST: 631.3, MT: 6782.4), AIDA Cache & Memory, and Cinebench (6040 pts vs 5532 pts on Ryzen 7 1700). Unfortunately, without proper points of comparison (obtained in similar conditions) it is impossible to draw even preliminary conclusions about performance of the product rather than that Zen 3 is better than Zen 1 and Zen 2. 

Over the past few months, we reported about AMD's Ryzen 5700G APU on several occasions. The chip was listed at USB-IF (which confirms that they exist and comply with the USB specification), ran Cinebench, revealed its specifications, and landed on Ebay. In many cases it even posed for the camera, but these were engineering samples rather than products. 

We still do not know for sure whether AMD plans to release its Cezanne APUs for retail market, or keep them exclusive to OEMs.

See more CPUs News
Anton Shilov
Anton Shilov
Contributing Writer

Anton Shilov is a contributing writer at Tom’s Hardware. Over the past couple of decades, he has covered everything from CPUs and GPUs to supercomputers and from modern process technologies and latest fab tools to high-tech industry trends.

21 Comments Comment from the forums
  • digitalgriffin
    10:1 oems only. They crave these parts.
    Reply
  • helper800
    digitalgriffin said:
    10:1 oems only. They crave these parts.
    Which is very unfortunate because there is a huge demand for AMD desktop chips that can run graphics to a screen while builders wait for graphics cards to be in stock. This would be amazing if they had similar performance to a 5800x.
    Reply
  • HideOut
    It should be just barely slower than a 5800x. If it is indeed only 100mhz slower overall, itll be barely noticable. And able to do a good bit on its own without a GPU. Heck it might be able to game better than my 1070 that I can't seem to ever get a replacement for.
    Reply
  • cryoburner
    digitalgriffin said:
    10:1 oems only. They crave these parts.
    AMD's "director of technical marketing" already announced last year when they released the 4000-series APUs that their next line of APUs should be coming to retail...

    ...while I cannot go into the details of our roadmap, there is a next-gen APU coming for DIY customers, and it will fit into 400- and 500-series boards. So if those enthusiasts are reading the news tomorrow and thinking ‘where's my upgrade?!’ I promise it’s coming.

    Now, it's certainly possible that they might only be available in limited quantities, or at an unattractive price point, but it doesn't sound like they will be OEM-only.

    HideOut said:
    Heck it might be able to game better than my 1070 that I can't seem to ever get a replacement for.
    Probably not. I wouldn't expect graphics performance much faster than their existing APUs, which are typically around the performance level of a GT 1030, or a fraction of a 1070's performance. They will still likely be over twice as fast as Intel's UHD 750 found in Rocket Lake, but don't expect them to compete with any modern gaming cards.
    Reply
  • digitalgriffin
    cryoburner said:
    AMD's "director of technical marketing" already announced last year when they released the 4000-series APUs that their next line of APUs should be coming to retail...

    AMD's diy fanbase is mostly into buying CPUs and dGPUs.

    Oems are facing GPU shortages and dGPU only adds to the total BOM. APUs are the bread and butter of most systems because of the lower BOM. While they aren't the highest margin systems, they are the bulk of sales.

    Right now Intel can't make demand and offer an inferior product that's hard to cool. They are seriously hurting. AMDs APU is the attractive item. Especially true office systems.

    And AMD has made it clear they don't mind stabbing their fan base in the back with lower value/higher prices now they are in the lead. There's more profit to be made selling to the fanbase more CPU + dGPU than just an APU.
    Reply
  • Conahl
    digitalgriffin said:
    And AMD has made it clear they don't mind stabbing their fan base in the back with lower value/higher prices now they are in the lead.
    just like intel did themselves for all those years before Zen was released, right ? come on, people whining and complaining about AMD's prices, while i bet most were quite happy paying the prices intel was charging for how many years ? ( effectively between A64, and Zen ) i dont recall many people complaining about intels prices then.

    amd has the lead pretty much across the board, they should be charging for it, the price difference between ryzen 3000 and 5000 here isnt all that much, the difference between the 3900x and 5900x, is about $70 bucks where i am.

    simply put, its OK for intel do charge what they want, as much as they want, but if amd does it, its crime.
    Reply
  • Kamen Rider Blade
    Conahl said:
    simply put, its OK for intel do charge what they want, as much as they want, but if amd does it, its crime.
    Most people are hypocrites when it comes to Intel pricing and AMD pricing.

    They put Intel on a pedastal and allow them to get away with anything while AMD has to be the budget & bang for your buck brand.

    God forbid AMD makes profits and grows a war chest to be long term competitive against Intel.

