Discussion The GN review of the Pentium G7400, is a perfect example of what's wrong with big reviewers.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator CPU Forum Mod and Elite Member
Super Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
28,274
19,921
146
Prefacing my remarks: I am a fan of GN. They are the best PC tech journalists for consumer advocacy, hands down. And they are developing into an excellent technical reviewer as well. I have gone as far as to purchase merch to support them.

That said: The aforementioned review strikes me as being out of touch with the ultra budget gamer. The narrative that there is room for a sub 4GHz 2/4 CPU as a budget gamer, in 2022, is bad advice. And a prime example of how bar graphs fail dismally, in fully conveying the problems a user faces. Assets loading slowly or not at all, greatly inhibit a game's enjoyability, and adversely impact its playability. Take that, on top of the frame pacing issues they do mention. Now, add that it is priced against a $85 10100f 4/8 and B560M $90 board, and it makes even less sense.

The place holder argument falls flat for me. It cannot handle the latest demanding titles already. In my mind, that makes it a losing your place holder. :D It is also too closely priced to the 12100f. GN pushes the idea to spend enough on a board that it can handle a beefier CPU later. That money would be better spent on a 4/8 CPU to begin with.

None of this addresses the used market, as that is not a apples to apples comparison. And for value, it would further the argument that the G7400 should not even enter the discussion, for a build that needs to be capable of playing the latest titles.

This review is also a good example of why video reviews can be so helpful, when done correctly. While this is a video review, it never shows actual gameplay with the hardware. I have seen, and experienced for myself, NPCs missing, large parts of the scene missing and/or popping in, weird A.I. behavior, textures taking too long to load, hitching, stuttering, freezing, audio issues; all the things. I have read some here say they only like text and picture reviews. That has probably never been an issue for you, because you can afford hardware that does not experience any of those issues. But those written reviews will never convey the real gaming experience, that a gamer playing on weak hardware can do by streaming or recording.

Some free unsolicited advice for inexperienced DIYers that may read this. Do not let the reputation and warm feels big reviewers may have garnered, overly influence your purchasing decisions. Even the ones that buy the stuff themselves, are greatly limited by time constraints. You are better off finding a smaller youtuber that plays the games with the hardware you are interested in, testing games you want to play, or that have similar levels of demand, at the very least.

I am looking forward to contrary opinions being expressed; that is the best way to improve my own POV and maybe even change my mind on a topic. Provided the points made are compelling and not simply, passive aggressive insults, with no agenda other than to express your dislike of either myself, or my opinions. Though you can do that too. Water off a duck's back baby.

Nearly forgot the review :p

 
Last edited:

LightningZ71

Golden Member
Mar 10, 2017
1,627
1,898
136
I get the point here, and I agree that video reviews often do leave a lot to be desired. I prefer mixed media reviews that have a written section and a video section with a product demonstration. Those seem to do the best for my tastes.

As for budget gaming, I hardly even suggest actual PCs anymore. If you can't get by with a XBox Series S, and you MUST have a functional computer, then I push people in one of two directions. If you only plan to play e-sports and just do office and web work on a computer, there are MANY sub $400 laptops out there, both new and refurb, that have enough of an iGPU to get you where you need to be. If you combine all the parts to make that "budget" desktop PC, you'll always pay more for no better.

If you HAVE to play first person shooters and the higher end games, you can regularly find 1650/6 core laptops for less than $600. You can find good models in the refurb market for less. Finding 3050, 6 core laptops for less than $700 is also not too much of a challenge.

Yes, up front, that's a chunk of change, but unless someone has used parts laying around, you are NOT beating that performance for that money.

I even put my noney where my mouth is and bought my youngest son a 4600h/1650 laptop last year, new, with a three year full coverage warranty for less than $700 from a major retailer. It plays everything he's thrown at it well enough to be enjoyable.
 

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator CPU Forum Mod and Elite Member
Super Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
28,274
19,921
146
I don't want to come off like I don't appreciate what these big reviewers do. Even if I find their gaming related content lackluster. It is important to maintain context though. I often see entire debate positions based on the data, and that data is far from a complete picture. I feel like the data they provide is much more useful for higher end parts. Long story short, I don't think most of them grok the low budget scene. Gotta be down in the trenches to get the flavor maybe?
 

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator CPU Forum Mod and Elite Member
Super Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
28,274
19,921
146
G7400 do come with iGPU so it does have its place over 1x100F CPUs. Just not as a core component of a ultra budget gaming PC.
I don't think most of us disagree with that. The $86 cheap Intel budget gaming CPU headline is the issue here.
 

SteveGrabowski

Diamond Member
Oct 20, 2014
6,794
5,752
136
I hated when the Pentium G3258 got everyone doing those kind of placeholder builds with the high end Z97 board. Like why would you pay $60 for a crap cpu you would replace and $110 for a Z97 board when you could have just paid $110 for an i3 that would run everything great and $60 for a B85 board that let you do everything but overclock?

