The major difference is that the Ryzen 5700g has Integrated Graphics on it while the 5700X doesn't have Integrated Graphics.
If you purchase the 5700g you wouldn't need a separate GPU Card. You will have video output from your Motherboard's video ports.
While with the 5700X you will need a separate GPU card to get video output.
Thanks for your help! So if I have a GTX1070 graphics card already installed, I can use a 5700x? If yes, I guess I can save a few bucks and just get the 5700x? You thoughts?
There's no 5700X. Do you mean 5600X?
Biggest differences between 5600X and 5700G aside from integrated graphics are that the 5600X is 6-core (vs 5700G 8-core), and the 5700G has half the L3 cache of the 5600X.
Look at some benchmarks and decide which one suits your needs better:
If you have a GTX 1070 ( I have the same GPU card also) I would go for the Ryzen 5700X when it comes out. But if you want a backup GPU in case your GPU card goes bad then you can always purchase the 5700G.
Depends on your your budget and what you want to do.
As far as I can tell, the 5700X is based on rumor and conjecture (that site even says as much), most of which is nearly a year old back when the 5000 series was released. AMD has never mentioned a 5700X, and with Zen3+ right around the corner, I don't see that it makes sense for them to release a new Zen3 SKU. But one never knows.
But I believe Romulas meant to say 5600X, because he said that the '5700X' was $100 cheaper than the 5700G ($359 retail) which is a real CPU. If AMD does release a 5700X, they're sure as poop not going to sell it for $259 which undercuts even the 5600X. They would price it between the 5600X and 5800X because that would be where it would fall performance wise more or less.
Ah, but those two sites (especially the ozarc.games one) are not legitimate tech sites with articles written by real people. They're examples of sites that are generated mostly by algorithms that scrub the Web and aggregate content, whether fact-based or not. Even if they end up close to the top of the list on search engine results (don't know if these two actually do or not, I'm just saying in general), does not grant them credibility.
So you do need to be careful - can't believe everything you read on the Internet.
That said, the possibility of a 5700X is at least somewhat believable because there is that gap between the 5600X and 5800X and it's strange that AMD hasn't filled it. But on the other hand, why wouldn't they have released it already along with the other 5000 series CPU's? They already have the OEM-only 5800 (65W TDP) which they could easily sell at retail as a 5700X with a couple of adjustments.
The fact that no legitimate tech site (e.g. TechPowerUp, Guru3D, Tom's Hardware, Anandtech, etc.) nor AMD itself has mentioned anything about an upcoming 5700X is telling to me.
Then again, anything could happen. But I wouldn't put money on it.
I couldn't find anything to prove what you mentioned about Ozarc gaming site. Webrate site rates it very safe website. Looks like a fairly new website.
but none the less I also couldn't verify the Ryzen 5700X anywhere mentioned nor a release date stated.
So I deleted and edited my previous replies until I am able to verify that the Ryzen 7 5700X actually exist or about an actual release date that can be proven.
Thanks for the correction.
EDIT: Found where most of the source came from concerning the 5700X from a DevOPS Engineer in a Tweet: https://twitter.com/patrickschur_/status/1318583939041271814
From a another Tech site:
Once again, thanks to Pat Schur, we have a basic idea of the specifications of AMD’s yet unannounced Ryzen 7 5700X and the Ryzen 9 5850X/5900 CPUs. As expected, the former is an octa-core chip while the latter is a twelve-core part, both featuring a TDP of just 65W. The 5700X will be based on one eight-core CCX with 32MB of L3 cache and 4MB of L2 cache per core while the 5900/5850X will be a dual-CCX part with 64MB of L3 cache and 6MB of L2 cache per core.
The reason why AMD nor any other as you called legitimate Tech sites haven't mentioned the processor is because AMD hasn't yet officially announced the processor. It might still be under development.
Look at the date of the first tweet - October of 2020, which was before any of the Ryzen 5000 series were released. Tweet said that the naming for these 2 CPU's had not been finalized.
Then look at his Dec 20th tweet - the CPU's were revealed to be the 5800 and 5900 (both non-X). Both are OEM CPU's that were then released a few weeks later.
So there is no 5700X. But apparently, some people/sites took his first tweet (missing or willfully ignoring the Dec 20th tweet that clarified the final names) and ran with it.
This is exactly how misinformation spreads.
Is it possible for AMD to release a 5700X? Of course, because anything's possible. But with Ryzen 6000 right around the corner, I'm not inclined to believe it will happen.