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

[Shivansps]

i5 and Ryzen 5 aren't really comparable options. People shopping for a 2400G or 2200G are the ones who would use a i3/R3 or Pentium/Celeron in their builds - it's a completely different market segment than the mid range, and extremely price sensitive.

Pentium and Celeron are below 2200G price point, althought the 2200G will provide a lot more perf for little more money, AMD still targets that market with 9500 and 9600 until they drop in a 2/4 Ryzen it seems.

The bigger I3, like the 8300 its petty much dead(and it was since day 1), no reason to get it. The 8100 cost $30 more than the 2200G so it is out as well, no point to get it at that price, well see about the I3-8000 it may be competitive for non-gaming or dgpu gaming.

 

[french toast]

Pentium and Celeron are below 2200G price point, althought the 2200G will provide a lot more perf for little more money, AMD still targets that market with 9500 and 9600 until they drop in a 2/4 Ryzen it seems.

The bigger I3, like the 8300 its petty much dead(and it was since day 1), no reason to get it. The 8100 cost $30 more than the 2200G so it is out as well, no point to get it at that price, well see about the I3-8000 it may be competitive for non-gaming or dgpu gaming.

So In effect we are in an agreement...as it stands intel has no competitor against 2200g, which you seem to think is a good product.
The issue is you don't feel 2400g is worth 70$ more..
Despite what intel does with its segmentation? Fair enough, for you and some others it won't be worth it, for many others it will.

 

[AtenRa]

Assassin's Creed Origins Benchmark, Is The Core i5 Dead? Maybe Not!
Not to mention what would happen on older titles or games that are less multi-threadded than origins.

Really the Core i5 7600K at $230 + Cooler with a dead socket vs $169 Ryzen 2400G on a single game ???

Why dont you compare the Core i5 7400 which Newegg has it at $189 ???


Here R5 1400 / 1500X vs i3 7350K / Core i5 7400.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTihmuq50zc

As I have said before, Intel currently doenst have anything to compete against the 2200G/2400G price range.

 

[Abwx]

Pentium and Celeron are below 2200G price point, althought the 2200G will provide a lot more perf for little more money, AMD still targets that market with 9500 and 9600 until they drop in a 2/4 Ryzen it seems.

They will drop the prices of the 9700 and 9800 wich have 10/20% better CPU perfs than the 9600, albeit still far from even a 2200G, this latter should score 550 pts in CB R15 while Bristol Ridge is in the 300-350pts, iGPU wise the 9800 should be close.

Curiously a few days from RR launch Bristol Riddge SKUs are still at the same price than a few months ago, i guess that all will be settled monday with BR pricings adjusted accordingly.

 

[PhonakV30]

AMD Ryzen 5 2400G synthetic and gaming benchmarks emerge

Source : Videocardz

 

[french toast]

AMD Ryzen 5 2400G synthetic and gaming benchmarks emerge

Source : Videocardz

Didn't think it would match a gt 1030, could tell that just from looking at 2700u on adrenaline drivers.
Surprised at cinebench though, pretty decent.

 

[aigomorla]

CPU performance is measured in more than games. And there are applications that it would make a more noticeable difference than a few FPS.

And what's the MSRP of the 7600K? $250, I believe? The 1500X is $200, I think? We're talking about a $170 APU. What's the RAM speed used? What's the clocks?

uhh are we keeping on the topic of gaming?
OK since we are on the topic of gaming and were cross comparing between Ryzen and Intel:

The intel chip is definitely faster in games which are not fully multi threaded like theELF states.

Why? because it has a higher clock and faster memory bandwith at that clock.
Were looking at the i7-7600K which can turbo to 4.2ghz stock...
https://ark.intel.com/products/97144/Intel-Core-i5-7600K-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-4_20-GHz

vs.

A 1500X which has a max turbo of 3.7ghz
https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-5-1500x

So unless the Ryzen can utilize those extra cores which theELF is stating in some games wont, it wont be faster in terms of gaming which can only utilize 4 threads or less.

You dont even need to look at ram speed and all the other info, the intel processor will be faster unless u want to tell me intels are SLOWER clock per clock?

