OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v3.0
Processors Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Processors Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Processors Methodology v3.0

AMD Ryzen 5 3400G review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£60PassMark multi-core score:9191N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:4.2 GHzCPU socket:AM4TDP (Thermal design power):65 W

AMD Ryzen 5 3400G Review: Compare 74 technical specifications, 48 expert and video reviews and 1 best-of list to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

AMD Ryzen 5 3400G
5.6/10

Overall score

Score
5.6/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 89% of models
Score components

40%

4.7

Technical score

25%

8.1

Reviews score

25%

4.7

List score

10%

4.7

Sentiment score

▼Worse than 89% of processors
6.9

Value for money

Value for money
6.9/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 75% of models
Score components

70%

5.6

Overall score

30%

10

Price

▼Worse than 75%
4.7

Technical score

Technical score
4.7/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 67% of models
Score components

60%

3.9

Performance

18%

4.3

Architecture

10%

6.2

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.0

Power & Thermal

4%

8.6

Platform

1%

6.9

Integrated graphics

▼Worse than 67%
8.1

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.1/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 78% of models

80%

7.7

Average grade

20%

9.8

Popularity

Grades by review (48)
20 reviews: 11 with a printed score, 9 estimated from the review. 28 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
▲Better than 78%
4.7

List score

List score
4.7/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (1)
List score: in 1 of 87 lists (1%)
▲Better than 89%
  • amd-ryzen-5-3400g
  • amd-ryzen-5-3400g
amd-ryzen-5-3400g
amd-ryzen-5-3400g
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the AMD Ryzen 5 3400G

Based on 10 · 32

Cool, cheap and capable for everyday use, but gaming opinions split and it barely improves on its predecessor and trails rivals.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the AMD Ryzen 5 3400G

Based on 198 owners sharing their experience in online comments

49%positive17%mixed34%negative

Owners praise its capable built-in graphics and budget value, while low frame rates and stability problems hold it back.

What owners dislike

  • Owners say frame rates drop in demanding newer games, and they often need 720p or 900p with medium or low settings to stay playable.27
  • Owners report random blue screens, freezes and game crashes, especially when RAM is set to 3200 MHz or higher on some motherboards.27
  • Some owners report no display or a boot failure after changing BIOS voltage or RAM settings, with the CPU or DRAM LED staying lit.15
  • Owners say RAM rated at 3200 MHz often will not run at that speed, and it stays at 2400–2933 MHz or fails to boot.13
  • Owners report display driver problems, black screens and blue screens tied to the motherboard, with some boards showing old driver issues.9
  • Owners with single-channel or only 8 GB of RAM report poor frame rates and stutter, and say dual-channel RAM fixes much of this.7
  • Owners report temperatures near 90°C under load, which can cause thermal throttling and freezes, especially with overclocking and a stock cooler.7
  • Owners report that raising the integrated GPU clock or voltage in the BIOS can cause throttling, freezes or a blank screen.7
  • Owners find the CPU bottlenecks a midrange GPU such as a GTX 2060 in newer games, so it limits performance compared with stronger chips.7
  • Owners say BIOS voltage options are limited on some boards, with the SoC and GPU voltage linked and small voltage steps not always accepted.5

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD Ryzen 5 3400G

Technical score
Technical score
4.7/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 67% of models
Score components:

60%

3.9

Performance

18%

4.3

Architecture

10%

6.2

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.0

Power & Thermal

4%

8.6

Platform

1%

6.9

Integrated graphics

4.7
Reviews score
8.1
List score
4.7
Value for money
Value for money
6.9/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the processor's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a processor with a good balance between performance, efficiency, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 75% of models
Score components:

