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

[VirtualLarry]

so it looks like there is still a 4Ghz wall on these.

That's unsurprising, since these aren't the 12nm refresh parts. However, probably a greater percentage of yields clock closer to 4Ghz now.

 

[PeterScott]

I think you're wrong, but I'm not about to sift through pages of crap I already read.

No one with half a brain could expect a part with these specs, at this price, at this power, to compete with the latest Intel CPU's as well as be in the GTX 1050 range. The reviews are overwhelmingly positive from what I've seen.

You misread what I wrote. I am not saying there was any expectation that RR would match a GTX 1050.

I am saying people said the 1030 is irrelevant as a gaming GPU, so it doesn't matter, so matching it is somewhat irrelevant for gaming purposes, when a 1050 was a realistic minimum, or as I put it, 10 pages+ before reviews came out:

"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."

 

[thecoolnessrune]

No, your facts are not right, because if you set the memory to 512MB in the bios the IGP still uses UP TO 2GB while gaming!!!! last time im going to say this to you, thats why the results are almost the same.

So you are wrong? Because we're both saying the same thing. Maybe try reading a little better.

My facts are perfectly fine in the fact that there is a setting in memory usage between 512MB, 1GB, and 2GB for its minimum allocation, then it can go up to 2GB.

As for the rest im just saying 6GB of usable ram < 8GB of usable ram, what is a completely valid point, wharever you like it or not, and 4GB is not enoght for some games today. So i would expect if you have 8GB you will want to upgrade it later on, if you have 2x4GB and 2 slots is a problem, another 100% valid point. The rest is you trying to find something to complain about what i said.

The number 8100 is larger than 2400, Socket 1151 has more numbers in it than AM4, and NVIDIA has more marketshare than AMD. These are also facts that have just about as much relevance as your statement. You were the on who has spent much of this thread discussing about AMD has to address cheaper and cheaper, because budget is so crucially important. You are also the same person who is advocating that someone should pay 18%-22% more for something that gains 2-5 Average FPS at "Normal" or Low settings. For the memory, at this GPU performance level, if this is really a problem, it should be easy to find benchmarks that show the 2GB usage from the GPU as being a tangible burden. If you're trying to justify people paying more for that, then I would assume it makes more of a difference than just a paper spec sheet.

 

[3DVagabond]

Quick maths (in USD):

Integrated GPU:

• AMD B350 motherboard: ~60
  
• AMD Ryzen 3 2200G: 100
• 2x8 GB DDR4-3200: ~190 (CL 16), ~220 (CL 14)
• Total: 350-380

Dedicated GPU:

• AMD B350 motherboard: ~60
• AMD Ryzen 3 2200G: 100
• 1x8 GB DDR4-2666: ~90 for CL 15
• NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050: ~110 (standard), ~150 (current, inflated pricing)
• Total: 400, gives 2x gaming performance

Nobody is claiming this is the generation APU that sticks a fork in the dGPU for basic gaming. That's a strawman. 7nm though? Could be.

This one is all about is about putting a higher performing iGPU on a Ryzen CPU to beat Intel for PC's without dGPU's. I'm guessing that you are not that market. But a lot of other people are.

 

[Thunder 57]

You misread what I wrote. I am not saying there was any expectation that RR would match a GTX 1050.

I am saying people said the 1030 is irrelevant as a gaming GPU, so it doesn't matter, so matching it is somewhat irrelevant for gaming purposes, when a 1050 was a realistic minimum, or as I put it, 10 pages+ before reviews came out:

"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."

Not everyone is a gamer, let alone a AAA gamer. Quite the opposite in fact. However, considering those involved in this discussion, AAA gaming is going to matter. In that aspect this APU was never going to make much of a difference. For the general market though it is huge. It gets Zen into any computer whereas it was restricted to those with a dGPU before. It should sell very well, and that what matters most to AMD. That provides them with $$$ to develop bigger and greater products that will benefit us.

 

[Thunder 57]

...This one is all about is about putting a higher performing iGPU on a Ryzen CPU to beat Intel for PC's without dGPU's. I'm guessing that you are not that market. But a lot of other people are.

