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

[frozentundra123456]

Who's talking about gaming? And AMD APU now has equal CPU power and much better GPU power for a very competitive price. The question should be this one. Why would a knowledgeable buyer get an Intel APU?

Because the cpu is at least as good, proba

Your trolling in this thread become really annoying: since when 2200G IGP would have more bandwith?
On paper, 128-bit bus and DDR4-3200 it's slightly more than 64-bit bus and GDDR5 6000 MHz, however bandwith must be shared between CPU and IGP.

I see you only have name calling to resort to now. Nice.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Who's talking about gaming? And AMD APU now has equal CPU power and much better GPU power for a very competitive price. The question should be this one. Why would a knowledgeable buyer get an Intel APU?

Because it has better ipc for gaming, can reach about 20 to 25 % faster clockspeed, and I would add a dgpu?

I certainly would not buy an intel "APU" to game on the igp, just like I would not buy an AMD apu to game on the igp either.

 

[USER8000]

Because it has better ipc for gaming and can reach about 20 to 25 % faster clockspeed perhaps?

The closest competitor is the 3.6GHZ Core i3 8100,which is actually lower clocked than the 3.5GHZ to 3.7GHZ 2200G which also can be overclocked if required on cheaper motherboards. IPC,will be higher with the Core i3,but the 2200G is only a single CCX design,not a dual CCX which might actually help in some games.

Oh,another consideration is price:

https://www.amazon.com/Intel-BX80684I38100-Core-i3-8100-Processor/dp/B0759FTRZL
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117822

Amazon has the Core i3 8100 for $129 and Newegg has the CPU for $129. The 2200G RRP is $99.

Look at the motherboard pricing in addition to this - you can only use the Z370 chipset,and according to computerbase.de,the rest of the Coffee Lake launch might have additional delays.

 

[maddie]

Because it has better ipc for gaming, can reach about 20 to 25 % faster clockspeed, and I would add a dgpu?

I certainly would not buy an intel "APU" to game on the igp, just like I would not buy an AMD apu to game on the igp either.

Its not about what you would buy. In my country, most (90% +) do not get a GPU card. There is a large part of the world like that.

As an example, I recently priced some 1050Ti cards. Was told by the store that they don't stock high-end cards. Go figure. Luckily for me, I can get stuff in The US and have it shipped cheaply to my address.

 

[Shivansps]

Yes we know the APU has better IGP than a I3, it has been like this for like 7 years now. Thats really no news.

I would keep Intel out of this at least until the G5400, I3-8020, I3-8000 and H310 launches, what should be soon. There it will remain to be seen if OEMs choose to go with integrated wifi and BT, what will give Intel an avantage over non gaming builds.

Trying to cram the 8100 with Z370 as a comparison here makes no sence. The cpu cost more than $100 and there is no low end mbs.

 

[Shivansps]

Its not about what you would buy. In my country, most (90% +) do not get a GPU card. There is a large part of the world like that.

As an example, I recently priced some 1050Ti cards. Was told by the store that they don't stock high-end cards. Go figure. Luckily for me, I can get stuff in The US and have it shipped cheaply to my address.

I can understand that im in the same spot here, but you need to consider two things:

1) Most people does not need an APU, specially not a big one, most people only use the IGP for common tasks and at most facebook/flash/html5 games, what even the Intel IGP can handle OK. Worse case scenario they want to run a game like CS:GO, LOL, Dota, maybe fifa? what even Intel IGP can do so. A4-7300, G3930, A6-9500 they can all do this. This is also why i said AMD should launch a $50 Ryzen 2/4 with 3 CU. That would be way more disruptive than the other 2, because that one would be able to run PUBG and overwatch and that would be HUGE.

2) Nobody on its right mind should buy a brand new gaming pc with a GT1030, people tend to jump directly intro GTX1050, either the regular or the TI one, I never ever trought about offering such a thing as a gaming pc, thats something that was invented in this very tropic. The GT1030 has other uses, generaly a cheap card for people that already has a PC.