70%

5.6

Overall score

30%

10

Price

6.9
Processor type
desktop
This processor belongs to the desktop processor class, which is more advanced than that of 54.7% of processors and equal to that of 39.5% of processors.
CPU socket
AM4
This processor uses the AM4 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 75.1% of processors and equal to that of 9.4% of processors.
Chipset
X570, B550, A520, X470, B450, X370, B350, A320
This processor supports X570, B550, A520, X470, B450, X370, B350, A320 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 74.1% of processors and equal to that of 4.4% of processors.
CPU architecture
x86-64
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.8% of processors and equal to that of 98.2% of processors.
Instruction sets
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, AMD-V
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, AMD-V instruction sets, which is broader support than 85.3% of processors and equal to that of 6% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
4
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 4 CPU cores, which is fewer than 52.8% of processors and equal to 27.5% of processors.
CPU threads
8
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 8 CPU threads, which is more than 33.4% of processors and equal to 18.8% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
4.2 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.2 GHz which is lower than that of 54.4% of processors and equal to that of 4.2% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 3.7 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 4x3.7 GHz which is higher than that of 51.9% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
9,191
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 9,191 in PassMark, which is lower than 55.7% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
Semiconductor size
12 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 12 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 48% of processors and equal to that of 2.7% of processors.
Foundry
GlobalFoundries 12 nm
This processor is built on the GlobalFoundries 12 nm foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 48.5% of processors and equal to that of 2.8% of processors.
L3 cache
4 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 4 MB which is smaller than that of 71.7% of processors and equal to that of 13.8% of processors.
L2 cache
2 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 2 MB which is smaller than that of 52.9% of processors and equal to that of 10.8% of processors.
L1 cache
384 KB
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 384 KB which is larger than that of 44% of processors and equal to that of 15.7% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4
This processor supports DDR DDR4, which is newer than that of 25.2% of processors and equal to that of 31.1% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
2,933 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,933 MHz, which is lower than that of 50.3% of processors and equal to 5.1% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2933 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-2933 MHz, which is lower than that of 54% of processors and equal to 4.5% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
?
Maximum memory capacity
64 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 64 GB of memory, which is more than 27.2% of processors and equal to 26.1% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Radeon Vega 11
This processor uses the Radeon Vega 11 integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 77% of processors and equal to that in 0.7% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
11
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 11 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 72% of processors and equal to 0.5% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
600 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 600 MHz which is higher than that of 79.6% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
VC-1 (HW decode)
This processor supports VC-1 (HW decode) media codecs, which is narrower support than 79.5% of processors and equal to 3.4% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
TDP (Thermal design power)
65 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 65 W which is higher than that of 68% of processors and equal to that of 17% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
65 W
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 65 W which is higher than that of 68.1% of processors and equal to that of 17.4% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
yes
This processor supports configurable TDP. 46.4% of processors offer this.
Show more
What reviewers say

AMD Ryzen 5 3400G vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • Unlocked for overclocking
    This processor has an unlocked multiplier, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors offer this.
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • 20.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.1/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▲ Better than 78% of models

    80%

    7.7

    Average grade

    20%

    9.8

    Popularity

    Grades by review (48)
    20 reviews: 11 with a printed score, 9 estimated from the review. 28 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.1 vs 6.7
  • 4 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (20 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    16 usable lanes
    20 vs 16
  • 5 °C lower CPU temperature
    This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (95 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    95 °C vs 100 °C
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (AM4 vs FP5).
    AM4 vs FP5
  • Supports heterogeneous scheduling
    This processor uses heterogeneous multi-processing, while the average processor does not. 24.8% of processors use it.
  • 20.9% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.1/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.2 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▲ Better than 78% of models