    Have they ever thought of telling Intel to lower their prices.
    Reply
  • taz-nz
    helper800 said:
    Which is very unfortunate because there is a huge demand for AMD desktop chips that can run graphics to a screen while builders wait for graphics cards to be in stock. This would be amazing if they had similar performance to a 5800x.

    One thing to note with the AMD APUs is they only have 12 PCI Express lanes, compare with the other AMD desktop CPUs that have 20 Lanes, this is because the integrated GPU is internally connected by 8 PCI Express lanes. The APUs also only support PCI Express 3.0 not 4.0, so if you use an AMD APU your PCI Express x16 slot only has a quarter of the bandwidth of the same motherboard with a 5800x, and your M.2 slot is limited to PCI Express 3.0 too, so has half the bandwidth. They are still great chips but hey make less sense if your not using integrated GPU.
    Reply
  • digitalgriffin
    Conahl said:
    just like intel did themselves for all those years before Zen was released, right ? come on, people whining and complaining about AMD's prices, while i bet most were quite happy paying the prices intel was charging for how many years ? ( effectively between A64, and Zen ) i dont recall many people complaining about intels prices then.

    amd has the lead pretty much across the board, they should be charging for it, the price difference between ryzen 3000 and 5000 here isnt all that much, the difference between the 3900x and 5900x, is about $70 bucks where i am.

    simply put, its OK for intel do charge what they want, as much as they want, but if amd does it, its crime.

    The 3900X was often on sale. and came with a pretty capable wraith stealthy RGB Cooler. The 5900X is $70 and LACKS a cooler. That's at least another $50 you have to throw at it. So price went up $120 really if you based it on MSRP only. Sale prices made it much worse. I picked up my 3900X for $340

    There's a reason I never upgraded my 3770k. I saw no reason given the paltry performance increases for the price they were charging.

    AMD came along and offered us 8/16, and then 16/32 on the cheap with a MB upgrade path, all while being very price competitive with Intel. The value WAS there. That's why I bought a 2400g, 3400g, and 3900X. For video cards I bought 7970, 580, and 5700XT.

    If they get greedy, I just don't buy. Anything above 5600X is not a value. Current GPU lineup isn't a value either. I switched over to NVIDIA, despite the fact I don't like them as a company.
    Reply
  • cryoburner
    digitalgriffin said:
    The 3900X was often on sale. and came with a pretty capable wraith stealthy RGB Cooler. The 5900X is $70 and LACKS a cooler. That's at least another $50 you have to throw at it. So price went up $120 really if you based it on MSRP only. Sale prices made it much worse. I picked up my 3900X for $340
    The MSRP increase of the 5900X is arguably not that bad considering 12-core processors are still kind of a niche product generally in a higher price tier, and many will want a better cooler for running heavily-multithreaded workloads on a processor with that many cores anyway. And even at the higher MSRP (actually just $50 more), they are in short supply and there are certain "enthusiasts" willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for them from resellers (even if the reseller pricing is arguably bad). I think it's pretty clear that AMD is very limited on 7nm production, with a lot of their capacity going toward console APUs that they had pre-existing contracts for, which is likely why they went with higher pricing this time around. They knew they wouldn't be able to keep up with demand either way.

    The MSRP of the 5800X is arguably a lot worse, considering 8-core processors have been becoming more mainstream as of late. Since AMD still doesn't have value-priced 5000-series offerings over 5 months after launch, it's the only 8-core processor in the series so far, and compared to the 3700X its MSRP is $120 (36%) higher, in addition to lacking the Wraith Prism. At least the resellers can't really turn a profit on it now due to the high MSRP, and some are currently selling for below that.

    Even the 5600X I wouldn't consider to be a "value", by any means. It's at least in a more accessible price tier, but it's ultimately a 6-core processor priced nearly as high as the 8-core 3700X was at launch, while only including the tiny Wraith Stealth cooler, the same one that the 3600 had at its $100-lower price point. That's a 50% price hike per core compared to that processor, even ignoring the lower pricing that the 3600 saw for much of last year.

    From a performance-per-dollar standpoint, AMD's processors are kind of a poor value compared to Intel's offerings right now. Something like an 11400/11400F might not be quite on par with a 5600X, but they generally outperform the 3600 at lower prices than that processor is currently selling for. And even the prior-gen 10700/10700F are competitive with the 5600X at prices that are currently lower than its MSRP. It's not necessarily all AMD's fault that their pricing and availability is not particularly good right now, but unlike some prior generations, their current processors are clearly not a better value than those from Intel.
    Reply