Beat me by a minute . And it isn't " a lot of other people", it's "the vast majority of people". That is why these chips will sell.

 

[PeterScott]

Not everyone is a gamer, let alone a AAA gamer. Quite the opposite in fact. However, considering those involved in this discussion, AAA gaming is going to matter. In that aspect this APU was never going to make much of a difference. For the general market though it is huge. It gets Zen into any computer whereas it was restricted to those with a dGPU before. It should sell very well, and that what matters most to AMD. That provides them with $$$ to develop bigger and greater products that will benefit us.

I agree, RR is a critical part. It's more important than Ryzen 1xxx desktop parts. Furthermore it's a great all around part, and finally gives AMD a full lineup to compete with Intel everywhere.

I just don't get the ongoing obsession in this now 60+ page thread comparing gaming performance to an essentially irrelevant to gaming GPU, the GT 1030. This is not the market to go after, it's not even a market that exists. As others pointed out, GT 1030 mainly sells to people wanting upgraded outputs on older computers, not for gaming.

RR is all about AMDs first APU that can match Intel on the CPU side, while beating it on the GPU side (which it has always done).

The real news here is the CPU improvement that gives it the overall win, not the GPU performance which AMD has been winning against Intel as long as AMD has had an APU.

 

[3DVagabond]

You misread what I wrote. I am not saying there was any expectation that RR would match a GTX 1050.

I am saying people said the 1030 is irrelevant as a gaming GPU, so it doesn't matter, so matching it is somewhat irrelevant for gaming purposes, when a 1050 was a realistic minimum, or as I put it, 10 pages+ before reviews came out:

"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."

Because that's what people are throwing up there to try and devalue RR. Since it's matching the 1030 now people, not just you, are using the 1050. If it had matched that then people would make it the 1060 because you need higher detail.

People with anti AMD bias don't want to simply compare it to other iGPU's. Just like they don't want to look at the future of HBM. And they don't want anyone to address the big picture. The dGPU's days are numbered. And in that world AMD has the advantage. This is just a wakeup call.

 

[IntelUser2000]

The 2200G and 2400G chips are the first chips that actually can replace next level of dGPUs while maintaining the advantages of iGPUs - low cost, low power, one chip.

The previous iGPUs or APUs if you'd like to call them always fell just a bit short of the supposed dGPU competition. At $99, its a steal. Even 2400G isn't too bad at $169 for those that want an iGPU based setup.

The dGPU's days are numbered. And in that world AMD has the advantage. This is just a wakeup call.

As always, don't make an absolute statement. Higher end dGPUs will exist for quite a while, it might not even be replaced, ever. It's like with how HDDs always maintain a tremendous price advantage per capacity, and there will always be those that need it. SSDs are increasingly use because many people feel certain minimum capacity is good enough considering the advantages SSDs bring.

It's good for everyone, because there are options for everyone. There will always be those that want the best experience, no matter the cost. But there are those not willing to spend the money, and feel getting the system that's just enough for them is a good thing.

That's a sign of a healthy market. A market populated by only eSports gamers and 4K monitor setups aren't healthy, so is one populated by those that want to play at the lowest resolutions on a $500 computer.

 

[PeterScott]

Because that's what people are throwing up there to try and devalue RR. Since it's matching the 1030 now people, not just you, are using the 1050. If it had matched that then people would make it the 1060 because you need higher detail.

This is simply false, people have been saying use a 1050 for 50+ pages. It isn't a now thing. Go to page 3, and search for 1050. People have been saying all along use a 1050 if you want to game.

People with anti AMD bias don't want to simply compare it to other iGPU's. .

Again False. Read my post above yours. I am not bashing AMD, I said this is finally the AMD part to win against Intel, but focusing on the IGP where AMD has always won, is the wrong focus. It's the CPU side that really completes the picture that makes RR a winning part for AMD and focusing on GT 1030 is even more pointless because that thing is basically an HDMI upgrade for old computers, which isn't exactly a ripe market for an APU to plunder.

