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

Page 44 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

raghu78

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2012
4,093
1,475
136
I dont trust AMD TDP numbers anyway, there is a chance that AMD "25W" needs the same cooling than a 25W MX150+15W intel cpu. Everyone who used a "65W" AMD apu in a bad cooling pc case knows what i mean. That petty much reminds me of prescott cores.
But i cant be sure unless i get my hands on one.

about the 2200G and 2400G, feb 12 is the date right? We are close to see the truth.
https://www.notebookcheck.net/Acer-Swift-3-SF315-Ryzen-5-2500U-Vega-8-256-GB-FHD-Laptop-Review.277262.0.html

You don't need to trust AMD numbers. Look at notebookcheck reviews of Acer Swift 3 notebooks with R5 2500u and 8250u + MX150. This is as close to a fair comparison you can get. Its the same OEM vendor and notebook chassis with the only difference being AMD R5 2500u vs Intel core i5 8250u + MX150. 32% lower power at load (both avg and maximum) . 13 watts lower power draw. btw MX150 is not drawing anywhere close to rated TDP . So yeah AMD Ryzen 5 2500u is a 25w TDP chip.
 

Shivansps

Diamond Member
Sep 11, 2013
3,657
1,331
136
What what? exactly what i said, AMD is managing TDP a lot better with Ryzen, yes, but with everything that was BD based the TDP was just a lie so dont expect me to trust AMD numbers now.

Even a child could place a 65W I5-7400 inside a case without extra coolers and a 65W A8-9600 inside the same case and fire up full CPU/GPU use and see what happens with the case temperatures in each case and the amount of hot air that each case dissipates. Difference is so big that you dont need special equipment to do so.

This is the same reason of why, old gen APU fared badly on mobile and why FM2 almost had no ITX mbs.
 

Shivansps

Diamond Member
Sep 11, 2013
3,657
1,331
136
https://www.notebookcheck.net/Acer-Swift-3-SF315-Ryzen-5-2500U-Vega-8-256-GB-FHD-Laptop-Review.277262.0.html

You don't need to trust AMD numbers. Look at notebookcheck reviews of Acer Swift 3 notebooks with R5 2500u and 8250u + MX150. This is as close to a fair comparison you can get. Its the same OEM vendor and notebook chassis with the only difference being AMD R5 2500u vs Intel core i5 8250u + MX150. 32% lower power at load (both avg and maximum) . 13 watts lower power draw. btw MX150 is not drawing anywhere close to rated TDP . So yeah AMD Ryzen 5 2500u is a 25w TDP chip.
Im not dicussing power, but thermals, TDP is about thermals, not power used. Thats why its called TDP "Thermal Design Power". The point is the amount of that power that is dissipated as heat.

the only way to actually be sure is to take a closer look intro both coolers, If you tell me they are using the same case and the same cooling system them im right.
 

french toast

Senior member
Feb 22, 2017
988
824
136
2700U is not a competitor to Intel CPU + MX150. It is a premium class 15W APU -same like 8550U. Competitor to Intel CPU + dGPU is AMD's own RR + dGPU, while lowest end, budget gaming (MX110-130 and to some extent MX150) will be countered by a higher TDP mobile RR alone.
MX150 has a TDP of 25w while the 2700u with CPU + GPU has a combined cTDP of 25w. Its obvious that if we give more TDP to the 2700u and bump it to 35w or 45w it will quickly close the gap. I am betting a 2400G with DDR4 3200 will match a stock GT 1030 in games. If you throw in DDR4 3600 which btw is $10 costlier than DDR4 3200 with a bit of core overclocking and you are going to be able to keep up with overclocked GT 1030.
I don't believe so but that's my opinion, certainly the difference between mx 150 to 1030 is going to be much less than 2700U +2400ddr4 to 65w 2400g + 3600mhz...it will close the gap for sure as mx 150 is virtually the same chip as a gt 1030..just faster clocks?.
 

IRobot23

Senior member
Jul 3, 2017
601
183
76
https://www.notebookcheck.net/Acer-Swift-3-SF315-Ryzen-5-2500U-Vega-8-256-GB-FHD-Laptop-Review.277262.0.html

You don't need to trust AMD numbers. Look at notebookcheck reviews of Acer Swift 3 notebooks with R5 2500u and 8250u + MX150. This is as close to a fair comparison you can get. Its the same OEM vendor and notebook chassis with the only difference being AMD R5 2500u vs Intel core i5 8250u + MX150. 32% lower power at load (both avg and maximum) . 13 watts lower power draw. btw MX150 is not drawing anywhere close to rated TDP . So yeah AMD Ryzen 5 2500u is a 25w TDP chip.
What are you guys talking about?!

