We recently tested AMD's Ryzen 7 5700G and Ryzen 5 5600G processors with Vega graphics in the hopes that these APUs might be a valid stopgap solution for PC gamers looking for better graphics card prices.

As discussed in our review, the R7 5700G makes no sense at the fairly high price of $ 360, and we think AMD needs to cut that price by about $ 100 to even consider it. Despite having 8 cores and 16 threads, the chip only packs half the L3 cache of full-fledged Zen 3 parts like the Ryzen 7 5800X, which means the 5700G is much slower for CPU-related tasks, including playing with one discrete GPU.

The cheaper $ 260 Ryzen 5 5600G is better, though we still think it's overpriced and should be closer to $ 200. But we could at least think of a few scenarios where the 5600G would be a viable option. What many price-conscious PC gamers were hoping for was a repeat of the Ryzen 3 3300X, but with integrated graphics for around 160 US dollars. Basically a Ryzen 3 3400G replacement, but sadly we kind of never got it.

The Ryzen 3 5300G is a 4-core / 8-thread processor with 6 CU integrated Vega graphics … you see, the 5300G is an OEM-only part, but unlike the 5600G and 5700G which were their first Spent 4 months of its existence in OEM-only status before launching on the retail channel, the 5300G will be exclusive to OEMs for an indefinite period of time.

The reason for this is probably the supply, since AMD wants to avoid repeating the Ryzen 3 3100 and 3300X. To make a 5300G, AMD used defective silicon that could not be binned for use as a 5600G. The Ryzen 3 only requires 4 working cores, 8 MB L3 cache and 6 CUs.

For AMD, the 5300G serves two main purposes: it enables them to turn some of that broken silicon into cash, while also allowing them to serve the OEM market with budget-friendly Ryzen parts that don't require a separate graphics card. Hence, they are not interested in launching a retail 5300G that, to meet the inevitable demand, would have to dedicate working silicon that could be used for the 5600G and possibly even the 5700G, silicon they could do a lot more Earn money.

That's why the Ryzen 3 3100 and 3300X disappeared from the shelves so quickly. The yields were good enough that working silicon was intended for use as the Ryzen 5 3600 and Ryzen 7 3700X, rather than ensuring the supply of cheaper Ryzen 3 parts.

The Ryzen 3 5300G is not a stripped-down version of the original Zen 3 parts, but another monolithic cube, i.e. a Cezanne part and thus a stripped-down version of the 5600G and 5700G with only a quarter of the cache of the mainstream Ryzen 5000 CPUs.

With this big drop in L3 cache, it will no doubt degrade performance, although as we recently discovered you can get away with a smaller L3 cache with just 4 active cores, as there simply aren't enough cores for that benefit You bigger buffers. As for the clock specs, the 5300G increases to 4.2 GHz with a base frequency of 4 GHz, which means the max boost is 200 MHz lower than the 5600G and 400 MHz lower than the 5700G.

We know why there won't be a retail version of the Ryzen 3 5300G, but when you have the option to buy an OEM chip or see a system with it, how well does it work? To find out, we need to dive into the benchmarks, and for that we have broken the tests down into three sections …

First, let's just look at CPU performance and test the 5300G in applications with an RTX 2080 Ti so we can compare it to the rest of our CPU specs. Second, let's see how well it works with the Vega iGPU by comparing it to a number of other integrated graphics solutions and entry-level graphics cards.

Finally, we also ran many separate GPU tests on the GeForce RTX 3090, which allows us to compare the 5300G to a number of other CPUs with a powerful graphics card, and to show us what kind of headroom this APU gives gamers, should they upgrade down the track. Let's get into that.

Benchmarks

Starting with Cinebench, we see that the multi-core performance of the 5300G is roughly the same as that of the 6c / 12t Ryzen 5 2600, so not bad for a quad-core processor. It's also not much slower than the Core i5-10400F and is 15% behind.

While the performance isn't amazing, if this were a $ 160 APU I think this result would be considered very good.

The reason for the stronger than expected multi-core result compared to parts like the R5 2600 and the i5-10400F lies in the strong single-core performance.

The 5300G scored 522 points and that means for single-core performance in this workload that it is only 4% slower than the Core i5-11400F, so a mighty impressive result.