I got a G3258 in 2014 because I bought it back when I didn't care about PC gaming and needed something faster than my Athlon64 from 2006, but then when I got the itch to get back into PC gaming I couldn't believe how garbage that cpu was in AAA gaming even OC'ed to 4.3 GHz when newegg shipped my GTX 970 a week and a half earlier than the Xeon E3-1231v3 I ordered to pair it with. Agreed with @DAPUNISHER about how useful it would be to show just how ugly it was playing games on a Pentium. How my framerate would constantly oscillate between 80 fps and 40 fps like a periodic sine wave in games like Tomb Raider 2013 or Middle Earth Shadow of Mordor. I imagine 2C/4T in 2022 has to be a lot like what that 2C/2T was like in 2014.
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
24,998
3,326
126
The video format shows the audience how the product behaves in gaming, allowing them to judge whether the tradeoff is acceptable to them. That is something that cannot be easily translated in written form, making the review even more subjective.
There is no reason that a written review can't have a link to a video. Best of both worlds.
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
24,998
3,326
126
The reason why the strategy of 'buy a cheap CPU and replace it later' may work for some is because of cashflow issues. @dullard Poor people are completely used to the idea of getting financially screwed due to lack of buying power, why on earth do you think computer hardware finances would be any different? The entire model is unfair. One works with what one has.
It is true that it is expensive to be poor. That said, in the context of needs vs wants, a new gaming computer that you can't afford is pretty easy to put on hold. Wait until you can afford it.
 

maddogmcgee

Senior member
Apr 20, 2015
384
303
136
I don't want to come off like I don't appreciate what these big reviewers do. Even if I find their gaming related content lackluster. It is important to maintain context though. I often see entire debate positions based on the data, and that data is far from a complete picture. I feel like the data they provide is much more useful for higher end parts. Long story short, I don't think most of them grok the low budget scene. Gotta be down in the trenches to get the flavor maybe?

I doubt he games but I think Steve has mentioned his home computer runs a 8150. If that ain't fighting in the trenches I don't know what is.:cool:
 

Zucker2k

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2006
1,810
1,159
136
There is simply no scenario where the G7400 makes sense to me for the N.A. market in 2022. There are better BNIB CPUs in the same price range. Which results in my having trouble with why that review was not dunking on it?

I think it is important to distinguish AM4 as standing apart from the upgrading CPU roast. It is the one platform where upgrading CPUs later turned out to be a legit strategy.
I think it's perfectly legit for cash-strapped gamer to build around the lga 1700 platform, and even starting off with the ADL G7400 pentium and ending up on a RPL i9 13900k. I would do that, if the funds are not there, which is the only stumbling block for anyone not investing in a more performant cpu in the first place.

AM4 shouldn't be an exception here. Imagine the range of chips you could go through if you went from an ADL i3 and ended up on an i7 or i9 RPL.
 

jpiniero

Lifer
Oct 1, 2010
14,510
5,159
136
What I don't get is, why Intel didn't make the Pentium Gold G7400, either 4C/4T or 4.0Ghz, or both.

Yields. Pentium and Celeron is where they take out the trash and they are intentionally meant to be nothing more than that.

If Raptor Lake's small die has small cores, it's a given that Pentium and Celeron will be 1+4 like the mobile parts are.

Can't wait for a Youtuber to get their hands on a Celeron 7305 laptop and freak out and not understand this.
 

epsilon84

Golden Member
Aug 29, 2010
1,142
927
136
I gotta agree here, there is a 'baseline' config to avoid stuttering/frame pacing issues and we are well past the point where a 2C/4T CPU for any serious gaming is going to cut it. The extra $25 for an i3 12100F would be money well spent, though I'd still argue LGA 1700 boards are too expensive for budget builds. The sub $100 mobos on offer are just awful with weak VRM implementations and I couldn't truely recommend them to anyone.

Honestly, if your budget is so tight that the only CPU you can afford is a G7400, you're much better off going the used route, or just save up a bit more so you can build a proper gaming PC without severe compromises.
 

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator CPU Forum Mod and Elite Member
Super Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
28,274
19,921
146
I doubt he games but I think Steve has mentioned his home computer runs a 8150. If that ain't fighting in the trenches I don't know what is.:cool:
Which he didn't use for anything intense. He said if he wanted to game or something, which he has very little time for, he uses the systems at work. Knowing it sucks compared to new stuff is not the same as being stuck with it as your only system. Even then, my experience with the FX 8350 is far better than his has been with FX. Akin to the placebo effect perhaps; your thinking impacts the results.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and Ranulf

epsilon84

Golden Member
Aug 29, 2010
1,142
927
136
Why do people care about VRMs when running a low end CPU like this? There is just way more bang for buck to spend more on CPU.
Because it leaves little room for upgrades to faster CPUs in the future without VRM overheating which leads to CPU throttling:


The worst B660 mobos for example are hitting 100C on the VRMs and as a result are throttling on even a mid range 12600K CPU. Let's not talk about the 12700 or 12900K results, since I'll admit people looking at those higher end CPUs should probably invest in a Z690 mobo anyway.

