Monday, March 15th 2021

AMD Ryzen 5 5300G Engineering Sample Benchmarked

The Ryzen 5 5300G is a rumored upcoming Zen 3 APU from AMD which has recently been spotted in engineering sample form. The new processor was recently listed on eBay with designation 100-000000262-30_Y, and while the processor is now sold out it has already been benchmarked and detailed. The Ryzen 5 5300G is the successor to the OEM exclusive Ryzen 3 4300G and consumer Ryzen 3 2300G processors and should offer significant performance improvements with the introduction of Zen 3 cores. The 5300G includes four cores and eight threads with a potential 3.5 GHz base clock and no reported boost clocks however this is subject to change with the official release.

The processor was put to the test with CPU-Z single-threaded performance showing the CPU bringing a 10.4% improvement over the 4300G while in multi-threaded bringing a 7.9% uplift. In Cinebench R15 the 5300G beats the Ryzen 3 Pro 4350G by 16.7% and the Intel Core i3-10100 by 11.6%. We only got two gaming benchmarks for Battlefield 4 and Battlefield V with the processors onboard Vega graphics performing admirably in both providing 29 FPS in Battlefield V at 1080p high settings. When played with less demanding graphics settings or with older games we see some impressive numbers with up to 95 FPS on Battlefield 4 at 1080p low settings.
Sources: eBay, Hugo
Add your own comment

31 Comments on AMD Ryzen 5 5300G Engineering Sample Benchmarked

#1
Melvis
Cool and all, its nice to see good performance out of the CPU cores compared to the older gen stuff but its the GPU that really hurts these APU's, if your after a tiny gaming PC like I have then your still better off getting the 3400G with Vega 11 over these which is kinda sad really. Put Vega 11 or more into these APU's and Id happly get one.
Posted on Reply
#2
Midland Dog
basically zen is carried by its cache, take that away and its sub skylake approaching haswell
Posted on Reply
#3
Caring1
It's still one of the lower end APU from current gen, I want to see how the top end APU performs.
Posted on Reply
#4
ZoneDymo
Midland Dogbasically zen is carried by its cache, take that away and its sub skylake approaching haswell
I mean maybe...but it does have the cache....not sure what your point is.
If you take the wheels of a Ferrari it will be sub Dacia Sandero...
Posted on Reply
#5
minami
Last in the VEGA Refresh APU lineup.
I would take one of these because Fluid Motion is power efficient and I like it.
The combination of Zen3 and VEGA Refresh suits me very well.
Posted on Reply
#6
deu
Midland Dogbasically zen is carried by its cache, take that away and its sub skylake approaching haswell
So you are saying tech is carried by tech to outperform some other tech, but without the tech it will not outperform it? Who would have known! xD
Posted on Reply
#7
Lord_Soth
Ryzen 3 2300G?
I know there was 2200G and 2400G but this is new to me.
Posted on Reply
#8
Caring1
Lord_SothRyzen 3 2300G?
I know there was 2200G and 2400G but this is new to me.
Probably meant the 3200G
Posted on Reply
#9
Lord_Soth
Caring1Probably meant the 3200G
Probably you are right
Posted on Reply
#10
Midland Dog
deuSo you are saying tech is carried by tech to outperform some other tech, but without the tech it will not outperform it? Who would have known! xD
im saying slap a huge cache on skylake and it will take zen 6 to beat it
Posted on Reply
#11
Toothless
Tech, Games, and TPU!
Midland Dogim saying slap a huge cache on skylake and it will take zen 6 to beat it
I'm sure the 5775c is a prime example of this not being true.
Posted on Reply
#12
Midland Dog
ToothlessI'm sure the 5775c is a prime example of this not being true.
5775c is a prime example of it being true. it barely did 4ghz and yet is as good as kaby lake (+2-5% ipc and +1ghz) not only is it only slighty behind in max fps throughput but it destroys it in minimum fps
it was also off die. throw 128mb of l4 on die and it will be HUGE
Posted on Reply
#13
Toothless
Tech, Games, and TPU!
Midland Dog5775c is a prime example of it being true. it barely did 4ghz and yet is as good as kaby lake (+2-5% ipc and +1ghz) not only is it only slighty behind in max fps throughput but it destroys it in minimum fps
Cpu versus cpu it did worse than the 6700k and 4790k. You know Intel hasn't done much of anything for the past five years in terms of IPC right?
Posted on Reply
#14
Midland Dog
Toothless
ToothlessCpu versus cpu it did worse than the 6700k and 4790k. You know Intel hasn't done much of anything for the past five years in terms of IPC right?
id go and double check that. clock for clock l3 for l3 (so 5775c HT disabled vs 4690k/6600k) it destroys
Posted on Reply
#15
Toothless
Tech, Games, and TPU!
Midland Dogid go and double check that. clock for clock l3 for l3 (so 5775c HT disabled vs 4690k/6600k) it destroys
That's.. an i5... Gonna pass on that since we've already seen the benchmarks and performance numbers. Sure a large "L4" helps but in brute processor performance? No. That's why Broadwell didn't take off in desktops.
Posted on Reply
#16
Midland Dog
we already know that zen 3 apu with intel level cache is haswell level in cpu-z, its a reasonable inference to say that more on die cache makes a huge difference in throughput
Posted on Reply
#17
Punkenjoy
Managing large cache isn't something easy to do. Large cache, not done well, will handicap your performance.