    80%

    7.7

    Average grade

    20%

    9.8

    Popularity

    Grades by review (48)
    20 reviews: 11 with a printed score, 9 estimated from the review. 28 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.1 vs 6.7
  • 4.17x cheaper
    AMD Ryzen 5 3400G is cheaper than the average processor (£60 vs £250).
    £60 vs £250
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (AM4 vs FP5).
    AM4 vs FP5
  • Supports heterogeneous scheduling
    This processor uses heterogeneous multi-processing, while the average processor does not. 24.8% of processors use it.
  • Broader instruction support
    This processor supports a broader instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V).
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • Unlocked for overclocking
    This processor has an unlocked multiplier, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors offer this.
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (GlobalFoundries 12 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    GlobalFoundries 12 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • 4 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (20 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    16 usable lanes
    20 vs 16
  • Better integrated GPU
    This processor uses a better integrated GPU than the average processor (Radeon Vega 11 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630).
    Radeon Vega 11 vs Intel UHD Graphics 630
  • 71.4% higher GPU clock speed
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (600 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    600 MHz vs 350 MHz
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • 5 °C lower CPU temperature
    This processor has a lower CPU temperature than the average processor (95 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor runs at a CPU temperature of 100 °C.
    95 °C vs 100 °C
  • 39.7% lower list score
    List score
    4.7/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
    How we count it
    Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
    Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
    Lists with this model (1)
    List score: in 1 of 87 lists (1%)
    4.7 vs 7.8
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Picasso vs Kaby Lake).
    Picasso vs Kaby Lake
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • 45.9% less L3 per core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 25.9% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,137 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,137 vs 1,535
  • 18% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2098 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    2,098 vs 2,558
  • 30.6% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (3,617 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    3,617 vs 5,209
  • 34.7% lower sentiment score
    4.7 vs 7.2
  • 39.7% lower list score
    List score
    4.7/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
    How we count it
    Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
    Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
    Lists with this model (1)
    List score: in 1 of 87 lists (1%)
    4.7 vs 7.8
  • 34.7% lower sentiment score
    4.7 vs 7.2
  • 5.8% worse value for money
    AMD Ryzen 5 3400G has worse value for money than the average processor (6.89 vs 7.3).
    6.89 vs 7.29
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, GMET, SME, SEV vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, GMET, SME, SEV vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • Older TPM support
    This processor supports an older TPM version than the average processor (fTPM 2 vs PTT 2).
    fTPM 2.0 vs PTT 2.0
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • 25.9% lower single-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,137 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,137 vs 1,535
  • 18% weaker single-core performance
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2098 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    2,098 vs 2,558
  • 30.6% lower multi-core score
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (3,617 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    3,617 vs 5,209
  • 29.8% weaker multi-core performance
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (1969 vs 2,804.5). The average processor scores 2,804.5 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    1,969 vs 2,804.5
  • 60.5% slower classroom rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (134.3 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    134.28 vs 340.075
  • 19.9% lower PassMark score
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (9,191 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    9,191 vs 11,469
  • 4.5% lower boost clock
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (4.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.4 GHz.
    4.2 GHz vs 4.4 GHz
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Picasso vs Kaby Lake).
    Picasso vs Kaby Lake
  • 45.9% less L3 per core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • 55.6% smaller L3 cache
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (4 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    4 MB vs 9 MB
  • 18.6% larger die size
    This processor has a higher die size than the average processor (210 mm² vs 177 mm²). The average processor has a die size of 177 mm².
    210 mm² vs 177 mm²
  • 33.3% smaller L2 cache
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (2 MB vs 3 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 3 MB.
    2 MB vs 3 MB
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (VC-1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    VC-1 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • 54.2% fewer GPU execution units
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (11 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    11 vs 24
  • 44.4% higher base power
    This processor has a higher base power draw than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a base power draw of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W
  • 5 °C lower temperature limit
    This processor has a lower temperature limit than the average processor (95 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor can run up to 100 °C.
    95 °C vs 100 °C
  • 44.4% higher TDP
    This processor has a higher TDP than the average processor (65 W vs 45 W). The average processor has a TDP of 45 W.
    65 W vs 45 W

