OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Processors Methodology v1.0
Processors Methodology v1.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are evaluated mathematically under Frontumo Processors Methodology v1.0 using verified laboratory benchmarks, technical specifications, and authentic consumer ratings with 0% commercial bias.
Explore Processors Methodology v1.0

AMD Ryzen 5 Pro 2400G Review | 78 Data compared

Avg. price:~£150PassMark benchmark result:8538N. of physical cores:4CPU boost clock speed:3.9 GHzCPU socket:AM4TDP (Thermal design power):65 W

AMD Ryzen 5 Pro 2400G Review: Compare 78 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Processors category and whether it is worth buying.

5.1

Overall score

Score
5.1/ 10
✕
What it is
An overall evaluation of the processor's quality, based on technical analyses and user reviews.
When it matters
When you need a quick reference to identify the best processors on the market.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 61% of models
Score components

90%

5.1

Technical score

10%

?

User score

â–¼Worse than 61% of processors
5.1

Technical score

Technical score
5.1/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 58% of models
Score components

60%

4.7

Performance

18%

4.3

Cache & Architecture

10%

5.0

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.0

Power & Thermal

4%

8.6

Platform

1%

7.3

Integrated Graphics

â–¼Worse than 58% of processors
?

User score

User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

  • No image
No image

Best prices

*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.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of processor AMD Ryzen 5 Pro 2400G

Technical score
Technical score
5.1/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of the processor's technical performance, covering key areas such as processing performance, core configuration, efficiency, platform support, integrated features, and thermal behavior.
When it matters
When you want to compare processors based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 58% of models
Score components:

60%

4.7

Performance

18%

4.3

Cache & Architecture

10%

5.0

Memory & PCIe

7%

8.0

Power & Thermal

4%

8.6

Platform

1%

7.3

Integrated Graphics

5.1
User score
User score
8.0/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you want to know how a processor performs in real workloads and how reliable it is for gaming, productivity, and efficiency according to user feedback.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models
Score components

70%

?

User ratings

30%

?

Number of reviews

?
Popularity
Popularity
1.0/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator based on the number of reviews received by the processor.
When it matters
When you prefer to choose a processor reviewed and selected by many other buyers.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Popularity:
AMD Ryzen 5 Pro 2400G has a popularity score of 1 point, which is higher than that of 0% of products in this category.
1.0
Value for money
Value for money
6.5/ 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–¼ Worse than 55% of models
Score components:

