AMD Ryzen 5 2400G and Ryzen 3 2200G APUs performance unveiled

[PeterScott]

I don't see how that is a problem when post #230 specifically mentions 720p performance. APUs like these are still a long way from providing reliable 1080p, 30fps console level performance. If you intend to game with an APU, then you should be prepared for sub-1080p resolutions when playing AAA games.

I'm interested to see Wolfenstein 2 on this APU. Since it is compute heavy an uses Vulkan - cards with more CUDA cores, even the old ones like the 750Ti, utterly destroy the GT 1030.

Just because some people will accept 720p, doesn't mean we all will. If I was on a laptop 720p would probably be good enough, but not on my 24" desktop monitor. So hopes of getting an APU system to hold me over until GPU madness subsides, evaporates.

 

[whm1974]

Just because some people will accept 720p, doesn't mean we all will. If I was on a laptop 720p would probably be good enough, but not on my 24" desktop monitor. So hopes of getting an APU system to hold me over until GPU madness subsides, evaporates.

Well with the 2400G along with some 3200 memory, you should be able to get 1080p at playable fps set low details depending on the games.

 

[Peter Watts]

TBH, it will be best to wait until the reviews are out before we can answer your question.

Yeah i lack patience lol... But thanks for replying!!!

 

[rainy]

Just because some people will accept 720p, doesn't mean we all will. If I was on a laptop 720p would probably be good enough, but not on my 24" desktop monitor. So hopes of getting an APU system to hold me over until GPU madness subsides, evaporates.

If I remember correctly you have a very old graphics card, then why you're complaining about IGP performance of 2200G which is or rather would be definitely better?

 

[PeterScott]

If I remember correctly you have a very old graphics card, then why you're complaining about IGP performance of 2200G which is or rather would be definitely better?

The only way in which my old computer falls short for me is playing Witcher 3.

If this APU does not play Witcher 3 to my satisfaction, then there is no point spending money upgrading to it.

I will wait for a solution that actually addresses my shortfall before I upgrade.

 

[whm1974]

The only way in which my old computer falls short for me is playing Witcher 3.

If this APU does not play Witcher 3 to my satisfaction, then there is no point spending money upgrading to it.

I will wait for a solution that actually addresses my shortfall before I upgrade.

Keep in mind you could settle for playable graphics now for Witcher 3 @720p and upgrade with a dGPU later once prices go down, or just get a 1050Ti which can play games 1080p just fine.

 

[PeterScott]

Keep in mind you could settle for playable graphics now for Witcher 3 @720p and upgrade with a dGPU later once prices go down, or just get a 1050Ti which can play games 1080p just fine.

I am aware of what I can do, and with current prices, I will wait for better options.

 

[whm1974]

I am aware of what I can do, and with current prices, I will wait for better options.

That will probably be best to wait first.

 

[The Stilt]

If this APU does not play Witcher 3 to my satisfaction, then there is no point spending money upgrading to it.

RX 550 does ~33fps average and ~27fps minimum in Witcher 3 at 1080P with medium settings.
R5 2400G paired with 3200MHz memory is ~20% slower than the RX 550, so at least 1080P will be a nogo.

 

[tamz_msc]

750 ti = 86GB/s memory, 1030 = 48GB/s memory

it's 384 vs 640 SPs but the 1030 runs games around 1600Mhz by default, the reference 750 ti around 1150 (according to reviews, the boost clock in the specs is lower for both)

are you sure this destruction is due to compute and not memory again?

the difference in bandwidth between the 750 ti and 1030 is bigger than "compute", and the APU is even more bandwidth bottlenecked (CPU sharing, less efficient usage of memory than Pascal)

It is limited by compute because Wolfenstein 2 performance on a RX 550 at 720p low/medium is almost the same as RX 560 at 1080p low/medium. Those cards have ~100MHz difference in core clocks but identical in terms of memory bandwidth.

 

[french toast]

RX 550 does ~33fps average and ~27fps minimum in Witcher 3 at 1080P with medium settings.
R5 2400G paired with 3200MHz memory is ~20% slower than the RX 550, so at least 1080P will be a nogo.