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

8.0
SD Tech Time
≈ estimated
29/03/2026
Hands-on review · budget build and Free Fire gaming test
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 5 3400G is a powerful processor, but limited RAM caused lag in Free Fire.
6.0
Iceberg Tech
≈ estimated
19/08/2022
Revisit review · 12-game benchmarks and stability problems
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 5 3400G is playable with decent RAM and has no better options, but it is not a first choice now.
9.0
PCWizKids Tech Talk
≈ estimated
05/01/2020
Hands-on review · gaming, CPU and power tests
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 5 3400G is good value for light 1080p gaming and home servers, but its older 12nm design disappoints.
8.0
Funkykit
≈ estimated
10/11/2019
Build video · PCMark, 3DMark and Cinebench results
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 5 3400G is adequate for basic gaming and light use, a stopgap until you add a graphics card.
7.0
SteDi Gaming
≈ estimated
02/10/2019
Hands-on review · overclocking, cooling and gaming tests
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 5 3400G is playable in most competitive games, though its aging GPU needs lower resolution for newer titles.
9.0
KitGuruTech
≈ estimated
05/08/2019
Hands-on review · gaming tests and value verdict
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 5 3400G is a strong APU that is worth the extra cost over last year's chip for new buyers.
5.0
Hardware Unboxed
≈ estimated
17/07/2019
Review · performance comparison with the previous APU
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 5 3400G is only a sensible choice for basic office PCs or compact home theater builds; better alternatives exist.
8.0
ETA PRIME
≈ estimated
13/07/2019
Emulation test · PS2, Dreamcast, Wii U, 3DS and PS3 runs
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 5 3400G is well suited to emulation, especially in small low-power builds, though 3DS, Wii U and PS3 struggle.
7.0
ETA PRIME
≈ estimated
12/07/2019
Hands-on review · benchmarks, games and power draw
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 5 3400G is a modest upgrade over the 2400G, and bigger gains require overclocking.
7.0
RandomGaminginHD
≈ estimated
09/07/2019
Hands-on review · gaming benchmarks and first impressions
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 5 3400G is a decent low-cost APU for HTPC builds and entry-level gaming, though the cooler's buzzing is a drawback.
2.0
anakin raider
≈ estimated
06/06/2020
Short review · personal use and stability problems
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 5 3400G is not worth buying, as it is unstable with blue screens and display output failures.
8.0
TechteamGB
≈ estimated
12/08/2019
Hands-on review · game and CPU benchmarks
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 5 3400G is not recommended for a proper gaming PC, but it is good value for living room and HTPC use.