60%

5.1

Overall score

40%

9.7

Price

6.5
Brand name
AMD
Processor type
desktop
Processor type
desktop
â–² Better than 56% of models
This processor belongs to the desktop processor class, which is more advanced than that of 56% of processors and equal to that of 37.9% of processors.
CPU socket
AM4
CPU socket
AM4
â–² Better than 77% of models
This processor uses the AM4 CPU socket, which is newer than that of 76.5% of processors and equal to that of 9.6% of processors.
Chipset
X570, X470, B450, X370, B350, A320
Chipset
X570, X470, B450, X370, B350, A320
â–² Better than 70% of models
This processor supports X570, X470, B450, X370, B350, A320 chipsets, which is broader compatibility than 69.8% of processors and equal to that of 0.5% of processors.
CPU architecture
x86-64
CPU architecture
x86-64
â–² Better than 2% of models
This processor uses the x86-64 architecture, which is more advanced than that of 1.7% of processors and equal to that of 98.3% of processors.
Show more
N. of physical cores
4
N. of physical cores
4
â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
Market range: <2 – >12
This processor has 4 CPU cores, which is fewer than 50.7% of processors and equal to 28.5% of processors.
CPU threads
8
CPU threads
8
â–¼ Worse than 46% of models
Market range: <4 – >24
This processor offers 8 CPU threads, which is more than 35.2% of processors and equal to 19.1% of processors.
Threads per core
2
Threads per core
2
â–² Better than 30% of models
Market range: <0 – >2.5
This processor offers 2 threads per core, which is more than 30.3% of processors and equal to 69.7% of processors.
CPU boost clock speed
3.9 GHz
CPU boost clock speed
3.9 GHz
â–¼ Worse than 65% of models
Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
This processor reaches a boost clock of 3.9 GHz which is lower than that of 64.9% of processors and equal to that of 3.5% of processors.
CPU base clock speed
4x 3.6 GHz
CPU base clock speed
4x 3.6 GHz
â–² Better than 52% of models
This processor has a base clock of 4x3.6 GHz which is higher than that of 52.1% of processors and equal to that of 1.6% of processors.
Show more
Semiconductor size
14 nm
Semiconductor size
14 nm
â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
This processor uses a 14 nm process node, which is older than that of 50.6% of processors and equal to that of 33.9% of processors.
Foundry
GlobalFoundries 14 nm
Foundry
GlobalFoundries 14 nm
â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
This processor is built on the GlobalFoundries 14 nm foundry process, which is less advanced than that of 50.8% of processors and equal to that of 4.4% of processors.
L3 cache
4 MB
L3 cache
4 MB
â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
This processor has an L3 cache of 4 MB which is smaller than that of 70.2% of processors and equal to that of 14.6% of processors.
L2 cache
2 MB
L2 cache
2 MB
â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
This processor has an L2 cache of 2 MB which is smaller than that of 51% of processors and equal to that of 11.2% of processors.
L1 cache
384 KB
L1 cache
384 KB
â–² Better than 45% of models
Market range: <128 KB – >1.2k KB
This processor has an L1 cache of 384 KB which is larger than that of 44.9% of processors and equal to that of 15.7% of processors.
Show more
DDR memory version
DDR4
DDR memory version
DDR4
â–¼ Worse than 42% of models
This processor supports DDR DDR4, which is newer than that of 26.3% of processors and equal to that of 31.7% of processors.
Maximum memory speed
2,933 MHz
Maximum memory speed
2,933 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 48% of models
Market range: <1.5k MHz – >6.5k MHz
This processor supports memory speeds up to 2,933 MHz, which is higher than that of 46.6% of processors and equal to 5.1% of processors.
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2933 MHz
Max memory speed (JEDEC)
DDR4-2933 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 53% of models
This processor supports JEDEC memory speeds up to DDR4-2933 MHz, which is lower than that of 52.5% of processors and equal to 4.4% of processors.
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
3,200 MHz
Max memory speed (XMP / EXPO)
3,200 MHz
★ Better than 91% of models
This processor supports XMP/EXPO memory speeds up to 3,200 MHz, which is higher than that of 91.2% of processors and equal to 1.4% of processors.
Maximum memory capacity
64 GB
Maximum memory capacity
64 GB
â–¼ Worse than 44% of models
Market range: <32 GB – >256 GB
This processor supports up to 64 GB of memory, which is more than 28.4% of processors and equal to 27.5% of processors.
Show more
Integrated graphics
yes
Integrated graphics
yes
â–² Better than 12% of models
This processor includes integrated graphics. 12.4% of processors include integrated graphics.
Integrated GPU model
Radeon Vega 11
Integrated GPU model
Radeon Vega 11
â–² Better than 77% of models
This processor uses the Radeon Vega 11 integrated GPU, which is more advanced than that in 76.9% of processors and equal to that in 0.7% of processors.
Integrated GPU execution units
?
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
Integrated GPU base frequency
300 MHz
â–¼ Worse than 58% of models
Market range: <300 MHz – >800 MHz
This processor has an integrated GPU clock of 300 MHz which is lower than that of 58.1% of processors and equal to that of 37.9% of processors.
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode)
Integrated media encoders/decoders
H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode)
â–² Better than 56% of models
This processor supports H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode) media codecs, which is broader support than 56.2% of processors and equal to 9.5% of processors.
Show more
TDP (Thermal design power)
65 W
TDP (Thermal design power)
65 W
â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a TDP of 65 W which is higher than that of 69.9% of processors and equal to that of 16.3% of processors.
Base power (PL1)
65 W
Base power (PL1)
65 W
â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
Market range: <15 W – >90 W
This processor has a base power of 65 W which is higher than that of 70.1% of processors and equal to that of 16.7% of processors.
Boost power (PL2)
?
Tau (power duration limit)
N/A
Configurable TDP
yes
Configurable TDP
yes
â–² Better than 47% of models
This processor supports configurable TDP. 47.3% of processors support configurable TDP.
cTDP: 46-65 W
Show more

