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

[Kenmitch]

How? They are giving you a 1500X equivalent, and throwing in a free IGP. I'd call that fair pricing.

For budget there is still the $99(!) 2200, but that one is insane value.

I think the pricing seems fair also. Not really sure why all the hate for the 2400G pricing. Remove the AMD from it and insert the Intel branding and I'd imagine many users would be happy to pay another $50-$75 for it. Same users would be praising it as the AMD APU killer most likely.

 

[Shivansps]

How? They are giving you a 1500X equivalent, and throwing in a free IGP. I'd call that fair pricing.

For budget there is still the $99(!) 2200, but that one is insane value.

Free? Nothing is free, the 1500X was already overpriced for what it was considering the 1400 and 1600 pricing. 2400G also has 1/4 the L3.

Compared to 2200G they are charging $70 for SMT and 3 extra CU that may bring nothing in terms of extra perf.

Its not that much off point trought, around $150 will be OK. The point is you cant really go over that.

 

[Shivansps]

I think the pricing seems fair also. Not really sure why all the hate for the 2400G pricing. Remove the AMD from it and insert the Intel branding and I'd imagine many users would be happy to pay another $50-$75 for it. Same users would be praising it as the AMD APU killer most likely.

And here we go again. Your argument about 2400G pricing is OK is asuming i would say it will be OK if it was Intel? great. FYI, i always disliked I3 pricing in general..

 

[french toast]

Free? Nothing is free, the 1500X was already overpriced for what it was considering the 1400 and 1600 pricing. 2400G also has 1/4 the L3.

Compared to 2200G they are charging $70 for SMT and 3 extra CU that may bring nothing in terms of extra perf.

Its not that much off point trought, around $150 will be OK. The point is you cant really go over that.

So just to be clear..you are suggesting that 2400g will offer NO extra graphical performance over a 2200g..and that AMD is charging 70$ for the SMT alone??

Nevermind the fact the 2400g is a higher binned product that clocks higher out of the box alongside double the threads, likely overclocks a bit better also.
Even if the graphics we're intel like (ie the same right through the stack) some would consider that good value on its own.
I would expect a good 20% or so improvement in GPU.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

Free? Nothing is free, the 1500X was already overpriced for what it was considering the 1400 and 1600 pricing. 2400G also has 1/4 the L3.

The 1500X is a bit of an oddball I'll give you that. But it does feature a frequency a bit higher then the non-X 1600, and has the full 16MB L3 cache. Unlike the 1400. With XFR the 1500X can boost to 3.9GHz, so there is a niche for it. Its just not a large one.

The 2400G features the same same frequency minus 12MB L3 cache, but has an IGP. We also don't know just how far the XFR can take it, since XFR hasn't been specified yet. Perhaps 4-4.2GHz?

Compared to 2200G they are charging $70 for SMT and 3 extra CU that may bring nothing in terms of extra perf.

Its not that much off point trought, around $150 will be OK. The point is you cant really go over that.

Notice I think it is fair pricing. I'm not commenting on the specific value to anybody. I can't, since that will always come down to personal preference.

It the same with the 2200G. I think it is beyond exceptional value, everyone is welcome to disagree. (I don't think many will)

 

[Shivansps]

So just to be clear..you are suggesting that 2400g will offer NO extra graphical performance over a 2200g..and that AMD is charging 70$ for the SMT alone??

Nevermind the fact the 2400g is a higher binned product that clocks higher out of the box alongside double the threads, likely overclocks a bit better also.
Even if the graphics we're intel like (ie the same right through the stack) some would consider that good value on its own.
I would expect a good 20% or so improvement in GPU.

3CU and 150mhz on igp, 200mhz on max boost clock (w/ 2 cores max i belive), on something that is TDP and bandwidth constricted.
I had seen this on every other APU AMD launched in the past, you can check any A10-9700 vs A12-9800 for something more modern, and its the CPU clock what is probably making a difference there. With 2200G vs 2400G SMT is what is going to make a diference.