The 7-Zip compression performance is weaker than in Cinebench, where the 5300G is 10% ahead of the R5 2600 and the i5-10400F 19% behind. That said, it was a massive 85% faster than the Ryzen 5 3400G … a pretty extreme upgrade.

The 5300G lags further behind the R5 2600 when it comes to decompression, lagging 18% behind, even though it was only 9% slower than the i5-10400F. Then we see that the margin has been significantly reduced compared to the 3400G, but still the 5300G was a good bit faster and offered 29% more performance.

The Ryzen 3 5300G can build on its strong single-core performance in the Adobe After Effects benchmark and corresponds to the typically much faster CPUs such as the Ryzen 7 3700X and Core i7-10700K. Compared to the 3400G, the new 5300G was 26% faster, another big increase in performance.

We see something similar with Photoshop, which only uses 1-2 cores heavily, and this benefits the 5300G, allowing it to compete with typically much faster CPUs like the 3700X, 10600K and R5 3600.

Adobe Premiere Pro tends to use a lot more CPU and so the 5300G is at the bottom of our chart with a score of only 561 points. Surprisingly, this meant that the 5300G was no faster than the 3400G in this test.

In Blender, the 5300G was 22% faster than the 3400G, 16% slower than the R5 2600, and almost 40% slower than its bigger brother, the Ryzen 5 5600G.

power consumption

One advantage of the 5300G over the more powerful 5600G is that it consumes power. Here we see a total system consumption of only 111 watts when using an RTX 2080 Ti, basically the same performance as the 3400G, but with 20 +% better performance in this test.

Integrated graphics performance

We move on to the iGPU test and start with Assassin's Creed Valhalla with the lowest possible quality settings at 1080p. Here the 5300G standard was good averaging just 26 fps, which is basically the same performance as the old 3400G.

With the iGPU overclocked to 2.4 GHz, we were able to keep up with the standard 5600G with 31 fps, a decent improvement.

The 5300G was slightly faster than the 3400G in Rainbow Six Siege, rendering an average of 52 fps, an 11% improvement. Overclocking boosted performance by another 17%, which allows for an average of 61 fps, and that's slightly better than a stock 5600G.

Horizon Zero Dawn is a battle at 1080p, and for playable performance you would likely have to drop the resolution down to 720p. Again, overclocking increased performance by 17% and while not particularly useful at 1080p, that gain could be very useful at lower resolutions.

The faster clocks result in a huge 32% performance increase in Shadow of the Tomb Raider and that makes a real difference in how well the game plays, from a very slow 28 fps average to a much smoother 37 fps average. What's impressive is that the 5300G went from just 3400G stock to mimicking the performance of the 5700G stock.

Moving on to Doom Eternal and here the 5300G was good for 40 fps, which is a solid out-of-the-box experience. After overclocking, I was able to increase it to 47 fps, an 18% improvement.

Watch Dogs: Legion is another game like Assassin's Creed Valhalla or Horizon Zero Dawn that you have to play at 720p to avoid a slideshow. By default, the 5300G was good for only 23 fps and overclocked to the maximum it only delivered 28 fps.

As expected, Counter-Strike: Global Offensive plays very well with the medium quality preset at 1080p and although the 5300G only offers 7% more performance than the 3400G, it was good for 89 fps, so a great gaming experience.

With the 5300G, it's possible to get playable performance out of the box in F1 2020 that renders an average of 46 fps. It's also possible to boost performance by another 20% by pumping out 55 fps, and at this point the 5300G allows for a fairly enjoyable gaming experience.

For the last iGPU benchmark we have Dota 2 and that game runs pretty well on the 5300G, although we're only talking about an 11% increase over the 3400G. Meanwhile, our overclocking improved performance by another 15% to 70 fps, about what the RX 550 delivers in this title.

Gaming performance (dGPU)

Now here's how the Ryzen 3 5300G fares in conjunction with the GeForce RTX 3090. Granted, no one intends to tie the two together, but the idea is to show off the CPU-limited gaming performance, so if you were to buy a more powerful graphics card in a couple of years, the 5300G would be compared to other parts under CPU-limited gaming Cut conditions like this.