AMD Ryzen 5 Pro 2400G vs the average processor

246810TotalPlatformPerformanceCache & ArchitectureMemory & PCIeIntegrated GraphicsPower & Thermal
  • Unlocked for overclocking
    Unlocked multiplier
    yes
    â–² Better than 78% of models
    This processor has an unlocked multiplier, the average processor does not. 21.7% of processors have an unlocked multiplier.
  • Includes stock cooler
    Cooler included
    yes
    â–² Better than 74% of models
    This processor includes a stock cooler, the average processor does not. 25.9% of processors include a stock cooler.
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Secure Processor, Secure Boot, SME, TSME, SEV
    â–² Better than 88% of models
    This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Secure Processor, Secure Boot, SME, TSME, SEV vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Secure Processor, Secure Boot, SME, TSME, SEV vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
  • 5 °C lower CPU temperature
    CPU temperature
    95 °C
    â–² Better than 72% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    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
  • Supports ECC memory
    ECC memory support
    yes
    â–² Better than 68% of models
    This processor supports ECC memory, the average processor does not. 32.5% of processors support ECC memory.
  • Modern CPU socket
    CPU socket
    AM4
    â–² Better than 77% of models
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (AM4 vs FP4).
    AM4 vs FP4
  • Broader instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, AMD-V
    â–² Better than 85% of models
    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).
    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
  • Better integrated GPU
    Integrated GPU model
    Radeon Vega 11
    â–² Better than 77% of models
    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
  • Advanced security extensions
    Security extensions
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Secure Processor, Secure Boot, SME, TSME, SEV
    â–² Better than 88% of models
    This processor provides more advanced security extensions than the average processor (AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Secure Processor, Secure Boot, SME, TSME, SEV vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor).
    AES-NI, SHA, NX bit, SMAP, SMEP, Secure Processor, Secure Boot, SME, TSME, SEV vs AES-NI, NX bit, Secure Processor
  • Modern CPU socket
    CPU socket
    AM4
    â–² Better than 77% of models
    This processor uses a more modern CPU socket than the average processor (AM4 vs FP4).
    AM4 vs FP4
  • Broader instruction support
    Instruction sets
    MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, F16C, FMA3, AES, SHA, BMI1, BMI2, AMD-V
    â–² Better than 85% of models
    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).
    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
  • Unlocked for overclocking
    Unlocked multiplier
    yes
    â–² Better than 78% of models
    This processor has an unlocked multiplier, the average processor does not. 21.7% of processors have an unlocked multiplier.
  • Supports ECC memory
    ECC memory support
    yes
    â–² Better than 68% of models
    This processor supports ECC memory, the average processor does not. 32.5% of processors support ECC memory.
  • Better integrated GPU
    Integrated GPU model
    Radeon Vega 11
    â–² Better than 77% of models
    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
  • Includes stock cooler
    Cooler included
    yes
    â–² Better than 74% of models
    This processor includes a stock cooler, the average processor does not. 25.9% of processors include a stock cooler.
  • 5 °C lower CPU temperature
    CPU temperature
    95 °C
    â–² Better than 72% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    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
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Raven Ridge
    â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Raven Ridge vs Kaby Lake).
    Raven Ridge vs Kaby Lake
  • 2 fewer CPU cores
    N. of physical cores
    4
    â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • 29.6% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    1,036
    â–¼ Worse than 74% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,036 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,036 vs 1,471
  • 41.7% less L3 per core
    L3 per core
    1 MB/core
    â–¼ Worse than 81% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • 9.3% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    3.9 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 65% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.9 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    3.9 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 14.5% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    2,137
    â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,137 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    2,137 vs 2,500
  • 8 fewer PCIe lanes
    PCIe lane count
    8
    â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
    Market range: <10 – >30
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (8 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    8 vs 16
  • 33.7% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    1,850
