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 5500GT review: 74 specs compared

Avg. price:~£110PassMark multi-core score:19016N. of physical cores:6CPU boost clock speed:4.4 GHzCPU socket:AM4TDP (Thermal design power):65 W

AMD Ryzen 5 5500GT Review: Compare 74 technical specifications and 3 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

AMD Ryzen 5 5500GT
6.8/10

Overall score

Score
6.8/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 54% of models
Score components

40%

6.6

Technical score

25%

6.6

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

6.6

Sentiment score

â–²Better than 54% of processors
7.8

Value for money

Value for money
7.8/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 77% of models
Score components

70%

6.8

Overall score

30%

9.9

Price

â–²Better than 77%
6.6

Technical score

Technical score
6.6/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 63% of models
Score components

60%

6.4

Performance

18%

6.0

Architecture

10%

6.9

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.0

Power & Thermal

4%

8.6

Platform

1%

7.4

Integrated graphics

â–²Better than 63%
6.6

Reviews score

Reviews score
6.6/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 66% of models

6.6

Mark 7.4 is below the typical mark 7.6 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.4

Average grade

20%

7.4

Popularity

Grades by review (3)
3 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.
â–¼Worse than 66%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 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 (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • amd-ryzen-5-5500gt
  • amd-ryzen-5-5500gt
  • amd-ryzen-5-5500gt
  • amd-ryzen-5-5500gt
amd-ryzen-5-5500gt
amd-ryzen-5-5500gt
amd-ryzen-5-5500gt
amd-ryzen-5-5500gt
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 5500GT

Based on 0 · 3

Solid processor and gaming performance for the class, but the integrated graphics let it down.
Praised
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the AMD Ryzen 5 5500GT

Based on 39 owners sharing their experience in online comments

51%positive11%mixed38%negative

Owners appreciate its affordable gaming performance, though low frame rates in several games remain a common frustration.

What owners dislike

  • Owners report GTA V running at only 12–40 fps at normal or high settings, with single-channel RAM and memory limits cited as the likely cause.5
  • Owners report drops below 40 fps in demanding titles like PUBG and Helldivers, with CPU clocks reportedly staying low during gameplay.3
  • Owners report Valorant reaching only about 100–150 fps, well below the 240 fps some other builds reach with the same chip.3

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

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD Ryzen 5 5500GT

Technical score
Technical score
6.6/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 63% of models
Score components:

60%

6.4

Performance

18%

6.0

Architecture

10%

6.9

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.0

Power & Thermal

4%

8.6

Platform

1%

7.4

Integrated graphics

6.6
Reviews score
6.6
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.8/ 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
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 77% of models
Score components:

70%

6.8

Overall score

30%

9.9

Price

7.8
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, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
This processor supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V instruction sets, which is broader support than 54.5% of processors and equal to that of 3.5% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
6
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 6 CPU cores, which is more than 47.7% of processors and equal to 13.4% of processors.
CPU threads
12
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 12 CPU threads, which is more than 53% of processors and equal to 14.2% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
4.4 GHz
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 4.4 GHz which is higher than that of 48.6% of processors and equal to that of 5.1% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
6x 3.6 GHz
This processor has a base clock of 6x3.6 GHz which is higher than that of 68.8% of processors and equal to that of 0.9% of processors.
PassMark multi-core score
19,016
Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
This processor scores 19,016 in PassMark, which is higher than 66.9% of processors.
Show more
What reviewers say
Semiconductor size
7 nm
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 7 nm process node, which is more advanced than that of 70.4% of processors and equal to that of 10.5% of processors.
Foundry
TSMC 7 nm
This processor is built on the TSMC 7 nm foundry process, which is more advanced than that of 55.6% of processors and equal to that of 9.2% of processors.
L3 cache
16 MB
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 16 MB which is larger than that of 62% of processors and equal to that of 12.6% of processors.
L2 cache
3 MB
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 3 MB which is larger than that of 48.6% of processors and equal to that of 4.6% 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
3,200 MHz
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 3,200 MHz, which is higher than that of 49.8% of processors and equal to 8.5% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-3200 MHz
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-3200 MHz, which is higher than that of 46.1% of processors and equal to 9.4% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
?
Maximum memory capacity
128 GB
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 128 GB of memory, which is more than 59.3% of processors and equal to 22.8% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
This processor includes integrated graphics. 14.7% of processors offer this.
Integrated GPU model
Radeon Vega 7
This processor uses the Radeon Vega 7 integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 71% of processors and equal to that in 2% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
7
Market range: <6 – >64
This processor has 7 GPU execution units, which is fewer than 81.1% of processors and equal to 2.4% of processors.
Integrated GPU base frequency
1900 MHz
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 1900 MHz which is higher than that of 98% of processors and equal to that of 0.7% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode)
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 71.4% of processors and equal to 0.6% 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.
cTDP: 45-65 W
Show more