The performance of the F1 2020 is certainly not bad with an average of around 200 fps and a 1% low of 160 fps, almost double that of the 3400G, so a massive upgrade. The 5300G also beat the R5 2600 pretty convincingly and wasn't much slower than the R5 3600, so I would call this a pretty good result overall.

Next up we have Rainbow Six Siege, where the 5300G was just ahead of the R5 2600, making it one of the slowest CPUs tested, and by far. While it was a massive 42% faster than the 3400G, it was also 27% slower than the 5600G and 18% slower than the R5 3600. Overall, many frames were displaced here, even though the 5300G was much slower than modern 6c / 12t parts.

If we move on to Horizon Zero Dawn, which isn't a very CPU demanding title by at least today's standards, we see that the 5300G is able to compete with the R5 3600, which allows it to outperform the 3400G by a whopping 36%. It was also only 12% slower than the Ryzen 5 5600G, so one of the better results for the quad-core 5300G.

The 5300G seems to do well in Borderlands 3 when you look at the average frame rate. However, if we look at the 1% low performance, you will find that it is significantly slower than the R5 2600 and really everything but the 3400G.

We're only talking about a 13% improvement at 1% slow performance over the 3400G, making the 5300G 35% slower than the 5600G.

The performance at Watch Dogs: Legion is more similar, the 5300G can only compete with the R5 2600 and while comparing 1% lower performance it was still 50% faster than the 3400G, but also 27% slower than the 5600G.

The Ryzen 5 3400G was fully fueled in Death Stranding and dropped to 41 fps for the 1% low result. That meant the 5300G was over 2.5x faster and was back on par with the Ryzen 5 2600, even though it was just over 20% slower than the 5600G.

The 5300G struggled compared to the 6c / 12t processors in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, lagging 9% behind the R5 2600, and beating the 3400G by only 12%. Compared to the Ryzen 5 5600G, we then see a performance drop of 30%.

In Hitman 2, the 5300G came out on top just ahead of the R5 2600, allowing an average of 104 fps, making it 15% slower than the 5600G. Still, we see a massive 65% increase in performance compared to the old 3400G.

Here's a look at the average performance of the 10 games tested. As you can see, the 5300G is similar to the Ryzen 5 2600, making it 12% slower than the R5 3600 and almost 20% slower than the 5600G. Still, we see an average performance increase of 45% compared to AMD's last quad-core APU in retail.

What we learned

The Ryzen 5 5300G won't blow you off your feet, but it wasn't on purpose or expectation. Compared to the Ryzen 5 3400G, which is based on the 2nd gen Zen + architecture, the 5300G is a huge upgrade on the CPU side thanks to faster Zen 3 cores.

For gamers, the 5300G is a nice entry-level CPU, even though it only offers 4 cores with SMT support, the performance was generally good and significantly better than older quad cores like the 3400G. There have still been a few cases where the frametime performance hasn't been great, but you will likely be very willing to live with it at the right price.

It's hard to give the 5300G a rating as it is purely an OEM product, but if it retailed for between $ 150 and $ 170 – the same price range as the 3400G and ~ $ 100 less than the 5600G – then it'd be a decent deal. Granted, the Core i3-10100F often sells for just $ 110, but it's a slower CPU and the iGPU is basically useless for gaming, making the 5300G a more well-rounded product.

Unfortunately, we will never get the chance to get excited about the 5300G because you have to buy it in an entry-level OEM machine and they are usually not very good. The 2021 HP Pavilion I bought to get hold of the 5300G is the same desktop PC we bought to get an early review of the 5700G, and technically it's not great.

Aside from dealing with proprietary motherboard power connectors and a custom power supply, the components aren't very good. The motherboard has a weak 5-phase VRM with no cooling, so expect a limited upgrade path on this board. If you could buy the 5300G and slip it onto an entry-level B550 motherboard, it would be a great combination with a decent upgrade path for a more powerful CPU or graphics card in the future.

Purchase abbreviation:
  • AMD Ryzen 7 5800X on Amazon
  • AMD Ryzen 5 5600X on Amazon
  • Intel Core i5-11400 on Amazon
  • Intel Core i5-10400 at Amazon
  • AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT on Amazon
  • AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT on Amazon
  • Nvidia GeForce RTX 3080 on Amazon
  • Nvidia GeForce RTX 3090 on Amazon