    â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (1,850 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    1,850 vs 2,791
  • 2 years older release date
    Release date
    2018
    â–¼ Worse than 62% of models
    Market range: <2k – >2k
    This processor has an older release date than the average processor (2018 vs 2020).
    May 2018
    2018 vs 2020
  • Older TPM support
    TPM type
    fTPM 2.0
    â–¼ Worse than 59% of models
    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
    N. of physical cores
    4
    â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
    Market range: <2 – >12
    This processor has fewer CPU cores than the average processor (4 vs 6). The average processor has 6 CPU cores.
    4 vs 6
  • 29.6% lower single-core score
    Geekbench 6 single-core benchmark score
    1,036
    â–¼ Worse than 74% of models
    Market range: <561 – >2.7k
    This processor has a lower Geekbench 6 single-core score than the average processor (1,036 vs 1,471). The average processor scores 1,471 in Geekbench 6 single-core.
    1,036 vs 1,471
  • 9.3% lower boost clock
    CPU boost clock speed
    3.9 GHz
    â–¼ Worse than 65% of models
    Market range: <3 GHz – >5.5 GHz
    This processor has a lower boost clock speed than the average processor (3.9 GHz vs 4.3 GHz). The average processor reaches boost clock speed of 4.3 GHz.
    3.9 GHz vs 4.3 GHz
  • 14.5% weaker single-core performance
    PassMark single-core benchmark score
    2,137
    â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
    Market range: <1.4k – >4k
    This processor has a lower PassMark single-core score than the average processor (2,137 vs 2,500). The average processor scores 2,500 in PassMark single-core.
    2,137 vs 2,500
  • 33.7% weaker multi-core performance
    Cinebench R20 multi-core benchmark score
    1,850
    â–¼ Worse than 63% of models
    Market range: <702 – >10.8k
    This processor has a lower multi-core performance than the average processor (1,850 vs 2,791). The average processor scores 2,791 in Cinebench R20 multi-core.
    1,850 vs 2,791
  • 19.2% lower PassMark score
    PassMark benchmark result
    8,538
    â–¼ Worse than 55% of models
    Market range: <2.5k – >32.5k
    This processor has a lower PassMark benchmark score than the average processor (8,538 vs 10,572.5). The average processor scores 10,572.5 in PassMark benchmark.
    8,538 vs 10,572.5
  • Less advanced microarchitecture
    Microarchitecture codename
    Raven Ridge
    â–¼ Worse than 85% of models
    This processor uses a less advanced microarchitecture than the average processor (Raven Ridge vs Kaby Lake).
    Raven Ridge vs Kaby Lake
  • 41.7% less L3 per core
    L3 per core
    1 MB/core
    â–¼ Worse than 81% of models
    Market range: <1 MB/core – >3 MB/core
    This processor has less L3 cache per core than the average processor (1 MB/core vs 1.7 MB/core). The average processor provides 1.714 MB/core of L3 cache per core.
    1 MB/core vs 1.714 MB/core
  • 16.7% larger process node
    Semiconductor size
    14 nm
    â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
    Market range: <4 nm – >24 nm
    This processor has a higher process node than the average processor (14 nm vs 12 nm). The average processor uses a process node of 12 nm.
    14 nm vs 12 nm
  • 18.6% larger die size
    Die size
    210 mm²
    â–¼ Worse than 69% of models
    Market range: <99 mm² – >257 mm²
    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
  • 50% smaller L3 cache
    L3 cache
    4 MB
    â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
    Market range: <2 MB – >32 MB
    This processor has a lower L3 cache than the average processor (4 MB vs 8 MB). The average processor has L3 cache of 8 MB.
    4 MB vs 8 MB
  • 20% smaller L2 cache
    L2 cache
    2 MB
    â–¼ Worse than 51% of models
    Market range: <1 MB – >16 MB
    This processor has a lower L2 cache than the average processor (2 MB vs 2.5 MB). The average processor has L2 cache of 2.5 MB.
    2 MB vs 2.5 MB
  • 8 fewer PCIe lanes
    PCIe lane count
    8
    â–¼ Worse than 92% of models
    Market range: <10 – >30
    This processor has fewer PCIe lanes than the average processor (8 vs 16). The average processor offers 16 PCIe lanes.
    8 vs 16
  • Narrower media codec support
    Integrated media encoders/decoders
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode)
    â–² Better than 56% of models
    This processor supports fewer media codecs than the average processor (H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)).
    H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode) vs H.264 (HW decode/encode), H.265 (HW decode/encode), VP9 (HW decode/encode), AV1 (HW decode)
  • 44.4% higher base power
    Base power (PL1)
    65 W
    â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    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 TJ Max
    Maximum operating temperature (TJ Max)
    95 °C
    â–¼ Worse than 73% of models
    Market range: <95 °C – >105 °C
    This processor has a lower TJ Max than the average processor (95 °C vs 100 °C). The average processor has a TJ Max of 100 °C.
    95 °C vs 100 °C
  • 44.4% higher TDP
    TDP (Thermal design power)
    65 W
    â–¼ Worse than 70% of models
    Market range: <15 W – >90 W
    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