If that's the case, why didnt they show off Vega on a Ryzen but instead a 7700K?
Remember this fiasco which had me all upset.?

So unless Ryzen2 has a higher clock then Intel, it will be slower when you look at raw core to core performance which TheELF was trying to get at.

Its a point about numbers and who has the highest ones.

Exactly, what a bogus comparison.
A quick Search for prices in my country I get.
1500x = £136.
7600k = £181.
That's not taking into consideration motherboards or coolers, upgradability, or even using other apps to compare.
A better comparison in price, tdp count is i5 7400..which retails for the same price where i live £136.
https://youtu.be/QWTBaasy2uU
At stock speeds 1500x is clearly faster in gaming and much faster all round...and it can be overclocked which i5 can't.
(i3 8100 is much better value than both in pure price/perf).

On topic, 2400g is excellent value.

You just proved my point above..

So now your going to cross compare in budget....
You see now your side shifting the comparision.
Why is it that whenever AMD loses in the performance aspect, one always needs to bring out the price/value aspect?

No doubt AMD's are a better value, but they are not performance crowns.
Ryzens are a much better investment dollar per dollar vs their competition.
No one is going to refute that.

But in terms of raw speed ignoring budget, sure they can hold there grounds, but they are still looking up at intel.

 

[USER8000]

You just proved my point above..

So now your going to cross compare in budget....
You see now your side shifting the comparision.
Why is it that whenever AMD loses in the performance aspect, one always needs to bring out the price/value aspect?

No doubt AMD's are a better value, but they are not performance crowns.
Ryzens are a much better investment dollar per dollar vs their competition.
No one is going to refute that.

But in terms of raw speed ignoring budget, sure they can hold there grounds, but they are still looking up at intel.

The Core i5 7600K is a poor investment for a gaming keeping a rig for a few years.

The Digital Foundry is the hardware testing part of Eurogamer,which is primarily a gaming website.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-ryzen-5-1600-1600x-vs-core-i5-7500k-review

But with the CPUs available to buy right now, Ryzen 5 1600 is our choice as the best mainstream gaming CPU on the market. And that's a simply phenomenal achievement - since the debut of the Core i5 2500K back in 2011, Intel's i5 K chips have earned their place at the heart of millions of users' gaming PCs. The Ryzen alternative is faster where it needs to be, better suited to more modern game engines, and comes across overall as a kind of hybrid of i5 and four-core/six-core i7s depending on how its resources are deployed. This is AMD at its best: innovative, disruptive and bringing about radical change in a static market, with a simply superb alternative product.

Then,when the Core i5 8400 came along they recommended it over the Core i5 7600K and Ryzen 5 1600.

An overclocked Core i5 7600K,will beat a Core i5 8400 in a single core benchmark,but its inferior as a gaming CPU.

People need to stop peddling single core performance as the only important measurement for gaming.

If that is the case,the Core i3 8350K would be recommended over the Core i5 8400,and most tech sites are simply not doing that. They cost the same.

 

[aigomorla]

The Core i5 7600K is a poor investment for a gaming keeping a rig for a few years.

The Digital Foundry is the hardware testing part of Eurogamer,which is primarily a gaming website.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-ryzen-5-1600-1600x-vs-core-i5-7500k-review

I completely agree with you on that...

its a terrible investment, but it is faster then the comparison they had above.

The keywords are Modern Game Engines which have to utilize more then 4 cores.

People need to stop peddling single core performance as the only important measurement for gaming.

Tell developers to stop making trash engines, and poor coding...

:T

 

[USER8000]

I completely agree with you on that...

its a terrible investment, but it is faster then the comparison they had above.

The keywords are Modern Game Engines which have to utilize more then 4 cores.

Eurogamer is a gaming site. They recommended the Core i5 8400 and Ryzen 5 1600 over the Core i5 7600K.

We also have the Core i3 8350K,which is the same CPU - most tech sites didn't recommend it and you can see why from the Digital Foundry results.

The Core i5 7600K and Core i3 8350K,have horrendous graphics performance and these are budget CPUs which people will buy without a card. In the UK the Core i3 8100 price has been dropping,and all info shows its not really selling that well,which is in part down to lack of cheap motherboards,which are AWOL.