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

7.5
techspot.com
✓ explicit
19/07/2019
Buying advice · Integrated graphics
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 5 3400G suits basic office PCs and compact home theater builds, but a separate graphics card beats it for gaming.
8.0
pcmag.com
✓ explicit
27/09/2019
Benchmark review · Budget APU
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 5 3400G is a capable budget chip for productivity PCs and light gaming without a graphics card, but it uses an older design.
8.0
m.hexus.net
≈ estimated
09/10/2019
Analysis · Budget APU upgrade
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 5 3400G is a modest step up from the 2400G, with faster integrated graphics and a 65W rating, suiting budget PCs that need light gaming.
7.0
tomshardware.com
✓ explicit
31/01/2020
Review · Integrated graphics chip
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 5 3400G suits low-cost systems that rely on integrated graphics, such as budget gaming PCs, HTPCs and basic office machines.
8.0
kitguru.net
✓ explicit
07/08/2019
Hands-on test · Gaming and media
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 5 3400G handles less demanding 1080p games and home theater PC use, but modern AAA titles won't reliably hit 60 fps.
7.0
techbuyersguru.com
≈ estimated
03/04/2021
Benchmark review · Intel comparison
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 5 3400G balances CPU and graphics performance efficiently and beats Intel's 2015 Core i7-6700K in a 3DMark physics test, but its graphics still fall short for gaming.
8.5
gamestar.de
✓ explicit
29/08/2019
Benchmark test · Streaming and power
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 5 3400G draws little power, but four cores are too few to stream to Twitch at 60 fps, so it suits basic PCs rather than streamers.
8.0
cowcotland.com
≈ estimated
07/11/2019
Lab test · Cooler and noise
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 5 3400G runs cool on its bundled cooler, which stays quiet even at full fan speed, and the whole system draws under 100W with graphics running.
8.4
profesionalreview.com
✓ explicit
31/07/2019
Full review · Integrated graphics
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 5 3400G is a quiet, low-power chip whose Vega 11 graphics run many popular games, but it relies on fast RAM.
7.3
hardzone.es
✓ explicit
29/08/2022
Review · Budget gaming APU
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 5 3400G pairs a capable four-core CPU with the strongest integrated graphics in its class, suiting budget gaming PCs and home theatre PCs.
8.6
geeknetic.es
✓ explicit
24/10/2019
Full review · Budget gaming APU
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 5 3400G handles esports and MOBA games at high settings, but PUBG needs 720p, and 2400G owners gain little by upgrading.
9.0
androidpc.es
≈ estimated
24/07/2019
Full review · Gaming and benchmarks
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 5 3400G is a 65 W chip whose Vega 11 graphics play many games Intel's integrated chips can't, but it barely improves on the 2400G.
9.0
bloghtpc.com
≈ estimated
01/03/2020
Analysis · Mini PC chip
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 5 3400G suits mini PCs and HTPCs with its 65W rating, though many boards need a BIOS update first.
7.0
tomshw.it
≈ estimated
23/08/2019
Benchmark test · Integrated graphics gaming
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 5 3400G suits office PCs, HTPCs and budget builds running strategy and MOBA games, but demanding triple-A titles are out of reach.
7.5
tech.everyeye.it
✓ explicit
09/08/2019
Lab test · Integrated graphics
Verdict
The AMD Ryzen 5 3400G is an office and small-PC chip whose built-in Vega graphics handle 720p gaming, but it is only a small step up from the 2400G.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Ryzen 5 3400G

  • Best-in-class integrated graphics (Radeon RX Vega 11) for entry-level 1080p gaming
  • Excellent value for budget-friendly HTPC or office builds
  • Includes a capable 95W Wraith Spire cooling fan in the box
  • Features a soldered thermal interface (Solder TIM) for better heat management compared to its predecessor
  • Unlocked multiplier allows for straightforward overclocking of both CPU and GPU
  • Wide compatibility with affordable AM4 motherboards

What customers don't like about AMD Ryzen 5 3400G

  • Uses older 12nm Zen+ architecture rather than the newer 7nm Zen 2 used in other 3000-series chips
  • Limited to 4 cores and 8 threads, which may struggle with heavy multitasking or modern AAA titles
  • Significant performance drops when used with single-channel or slow RAM
  • Lags behind similarly priced Intel Core i5 alternatives in pure CPU-intensive tasks
  • Restricted PCIe 3.0 x8 lanes can limit the performance of future high-end discrete GPU upgrades
  • Frequent stuttering reported in certain demanding games like Forza Horizon 4

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 5 3400G is a 4-core, 8-thread APU based on the 12nm Zen+ architecture, featuring a 3.7 GHz base clock and a 4.2 GHz maximum boost. Its primary strength is the integrated Radeon RX Vega 11 graphics with 11 cores running at 1400 MHz, which enables playable 720p and 1080p gaming in eSports titles without a dedicated GPU. Major pros include its unlocked multiplier for overclocking, the inclusion of a capable 95W Wraith Spire cooler, and its affordable entry-level pricing for budget PC builds. However, notable cons include its reliance on older Zen+ technology rather than the newer Zen 2 architecture found in other 3000-series chips, limited 4MB L3 cache, and performance that lags significantly behind modern discrete graphics cards and higher-core-count CPUs.

Compare AMD Ryzen 5 3400G with other processors

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of AMD Ryzen 5 3400G and other processors

No results found