 

[USER8000]

The A8 9600 on the AM4 platform already can run Overwatch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoDKQv80xYw

It has a 6 CU GPU,ie,384 shaders.

PUBG on A8 9600:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JH5GEPufPZ8

In the UK,the A8 9600 is cheaper than the Pentium G4560.

A comparison of G4560 against an A8 9600:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4z6XmPr0HBE

The cheaper A8 9600 on AM4 is based on ancient tech still utterly destroys it in 99% of games and more importantly the AMD APU has extra performance so you can increase resolution and settings over the Intel G4560. Even Skyrim cannot run well enough on the G4560 and that is an old game,on an Intel friendly engine. Look at FIFA18 and the series is a popular game. The G4560 can barely get 30FPS,and has dips under 20FPS and the A8 9600 gets over double that and this is at 720p. There are games which can't even start on the G4560 thanks in no part to the Intel graphics drivers having problems.

Intel even hired AMD to make a graphics chip for them and hired one of their key graphics guys. That tells you even Intel does not think its graphics are good when they need to reach out to a competitor to help them. The only people defending Intel graphics seem to be PCMR enthusiasts on tech forums, which is even more ridiculous when Intel has apparently given up on their current line of graphics chips,and admitted defeat.

Looking at the performance of the A8 9600,the 2200G has faster cores and a faster graphics chip.

The Core i3 8100 for the CPU alone is $130,and the Ryzen 3 2200G is $99 and hoping for cheaper motherboards still won't save it,unless it has a price cut.

The G4560 is on old platform with expensive CPUs.

AMD has a 2C/4T part with 3CU for mobile:

https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Ryzen-3-2200U-SoC.277344.0.html

If AMD release a cut down 2C/4T part with 6CU,then I hate to think how the Pentium lineup will look in consideration.

The 2200G is easily going to be a great value for money CPU and a great value for money APU,unless there is some weirdness with it.

 

[USER8000]

Yes we know the APU has better IGP than a I3, it has been like this for like 7 years now. Thats really no news.

I would keep Intel out of this at least until the G5400, I3-8020, I3-8000 and H310 launches, what should be soon. There it will remain to be seen if OEMs choose to go with integrated wifi and BT, what will give Intel an avantage over non gaming builds.

Trying to cram the 8100 with Z370 as a comparison here makes no sence. The cpu cost more than $100 and there is no low end mbs.

Actually apparently not soon if this is true:

https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https://www.computerbase.de/2018-01/sard-verbinnen-intel-spectre-meltdown/&edit-text=

Intel postpones product launches
Internally, the problems of recent weeks at Intel have already caused the shifts of new products. New CPUs and motherboards now without the right patches to publish, would probably only pour oil into the fire, so the upcoming launches are once exposed. Of these, in addition to the new NUCs with Gemini Lake and Kaby Lake-G probably also affected Coffee Lake , whose second wave of CPUs and motherboards is already in the starting blocks. For CES 2018 , these were already behind closed doors to see whether the known date of late Q1 or April can be held, but now remains questionable.

Oh,some other problems here,those cheaper Core i3 CPUs still have worse integrated graphics and even lower clockspeeds. The B series midrange boards from Intel will cost the same as the B350 AMD boards,and you can't overclock. The Intel stock cooler is not even comparable to the AMD Ryzen coolers now. Oh,and there is the Spectre/Meltdown patches which will drop performance on the Intel CPUs as shown by DigitalFoundry and a few other review sites. Even if its not much as an average,with the lower clockspeeds on the cheaper Core i3 chips,this still puts the 2200G in a good position unless it has some weirdness in CPU performance.

Also,trying to waiting for the H310 will do nothing since Ryzen quad cores and I would expect the Ryzen APUs as well have low power consumption and can run perfectly fine in the cheapest A320 motherboard. Many also forget a little thing about Ryzen - it's a system on chip. A separate chipset chip is not required,as it only adds more functions. So if push comes to shove,AMD can push out a very low end motherboard series just using the ports on chip itself. What did you think the mooted A300 chipset was??