A 2400G should be £135 in the UK,which means it is cheaper than the CPUs we are mentioning. The 2200G at £85 is even cheaper,to the level a 2200G and a RX460 will cost not much more than a Core i5 8400 or Ryzen 5 1600 on their own,and that does not include the much lower board prices.

As another poster mentioned,these are targeted towards a budget sensitive market,and to have a solid 4 core,8 thread CPU with good integrated graphics for the price is a real achievement,but the 2200G is the real gem here.

4 not so anemic cores and solid integrated graphics for £85,that looks a nicely balanced package for me.

 

[french toast]

uhh are we keeping on the topic of gaming?
OK since we are on the topic of gaming and were cross comparing between Ryzen and Intel:

The intel chip is definitely faster in games which are not fully multi threaded like theELF states.

Why? because it has a higher clock and faster memory bandwith at that clock.
Were looking at the i7-7600K which can turbo to 4.2ghz stock...
https://ark.intel.com/products/97144/Intel-Core-i5-7600K-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-4_20-GHz

vs.

A 1500X which has a max turbo of 3.7ghz
https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-5-1500x

So unless the Ryzen can utilize those extra cores which theELF is stating in some games wont, it wont be faster in terms of gaming which can only utilize 4 threads or less.

You dont even need to look at ram speed and all the other info, the intel processor will be faster unless u want to tell me intels are SLOWER clock per clock?

If that's the case, why didnt they show off Vega on a Ryzen but instead a 7700K?
Remember this fiasco which had me all upset.?

So unless Ryzen2 has a higher clock then Intel, it will be slower when you look at raw core to core performance which TheELF was trying to get at.

Its a point about numbers and who has the highest ones.



You just proved my point above..

So now your going to cross compare in budget....
You see now your side shifting the comparision.
Why is it that whenever AMD loses in the performance aspect, one always needs to bring out the price/value aspect?

No doubt AMD's are a better value, but they are not performance crowns.
Ryzens are a much better investment dollar per dollar vs their competition.
No one is going to refute that.

But in terms of raw speed ignoring budget, sure they can hold there grounds, but they are still looking up at intel.

This is the point I'm trying to make, you have to compare products in their price range, of course if money is no issue intel make the fastest CPU..(outside of some corner cases)...there is no use using a 250$ high end processor to compare against a mid range processor to try and show intel 4/4 is better than AMD 4/8...in its price range AMD competes very well in performance, as I pointed out..intel has nothing to compete against raven ridge..raven ridge likely bests intel on outright performance across the board.

 

[scannall]

The Core i5 7600K and Core i3 8350K,have horrendous graphics performance and these are budget CPUs which people will buy without a card. In the UK the Core i3 8100 price has been dropping,and all info shows its not really selling that well,which is in part down to lack of cheap motherboards,which are AWOL.

A 2400G should be £135 in the UK,which means it is cheaper than the CPUs we are mentioning. The 2200G at £85 is even cheaper,to the level a 2200G and a RX460 will cost not much more than a Core i5 8400 or Ryzen 5 1600 on their own,and that does not include the much lower board prices.

As another poster mentioned,these are targeted towards a budget sensitive market,and to have a solid 4 core,8 thread CPU with good integrated graphics for the price is a real achievement,but the 2200G is the real gem here.

4 not so anemic cores and solid integrated graphics for £85,that looks a nicely balanced package for me.

People aren't really doing budget builds at the moment. Ram and Video card prices being through the roof. It'll be interesting to see how well the bargin chips sell once ram and video cards are back down into the mortal realms.

 

[3DVagabond]

No, I said i5 6/6 (i5 8400), as well as AMD 6/12 (1600) gives better cpu performance than AMD 4/8.

If you don't want an APU then you are right, don't buy one. These are actually intended for people who are not going to use them in conjunction with a dGPU. They are intended to give you the best possible performance with an iGPU. That is really the only way they should be considered.