Configurations are different, yet if we compare (avg):
idle : 9.7W vs 6.5W
load : 40.4W vs 53.4W

Config. 1 = 25W chip; idle-load = 30.3W
Config. 2 = 25W+15W (40W) chip; idle-load = 46.9W

a bit more than 15W,.....54% more power idle-load!

Why are you guys comparing power of whole system? That is completely wrong.


Example :
If GPU A needs 100W and GPU B 150W, that GPU B (chip) eats 50% more power! But whole system (oced cpu) will be like 300 vs 350W = 16% more!

I mean seriously? ... comparing power between systems and calculating sigle/dual chip power consumption?really?

By idle-load difference Ryzen is actually surprisingly good.

Shouldn't we just wait for the benchmarks? Hopefully I will try one also.
 
Last edited:

Abwx

Diamond Member
Apr 2, 2011
9,878
2,318
136
What what? exactly what i said, AMD is managing TDP a lot better with Ryzen, yes, but with everything that was BD based the TDP was just a lie so dont expect me to trust AMD numbers now.
.
Surely that their numbers are way more accurate than your blank statement pulled out of urban legends that you seem very familiar with, neverless, perhaps you could provide some numbers that would support your claim somewhat less lightly...

You can check at Hardware.fr and AT since they did reviews, FTR a DT Ryzen 1400 at 3.2GHZ pull barely 45W, despite an uncore that use roughly 17W and wich should be less power hungry in Raven Ridge.

Basic maths based on available data will tell you that 4 SMT cores pull 15W@2.5GHz, so even with an uncore that would take as much as 10W this would still be within a 25W TDP rating and yield 591 Pts in CB R15, IIRC Notebookcheck got something like 575 pts with the HP Envy that is set to 25W cTDP..
 
  • Like
Reactions: french toast

Shivansps

Diamond Member
Sep 11, 2013
3,657
1,331
136
Surely that their numbers are way more accurate than your blank statement pulled out of urban legends that you seem very familiar with, neverless, perhaps you could provide some numbers that would support your claim somewhat less lightly...

You can check at Hardware.fr and AT since they did reviews, FTR a DT Ryzen 1400 at 3.2GHZ pull barely 45W, despite an uncore that use roughly 17W and wich should be less power hungry in Raven Ridge.

Basic maths based on available data will tell you that 4 SMT cores pull 15W@2.5GHz, so even with an uncore that would take as much as 10W this would still be within a 25W TDP rating and yield 591 Pts in CB R15, IIRC Notebookcheck got something like 575 pts with the HP Envy that is set to 25W cTDP..
TDP is not about power use, what the hell do you think the "T" stands for? The only urban legend here is trying to pass power comsuption as tdp.

TDP means watts of heat not watt of power consumed. I really need to explain this?
Watts of heat is wasted energy, by the law of conservation of energy a cpu must consume more energy than the one is converted to heat. AMD and Intel uses diferent ways to measure tdp
 
Last edited:
Aug 11, 2008
10,451
642
126
https://www.notebookcheck.net/Acer-Swift-3-SF315-Ryzen-5-2500U-Vega-8-256-GB-FHD-Laptop-Review.277262.0.html

You don't need to trust AMD numbers. Look at notebookcheck reviews of Acer Swift 3 notebooks with R5 2500u and 8250u + MX150. This is as close to a fair comparison you can get. Its the same OEM vendor and notebook chassis with the only difference being AMD R5 2500u vs Intel core i5 8250u + MX150. 32% lower power at load (both avg and maximum) . 13 watts lower power draw. btw MX150 is not drawing anywhere close to rated TDP . So yeah AMD Ryzen 5 2500u is a 25w TDP chip.
That is only part of the story though. Look at the performance difference of the discrete combo. Almost 50% faster in Tomb Raider and 30 to 40 percent faster in the synthetic bench. So basically performance per watt of the APU is really no better than the discrete combo. And the very same article says the 1030 is a much better solution for gaming.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PeterScott

IntelUser2000

Elite Member
Oct 14, 2003
8,583
3,637
136
TDP is not about power use, what the hell do you think the "T" stands for? The only urban legend here is trying to pass power comsuption as tdp.