The main issue in general after reading this thread is I think many younger enthusiasts,think AMD competing on performance,and offering solid value is so unbelievable they have gone into denial. They are so used to just getting Intel automatically since AMD screwed up with the construction series of cores. Many of us oldies remember AMD from the late 1990s until Core2 was launched,it was not an unusual thing at all to have this. Even the Phenom II was competitive to a level,but Ryzen is far more competitive at multiple levels than that release.

 

[whm1974]

I built two of my first DIY systems using Socket A CPUs, and yes they better and cheaper then Intel at the time.

 

[tamz_msc]

So you decided to weigh in with your epic length, over selling post.

What makes your choice of games more valid than mine?

Witcher 3, is a game I mentioned because it is the ONLY game I can't play on my old computer, that I actually want to play, and is thus, a driver for my new computer upgrade decisions.

Most of us probably already have computers that can handle older, and lighter weight games, and if we are buying something new in 2018+ it will be to play newer, more intensive titles.

If you're that desperate to play Witcher 3 just grab a GTX 1050 or RX 560. You won't have to pay more that a 30 percent markup for those cards in today's market.

 

[Shivansps]

The A8 9600 on the AM4 platform already can run Overwatch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoDKQv80xYw

It has a 6 CU GPU,ie,384 shaders.

PUBG on A8 9600:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JH5GEPufPZ8

In the UK,the A8 9600 is cheaper than the Pentium G4560.

A comparison of G4560 against an A8 9600:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4z6XmPr0HBE

The cheaper A8 9600 on AM4 is based on ancient tech still utterly destroys it in 99% of games and more importantly the AMD APU has extra performance so you can increase resolution and settings over the Intel G4560. Even Skyrim cannot run well enough on the G4560 and that is an old game,on an Intel friendly engine. Look at FIFA18 and the series is a popular game. The G4560 can barely get 30FPS,and has dips under 20FPS and the A8 9600 gets over double that and this is at 720p. There are games which can't even start on the G4560 thanks in no part to the Intel graphics drivers having problems.

Intel even hired AMD to make a graphics chip for them and hired one of their key graphics guys. That tells you even Intel does not think its graphics are good when they need to reach out to a competitor to help them. The only people defending Intel graphics seem to be PCMR enthusiasts on tech forums, which is even more ridiculous when Intel has apparently given up on their current line of graphics chips,and admitted defeat.

Looking at the performance of the A8 9600,the 2200G has faster cores and a faster graphics chip.

The Core i3 8100 for the CPU alone is $130,and the Ryzen 3 2200G is $99 and hoping for cheaper motherboards still won't save it,unless it has a price cut.

The G4560 is on old platform with expensive CPUs.

AMD has a 2C/4T part with 3CU for mobile:

https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Ryzen-3-2200U-SoC.277344.0.html

If AMD release a cut down 2C/4T part with 6CU,then I hate to think how the Pentium lineup will look in consideration.

The 2200G is easily going to be a great value for money CPU and a great value for money APU,unless there is some weirdness with it.

So? I never mentioned the A8-9600 OR the G4560 neither of those are of the level of CPU ive mentioned there, thats not the point. And im not interested in your biased opinion either.

 

[IRobot23]

I checked the price of the cheapest GT1030 and a G4560 on Scan and it came to £125. Looking at the RRP for the 2200G,it should be under £90 in the UK,so the GT1030 combo is 40% more.

+ Perfect for ITX builds, efficiency
+ Faster CPU
- A bit lower GPU performance

2200G/2400G are steps in right direction, specially IMC on ryzen best thing that they did. I know that latency is key problem for CPU, yet you get ~50GB/s with slower 3200MT/s DRAM which is insane.
I think this is only the start,I think that AMD will do MCM (CPU+GPU+HBM) for AM4 soon.

+ AM4! If you buys decent motherboard (~110$) you simply have lots of options...

What I don't like is that AMD doesn't use all of the PCIE lanes.

 

[rainy]

And im not interested in your biased opinion either.