Overclocked 2400g with >3200mhz ram will handle 1080p low setting just fine.
15w 2500U with 2400mhz memory handles 720p medium at 30fps.

2500u..1080p low 18-22fps.
720p (optimised/medium) 30fps lock.
https://youtu.be/OVXn9iAEwSI

 

[mohit9206]

When people say u could get the 2200G and later get a dgpu down the road, that's assuming the person is ok waiting to get a dgpu later and in the meantime bear with the weak integrated graphics. If the person is ok with that then 2200G makes the most sense over the G4560.
However if the person just cannot wait and must have decent gaming performance right away, then the G4560+1050 combo cannot be beat.
It's all just a question of can you wait a few months for a better gpu or not?
Also even if the person cannot wait and ends up getting g4560+1050, its not like he will have to stick with g4560 for his entire life. Couple of years down, one could always upgrade to any kaby like i5/i7. It's not like kaby Lake cpu will disappear from the used market anytime soon.
Personally i have just about enough money to afford a 2200G and 1050ti right off the bat so I'll have great gaming performance straight away.

Sent from my Redmi 5A using Tapatalk

 

[rainy]

When people say u could get the 2200G and later get a dgpu down the road, that's assuming the person is ok waiting to get a dgpu later and in the meantime bear with the weak integrated graphics. If the person is ok with that then 2200G makes the most sense over the G4560.

Again this argument: you can add GTX 1050 to 2200G also and you have a decent quad core instead of dual core with HT.
For now G4560 could be enough, however I would be not so sure it will be continue in the next 12-18 months.

Btw, strong IGP of 2200GP is a nice add value which allows you a light gaming and it's not a replacement for low-end graphics card like GTX 1050.

 

[IRobot23]

How about iGPU acceleration? how well will do HSA mode?

I mean IF should provide really good distribution of memory bandwidth between cpu and gpu. Specially with HBCC this could make really good APU.

 

[Shivansps]

Yeah all this talk about how the 2200G's iGPU would fare in Witcher 3 using performance results from the A8-9600 is pretty pointless if people keep forgetting that those cores are Zen. Here is the 2500U in the the HP Envy running Witcher 3 at 720p with a 30fps cap using a mix of low-medium-high settings.

https://youtu.be/OVXn9iAEwSI?t=2m34s

I used the A8-9600 result as the perpective of what offers the top selling APU right now.

I used the I5-7400+GT1030 as what to consider the best case escenario for a 2200/2400G performance.

And i still dont see how that can be possible, in order to get GT1030 level of performance we are talking about at least 80% improvement over the A12-9800, i dont think thats possible.

BTW, that 2500U result is terrible bad. It matches the desktop A8-9600 with DDR4-2400 rams.

 

[rainy]

BTW, that 2500U result is terrible bad. It matches the desktop A8-9600 with DDR4-2400 rams.

Are you really understanding that you're comparing mobile chip with cTDP in 12-25W range with desktop APU at 45-65W TDP?

Btw, I would be grateful if you could stop your crusade against Raven Ridge because it become really annoying.

 

[Shivansps]

Are you really understanding that you're comparing mobile chip with cTDP in 12-25W range with desktop APU at 45-65W TDP?

Btw, I would be grateful if you could stop your crusade against Raven Ridge because it become really annoying.

Yes, so? I was not the one to bring it up as a comparison.

And im free to say wharever i want. Also im not in a crusade against anything. If you dont like it, there is a BIG X on the top left, use it.

 

[PeterScott]

Overclocked 2400g with >3200mhz ram will handle 1080p low setting just fine.
15w 2500U with 2400mhz memory handles 720p medium at 30fps.

2500u..1080p low 18-22fps.
720p (optimised/medium) 30fps lock.
https://youtu.be/OVXn9iAEwSI

Realistically. How many people even get RAM >3200 MHz working with AMD motherboards, and have you seen what 3600MHz RAM costs? The point of going with an APU is saving money.

By AMDs own OC numbers. More reasonable 3200 MHz RAM + OC, yielded about 23% improvement.

18-22 FPS + 23% = 22-27 fps at LOW. That is NOT just fine.