First you need to make sure you have valid data in the cache. Then, every memory request, you have to check first if it's in L1, then L2, then L3, and if not, then perform a central memory access. The larger the cache, the harder it is to check if the data you want to access is there. The CPU execution units always request line of memory, they don't request cache line, the submemory system will perform all the check and get the data as fast as possible.

In the past, Processors with larger L1/L2 or L3 have performed worst than CPU with fewer of each.

In our case, AMD is investing heavily on cache management on both GPU and CPU because they will need to reduce latency and increase data locality on multi chips CPU/GPU.

On Zen 3, they greatly increased their memory subsystem to ensure they can benefits from having a single large 32MB instead of 2 16 MB block.
Posted on Reply
#18
Chrispy_
MelvisCool and all, its nice to see good performance out of the CPU cores compared to the older gen stuff but its the GPU that really hurts these APU's, if your after a tiny gaming PC like I have then your still better off getting the 3400G with Vega 11 over these which is kinda sad really. Put Vega 11 or more into these APU's and Id happly get one.
I've been saying this for a good couple of years now.

AMD APU's need better graphics to be worth bothering with. Raven Ridge/Picasso with Vega10/11 are simply superior. Unlike on the laptops where they were TDP-restricted, a desktop APU has a high enough power budget to flex the extra graphics CUs at decent clockspeeds.
Posted on Reply
#19
mechtech
Would have been nice if the 3400G was on that list for comparison.
Chrispy_I've been saying this for a good couple of years now.

AMD APU's need better graphics to be worth bothering with. Raven Ridge/Picasso with Vega10/11 are simply superior. Unlike on the laptops where they were TDP-restricted, a desktop APU has a high enough power budget to flex the extra graphics CUs at decent clockspeeds.
Agree with both of you.

In fact I think I would even be happier with a 4core/8thread CPU with Vega or RDNA2 with 14-16 CU, than an 8c/16t cpu with 6 CUs
Posted on Reply
#20
Chrispy_
mechtechWould have been nice if the 3400G was on that list for comparison.


Agree with both of you.

In fact I think I would even be happier with a 4core/8thread CPU with Vega or RDNA2 with 14-16 CU, than an 8c/16t cpu with 6 CUs
My daily driver is a 2700U. Despite being utterly underwhelming as a processor compared to my desktops, it's fine for general purpose use even when running at it's usual 12W profile that rarely sees the cores pushed beyond 1.6GHz.

The only time I ever feel it is lacking is when I need GPU performance, because the Vega10 is barely adequate at 25W and I feel a 16CU graphics core would make it just good enough to stop feeling debilitatingly underpowered. It would still be very slow, just not perhaps "too slow to be of any practical use".

The gulf between even the best current IGP and even an entry-level dGPU like a vanilla GTX 1050 from five years ago is almost comical - especially given how the mass-market trend has decisively shifted from desktops to laptops in that time span. You'd have thought that AMD would have capitalised on that but no - they're happy to have no compelling mobile dGPUs and having integrated graphics that have stagnated to the point that people just look for laptops with nvidia graphics instead. Not a smart move in my opinion, but what do I know? :)
Posted on Reply
#21
mechtech
Chrispy_My daily driver is a 2700U. Despite being utterly underwhelming as a processor compared to my desktops, it's fine for general purpose use even when running at it's usual 12W profile that rarely sees the cores pushed beyond 1.6GHz.