Said by someone, who is clearly unbiased./s

 

[SirDinadan]

How many of you have played recent AAA titles on APUs?

 

[LTC8K6]

G4620 is $97 runs at 3.7ghz and has HD630. It seems right in the 2200G ballpark. HD630 should fare better than HD610.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1304306-REG/intel_bx80677g4620_pentium_g4620_3_7_ghz.html

 

[USER8000]

It seems people are just confirming what I mentioned earlier:

They are worried someone might buy the AMD CPU over say an Intel Pentium or Core i3,so by making blanket and disingenuous statements that all integrated graphics cannot run games,they can try their best to invalidate one big advantage AMD has over Intel and push Intel,ie,its 10% in a game at 720p using a £1000 graphics card or something like that(or whatever the number might be),with a motherboard which currently costs as much as the flipping CPU. Also,I predict once the Ryzen APUs are released for desktop even if the reviews are very positive,some will start suddenly pushing the Coffee Lake Pentium and lower end boards even if it takes months to appear,and say a make belief GT2030 appearing "soon" even if the whole shebang would cost more overall.

Yes,we can bring Intel into this since people seem determined to bring Intel and Nvidia into this earlier in the thread as a reason to ignore Raven Ridge.

People can ignore it all they want,but a Core i3 8100 and a Z370 cost way too much and is the competitor for the 2200G.

People are then attempting to name drop cheaper Core i3 models,which will have lower clockspeeds,and lower end chipsets as a "delaying tactic" and yet quietly have amnesia about this:

https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https://www.computerbase.de/2018-01/sard-verbinnen-intel-spectre-meltdown/&edit-text=

]Gemini Lake and Kaby Lake-G probably also affected Coffee Lake , whose second wave of CPUs and motherboards is already in the starting blocks. For CES 2018, these were already behind closed doors to see whether the known date of late Q1 or April can be held, but now remains questionable.

Computerbase.de is one of the largest German tech sites,and they are reporting that due to Spectre/Meltdown the rest of Coffee Lake might be delayed. Raven Ridge launches in two weeks. The rest of the Coffee Lake launch is at least 6 to 8 weeks off,maybe longer.

Spectre/Meltdown patches due to negative impact performance in certain games,like The Witcher 3 for example:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d...-cpu-security-flaws-impact-gaming-performance

Some games drop as much as 10% with a dGPU.

So the 2200G is competing against the Core i3 8100 and the G4560. The Core i3 8100 is ovepriced and the G4560 is on EOL platform with expensive upgrade options.

Those are the competitors the 2200G will have launch,unless someone is privy to Intel suddenly launching the rest of the Coffee Lake range by the 12th of February??

People making up a mythical GT2030 cards.

The G5400 has the UHD610:

https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/intel/pentium_gold/g5400

The Core i3 8100 and Core i3 8400 has the UHD630,so no the integrated graphics won't suddenly win against the 2200G.

Its also brilliantly funny when in Intel threads you don't see people name dropping AMD and Nvidia:
https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...er-lake-sapphire-rapid-thread.2509080/page-40

Surely people should be name dropping Ryzen 2 in at least the last five pages. Yeah,I don't see that.

All I see here is every attempt to play down the 2200G in an AMD thread,and trying to push Intel alternatives which:
1.)Don't work out in price/performance at current pricing.
2.)Are on EOL platforms where a 4C/4T Core i5 is still over £150 in most parts of the world.
3.)CPUs and chipsets which are not even released and nobody has a clue when the ACTUAL RELEASE DATE WILL BE.
4.)Make belief graphics cards which are not even confirmed.
5.)Combos which cost significantly more than a 2200G.
6.)All integrated graphics is crap,so to ignore the advantage AMD has.
7.)Say Intel integrated graphics is fine,so to ignore the advantage AMD has.
8.)Ignore the driver issues Intel does have with their graphics.
9.)Ignore Intel hiring AMD to make a graphics card for them and hiring away AMD personal to make better graphics,which confirms they know their graphics is not great.
10.)Defend Intel graphics despite Intel not even defending it.
11.)Buy secondhand Intel CPUs,even if the same isn't said in Intel threads last time I checked.

Crikey,shock and horror if AMD wins in a budget CPU race - I mean for some of you here,don't worry for the honour of your E-PENIS,the Core i7 8700K will still be the best overall gaming CPU at this current moment.

 

[IRobot23]

G4620 is $97 runs at 3.7ghz and has HD630. It seems right in the 2200G ballpark. HD630 should fare better than HD610.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1304306-REG/intel_bx80677g4620_pentium_g4620_3_7_ghz.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FINQBqCZneE
Intel had lead in IMC for years, yet their GPU arch is so much behind.

Most interesting here is how well does AMD DDR3 (crappy IMC) vs DDR4. Funny thing is that CPU is bottleneck sometimes, since both are memory bandwidth starved (sharing between iGPU).
@BF1, AotS and Shadow of War (just a bit), Dota, Skyrim, GTA V and probably even RotR in city.

Memory latency could be huge deal since you could simply get below 50ns on kaveri.


How many of us is playing AAA games on APU?
Well I tried when I had 60Hz monitor (kaveri), but when I got R7 270X + 144Hz monitor and now RX 480... I just can't play at 60Hz anymore. Even low end GPUs like GTX 1050/ti or RX 560 are killing me, I would grab RX 56 for 400$.

I think for APU is enough for League of legends, Dota, CS:GO and older games.. well about CS:GO Ryzen APU should be enough even, if you play competitive @ ~200fps (OC) on settings that are recommended - (mostly CPU bounded).

 

[LTC8K6]

Well, there will be G4560/G4620 equivalents from Intel, and presumably they will clock a little higher.

But, it doesn't matter what any of us say. The benches and prices and availability will be simple facts.

The 2200G and 2400G will either compete well, or they won't. No board post will change that.

 

[LTC8K6]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FINQBqCZneE
Intel had lead in IMC for years, yet their GPU arch is so much behind.

Most interesting here is how well does AMD DDR3 (crappy IMC) vs DDR4.

Memory latency could be huge deal since you could simply get below 50ns on kaveri.

Skylake loved mem bandwidth too IIRC, and suffered with 2133.

When we go to a DGPU, the i3-6100 does a lot better.

https://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1270?vs=1682

 

[LTC8K6]

It seems people are just confirming what I mentioned earlier:



Yes,we can bring Intel into this since people seem determined to bring Intel and Nvidia into this earlier in the thread as a reason to ignore Raven Ridge.

People can ignore it all they want,but a Core i3 8100 and a Z370 cost way too much and is the competitor for the 2200G.

People are then attempting to name drop cheaper Core i3 models,which will have lower clockspeeds,and lower end chipsets as a "delaying tactic" and yet quietly have amnesia about this:

https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=https://www.computerbase.de/2018-01/sard-verbinnen-intel-spectre-meltdown/&edit-text=



Computerbase.de is one of the largest German tech sites,and they are reporting that due to Spectre/Meltdown the rest of Coffee Lake might be delayed. Raven Ridge launches in two weeks. The rest of the Coffee Lake launch is at least 6 to 8 weeks off,maybe longer.

Spectre/Meltdown patches due to negative impact performance in certain games,like The Witcher 3 for example:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d...-cpu-security-flaws-impact-gaming-performance

Some games drop as much as 10% with a dGPU.

So the 2200G is competing against the Core i3 8100 and the G4560. The Core i3 8100 is ovepriced and the G4560 is on EOL platform with expensive upgrade options.

Those are the competitors the 2200G will have launch,unless someone is privy to Intel suddenly launching the rest of the Coffee Lake range by the 12th of February??

People making up a mythical GT2030 cards.

The G5400 has the UHD610:

https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/intel/pentium_gold/g5400

The Core i3 8100 and Core i3 8400 has the UHD630,so no the integrated graphics won't suddenly win against the 2200G.

