AMD’s new $50 Athlon 3000G is transport now, with overclocking choices and an built-in GPU that AMD believes give it a leg up in opposition to Intel within the price range section. We principally evaluation higher-end merchandise right here at ET, but it surely’s necessary to keep watch over the efficiency of extra modest elements for price range builds. Whether or not the Athlon 3000G is a greater chip than the Pentium G5400 is determined by what sort of workloads you propose to throw on the system.
First, one necessary limitation. AMD doesn’t seem to have communicated this in its official PR when it introduced the chip roughly two weeks in the past, however the Athlon 3000G isn’t assured to be supported in X570 motherboards. AMD is leaving this as much as its companions. This appears unlikely to be a serious drawback — the X570 is a high-end chipset supposed for high-end programs, whereas AMD’s B350, B450, or X470 chipsets can be higher suits for this type of product.
The Athlon 3000G is a 3.5GHz CPU with two cores, 4 threads, and a 4MB L3 cache. It’s based mostly on AMD’s Zen+ CPU core and constructed on 12nm GlobalFoundries tech, with a Vega Three GPU with 192 cores. It’s unlocked for overclocking and helps as much as DDR4-2933 with a 35W TDP. AMD ships the CPU with a cooler rated for 65W. In response to TechPowerUp, which put the CPU by means of its paces, that degree of cooler allows loads of overclocking. They had been capable of get their chip as much as 4GHz, which sounds about proper for price range 12nm GF silicon. You may get a bit increased if you happen to hit the silicon lottery, however a 1.14x overclock on a $50 chip is a reasonably strong deal. In contrast with the Athlon 200 GE, which this chip replaces, the 3000G packs an additional 300MHz of CPU clock and 100MHz of GPU clock. It’s supposed to compete in opposition to Intel chips just like the Pentium G5400, which runs at 3.7GHz and prices $60, with a 58W TDP.
TechPowerUp in contrast the 3000G in opposition to the G5600, which is clocked about 5 p.c sooner than the G5400. That clock pace distinction is sufficient to nudge a number of checks to Intel that may have in any other case damaged for AMD, but it surely’s not an enormous hole. Overclocking potential on the GPU was notably good. First, the GPU responded properly to core clock will increase — a Vega Three configuration is sufficiently small that counting on desktop reminiscence didn’t go away the platform overly bandwidth certain. The draw back, in fact, is that the explanation it isn’t bandwidth certain is that it isn’t all that highly effective within the first place.
Some video games, like BFV, run tolerably at 720p at minimal element ranges. The GPU comparability between the Vega Three and Intel UHD 630 is definitely the APU’s strongest efficiency space. Others present the CPU bracketing the efficiency of the G5600, with the un-overclocked Athlon 3000G being a bit slower than the G5600 and the overclocked variant narrowly sooner:
It is a pretty frequent final result on this comparability. In response to TechPowerUp, the G5600 is 1.22x sooner than the non-overclocked 3000G, however that’s a declare that really wanted extra clarification than it obtained throughout the article. Full quote beneath:
General efficiency is roughly 15% behind the Ryzen 3 1200 (which is a quad-core processor with out SMT). Intel’s Pentium G5600 comes out 22% forward, however does price considerably extra attributable to provide shortages and mark-ups. We didn’t take a look at the Pentium G5400, however I’d estimate it to be barely slower than the 3000G.
It’s not clear in any respect why the G5400 can be “barely slower” than the 3000G if the G5600 is 1.22x sooner. This means a >1.22x efficiency distinction between two CPUs whose solely distinction is a small clock hole. I’d suggest checking TPU’s intensive checklist of benchmarks for workload-specific outcomes as a result of a few of the checks with the most important gaps between Intel and AMD are additionally checks that could be much less relevant to frequent workloads for a machine of this sort. There’s nothing mistaken with operating atypical workloads on programs — I touched on this a bit in my article a couple of months again on real-world benchmarking — but it surely’s at all times a good suggestion to examine efficiency in particular areas. Which chip fits you finest could rely upon the particular workloads you propose to run.
The strongest use-case for a CPU like that is if you happen to want a bit of little bit of multimedia or gaming horsepower however aren’t attempting to construct a serious efficiency rig (or a system that can ever be mistaken for one). Added bonus factors for the overclocking headroom — an additional 10 to 15 p.c clock isn’t going to rewrite the document books, however squeezing a bit of little bit of free efficiency out of CPUs is at all times enjoyable. TechPowerUp provides the 3000G a nod total, however recommends the i3-9100KF as a substitute for players who want ultra-affordable elements and need to maximize cost-savings.