The only time I ever feel it is lacking is when I need GPU performance, because the Vega10 is barely adequate at 25W and I feel a 16CU graphics core would make it just good enough to stop feeling debilitatingly underpowered. It would still be very slow, just not perhaps "too slow to be of any practical use".

The gulf between even the best current IGP and even an entry-level dGPU like a vanilla GTX 1050 from five years ago is almost comical - especially given how the mass-market trend has decisively shifted from desktops to laptops in that time span. You'd have thought that AMD would have capitalised on that but no - they're happy to have no compelling mobile dGPUs and having integrated graphics that have stagnated to the point that people just look for laptops with nvidia graphics instead. Not a smart move in my opinion, but what do I know? :)
Indeed. I remember not long ago one could get an RX460 for $100 ish new. Now intro performance seems to be on the RX570 level at double the price which leaves a huge gap between it and the best integrated graphics!!

If there is to be no more RX460 4GB type cards for $100 ish with that performance then perhaps that’s where integrated graphics performance should be as a replacement?

And as for laptops the only dgpu from amd I’ve seen is the rx5600.
My cousin just got a laptop with a 4700u. I told him I want to try it out once it comes in.
Posted on Reply
#22
Chrispy_
mechtechMy cousin just got a laptop with a 4700u. I told him I want to try it out once it comes in.
4700U can range from utter trash to half-decent, it all depends on the configured TDP of the laptop, how realistic the cooling is for that configured TDP, what the RAM type/speed is, and whether it's dual-channel or single-channel horribly crippled.

My 2700U vega 10 with 2400C14 dual-channel RAM and a cTDP of 25W is about as good as a 4700U at the default 15W cTDP using cheap DDR4 with sloppy timings, so unless I can find an LPDDR4X model with a 4700U or better, it's not even really an upgrade. All I stand to gain is CPU performance I don't need and some better battery life.
Posted on Reply
#23
mechtech
Chrispy_4700U can range from utter trash to half-decent, it all depends on the configured TDP of the laptop, how realistic the cooling is for that configured TDP, what the RAM type/speed is, and whether it's dual-channel or single-channel horribly crippled.

My 2700U vega 10 with 2400C14 dual-channel RAM and a cTDP of 25W is about as good as a 4700U at the default 15W cTDP using cheap DDR4 with sloppy timings, so unless I can find an LPDDR4X model with a 4700U or better, it's not even really an upgrade. All I stand to gain is CPU performance I don't need and some better battery life.
hmm looks like 4750u pro
edit - with that thin-ness and lack of big visible cooling ports, might be configured for low power, what a shame

store.hp.com/CanadaStore/Merch/Product.aspx?id=1W9S1UT&opt=ABA&sel=NTB
Posted on Reply
#24
Tom Yum
Chrispy_I've been saying this for a good couple of years now.

AMD APU's need better graphics to be worth bothering with. Raven Ridge/Picasso with Vega10/11 are simply superior. Unlike on the laptops where they were TDP-restricted, a desktop APU has a high enough power budget to flex the extra graphics CUs at decent clockspeeds.
You say that, yet both benchmarks and my own experience with both APUs says otherwise. I'm now running a 4650G in an ASRock X300 deskmini, and even with only 7CU it equals or beats my previous 3400G by up to 15%, and in CPU benchmarks absolutely slaughters it.

shows the differences between them in games. Both are memory bandwidth starved, more CU's wouldn't help. I know this because when I OC by 4650G iGPU from 1900 to 2350 I'm lucky to get 5% faster frames in some shader heavy games, and no benefit in older games. I suspect it won't be until AM5 where we see AMD make a substantial increase in iGPU size to take advantage of DDR5.
Posted on Reply
#25
Caring1
Tom YumYou say that, yet both benchmarks and my own experience with both APUs says otherwise. I'm now running a 4650G in an ASRock X300 deskmini, and even with only 7CU it equals or beats my previous 3400G by up to 15%, and in CPU benchmarks absolutely slaughters it.
Increased clock speed and better memory controller would explain that.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Copyright © 2004-2021 www.techpowerup.com. All rights reserved.
All trademarks used are properties of their respective owners.