 

[tamz_msc]

BTW, that 2500U result is terrible bad. It matches the desktop A8-9600 with DDR4-2400 rams.

It's bad if you look at it devoid of context - which is what you're doing. If a 15-25W cTDP laptop APU can almost match a 45-65W cTDP desktop APU from the previous generation, then by what measure is up to 3x perf/(thermal) watts bad?

It would seem that many people here have extremely unreasonable expectations about what this type of product can do - this will no way be the barrier to entry for 1080p 30fps gaming at console-level quality. 100-120$ GPUs have been the requirement for that purpose, at least since the GTX 750Ti, if not earlier.

Raven Ridge desktop will not change that.

 

[french toast]

Realistically. How many people even get RAM >3200 MHz working with AMD motherboards, and have you seen what 3600MHz RAM costs? The point of going with an APU is saving money.

By AMDs own OC numbers. More reasonable 3200 MHz RAM + OC, yielded about 23% improvement.

18-22 FPS + 23% = 22-27 fps at LOW. That is NOT just fine.

The difference will be greater than that, 15w Apu Vs 65w (not including overclock).
Besides, I think the Ryzen 2400g test was 2667mhz ram baseline?
15w Apu have 2400mhz (every little helps )
25-30fps Witcher 3 is playable as that is basically what consoles are.

Personally I would rather 720p high/ultra.

 

[french toast]

Again this argument: you can add GTX 1050 to 2200G also and you have a decent quad core instead of dual core with HT.
For now G4560 could be enough, however I would be not so sure it will be continue in the next 12-18 months.

Btw, strong IGP of 2200GP is a nice add value which allows you a light gaming and it's not a replacement for low-end graphics card like GTX 1050.

Exactly!, The class leading igp is just a brucey bonus, slap a 1050ti on there and buy cheap ram instead.
AMD gives you a choice.

 

[PeterScott]

Exactly!, The class leading igp is just a brucey bonus, slap a 1050ti on there and buy cheap ram instead.
AMD gives you a choice.

If you are buying a dGPU anyway, what real benefit is a more powerful APU/IGP?

It looks like a total tossup with an i3-8100 if you are running a dGPU:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnADhTqytLE

IMO the only point of this part on desktop is if you are going run it without a dGPU.

 

[Shivansps]

It's bad if you look at it devoid of context - which is what you're doing. If a 15-25W cTDP laptop APU can almost match a 45-65W cTDP desktop APU from the previous generation, then by what measure is up to 3x perf/(thermal) watts bad?.

Considering this is a long waited upgrade to the mobile line featuring the best top of the line cpu and igp tech and is struggling to run a 3 years old game at 720p? yes its bad. If tdp is the problem they should have set the bar a little bit higher. BUT for me the IGP is the problem there, as even the dreadfull Athlon 5150 AM1 cpus can run W3 if paired with a 750TI.
If not bad its at least dissapointing.

But that was not really the point here, im not sure with you bring the 2500U into the comparison? I just wanted to point out how huge a 1050 upgrade is compared to any IGP no matter how good it is in comparison, and thats is also the people choice over better igps.

It would seem that many people here have extremely unreasonable expectations about what this type of product can do - this will no way be the barrier to entry for 1080p 30fps gaming at console-level quality. 100-120$ GPUs have been the requirement for that purpose, at least since the GTX 750Ti, if not earlier.

Raven Ridge desktop will not change that.

Well thats exactly what i mean.

 

[Shivansps]

If you are buying a dGPU anyway, what real benefit is a more powerful APU/IGP?

It looks like a total tossup with an i3-8100 if you are running a dGPU:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnADhTqytLE

IMO the only point of this part on desktop is if you are going run it without a dGPU.

Well i guess if you buy a Vega 8 dGPU you can crossfire it with the igp, i will strongly advise against that trought.

Also i dont see the point on that comment, this i not AMD vs intel, this is more price/pertf value of APU vs dGPUs.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

If you are buying a dGPU anyway, what real benefit is a more powerful APU/IGP?

It looks like a total tossup with an i3-8100 if you are running a dGPU

Nothing. But you are getting 8100 performance for ~$35 less then. And that's excluding mainboard cost.