This is an awesome part for SFF PCs that don't have room for a GPU slot, or for the new Mac Mini (pretty please Apple), and of course for laptops... Raven Ridge is AMD most important CPU part.

 

[Kanadian]

Interesting, both Newegg and Amazon Canada are sold out of the 2400g. Low initial stock or somkin' sales I wonder. I went with the 2200g and there are still those around to be had.

 

[PeterScott]

Interesting, both Newegg and Amazon Canada are sold out of the 2400g. Low initial stock or somkin' sales I wonder. I went with the 2200g and there are still those around to be had.

2200g is much better value anyway.

 

[StinkyPinky]

Well considering the prices of video cards at the moment, some people may want the 4c/8t 2400g for the better igpu and extra threads to tide them over until the dedicated mid range cards drop in price.

 

[IntelUser2000]

It's the CPU side that really completes the picture that makes RR a winning part

The vastly improved CPU is what makes the whole idea of an "APU" work much better. Improved graphics, even at this performance level does have a merit. It usually isn't worth sacrificing other things for it, but in this case, you aren't.

It does also fill a niche where you can get a pretty fast CPU with GPU that's ok with mainstream gaming at low price.

GT 1030 is even more pointless because that thing is basically an HDMI upgrade for old computers,

It's not that bad. Most popular games(even AAA) can be run at 1080p. The games nowadays are such that the quality difference between Low and Highest isn't as big as it used to be. Probably has to do with the "good enough" part again. You make some concessions, like accepting 30 frames per second, which is perfectly fine. The big plus is you get the whole thing for the low price.

The $34 CDN HD 5450 and GT 710 cards are HDMI upgrades for your older PC. Actually, you can go cheaper and buy a VGA to HDMI splitter, but then again I'm realizing that you are making an extreme statement, and isn't accurate.

 

[3DVagabond]

That would be ~$85, looking at Newegg and Amazon.

That is by no means an average price. Looking on PC Part Picker they run from a low of $83 to a high of $150. You do have a good selection (5) under $90 though.

 

[PeterScott]

The $34 CDN HD 5450 and GT 710 cards are HDMI upgrades for your older PC. Actually, you can go cheaper and buy a VGA to HDMI splitter, but then again I'm realizing that you are making an extreme statement, and isn't accurate.

HDMI upgrade as in upgrading to a higher standard of HDMI to drive 4K monitors/TVs. Not just have HDMI.

 

[Abwx]

2200g is much better value anyway.

It is not, the 2400G is a better value on the mid term, 50% better throughput at 60-70% higher price is not excessive given the absolute numbers.

Here in France it s about 100€ for a 2200G and 160€ for the 2400G, if i was to build a SFF i would opt for the latter, and moreover for a 2400GE version...

FTR using CB R15 as metric the 2200G is at 570pts, the 2400G being at 830pts while the soon to come 35W 2400GE should be at 730pts, one will notice that there s an AMD slide that show a 4C/8T Raven Ridge at 719pts, and that s precisely at 35W....

 

[VirtualLarry]

I tried to talk one of my buddies into ordering the 2200G today, just so I could experience it through him, but ... he runs alternative OSes, so he's waiting for verified support. Are there Linux drivers for Vega? (Ok, there are, as I understand it, barely Windows drivers for Vega, so maybe asking for Linux drivers might be too much to ask.)

I'm still saving up my pitiful mining funds (currently, maybe $10/day), to try and afford a 2200G, to play around with. Though, I own some family members some money, and they got pissed when I mentioned I wanted to buy some tech part. Rightly so, I suppose.

 

[PeterScott]

It is not, the 2400G is a better value on the mid term, 50% better throughput at 60-70% higher price is not excessive given the absolute numbers.

50%? Maybe if you buy a CPU to run one specific synthetic benchmark over and over.

But if you are doing something that people actually do with their multi-core home computers like render video with Handbrake, you might get something like 18% better performance, for ~70% price increase, so I think the 2200G is much better value.