 

[whm1974]

If you don't want an APU then you are right, don't buy one. These are actually intended for people who are not going to use them in conjunction with a dGPU. They are intended to give you the best possible performance with an iGPU. That is really the only way they should be considered.

Aside from building a system for someone like my dad, or building a SFF or AIO type system, I wouldn't choose an APU for myself as that would just a side grade from my i5-4670.

That said, if I was using a SFF or AIO case then I would choose the 2400G.

 

[3DVagabond]

uhh are we keeping on the topic of gaming?
OK since we are on the topic of gaming and were cross comparing between Ryzen and Intel:

The intel chip is definitely faster in games which are not fully multi threaded like theELF states.

What was stated, without qualifications, which I disagreed with, was that the i5 had better CPU performance than the 2400. When fully utilized by applications that can make use of the 2400's 8 threads (which outside of games is many) the i5 won't outperform the 2400.

 

[TheELF]

Of course 4 much faster threads will best 8 slower ones in most games, that is not exactly news is it?..7600k that you compared is clocked at 4.2ghz ST ...(not 3.8/4.0) but i3 8100 is not clocked at 4.2GHz is it? (3.6, locked)..its also not overclock-able either.

Even if you argue that the intel chip runs at 100% with all cores at the highest ST of 4.2Ghz,something ryzen can't do,the i5-7600k at 4.2Ghz is clocked just 20% faster then the r5-1500x while the second one has all the benefit from 4 additional threads,on intel that would be considered at least a 30% boost.
No matter how you look at it the ryzen should be faster then the the i5 but it ends up slower.
Look at the pic again both CPUs run at 100%,the ryzen drops a little lower sometimes, but still.

 

[TheELF]

Edit;.
The comparison can already be looked at...i3 8100 Vs 1300x @ 4ghz...3000mhz ddr4.
https://youtu.be/AuVBk_8T8LI
As I thought, close but the 1300x is marginally better across the board.

That's why I don't trust benches that don't show utilization...
(Or not even show you what part they tested)

 

[TheELF]

A 3.5 R5 1500X is about on par on games with a 3.8 4C/4T i5 7500 but for some reason a 3.6 i3 8100 should be better than a 3.6 2400G, lol....

https://www.hardware.fr/articles/965-3/performances-jeux-3d.html

Not that much threaded games at HFR, btw...

Yeah look at only the results of the games that don't have canned benchmarks,where the tester actually had to play the game,and try that again.

 

[TheELF]

What was stated, without qualifications, which I disagreed with, was that the i5 had better CPU performance than the 2400. When fully utilized by applications that can make use of the 2400's 8 threads (which outside of games is many) the i5 won't outperform the 2400.

Everybody was talking about games and someone said that the i5 would outperform the APUs, of course he was talking about games as well.
Also anything other then games that uses all cores will run much faster on a dGPU then on the additional cores of the APUs.
Here for example blender 3d rendering
GTX 1080: 11.24 s
https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...-amd-blender-benchmark.2507954/#post-38923283
AMD ThreadRipper 13.04 seconds
https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...-amd-blender-benchmark.2507832/#post-38920471
Running "productivity" apps on CPU has stopped being a good idea for years now,GPUs are just so much faster.

 

[3DVagabond]

Everybody was talking about games and someone said that the i5 would outperform the APUs, of course he was talking about games as well.
Also anything other then games that uses all cores will run much faster on a dGPU then on the additional cores of the APUs.
Here for example blender 3d rendering
GTX 1080: 11.24 s
https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...-amd-blender-benchmark.2507954/#post-38923283
AMD ThreadRipper 13.04 seconds
https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...-amd-blender-benchmark.2507832/#post-38920471
Running "productivity" apps on CPU has stopped being a good idea for years now,GPUs are just so much faster.

These APU's are not for people who want dGPU's. Don't even look at them if that is your use scenario.

 

[french toast]

Even if you argue that the intel chip runs at 100% with all cores at the highest ST of 4.2Ghz,something ryzen can't do,the i5-7600k at 4.2Ghz is clocked just 20% faster then the r5-1500x while the second one has all the benefit from 4 additional threads,on intel that would be considered at least a 30% boost.
No matter how you look at it the ryzen should be faster then the the i5 but it ends up slower.
Look at the pic again both CPUs run at 100%,the ryzen drops a little lower sometimes, but still.

