AMD Ryzen 7 5700G, 8C/16T, 3.80-4.60GHz, tray

"Cezanne" für den Desktop! Mit den APUs der 2000er- und 3000er-Serie aka "Raven Ridge" und "Picasso" hat AMD in den letzten Jahren immer wieder preiswerte Prozessoren mit schneller Grafikeinheit entwickelt. Auf Basis von Zen 3 folgt nun "Cezanne" und legt die Messlatte mit dem Ryzen 5 5600G und dem Ryzen 7 5700G wieder etwas höher.

AMD hat bei Cezanne auch die Spieleleistung erhöht, obwohl weiterhin weder RDNA noch RDNA 2, sondern Vega zum Einsatz kommt. Doch nicht nur der iGPU-Takt ist gestiegen, auch Zen 3 hilft. Im Test legen Ryzen 5 5600G und Ryzen 7 5700G zwar nur verhalten zu, liegen im Desktop-PC aber trotzdem weiterhin unangefochten an der Spitze.

AMD entdeckt die Liebe für die CPU-GPU-Kombiprozessoren im Desktop zum Teil neu. Zu Recht, wie die beiden Topmodelle Ryzen 5 5600G und Ryzen 7 5700G im Test zeigen, die dank Zen 3 im CPU-Bereich sehr stark sind und mit der iGPU auch Intels Xe-Architektur vom Platz fegen – FSR-Support inklusive.

The difference between regular Ryzen 5000 and 5000G is BIG. This G series processor does not have chiplets, comes with integrated graphics, and is only PCIe gen 3.0 compatible. For streaming, creator, or as a work PC this proc is pure gold. Realistically it also needs to be said that this is the same Cezanne die that AMD uses for Ryzen Mobile APUs like the Ryzen 9 5900HX, with a monolithic die rather than chiplet-based. As a consequence of AMD's need to fit in the Vega 8 GPU, half of the L3 cache has been eliminated, reducing the 5700G to 16MB L3. When compared to a component like the 5800X, this is likely to have a significant negative influence on specifically game performance. For gamers, we'd advise you to look into a regular Ryzen 5000 processor as they have more than twice the L3 cache, and that makes a difference with a more powerful dedicated graphics card (mid-range not so much). If you have a more mediocre graphics card, that differential thus will be much smaller. Overall, we cannot complain about this proc, it's fast and certainly competitive with what Intel has to offer. Pricing however is a thing, who's this processor really for? As for budget builds this definitely isn't applicable. The Ryzen 7 5700G, is not appropriate for low-cost setups. Maybe, depending on the configuration, the 5700G may be ideal if you're looking for a premium home theater PC setup. Right now, we believe the most likely use case is to use the 5700G's integrated graphics as an interim solution if you want to wait until the graphics card prices settle. The Ryzen 5 5600G is a 6-core variant with a clock speed of up to 4.4 GHz. The GPU has been reduced to 7 Vega compute units with a clock speed of up to 1.9 GHz and the same 16MB L3 cache and is effective for the money at 43 USD per core, that's 45 USD per core for the 5700G btw. Yeah, the Ryzen 5 5600G / Ryzen 7 5700G is not likely to ever make sense for high-end gamers, but the reality is simply this APU isn't designed for high-end gaming. We also feel they might be a too expensive Zen 3 component relative to gaming performance. However, for all other scenarios where you might need proper even serious performance but do not need a strong GPU, they both certainly could be very viable processors.

Finally! AMD is bringing their new Zen 3 APUs to the retail DIY market. While Cezanne has been available in laptops since January, and prebuilt OEM systems using these APUs were released in spring, we had to wait a bit longer—hopefully for AMD to stockpile CPUs, so that demand can be met. With the Ryzen 7 5700G, AMD is bringing their modern Zen 3 processor architecture to the APU space. The integrated processor graphics have been upgraded in terms of graphics cores, but remain based on Vega, so basically lagging two generations behind what's available in AMD's discrete graphics cards. A side-effect of sticking with Vega seems to be that the tight coupling of SOC and iGPU circuitry results in PCI-Express capability being limited to the aging PCIe 3.0 interface. This not only affects the bandwidth for the IGP and chipset, but also for external PCIe graphics cards and more importantly the M.2 NVMe slot. While the performance difference between PCIe 3.0 x16 and PCIe 4.0 x16 is only around 1%, the latest M.2 SSDs achieve quite significant gains over the drives using PCIe 3.0.