AMD Ryzen 5 5500GT vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated graphicsPower & Thermal
  • 8 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (24 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    20 usable lanes
    24 vs 16
  • 65.8% higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (19,016 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    19,016 vs 11,469
  • Unlocked for overclocking
    This processor has an unlocked multiplier, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors offer this.
  • 57.1% higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (8,182 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    8,182 vs 5,209
  • 2 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (6 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    6 vs 4
  • Includes a cooler
    This processor includes a cooler, while the average processor does not. 26.9% of processors include a cooler.
  • 44.3% more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2.7 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2.67 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Cezanne vs Kaby Lake).
    Cezanne vs Kaby Lake
  • 4 years newer release date
    This processor has a newer release date than the average processor (2024 vs 2020).
    January 2024
    2024 vs 2020
  • Modern CPU socket
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (AM4 vs FP5).
    AM4 vs FP5
  • 65.8% higher PassMark score
    This processor has a higher PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (19,016 vs 11,469). The average processor scores 11,469 in PassMark benchmark.
    19,016 vs 11,469
  • Unlocked for overclocking
    This processor has an unlocked multiplier, while the average processor does not. 22.6% of processors offer this.
  • 57.1% higher multi-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 multi-core score than the average processor (8,182 vs 5,209). The average processor scores 5,209 in Geekbench 6 multi-core.
    8,182 vs 5,209
  • 2 more performance cores
    This processor has more performance cores than the average processor (6 vs 4). The average processor has 4 performance cores.
    6 vs 4
  • 32.8% higher single-core score
    This processor has a higher Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (2039 vs 1,535). The average processor scores 1,535 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    2,039 vs 1,535
  • 4 more CPU threads
    This processor has more CPU threads than the average processor (12 vs 8). The average processor has 8 CPU threads.
    12 vs 8
  • 19.3% better single-core performance
    This processor has a higher PassMark single-core score than the average processor (3,052 vs 2,558). The average processor scores 2,558 in PassMark single-core.
    3,052 vs 2,558
  • Higher base clock
    This processor has a higher base clock than the average processor (6x3.6 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz).
    6x3.6 GHz vs 4x3.4 GHz
  • 44.3% more L3 per core
    This processor has more L3 cache per core than the average processor (2.7 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.85 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    2.67 MB/core vs 1.85 MB/core
  • More advanced microarchitecture
    This processor uses a more advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Cezanne vs Kaby Lake).
    Cezanne vs Kaby Lake
  • 41.7% smaller process node
    This processor has a lower process node than the average processor (7 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    7 nm vs 12 nm
  • More advanced foundry
    This processor uses a more advanced foundry process than the average processor (TSMC 7 nm vs Intel 14 nm).
    TSMC 7 nm vs Intel 14 nm
  • 77.8% larger L3 cache
    This processor has a higher L3 cache than the average processor (16 MB vs 9 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 9 MB.
    16 MB vs 9 MB
  • 2.16x more transistors
    This processor has more transistors than the average processor (10.7 billion vs 4.95 billion). The average processor has 4.95 billion transistors.
    10.7 billion vs 4.95 billion
  • 8 more PCIe lanes
    This processor has more PCIe lanes than the average processor (24 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    20 usable lanes
    24 vs 16
  • Supports memory overclocking
    This processor supports memory overclocking, while the average processor does not. 43.9% of processors support memory overclocking.
  • 2x more memory capacity
    This processor has more maximum memory capacity than the average processor (128 GB vs 64 GB). The average processor supports 64 GB of memory.
    128 GB vs 64 GB
  • 5.43x higher GPU clock speed
    This processor has a higher integrated GPU frequency than the average processor (1900 MHz vs 350 MHz). The average processor has integrated GPU frequency of 350 MHz.
    1,900 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
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Secure Processor vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Secure Processor vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • 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
  • 58.2% slower classroom rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (142.1 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    142.11 vs 340.075
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • 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
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • 70.8% fewer GPU execution units
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (7 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    7 vs 24
  • 8.3% lower sentiment score
    6.6 vs 7.2
  • Weaker security extensions
    This processor provides less advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Secure Processor vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK).
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Secure Processor vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Key, TXT, OS Guard, Boot Guard, CET, MBEC, TME, TME-MK
  • Narrower instruction support
    This processor supports a narrower instruction set than the average processor (MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, FMA3, AES, SHA, 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, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V vs MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, AMD-V
  • 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
  • 58.2% slower classroom rendering
    This processor has a higher Blender Classroom render time than the average processor (142.1 vs 340.1). The average processor needs 340.075 for the Blender Classroom test.
    142.11 vs 340.075
  • Limited PCIe bifurcation
    This processor supports less flexible PCIe bifurcation than the average processor (x16 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4).
    x16 vs x16, x8/x8, x4/x4/x4/x4
  • Narrower media codec support
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode), JPEG (HW decode/encode)
  • 70.8% fewer GPU execution units
    This processor has fewer GPU execution units than the average processor (7 vs 24). The average processor has 24 GPU execution units.
    7 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