TDP means watts of heat not watt of power consumed.
In computer chips, in practice TDP = Power use. It's especially true on a thermally constrained setup like a laptop or an ultrabook. Heat may not equal energy use in most other scenarios, but for chips its pretty much the same.

Of course the confusion stems from the fact that different chips tend to peak with different code. It leads to a lot of unnecessary arguments because people from either side can cherry-pick to favor their arguments.

Intel's Datasheets say while TDP can be exceeded for a short amount of time, it must average down to TDP levels over a longer period of time. If Intel is breaking their own datasheets, and average long term chip TDP is lower than datasheet TDP, then they are leaving performance on the table. If chip TDP is higher than datasheet rated TDP, then the system will run into thermal issues and manufacturers will complain, and users will get headaches.

AMD chips must function the same way, otherwise the idea of Turbo doesn't work. You can Turbo beyond TDP for a short amount of time, but eventually it has to come back down so it doesn't exceed heatsink requirements.

Of course, that assumes manufacturers Intel/AMD follow their own datasheet. In some cases, they don't. But that's just bad management/design. I assume for vast majority of the chips from both manufacturers, TDP rating is same. I repeat, identical.

Look at the performance difference of the discrete combo. Almost 50% faster in Tomb Raider and 30 to 40 percent faster in the synthetic bench.
This further adds to the confusion. Faster running system with the MX150 may mean the rest of the system may be loaded higher. The CPU will need to use more, the RAM will be loaded more, and even the storage subsystem.

In reality, none of that matters. Because you'll be looking at how it performs, how much battery life it has, and how much it costs. Everything boils down to the three.
 
Last edited:

Shivansps

Diamond Member
Sep 11, 2013
3,657
1,331
136
Of course, that assumes manufacturers Intel/AMD follow their own datasheet. In some cases, they don't. But that's just bad management/design. I assume for vast majority of the chips from both manufacturers, TDP rating is same. I repeat, identical.
You assume wrong, TDP should be one thing = Thermal Design Power, in the moment any company starts to factor in power use inside that i can no longer be sure about the amount of heat the thing generates, and how big the cooler should be. And thats exactly my point here.

Turbo is another thing, that allows to go over the TDP as long as the cooler can handle it. Whats is another reason of why you can never be sure about an CPU actual TDP.
 

PeterScott

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2017
2,605
1,540
106
That is only part of the story though. Look at the performance difference of the discrete combo. Almost 50% faster in Tomb Raider and 30 to 40 percent faster in the synthetic bench. So basically performance per watt of the APU is really no better than the discrete combo. And the very same article says the 1030 is a much better solution for gaming.
Yeah, that link doesn't really make any kind of case that Raven Ridge equals a GT1030.

I can't believe we have had almost 50 pages of arguing how Raven Ridge will match a low end GPU that almost no one would buy for gaming anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NTMBK

french toast

Senior member
Feb 22, 2017
988
824
136
Yeah, that link doesn't really make any kind of case that Raven Ridge equals a GT1030.

I can't believe we have had almost 50 pages of arguing how Raven Ridge will match a low end GPU that almost no one would buy for gaming anyway.
We were talking about budget gaming...
A vast number of people only buy and game on Uber budget systems...

For these people, such decisions are important...as is future upgrades, memory prices, so on.
 

PeterScott

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2017
2,605
1,540
106
We were talking about budget gaming...
A vast number of people only buy and game on Uber budget systems...

For these people, such decisions are important...as is future upgrades, memory prices, so on.
And if you look at the Steam survey of GPUs, almost no one uses a x30 class GPU for gaming. The top 10 are all x50 class or above.
 

Kenmitch

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,504
2,245
136
Yeah, that link doesn't really make any kind of case that Raven Ridge equals a GT1030.

I can't believe we have had almost 50 pages of arguing how Raven Ridge will match a low end GPU that almost no one would buy for gaming anyway.
Insert other persons comments

And if you look at the Steam survey of GPUs, almost no one uses a x30 class GPU for gaming. The top 10 are all x50 class or above.
Seems like it's the I gotta get the last word in that adds to the in bold part of your quote.