I don't get your point..we know intel cores are faster than AMD cores...that is not up for debate, we also know that games prefer 4 fast threads than 8 slower ones..(in the main, newer games are getting more multithreaded)..again what is your 7600k Vs 1500x proving?

You should judge products in their price category, in such cases AMD chips usually offer more threads and overclocking for your money...when exploited on stock coolers, often means AMD match or beat intel products in that range...offering not just happy meal more value (like some have said)..but outright better performance.

Now if intel would stop segmenting the crap out of everything and getting greedy, AMD wouldn't stand a chance, as even an i3 overclocked would not be touched in popular apps and games for the casual, not by 2200g, 1300x, perhaps would embarrass even 1500x/2400g in some ST games. (Even if overall overclocked 4/8 summit ridge would be faster overall).
But that is not the case is it.

 

[french toast]

These APU's are not for people who want dGPU's. Don't even look at them if that is your use scenario.

I agree with most of what you have said, but there is no reason not to use these APUs for dgpu Vs intel APUs...
If you were planning on a cheap gaming system with anan 8100 & 1050ti combo, why not use the 2200g instead?.. overclocked its probably faster, and cheaper, and future proofed.= Win win.

Edit; On second look, I didn't realise i3 8350k was as fast as a 7600k (~10%)...so if you want a cheap to midrange gaming pc... focussed solely on FPS, i3 8350k would be preferable over a 2400g/1500x/1600+dGPU...even if at £150..it is a little more expensive in my country and you sacrifice some multithreaded performance in general computing.
https://youtu.be/r5jZcPEZRvg

So, ultra budget..-
G4560 + dgpu or 2200G.
Budget...-
2200G+dgpu or 2400G.
Midrange...-
i3 8350k+ dgpu. (Would be tempted for 8400/1600 personally, but 8350k @5ghz is faster & cheaper)

Those are the best FPS/£ in my estimation...long term value and general computing not factored in.

 

[Peter Watts]

I am really struggling to make a decision right now, i mean i've seen vids of old gen i5's and Xeons performing close to the Ryzen series. Want to upgrade my ancient system (some parts upgraded past years), to something faster, but with the current market pricing i am contemplating going used instead of new. These APU's are fairly priced as i see it, but would it not be better to go used (for instance) i5 2400 and buy a dGPU like a 1050ti with 8 to 16 gigs of ddr3 for the money?

I know the platforom is dead, but so is my current system (am2+)... How many years could i able to stretch it with the setup i am thinking of?

I already have a case/psu/hdd... All i need are mobo/cpu/memory and add a 1050ti...

Or should i go AM4 and add a dGPU later on?

What do you guys suggest?

 

[CatMerc]

Everybody was talking about games and someone said that the i5 would outperform the APUs, of course he was talking about games as well.
Also anything other then games that uses all cores will run much faster on a dGPU then on the additional cores of the APUs.
Here for example blender 3d rendering
GTX 1080: 11.24 s
https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...-amd-blender-benchmark.2507954/#post-38923283
AMD ThreadRipper 13.04 seconds
https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...-amd-blender-benchmark.2507832/#post-38920471
Running "productivity" apps on CPU has stopped being a good idea for years now,GPUs are just so much faster.

Even within the same program not every render is equal. There are in fact situations where a CPU renderer completely decimated a GPU renderer, and in some cases even straight does what would be impossible to render on a GPU.

 

[Timorous]

So, ultra budget..-
G4560 + dgpu or 2200G.
Budget...-
2200G+dgpu or 2400G.
Midrange...-
i3 8350k+ dgpu. (Would be tempted for 8400/1600 personally, but 8350k @5ghz is faster & cheaper)

Those are the best FPS/£ in my estimation...long term value and general computing not factored in.

I am going with a 2200G build, unless the UK pricing makes the 2400G worth the extra, partly because dGPUs are stupidly priced now and partly because I will be able to upgrade to zen2 + dGPU in the future without buying any other parts. Intel just don't offer that same flexibility.