And if you overclock both CPUs, the performance gap will shrink even more and it will be lower on most other tasks, that aren't as multi-threaded as video rendering.

 

[SPBHM]

I am astonished there are people suggesting a 7 year old platform for gaming, to people on a tight budget right now. Gaming is a hard workload, how long until one of those old components fail? What warranty recourse can you offer those that can ill afford to replace the components any time soon? It makes no sense to me, to even bring such a dubious solution into a thread like this. I will give you all the benefit of a doubt that it is sincere but (to me anyways) misguided advice, and not something agenda driven.

well, it wasn't really my argument, I just commented that the CPU perf is not really a problem for this kind of gaming PC and that a 1050 ti is in another league.

but looking at it, it's 7 years old platform, not components, the CPUs are not going to fail, the question is mainly the motherboard and ram.
I personally have lots of 10+ years old PCs running daily (lga 775 all cheap boards with 945gc, G31 and so on), apart from PSUs I didn't have any recent failures, my main PC runs on a 2012 board, in times of expensive DDR4 (one of the main reasons I'm stuck with this) the old PCs with a new graphics card make even more sense.

BUT I can see it's not the solution for most, it's just the superior solution in terms of perf/$

the 2200G and to a lesser extent the 2400G are great options (but the DDR4 prices are spoiling the party quite a bit)

 

[raghu78]

I think you're wrong, but I'm not about to sift through pages of crap I already read.

No one with half a brain could expect a part with these specs, at this price, at this power, to compete with the latest Intel CPU's as well as be in the GTX 1050 range. The reviews are overwhelmingly positive from what I've seen.

Well said. AMD has a APU which will satisfy millions of PC users who want a low budget PC for productivity and can provide entry level gaming. For the complete realization of the AMD Fusion and Vision 25x20 goal and eventual obsoletion of the 100-120 sq mm dGPU we will most likely see it when 7nm APUs arrive in H1 2020. 6-8 Zen 2 cores, 1536 Navi cores, 4 GB HBM2 on a single package should basically seal the deal.

 

[3DVagabond]

Well said. AMD has a APU which will satisfy millions of PC users who want a low budget PC for productivity and can provide entry level gaming. Anybody who cannot see what AMD has achieved today in 2018 is basically in denial. For the complete realization of the AMD Fusion and Vision 25x20 goal and eventual obsoletion of the 100-120 sq dGPU we will most likely see it when 7nm APUs arrive in H1 2020. 6-8 Zen 2 cores, 1536 Navi cores, 4 GB HBM2 on a single package should basically seal the deal.

And watch the price of the high end DGPU when they don't have the volume low and mid level cards to support them. You'll be looking at Quadro and Firepro pricing for gaming cards.

 

[ultimatebob]

Soo... how well do these mine crypto? If they're half decent at it, they'll double in price in just a few days.

 

[3DVagabond]

Soo... how well do these mine crypto? If they're half decent at it, they'll double in price in just a few days.

I assume some sarcasm there.

Since, unlike GPU's, they are limited to one per system. Should keep them safe.

Looking a minute ago on Amazon, the 2400 is already sold out. We don't need no stinkin miners to wipe out supply.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Well said. AMD has a APU which will satisfy millions of PC users who want a low budget PC for productivity and can provide entry level gaming. For the complete realization of the AMD Fusion and Vision 25x20 goal and eventual obsoletion of the 100-120 sq mm dGPU we will most likely see it when 7nm APUs arrive in H1 2020. 6-8 Zen 2 cores, 1536 Navi cores, 4 GB HBM2 on a single package should basically seal the deal.

LOL The "won't touch a 1030 " bridge have now shifted their goalposts to the gtx 1050 in the wake of the somewhat surprising benchmarks

Why stop there 1050ti is much better! Then you might as well just grab a 1060

Though Those 1070's look tempting..

Have you actually been reading this thread? The speculation all along has been that the performance would be in the range of the 1030. That is pretty much how it turned out. Now whether that is a reasonable performance for a gaming desktop is another issue altogether.