As far as the APUs go there not for everybody. Let the market decide if they are good enough or they are failures. I see not issue with them personally.
 

raghu78

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2012
4,093
1,475
136
Insert other persons comments

Seems like it's the I gotta get the last word in that adds to the in bold part of your quote.

As far as the APUs go there not for everybody. Let the market decide if they are good enough or they are failures. I see not issue with them personally.
Ryzen APUs are very good and will most definitely do quite well in the market. I agree that the market will decide. I can see the APUs being very popular in sub USD 500 PCs which is a big market in countries like India where disposable incomes are much lower than US. btw there are 2 people in this thread who are crapping about Ryzen APUs and neither of them are going to give up. So just ignore and do not respond to them.
 
Last edited:

kallisX

Member
Sep 29, 2016
44
38
91
wonder if it would be a waste to get the 2400G with 2400mhz memory or you can get the same performance from 2200 on 3200mhz...?
 

Shivansps

Diamond Member
Sep 11, 2013
3,657
1,331
136
btw there are 2 people in this thread who are crapping about Ryzen APUs and neither of them are going to give up. So just ignore and do not respond to them.
crapping about Ryzen APUs = anyone who dares to say these APU are too little on the GPU side based on the information we know so far. While the others make up excuses por AMD.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CHADBOGA

piesquared

Golden Member
Oct 16, 2006
1,651
473
136
0.07% for GT1030, 0.62% for AMD R7 with is BD based APU, and the GTX1050 2GB is at 1.51%

(for DX12 based systems)

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/directx/

.22%

Then there are all the GPUs attached to intel APUs that have historically not been counted. Overall there is a sizeable number of potential Ryzen G series sales just for the market that buy that class of GPUs alone, in order to have the next step up from intel's poor graphics capability. Then there are those sales that went to intel APUs because the computer performance was strong but the GPU performance was 'good enough'. There's no longer the need to compromise the GPU performance with an intels 8th generation with Ryzen G having similar CPU performance and vastly better GPU performance and lower cost. Win. The R7 at .62% is surprisingly good considering the lower CPU performance. It means that consumers around the world are using APUs for gaming, and will certainly be attracted to Ryzen G.
 
Aug 11, 2008
10,451
642
126
In computer chips, in practice TDP = Power use. It's especially true on a thermally constrained setup like a laptop or an ultrabook. Heat may not equal energy use in most other scenarios, but for chips its pretty much the same.

Of course the confusion stems from the fact that different chips tend to peak with different code. It leads to a lot of unnecessary arguments because people from either side can cherry-pick to favor their arguments.

Intel's Datasheets say while TDP can be exceeded for a short amount of time, it must average down to TDP levels over a longer period of time. If Intel is breaking their own datasheets, and average long term chip TDP is lower than datasheet TDP, then they are leaving performance on the table. If chip TDP is higher than datasheet rated TDP, then the system will run into thermal issues and manufacturers will complain, and users will get headaches.

AMD chips must function the same way, otherwise the idea of Turbo doesn't work. You can Turbo beyond TDP for a short amount of time, but eventually it has to come back down so it doesn't exceed heatsink requirements.

Of course, that assumes manufacturers Intel/AMD follow their own datasheet. In some cases, they don't. But that's just bad management/design. I assume for vast majority of the chips from both manufacturers, TDP rating is same. I repeat, identical.



This further adds to the confusion. Faster running system with the MX150 may mean the rest of the system may be loaded higher. The CPU will need to use more, the RAM will be loaded more, and even the storage subsystem.

In reality, none of that matters. Because you'll be looking at how it performs, how much battery life it has, and how much it costs. Everything boils down to the three.
Ryzen APUs are very good and will most definitely do quite well in the market. I agree that the market will decide. I can see the APUs being very popular in sub USD 500 PCs which is a big market in countries like India where disposable incomes are much lower than US. btw there are 2 people in this thread who are crapping about Ryzen APUs and neither of them are going to give up. So just ignore and do not respond to them.
By the same token, there are a lot more who are insisting over and over there is this huge desktop market for gpu performance better than intel's igpu and below (or maybe approaching) a low end discrete card. Personally, I dont see it for the desktop. For SFF and laptops, perhaps, since you can not easily add a dgpu. For a desktop though, for me, igpu performance is a non-issue: if you want good gpu performance, add a discrete card, simple. Sometimes the obvious answer *is* actually the best one. But as you said, the market will tell.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY