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

Page 41 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,574
126
With a Ryzen G series, performance with one stick of RAM would still be enough to handily outperform competing APUs. For more performance, add another stick and it would still be cheaper with similar performance to a 1030. No matter which way you slice it, Ryzen G series is a win.
One stick of ram will kill the memory bandwidth for the graphics of the APU.
You need dual channel mode or the graphics will suffer.
This is not a problem with the DGPU.
 

piesquared

Golden Member
Oct 16, 2006
1,651
473
136
One stick of ram will kill the memory bandwidth for the graphics of the APU.
You need dual channel mode or the graphics will suffer.
This is not a problem with the DGPU.
And with one stick of RAM Ryzen G would still be better performing than any competing APU on the market. Add a second stick and you have similar performance to a discrete GPU. Looks like a win.
 

neblogai

Member
Oct 29, 2017
144
49
101
The very point of any "G" SKU is to specifically adress the "I need iGPU" niche.
Even then, 2200G still seems like a better value.
Yes- 2400G is good choice when you need that type of iGPU- but 2200G is great value even without it's iGPU- however with it- becomes a great bargain. By the way, notes of this slide describe 2200G as 'MSRP below $145', versus i3 8100 '$137 on Newegg'. I guess, at some point AMD decided to go 'all in' with the price.
 
Last edited:

Yotsugi

Golden Member
Oct 16, 2017
1,029
487
106
Yes- 2400G is good choice when you need that type of iGPU- but 2200G is great value even without it's iGPU- but with it- is a great bargain. By the way, notes of this slide describe 2200G as 'MSRP below $145', versus i3 8100 '$137 on Newegg'. I guess, at some point AMD decided to go 'all in' with the price.
Well, G4560 clearly showed that value market still exists.
So why not to kill it?
I don't think any Intel part in the near future will offer the value of 2200G.
 

raghu78

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2012
4,093
1,475
136
Well, G4560 clearly showed that value market still exists.
So why not to kill it?
I don't think any Intel part in the near future will offer the value of 2200G.
Exactly. 2200G at 4.1 - 4.2 Ghz will match 8100 ST Perf. MT should be on par or better. Gaming perf 2x that of 8100 IGP. The 2200G is an unbeatable value part for ultra low budget PCs in USD 400-500 range.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Yotsugi

Golden Member
Oct 16, 2017
1,029
487
106
2200G at 4.1-4.2 Ghz
I doubt the thing will do that at sane voltages or with the stock cooler (it's still 14LPP).
The main value is 4 physical cores for meager $99 and iGPU with *real* drivers, for both Windows and Leenux.
Perfect for HTPC box, acktually.
 
Last edited:

Abwx

Diamond Member
Apr 2, 2011
9,814
2,250
136
Yes, that's why I suggested an R5-1400 and a DGPU and not an Intel chip...because I don't like AMD...
R1400 has no GPU and cost almost as much as the 2400G, not counting that it has lower perfs at stock as well as higher actual TDP at same frequency.

If one is to build a SFF the 2400G is to be prefered over a 2200G, there s much more that is lost in the RAM and SSD currently inflated prices, the 4C/8T has close to 50% better CPU and GPU throughputs, so at 169$ that s almost a linearly set perf/pricing...
 
Aug 11, 2008
10,451
642
126
The problem with the 2400 is this. 4C/4T is most likely more cpu performance than the igpu needs for the 2200, i.e. you will be gpu limited. Yes, the 2400 has a better cpu and marginally better gpu, but I seriously doubt the igpu can utilize the cpu fully (you will be even more strongly igpu limited) . But wait, 2400 fans say, you can add a dgpu. True, but if you are going to add a dgpu anyway, better to get a *much* better cpu for 30.00 more, ie the 1600.
 

Yotsugi

Golden Member
Oct 16, 2017
1,029
487
106
The problem with the 2400 is this. 4C/4T is most likely more cpu performance than the igpu needs for the 2200, i.e. you will be gpu limited. Yes, the 2400 has a better cpu and marginally better gpu, but I seriously doubt the igpu can utilize the cpu fully (you will be even more strongly igpu limited) . But wait, 2400 fans say, you can add a dgpu. True, but if you are going to add a dgpu anyway, better to get a *much* better cpu for 30.00 more, ie the 1600.
Decent iGPU is merely a nice addition.
The CPU part itself is priced very competitively.
 

Abwx

Diamond Member
Apr 2, 2011
9,814
2,250
136
Dunno why some people are insisting with this dGPU mantra, not everyone is focused on gaming as an end for all.

If one want high gaming perfs there s a lot of options but for a general purpose DT in SFF the choice is rather limited, so far there was nothing Intel based that could fully fill the need, as the limited GPU relegated even good CPUs like the i7s as office PCs.

Actually even Bristol Ridge was more versatile if it wasnt for the limited CPU perfs, but still it could be a little more than an office dedicated PC, something CPUs costing twice and more couldnt do, wich is quite pathetic given that 70% of the DTs sold are without dGPU..

Besides, the iGPU is not only for gaming...



https://www.computerbase.de/2018-01/raven-ridge-desktop-apu-ryzen-3-mobile/
 

CHADBOGA

Platinum Member
Mar 31, 2009
2,090
764
136
With a Ryzen G series, performance with one stick of RAM would still be enough to handily outperform competing APUs. For more performance, add another stick and it would still be cheaper with similar performance to a 1030. No matter which way you slice it, Ryzen G series is a win.
Plus AMD have HSA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

epsilon84

Golden Member
Aug 29, 2010
1,142
927
136
The problem with the 2400 is this. 4C/4T is most likely more cpu performance than the igpu needs for the 2200, i.e. you will be gpu limited. Yes, the 2400 has a better cpu and marginally better gpu, but I seriously doubt the igpu can utilize the cpu fully (you will be even more strongly igpu limited) . But wait, 2400 fans say, you can add a dgpu. True, but if you are going to add a dgpu anyway, better to get a *much* better cpu for 30.00 more, ie the 1600.
Pretty much this.

Though I see nothing wrong with pairing a 2200G with a dGPU because at $99 it represents the best value 4C/4T CPU regardless of the iGPU.

The 2400G + dGPU is a harder sell because of the 1600 as you mentioned.
 

epsilon84

Golden Member
Aug 29, 2010
1,142
927
136
I've asked this before without getting any response, is there any talk of potential hybrid crossfire setups with these APUs?

Would be great value if you could add a low end Vega based dGPU to a 2200G/2400G and get near 1050 levels or performance.
 

Shivansps

Diamond Member
Sep 11, 2013
3,641
1,329
136
What about the APU to CPU ratio..?

If CPU ratio is that much upped it s no wonder that the APU to dGPU ratio is less favourable even if the whole APU was 10x faster..

Here the CPU has 2.5x the throughput of Bristol Ridge while the GPU has "only" 55% or so more Gflops, that s what you call worse, i guess that the previous complaint from a given public was that the CPU wasnt up to the GPU, now that you have i5/i7 perf level with a decent GPU at 50/60% of the price we are told that it s the worse APU ever, lol...

FTR 70% of DTs have only an iGPU, so the debate is not wether a CPU+dGPU would be better but what is the best APU for 70% of the DT market..
Here is the thing, yes, most of the DT PCs does not have a dGPU, but you dont know how many of those people actually need more powerfull IGPs, as i said earlier, most people are fine with what an A6-9500/A4-7300/G3930 gives in both CPU/IGP, if you worry about what that "70%" of people using IGP on desktop, a $50 2/4 with 3CU Ryzen replacing the 9500 will be A LOT BETTER than than these two that are more of a niche market, specially the 2400G.

The other part i dont understand, you are saying that you cant keep up with dGPU if you increase CPU perf? Look i dont going to ask the 2400G to match the RX550 that is just impossible and AMD abandoned lower end GPUs, like they did in the past with R7 240 and even the R7 250 DDR3, and Nvidia only has 1 card in this market the GT1030, that by price is more on the level of the R7 240, that a A8-7600 beaten the crap out of it with DDR3-1866. So im specting the new APU to be like the older APUs and being better that a $70 dGPU that has similar bandwidth, a 7600 was better than a R7 240 and had similar bandwidth, that moved forward to today the 2200G should beat the GT1030. And here we are talking about that MAYBE the 2400G can do that. Im not being unreasonable here and i just bored of the excuses. The 2200G has on paper what it takes to do it, why it cant?

Yes, its better than the old APU, a new product being better than an old one, who would have thought.
 
Last edited:

neblogai

Member
Oct 29, 2017
144
49
101
I've asked this before without getting any response, is there any talk of potential hybrid crossfire setups with these APUs?

Would be great value if you could add a low end Vega based dGPU to a 2200G/2400G and get near 1050 levels or performance.
I guess this line in the graph at AMD is the answer:
'Dual Graphics: No'
http://products.amd.com/en-us/compare?prod1=148&type1=CPU&prod2=151&type2=CPU&prod3=244&type3=APU&prod4=243&type4=APU&prod5=&type5=
And AMD people have commented several times already that they are not implementing iGPU+dGPU doing graphics together. It may work only as DX12 multi GPU - which depends on game developer programing it in (so- next to no chance). Down the lane- it makes more sense to AMD to use either one integrated die, or several specialized dies on an interposer- so I guess multi-GPU does not have future anyway.
 

SPBHM

Diamond Member
Sep 12, 2012
5,023
377
126
We don't know if those results are overall firestrike score or graphics score. Therefore direct comparisons have a wildly large margin of error.
we don't know for sure but, it would make more sense to use GPU score for GPU overclock and memory scaling I think, since they kept the CPU clocks intact.
 

piesquared

Golden Member
Oct 16, 2006
1,651
473
136
I've asked this before without getting any response, is there any talk of potential hybrid crossfire setups with these APUs?

