In the course of our reviews, when we get a chance to get hands on with random processors, we run our test suite and add the data to our database. Sometimes that doesn’t materialize directly into a review, but at least we have the data. Two very similar CPUs have come across my desk recently: AMD’s dual core Athlon 200GE, and Intel’s Pentium G5400. Both chips round to the $60 mark, have some form of integrated graphics, and are aimed at budget systems.

This is going to be fun

One of the perennial issues with modern technology review cycles is that there’s a lot of focus on the high-end parts. These are the ones that the manufacturers sample: they have the highest margins, but are also the halo products: if they sit atop of the standings, then the hope is that that influence will trickle down into the rest of the product range, typically the high-volume parts. There is also the added benefit that more people want to hear about the best of the best. It’s a reason why there are so many Ferrari and Aston Martin ‘WOW’ pieces in written and video media.

Normally this would make sampling very difficult. If we were reviewing cars, anyway. The two chips in today’s analysis, the Intel Pentium Gold G5400 and the AMD Athlon 200GE, cost around $60 apiece, which I forked out for personally as I was never expecting to be sampled. (AMD asked if I wanted a 200GE sample two days after my retail unit arrived, go figure. I sent that on to Gavin for his 7-year old’s new gaming system.)

AMD vs Intel at ~$60
  AMD Athlon
Intel Pentium
Gold G5400
Cores / Threads 2 / 4 2 / 4
Microarchitecture Zen Coffee Lake
Motherboards X470, X370, B450
B350, A320, A300
Z390, Z370, Q370
H370, B360, H310
CPU Frequency 3.2 GHz 3.7 GHz
L2 Cache 512 KB/core 256 KB/core
L3 Cache 2 MB / core 2 MB / core
Integrated Graphics Vega 3
192 SPs
UHD 610
12 EUs (96 ALUs)
DDR4 Support DDR4-2933 DDR4-2666
GPU Frequency Up to 1000 MHz 350-1050 MHz
TDP 35 W 54 W (2-core die version)
58 W (4-core die version)*
Price $55 (SRP) $64 (1k/u)
* Intel harvests both 2+2 and 4+2 dies to make G5400 parts. It's impossible to know which one you have without removing the lid and measuring the die area.

When we stack up the two processors side by side, it gets interesting. Both are dual core, quad thread parts. The Intel processor has the frequency advantage, running at 3.7 GHz compared to the 3.2 GHz of AMD, but the AMD has beefier Vega 3 integrated graphics compared to the UHD 610 (GT1) graphics of the Intel chip. One sore point might be the TDP, where the AMD chip has a rating of 35W and the Intel chip is rated at 58W, however as we’ll see in the review, neither of them come close to those values.

Tackling the budget end of the market is fun. I’ve been a long-time advocate for budget builders to build a system piece-by-piece, getting one high-end part at a time rather than smearing a budget across several average parts at once. Under this philosophy, these processors could very well be the start of one of those builds, only costing an average of $60 MSRP. Note that under this philosophy, you might end up with that big graphics card before a processor that can power it. We’re covering those benchmarks as well.

Before you click further, place your bets on who you think will win: the Intel Pentium Gold G5400, or the AMD Athlon 200GE?

Latest News: While neither processor is officially overclockable, since we tested for this article it was recently reported that MSI motherboards with certain BIOS versions will allow users to overclock the 200GE to ~3.9 GHz. I've asked Gavin to contribute, and he managed a nice 3.9 GHz over the 3.2 GHz base clock. Head over to page 21 for the details.

Pages In This Review

  1. Analysis and Competition
  2. Test Bed and Setup
  3. 2018 and 2019 Benchmark Suite
  4. CPU Performance: System Tests
  5. CPU Performance: Rendering Tests
  6. CPU Performance: Office Tests
  7. CPU Performance: Encoding Tests
  8. CPU Performance: Legacy Tests
  9. Gaming: Integrated Graphics
  10. Gaming: World of Tanks enCore
  11. Gaming: Final Fantasy XV
  12. Gaming: Shadow of War
  13. Gaming: Civilization 6
  14. Gaming: Ashes Classic
  15. Gaming: Strange Brigade
  16. Gaming: Grand Theft Auto V
  17. Gaming: Far Cry 5
  18. Gaming: Shadow of the Tomb Raider
  19. Gaming: F1 2018
  20. Power Consumption
  21. Overclocking
  22. Conclusions and Final Words
Test Bed and Setup
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • Ryan Smith - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link

    To be sure, the normal price on the G5400 is ~$64. Past that, we have no specific control over whatever pricing shenanigans Amazon and its partners are up to at any given moment.
  • Irata - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link

    Define "normal". Yes, the MSRP (manufacturer's suggested retail price) is $64, but you cannot - and have not been able to for a while - find the G5400 anywhere near this price (for stores that actually have them in stock).

    In terms of pricing - it's not just Amazon or Newegg - many posters here checked sites in various countries and it is more expensive everywhere.

    So imho, "normal" pricing would be the actual street price. And if you look at current prices, the Athlon GE's counterpart is actually a lower clocked 2C2T Celeron G4920 with half the G5400's L3 cache or alternatively, the G5400's counterpart would be the Ryzen 2200G / Ryzen 3

    As Ian stated that he bought this in Retail - where and when ?

    It would have good to either base the review on actually available parts / street prices or add a caveat stating that the G5400 is not available for the msrp.
  • yannigr2 - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link

    Bravo, you said everything.

    People will read this review, go to ANY shop, see the processor at double price and buy a Celeron. because the review told them that the Intel processor is faster in most tasks. This is how consumers behave, especially when they don't have technical knowledge. That's how an RTX 2080Ti sells a GTX 1050 when the RX 570 is faster in every way.

    This article is posted for a specific reason, and that's not a fair comparison.

  • shabby - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link

    That's your excuse? We're not first graders here, when an article is based on the price you better make sure no shenanigans affect the price, try harder next time.
  • drzzz - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link

    What a crappy response Ryan. Given the entire mess about pricing that was made over the i7-7700K a few years ago by this very site. Arguing that street price is the valid metric vice MSRP at the time. Given the article was released without even one editor's note about the G5400 not being available anywhere for the MSRP was just a mistake. Own up to it and correct the article. When I can get a 2400G for the same price as the G5400 there is no comparison in performance or value. Looking at how much of the comments are about the price issues vice any other point from the article and face palm is all I can think about.
  • yannigr2 - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link

    Really? Is Amazon dictation the G5400 price on the planet? I thought Intel was doing it. Because there is no chance to find this processor at that price on the planet. At least not as new.

    It WAS nice reading Anandtech this last 15 years.
  • SaturnusDK - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link

    No Ryan. The "normal" price is not $64. It's the 1k unit price. You'll probably never see this retail at less than $69... at best.
  • The_Assimilator - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link

    FFS, all you dipshits complaining "bu... bu... but... G5400 isn't $60" should actually look at the MSRP on Intel's site:

    I agree that the chip isn't selling at anywhere near that due to shortages, but Ian has to take a baseline from somewhere and MSRP makes the most sense.
  • Irata - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link

    Point taken about the baseline but what's the point of the review if you cannot get the CPU for the MSRP ? The one that's closest price wise is actually a Celeron G 4920.

    The alternative would have been to either mention that current prices are a lot higher or post the article once the G5400 is again available for MSRP.
  • Haawser - Tuesday, January 15, 2019 - link

    When RX series GPUs were being pushed into stratospheric pricing by mining did reviews quote their 'normal' price, or the price people could actually buy them at ? So why are the rules suddenly different when the situation is reversed and it's the AMD product that's the cheaper option ?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now