Its also brilliantly funny when in Intel threads you don't see people name dropping AMD and Nvidia:
https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...er-lake-sapphire-rapid-thread.2509080/page-40

Surely people should be name dropping Ryzen 2 in at least the last five pages. Yeah,I don't see that.

All I see here is every attempt to play down the 2200G in an AMD thread,and trying to push Intel alternatives which:
1.)Don't work out in price/performance at current pricing.
2.)Are on EOL platforms where a 4C/4T Core i5 is still over £150 in most parts of the world.
3.)CPUs and chipsets which are not even released and nobody has a clue when the ACTUAL RELEASE DATE WILL BE.
4.)Make belief graphics cards which are not even confirmed.
5.)Combos which cost significantly more than a 2200G.
6.)All integrated graphics is crap,so to ignore the advantage AMD has.
7.)Say Intel integrated graphics is fine,so to ignore the advantage AMD has.
8.)Ignore the driver issues Intel does have with their graphics.
9.)Ignore Intel hiring AMD to make a graphics card for them and hiring away AMD personal to make better graphics,which confirms they know their graphics is not great.
10.)Defend Intel graphics despite Intel not even defending it.
11.)Buy secondhand Intel CPUs,even if the same isn't said in Intel threads last time I checked.

Crikey,shock and horror if AMD wins in a budget CPU race - I mean for some of you here,don't worry for the honour of your E-PENIS,the Core i7 8700K will still be the best overall gaming CPU at this current moment.

Why couldn't/wouldn't Nvidia respond to a threat to it's low end from the 2200G/2400G?

 

[Insert_Nickname]

Who's talking about gaming? And AMD APU now has equal CPU power and much better GPU power for a very competitive price. The question should be this one. Why would a knowledgeable buyer get an Intel APU?

Whoa. I think we got of on the wrong foot there. You asked why low-end discrete card that aren't really "better" then a current-gen IGP exist. Those where a couple of reasons.

Longer explanation is that Intel IGPs get obsolete/EOL'd quicker then pretty much anything else out there. Intel doesn't even make new drivers for Haswell's Gen7.5 or Broadwell's Gen8 graphics anymore. If you have issues, too bad. NV and AMD at least provide level of some driver support for older gen graphics. NV even provided a DX12 capable driver for Fermi cards.

Just for the record, I think AMD has a real winner here. An APU with no real compromises, that can even run newer games. At $99(!). That is beyond excellent value.

 

[xblax]

Why couldn't/wouldn't Nvidia respond to a threat to it's low end from the 2200G/2400G?

Because these low-end dGPUs are not meant to compete with APUs in the first place. They are used for Workstation/Multimedia PC builds with more high end CPUs that don't have an iGPU, e.g Ryzen 7, Threadripper and Skylake-X. Because it's such a niche these low-end GPUs don't get updated every generation.

 

[USER8000]

Why couldn't/wouldn't Nvidia respond to a threat to it's low end from the 2200G/2400G?

Is this mythical release happening in the next 4 weeks then?? If not its just made up information,and if Nvidia can come up with some mythical then I suppose AMD can come up with one.

Its funny that the only noise I have heard about this "GT2030" is in this thread and sounds more like a delaying tactic.

 

[LTC8K6]

Because these low-end dGPUs are not meant to compete with APUs in the first place. They are used for Workstation/Multimedia PC builds with more high end CPUs that don't have an iGPU, e.g Ryzen 7, Threadripper and Skylake-X. Because it's such a niche these low-end GPUs don't get updated every generation.

Seems like there's a perfect opportunity for a workstation chip with an IGP or a workstation APU?
The Xeons that used to have an IGP were no more than 4 core parts.

 

[LTC8K6]

Is this mythical release happening in the next 4 weeks then?? If not its just made up information,and if Nvidia can come up with some mythical then I suppose AMD can come up with one.

Its funny that the only noise I have heard about this "GT2030" is in this thread and sounds more like a delaying tactic.

The mythical release would not happen unless and until NV sees a need.
That can't happen until the APUs have been launched, real world performance is known, and market numbers are known.