So if you get a dirt cheap B660 mobo with an i3 12100F for example, you're literally limited to (at most) an upgrade to a 12400 in future without serious performance penalties due to VRM throttling.

When half decent B660 mobos drop below $100, that is when I'll call LGA 1700 a good budget platform. As it stands, the relatively higher cost of the mobos eats into the savings on the CPU side. I'll honestly much rather a Ryzen 5600 + B550 at this point for maybe $20 more overall platform cost.
 
Last edited:

lobz

Platinum Member
Feb 10, 2017
2,057
2,856
136
Prefacing my remarks: I am a fan of GN. They are the best PC tech journalists for consumer advocacy, hands down. And they are developing into an excellent technical reviewer as well. I have gone as far as to purchase merch to support them.

That said: The aforementioned review strikes me as being out of touch with the ultra budget gamer. The narrative that there is room for a sub 4GHz 2/4 CPU as a budget gamer, in 2022, is bad advice. And a prime example of how bar graphs fail dismally, in fully conveying the problems a user faces. Assets loading slowly or not at all, greatly inhibit a game's enjoyability, and adversely impact its playability. Take that, on top of the frame pacing issues they do mention. Now, add that it is priced against a $85 10100f 4/8 and B560M $90 board, and it makes even less sense.

The place holder argument falls flat for me. It cannot handle the latest demanding titles already. In my mind, that makes it a losing your place holder. :D It is also too closely priced to the 12100f. GN pushes the idea to spend enough on a board that it can handle a beefier CPU later. That money would be better spent on a 4/8 CPU to begin with.

None of this addresses the used market, as that is not a apples to apples comparison. And for value, it would further the argument that the G7400 should not even enter the discussion, for a build that needs to be capable of playing the latest titles.

This review is also a good example of why video reviews can be so helpful, when done correctly. While this is a video review, it never shows actual gameplay with the hardware. I have seen, and experienced for myself, NPCs missing, large parts of the scene missing and/or popping in, weird A.I. behavior, textures taking too long to load, hitching, stuttering, freezing, audio issues; all the things. I have read some here say they only like text and picture reviews. That has probably never been an issue for you, because you can afford hardware that does not experience any of those issues. But those written reviews will never convey the real gaming experience, that a gamer playing on weak hardware can do by streaming or recording.

Some free unsolicited advice for inexperienced DIYers that may read this. Do not let the reputation and warm feels big reviewers may have garnered, overly influence your purchasing decisions. Even the ones that buy the stuff themselves, are greatly limited by time constraints. You are better off finding a smaller youtuber that plays the games with the hardware you are interested in, testing games you want to play, or that have similar levels of demand, at the very least.

I am looking forward to contrary opinions being expressed; that is the best way to improve my own POV and maybe even change my mind on a topic. Provided the points made are compelling and not simply, passive aggressive insults, with no agenda other than to express your dislike of either myself, or my opinions. Though you can do that too. Water off a duck's back baby.

Nearly forgot the review :p

spot on post 👌👌👌
 

bigboxes

Lifer
Apr 6, 2002
38,485
11,942
146
Agreed @DAPUNISHER. Would not recommend this CPU to anyone other than old ladies that surf the net and check their e-mail. Throw in some productivity tasks. Anything CPU intensive, forget it. I appreciate the review. I don't buy cheap systems just to play with them. I do have a recent G4400 that I purchased when my file server died. Threw in a used i7 6700 and the G4400 sits in a shoe box somewhere.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DAPUNISHER

SteveGrabowski

Diamond Member
Oct 20, 2014
6,794
5,752
136
When half decent B660 mobos drop below $100, that is when I'll call LGA 1700 a good budget platform. As it stands, the relatively higher cost of the mobos eats into the savings on the CPU side. I'll honestly much rather a Ryzen 5600 + B550 at this point for maybe $20 more overall platform cost.

You mean the $200 5600 that releases in 2 weeks or the $230 5600X? Curious, why would you pay more for it than i5-12400 + B660 when the 12400 seems to win (slightly) in gaming benchmarks vs the 5600X?
 

lobz

Platinum Member
Feb 10, 2017
2,057
2,856
136
I get the point here, and I agree that video reviews often do leave a lot to be desired. I prefer mixed media reviews that have a written section and a video section with a product demonstration. Those seem to do the best for my tastes.