7.0
Adi 4 u
≈ estimated
09/05/2025
Hands-on review · iGPU gaming and RTX 4060 pairing tests
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 5 5500GT is a decent budget pick for gaming without a GPU, but a 5600X is better if you plan to add a graphics card.
6.0
RandomGaminginHD
≈ estimated
11/03/2024
Hands-on review · iGPU gaming tests · value check
Verdict
AMD Ryzen 5 5500GT is hard to justify over the regular 5600G, but suits tight budgets that only need light gaming.
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Overview video
Not graded
Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Ryzen 5 5500GT

  • Integrated Radeon Vega 7 graphics allow for gaming and office use without a dedicated GPU.
  • Excellent performance-to-price ratio for budget-friendly builds.
  • Low power consumption and runs cool, even with the included Wraith Stealth stock cooler.
  • Compatible with affordable, widely available AM4 motherboards (may require BIOS update).
  • Provides a smooth experience for multitasking, office automation, and media streaming.
  • Capable of running popular titles like Fortnite and Minecraft at playable frame rates on lower settings.
  • Significant upgrade path for users coming from older Zen or Zen+ APUs like the Ryzen 3 2200G/2400G.

What customers don't like about AMD Ryzen 5 5500GT

  • Limited to PCIe 3.0, which may bottleneck newer high-end GPUs or NVMe SSDs.
  • Lower L3 cache (16MB) compared to more powerful Zen 3 chips like the Ryzen 5 5600.
  • Performance in demanding games trails behind slightly more expensive CPUs.
  • May require a BIOS update on older motherboards to be recognized, potentially causing 'black screen' issues until updated.
  • Often viewed as a 'niche' product that is easily surpassed by the Ryzen 5 5600 for users who already own a discrete graphics card.

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 5 5500GT is a 6-core, 12-thread desktop APU based on the 7nm Zen 3 architecture, designed for the budget-friendly AM4 socket. It features a base clock of 3.6 GHz with a max boost up to 4.4 GHz, 16 MB of L3 cache, and a 65W TDP. Its main advantage is the integrated Radeon Vega 7 graphics (clocked at 1900 MHz), which allows for entry-level 1080p gaming and home office productivity without a dedicated graphics card. Additional pros include an unlocked multiplier for overclocking, the inclusion of an AMD Wraith Stealth cooler, and high power efficiency. However, it is limited to the older PCIe 3.0 standard rather than PCIe 4.0, has half the L3 cache of higher-tier 5000 series processors, and faces strong competition from the slightly faster Ryzen 5 5600GT or 5600G.

Compare AMD Ryzen 5 5500GT 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 5500GT and other processors

No results found