 

[Shivansps]

The 1500X is a bit of an oddball I'll give you that. But it does feature a frequency a bit higher then the non-X 1600, and has the full 16MB L3 cache. Unlike the 1400. With XFR the 1500X can boost to 3.9GHz, so there is a niche for it. Its just not a large one.

The 2400G features the same same frequency minus 12MB L3 cache, but has an IGP. We also don't know just how far the XFR can take it, since XFR hasn't been specified yet. Perhaps 4-4.2GHz?



Notice I think it is fair pricing. I'm not commenting on the specific value to anybody. I can't, since that will always come down to personal preference.

It the same with the 2200G. I think it is beyond exceptional value, everyone is welcome to disagree. (I don't think many will)

You need to remember it was the same cooler and the same TDP, the extra CU and GPU clocks on the 2400G takes heatroom, but the IGP cant really take off because it is bandwidth and maybe TDP limited.

To me SMT is what is going to make a difference for 2400G vs 2200G, but that to me dosent worth the extra $70.

And compared to the current Ryzen will need to see, those are single CCX, but with the IGP taking TDP, memory and the limited L3 i dont know if they will perform the same.

 

[french toast]

3CU and 150mhz on igp, 200mhz on max boost clock (w/ 2 cores max i belive), on something that is TDP and bandwidth constricted.
I had seen this on every other APU AMD launched in the past, you can check any A10-9700 vs A12-9800 for something more modern, and its the CPU clock what is probably making a difference there. With 2200G vs 2400G SMT is what is going to make a diference.

At this point the APUs are GPU bottlenecked, SMT will make very little difference at all.(gaming)

What I have noticed in your posts is that you have not taken into consideration the twice as good memory controller in raven ridge compared to Bristol Ridge..that is you get about twice the bandwidth out of the same memory (if my own memory serves me correctly).
Not to mention raven supports higher memory speeds, has a nominal L3 cache and the graphics uarch is more modern, meaning compression is a bit better.

All these factors probably mean we should see a bigger difference between higher execution resources and clock speeds in raven SKUs over Bristol ridge SKUs.

Edit; Just the move from GCN 3 (1.3) to 4 (Polaris 1.4) increased delta colour compression by about 15-20% or so, vega is up for debate, but it shouldn't be worse in that regard.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/10446/the-amd-radeon-rx-480-preview/3

 

[LTC8K6]

I think the 2400G will perform better than the 2200G, but I think a lot of people will think that the difference is too small to pay the extra for the 2400G.

My betting money is still on a RX-1400 and DGPU being a better budget gaming value.

Only a few days to wait now to see for sure.

 

[raghu78]

I think the 2400G will perform better than the 2200G, but I think a lot of people will think that the difference is too small to pay the extra for the 2400G.

My betting money is still on a RX-1400 and DGPU being a better budget gaming value.

Only a few days to wait now to see for sure.

R5 1400 is slower than 2400G and does not have a iGPU. There is no reason to buy a Ryzen 5 with 4C/8T and no iGPU (even 1500x). There are only few logical choices.

1. R3 2200G + DDR4 3200 for the best bang for buck for sub USD 500 PCs.
2. R5 2400G + DDR4 3200 for good combination of CPU and graphics for USD 500 PC.
3. R3 2200G or core i3 8100 + GTX 1050 for an entry level gaming PC.
4. R5 1600 or core i5 8400 + GTX 1050 if you can afford a bit more for an entry level gaming PC.

 

[alexruiz]

How? They are giving you a 1500X equivalent, and throwing in a free IGP. I'd call that fair pricing.

For budget there is still the $99(!) 2200, but that one is insane value.

I totally agree, I mentioned it before, I feel the 2400g is fairly priced.
While it might not catch the 1500X, it will be faster than the 1400.
The 1400 boosts only to 3.5Ghz, and I don't think twice the L3 will compensate for the 400Mhz deficit, but we will find out soon.
3 more days!