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

C
connect-living.de
04/06/2018
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen 5 2400G Review
(Translated)Show original
C
computerbase.de
12/02/2018
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G & 5 2400G Review: Desktop APUs with powerful GPUs make early Ryzen models obsolete
(Translated)Show original
V
valid.x86.fr
Non précisée
Summary of the review
CPU-Z Benchmark for AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2400G (24T)
(Translated)Show original
V
valid.x86.fr
Non précisée
Summary of the review
CPU-Z Benchmark for AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2400G (6T)
(Translated)Show original
H
hardwarecooking.fr
25/01/2018
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen 5 2400G Review: A Processor for Gaming Without a Graphics Card", "AMD Ryzen 5 2400G Test: The Budget Gaming Processor?
(Translated)Show original
T
tomshardware.fr
12/02/2018
Summary of the review
Ryzen 2200G and 2400G APU Review: Gaming Without a Graphics Card
(Translated)Show original
C
cowcotland.com
12/02/2018
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen 5 2400G Processor Review: RYZEN + VEGA in an APU
(Translated)Show original
C
comptoir-hardware.com
12/02/2018
Summary of the review
Review: AMD Ryzen R3 2200G / R5 2400G
(Translated)Show original
X
xataka.com
20/08/2018
Summary of the review
Ryzen 5 2400G Review: Higher Clocks and Integrated RX Vega 11 Graphics to Win Over Casual Gamers
(Translated)Show original
M
multiplayer.it
12/02/2018
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen 5 2400G and Ryzen 3 2200G Review", "Ryzen 5 2400G and Ryzen 3 2200G: The APU Review
(Translated)Show original
T
tech.everyeye.it
12/02/2018
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen 5 2400G and 2200G Review: APUs with Ryzen Vega Architecture
(Translated)Show original
T
tomshw.it
11/02/2018
Summary of the review
Ryzen 5 2400G and Ryzen 3 2200G review: when Zen meets Vega
(Translated)Show original
T
techtesters.eu
20/09/2019
Summary of the review
AMD Ryzen 5 Review & Buying Guide (Including Ryzen 5 APU Segmentation)
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

What we like about AMD Ryzen 5 Pro 2400G

  • Exceptional integrated graphics performance for the price, significantly outperforming Intel's competing IGPs like UHD 630.
  • Cost-effective solution for budget gaming as it eliminates the immediate need for a discrete graphics card.
  • Supports 8 threads via SMT (Simultaneous Multi-Threading), providing a noticeable advantage in multi-core productivity tasks over the Ryzen 3 2200G.
  • Highly compatible with the existing AM4 motherboard ecosystem, allowing for easy future CPU upgrades.
  • Fully unlocked for overclocking both the CPU and GPU cores, which can further bridge the gap with low-end dedicated cards.
  • Includes a capable stock cooler (Wraith Stealth) in the box, adding to the overall value for budget builders.

What we don't like about AMD Ryzen 5 Pro 2400G

  • General computing and single-threaded performance lags behind contemporary Intel Core i5 competitors.
  • Limited L3 cache (4MB) compared to non-APU Ryzen models, which can impact performance in certain data-hungry workloads.
  • Limited to 8 PCIe lanes, which may bottleneck higher-end discrete GPUs or cause issues with multiple NVMe drives if added later.
  • Sensitive to memory speeds; achieving peak performance requires more expensive, high-speed dual-channel RAM.
  • Questionable value proposition compared to the significantly cheaper Ryzen 3 2200G for strictly entry-level gaming.
  • Stock cooler may reach thermal limits quickly during aggressive overclocking or heavy combined CPU/GPU stress.

Verdict

The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2400G is a quad-core, 8-thread desktop APU based on the 14nm 'Zen' architecture, featuring a base clock of 3.6 GHz and a max boost of 3.9 GHz. Designed for the AM4 socket with a 65W TDP, it integrates powerful Radeon RX Vega 11 graphics with 11 compute units running up to 1250 MHz and supports DDR4-2933 memory. Its main advantages include the ability to handle 1080p gaming and content creation without a dedicated GPU, support for ECC memory, and enterprise-grade security and manageability features inherent to the 'PRO' line. However, it is limited by only 8 PCIe 3.0 lanes for discrete graphics, a relatively small 4MB L3 cache compared to non-APU Ryzen models, and high dependence on fast system RAM for optimal integrated graphics performance.

Compare AMD Ryzen 5 Pro 2400G 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 Pro 2400G and other processors

No results found