As for budget gaming, I hardly even suggest actual PCs anymore. If you can't get by with a XBox Series S, and you MUST have a functional computer, then I push people in one of two directions. If you only plan to play e-sports and just do office and web work on a computer, there are MANY sub $400 laptops out there, both new and refurb, that have enough of an iGPU to get you where you need to be. If you combine all the parts to make that "budget" desktop PC, you'll always pay more for no better.

If you HAVE to play first person shooters and the higher end games, you can regularly find 1650/6 core laptops for less than $600. You can find good models in the refurb market for less. Finding 3050, 6 core laptops for less than $700 is also not too much of a challenge.

Yes, up front, that's a chunk of change, but unless someone has used parts laying around, you are NOT beating that performance for that money.

I even put my noney where my mouth is and bought my youngest son a 4600h/1650 laptop last year, new, with a three year full coverage warranty for less than $700 from a major retailer. It plays everything he's thrown at it well enough to be enjoyable.
I usually agree with most of your sentiments, but man, playing almost ANYTHING on a sub-$400 laptop, let alone esport titles, is so excruciatingly painful, I can't even express. Autochess, hearthstone or solitary maybe, or some old, turn based thing like heroes of might and magic 3 😂
 
  • Haha
Reactions: DAPUNISHER

epsilon84

Golden Member
Aug 29, 2010
1,142
927
136
You mean the $200 5600 that releases in 2 weeks or the $230 5600X? Curious, why would you pay more for it than i5-12400 + B660 when the 12400 seems to win (slightly) in gaming benchmarks vs the 5600X?

Yeah, I meant the upcoming $200 5600, even though the argument can be applied to the 5600X also since that has had a price cut recently.

Basically, as it stands, you save at least $50 on a B550 mobo compared to a B660 mobo with comparable features (and decent VRMs). Decent quality B550 mobos can be found as low as $100, whereas you'll need to spend at least $150 to get a comparable B660 mobo.

So an i5 12400 ($200) + B660 ($150) will actually end up costing more than a 5600 ($200) + B550 ($100) for roughly the same performance. Any difference in gaming performance will be negligible at this price point since budget gamers will likely be GPU limited.

Of course, you can go even cheaper and get an i3 12100F ($110) + low end B660 ($100) for a grand total of $210, and this will actually achieve similar gaming performance to the more expensive combos listed above, at least when paired with realistic budget to mid range GPUs. The drawback is that you are left with a bare bones mobo that has poor future upgradeability due to poor VRMs.
 
Last edited:

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
17,575
9,266
136
It is true that it is expensive to be poor. That said, in the context of needs vs wants, a new gaming computer that you can't afford is pretty easy to put on hold. Wait until you can afford it.

Often life gets in the way of the optimal timing of purchases. A gaming PC could be the family PC for schoolwork and everything else, the old one dies, etc.
 

SteveGrabowski

Diamond Member
Oct 20, 2014
6,794
5,752
136
So an i5 12400 ($200) + B660 ($150) will actually end up costing more than a 5600 ($200) + B550 ($100) for roughly the same performance. Any difference in gaming performance will be negligible at this price point since budget gamers will likely be GPU limited.

I guess I'm in that rare group that has a weak gpu (1660 Super) but would still be cpu limited in my main use case, which is RPCS3 and Yuzu emulation lol. Though not sure either emulator is in a good enough state yet to warrant doing an entire platform upgrade just for them.
 

epsilon84

Golden Member
Aug 29, 2010
1,142
927
136
I guess I'm in that rare group that has a weak gpu (1660 Super) but would still be cpu limited in my main use case, which is RPCS3 and Yuzu emulation lol. Though not sure either emulator is in a good enough state yet to warrant doing an entire platform upgrade just for them.

Even when CPU limited (1080P with GTX 3080 or 6900XT) I have yet to see where a 5600X is slower than a 12400 in gaming overall. Its pretty close and they trade blows depending on the game. If anything, the 5600X appears to be slightly faster than a 12400:

 
  • Like
Reactions: Saylick and Tlh97

Insert_Nickname

Diamond Member
May 6, 2012
4,971
1,691
136
It is true that it is expensive to be poor. That said, in the context of needs vs wants, a new gaming computer that you can't afford is pretty easy to put on hold. Wait until you can afford it.

Also depends on how you define "gaming computer". There are plenty of excellent games that'll literally run on a potato. If you can live without the latest AAA titles, there is plenty to enjoy out there.

Yields. Pentium and Celeron is where they take out the trash and they are intentionally meant to be nothing more than that.

If Raptor Lake's small die has small cores, it's a given that Pentium and Celeron will be 1+4 like the mobile parts are.

Can't wait for a Youtuber to get their hands on a Celeron 7305 laptop and freak out and not understand this.

At least there'll actually BE a large core present. I suppose that's a sort of improvement in the ultra low-end...