 

[LTC8K6]

R5 1400 is slower than 2400G and does not have a iGPU. There is no reason to buy a Ryzen 5 with 4C/8T and no iGPU (even 1500x). There are only few logical choices.

1. R3 2200G + DDR4 3200 for the best bang for buck for sub USD 500 PCs.
2. R5 2400G + DDR4 3200 for good combination of CPU and graphics for USD 500 PC.
3. R3 2200G or core i3 8100 + GTX 1050 for an entry level gaming PC.
4. R5 1600 or core i5 8400 + GTX 1050 if you can afford a bit more for an entry level gaming PC.

Nah, sticking with my pick of RX-1400 and DGPU being the budget gaming choice.

Put your money down! 😀

 

[french toast]

Nah, sticking with my pick of RX-1400 and DGPU being the budget gaming choice.

Put your money down! 😀

That's fair enough, you at least have a valid choice one way or the other.

 

[Gikaseixas]

Don't remember seeing people dissecting Intel new lineup like this. i7 8700K is sold at $400, i5 8400 sells for half the price and gets similar performance. In fact the performance delta does not justify the extra $200 people pay to get the i7, so why do we only see these baseless arguments on AMD threads?

 

[Abwx]

Don't remember seeing people dissecting Intel new lineup like this. i7 8700K is sold at $400, i5 8400 sells for half the price and gets similar performance. In fact the performance delta does not justify the extra $200 people pay to get the i7, so why do we only see these baseless arguments on AMD threads?

Even more baseless when looking at the actual numbers.

2400G has about 46% and 56% better CPU/GPU throughputs than the 2200G, so pricing is close to be linear in respect of perfs...

 

[Insert_Nickname]

That's fair enough, you at least have a valid choice one way or the other.

And that is really the point, no?

 

[Shivansps]

What I have noticed in your posts is that you have not taken into consideration the twice as good memory controller in raven ridge compared to Bristol Ridge..that is you get about twice the bandwidth out of the same memory (if my own memory serves me correctly).
Not to mention raven supports higher memory speeds, has a nominal L3 cache and the graphics uarch is more modern, meaning compression is a bit better.

All these factors probably mean we should see a bigger difference between higher execution resources and clock speeds in raven SKUs over Bristol ridge SKUs.

I did not mentioned because its not relevant, the 2200G reeplacing by price the A12-9800 will fly circles around any BR, no doubt about that.

I think the 2200G with its 8CU IGP will be already bottlenecked to hell by DDR4-3200, otherwise there is no reason not to match an RX550, under that escenario i dont see how increasing CU and mhz will gain anything and i think SMT will be the only 2400G selling point.

Anyway, we are just 3 days away.

 

[AtenRa]

Don't remember seeing people dissecting Intel new lineup like this. i7 8700K is sold at $400, i5 8400 sells for half the price and gets similar performance. In fact the performance delta does not justify the extra $200 people pay to get the i7, so why do we only see these baseless arguments on AMD threads?

Because Intel is "clever" and only the i7 is unlocked 😉

 

[daveybrat]

They should have at least bundled the 2400G with the Wraith Cooler, not just the Wraith Stealth like the 2200G.

 

[Shivansps]

Don't remember seeing people dissecting Intel new lineup like this. i7 8700K is sold at $400, i5 8400 sells for half the price and gets similar performance. In fact the performance delta does not justify the extra $200 people pay to get the i7, so why do we only see these baseless arguments on AMD threads?

Baseless? i think ive made a good point there, the only thing you could come out with was "But but but but Intel does too!" you know i could compare your little escenario to R7 1700 vs R7 1800X right? But im not the one looking for excuses here.

 

[LTC8K6]

Don't remember seeing people dissecting Intel new lineup like this. i7 8700K is sold at $400, i5 8400 sells for half the price and gets similar performance. In fact the performance delta does not justify the extra $200 people pay to get the i7, so why do we only see these baseless arguments on AMD threads?

I remember a lot of that about Intel chips. Most people said the 8400 was the best gaming buy, IIRC.
In fact, most people said the i5 was a much better buy for gaming than the i7 when 4 cores were considered enough.
People have always done price/performance comparos with both Intel and AMD and with video cards as well.

 

[piesquared]

Baseless? i think ive made a good point there, the only thing you could come out with was "But but but but Intel does too!" you know i could compare your little escenario to R7 1700 vs R7 1800X right? But im not the one looking for excuses here.

Excuses for what? You could cobble together a system that is better than practically any other product's MSRP on the market (especially if you start considering the second hand, and last gen products) if you mixed and matched long enough and hard enough, and were determined enough to confirm your bias.
Ryzen G is a game changer. It replaces the need for a low end budget card like a 1030, and has high performance CPU cores that is comparable to the best on the market. It's perfect for OEMs, as well as Diyers, since the system requires far less complexity and management than dealing with multiple vendor and multiple software/driver packages, it has AM4 socket compatibility, and all the other advantages to a single package that brings the manufacturing cost way down.

 

[LTC8K6]

Excuses for what? You could cobble together a system that is better than practically any other product's MSRP on the market (especially if you start considering the second hand, and last gen products) if you mixed and matched long enough and hard enough, and were determined enough to confirm your bias.
Ryzen G is a game changer. It replaces the need for a low end budget card like a 1030, and has high performance CPU cores that is comparable to the best on the market. It's perfect for OEMs, as well as Diyers, since the system requires far less complexity and management than dealing with multiple vendor and multiple software/driver packages, it has AM4 socket compatibility, and all the other advantages to a single package that brings the manufacturing cost way down.

We'll know very soon...

 

[Shivansps]

Excuses for what? You could cobble together a system that is better than practically any other product's MSRP on the market (especially if you start considering the second hand, and last gen products) if you mixed and matched long enough and hard enough, and were determined enough to confirm your bias.
Ryzen G is a game changer. It replaces the need for a low end budget card like a 1030, and has high performance CPU cores that is comparable to the best on the market. It's perfect for OEMs, as well as Diyers, since the system requires far less complexity and management than dealing with multiple vendor and multiple software/driver packages, it has AM4 socket compatibility, and all the other advantages to a single package that brings the manufacturing cost way down.

No, i said i rather see the 9600 and 9500 replaced than the A12-9800 the 2200G is replacing right now, because the 9800 is a highly irrelevant APU because people go to a GTX1050 after the 9600 as a next step, the 9800 and GT1030 are not great sellers. Thats not my opinion that is what is happening and has been for some time. And steam survey backs me up.
And i hear was rants about how im doing everything wrong and i should replace the 9600 with 2200Gs, im the one with the job and years of experience here, the 2200G will be huge to replace all those non gaming builds with the R3 1200+GT710, what is a great office/general use combo, im not sure about anything else.

Then i said based on the AMD slides and older slides of older products i do not belive any of those APU to be better than a GT1030, and i said this would be bad because old APUs did better than that. Of this all i hear was excuses, personal attacks and lies, like the one that said old GPUs were using 64 bit DDR3. Look this is what the AMD slides show, and im basing my opinion on that. I dont have a crystall ball, well will soon see.

Also i said i belive the 2400G to be a little overpriced because i think SMT will be its only real advantage due to memory and tdp constrains over the 2200G. This is my opinion and i may change it if the reviews shows otherwise.

You have anything more to say?

 

[Kenmitch]

And here we go again. Your argument about 2400G pricing is OK is asuming i would say it will be OK if it was Intel? great. FYI, i always disliked I3 pricing in general..

i3's have nothing to do with these APUs. They're i5 and i7 class up until AMD forced Intel to up core counts. Price difference between thes APUs is less than 1/2 of what is/was acceptable on Intels offerings from i5 to i7.