Would be great value if you could add a low end Vega based dGPU to a 2200G/2400G and get near 1050 levels or performance.
For sure with multi-adapter and DX12. SLI and Crossfire are being put to pasture where they can retire and eat hay. Or so it is said.
 

alexruiz

Platinum Member
Sep 21, 2001
2,803
500
126
Am I the only one that think the 2400G is priced correctly?
It sits right between the Ryzen 5 1400 and the 1500X, and it has the embedded graphics as a bonus.
Unless the lack of L3 cache really kills its performance, I am planning on consolidating R5 1400 and 1500X builds into 2400G...

On the other hand, the 2200G simply looks like a much much better value.
 

jpiniero

Lifer
Oct 1, 2010
12,564
3,965
136
Am I the only one that think the 2400G is priced correctly?.
Because for $20 more (basically) you could get an 1600 which should be decently faster for dGPU gaming assuming they OC comparably. Or the 8400, but you'd have to see what the impact is with meltdown and with the cheaper boards once they come available.
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
54,524
8,655
126
As others have mentioned, R5 1600 has exceptional value if you're going dGPU anyways, but it makes me wonder about the value proposition vis-a-via the 2200G and 2400G, if you can live with the iGPU.

Also, I can see why they canned multi-GPU (iGPU + dGPU). It was rarely used, outside of some OEM rigs that shipped with it as stock equipment, mostly for marketing purposes.

At $99 a pop, plus $65-80 for a budget mobo, and $80-90 for a stick or kit of DDR4-2400 8GB, I wonder how these things mine? AMD is already suggesting doing CPU mining on a TR, to pay for it.
 

epsilon84

Golden Member
Aug 29, 2010
1,142
927
136
As others have mentioned, R5 1600 has exceptional value if you're going dGPU anyways, but it makes me wonder about the value proposition vis-a-via the 2200G and 2400G, if you can live with the iGPU.

Also, I can see why they canned multi-GPU (iGPU + dGPU). It was rarely used, outside of some OEM rigs that shipped with it as stock equipment, mostly for marketing purposes.

At $99 a pop, plus $65-80 for a budget mobo, and $80-90 for a stick or kit of DDR4-2400 8GB, I wonder how these things mine? AMD is already suggesting doing CPU mining on a TR, to pay for it.
Highly doubt any serious miners will be rushing out to get a 2200G, the hash rates will just be far too low to make that feasible.
 

coercitiv

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2014
5,261
8,608
136
I wonder how these things mine?
In order for something to mine it needs lots of mem bandwidth or lots of cache (for CPU mining). The APUs have neither. They will be able to mine in the sense that they may stand a good chance to pay for themselves in the future, but they are not worthy mining choices.
 

SirDinadan

Member
Jul 11, 2016
108
64
71
boostclock.com
I've asked this before without getting any response, is there any talk of potential hybrid crossfire setups with these APUs?

Would be great value if you could add a low end Vega based dGPU to a 2200G/2400G and get near 1050 levels or performance.
Hybrid crossfire or as AMD dubbed it "Dual Graphics" was a great feature on paper but it made no sense back then:
  • the supported APU + dGPU pairings were very limited as the performance of the APU and dGPU had to be in the same ballpark
  • only a few select games supported it
  • messed up frame pacing

With the more powerfull Vega-based APUs it would make much more sense, especially in gaming notebooks, SFF gaming rigs.
But IMO a universal solution is not feasible so that the majority of the games would support it out-of-the box. Instead, AMD should develop a PhysX-like package, exclusive to APUs. Offload calculations to the APUs - gaming workloads that are fine-tuned and would benefit from the special features of the APUs.
 

epsilon84

Golden Member
Aug 29, 2010
1,142
927
136
Hybrid crossfire or as AMD dubbed it "Dual Graphics" was a great feature on paper but it made no sense back then:
  • the supported APU + dGPU pairings were very limited as the performance of the APU and dGPU had to be in the same ballpark
  • only a few select games supported it
  • messed up frame pacing

With the more powerfull Vega-based APUs it would make much more sense, especially in gaming notebooks, SFF gaming rigs.
But IMO a universal solution is not feasible so that the majority of the games would support it out-of-the box. Instead, AMD should develop a PhysX-like package, exclusive to APUs. Offload calculations to the APUs - gaming workloads that are fine-tuned and would benefit from the special features of the APUs.
That's precisely the reason why I asked, as it doesn't seem like a bad idea to leverage the already strong graphics (for iGPU standards) with a dGPU that could considerably enhance the gaming performance and make 1080P gaming a realistic prospect.

I actually had one of those hybrid CF boards back in the day but decided against getting another GPU for the reasons you mentioned. It made more sense just to get a much better GPU rather than spend another $50 to add an extra 50% to a very slow iGPU solution.
 
Aug 11, 2008
10,451
642
126
Pretty much this.

Though I see nothing wrong with pairing a 2200G with a dGPU because at $99 it represents the best value 4C/4T CPU regardless of the iGPU.

The 2400G + dGPU is a harder sell because of the 1600 as you mentioned.
And the "entry level" hex core from the company we are not allowed to mention, once cheaper motherboards become available.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY