They should, and they should be available everywhere.
My local microcenter got them this past Tuesday, already displaying them, but as hard as I tried to get one on the spot, they flat out told me NO.
They know launch date is Feb 12, so they were very disciplined and firm. They told me they would sell me one on Feb 12
Ryzen 5 2400G Live Testing!
Son of a Tech
Streamed live on Feb 10, 2018 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrRvBWZ1AFA&feature=youtu.be
FULL TIMESTAMPS:-
Cinebench R15 multi core - 9:40 (769)
Cinebench R15 single core- 16:10 (149)
OC 4GHz - 2:31:45
Cinebench R15 multi core (OC)- 2:32:45 (810)
CPU Z - 2:52:36
Cinebench R15 multi core (highest) - 2:54:44 (844)
Back to stock
Cinebench R15 single core - 2:56:58 (153)
Mining test - 3:05:50
Mining test - 3:19:25
3D mark fire strike (CPU only) - 3:23:40 (11,338)
3D Mark time Spy (CPU only) - 3:26:25 (4,108)
Graphics working reaction - 3:46:10
3D mark fire strike - 3:57:08 (graphics 3,375;physics 9390)
GPU allocated memory boost - 4:17:15
3D mark time Spy - 4:20:08
Superposition - 4:25:00
GTA V - 4:42:27(1080 mid 50's FPS)
GTA V - 4:53:40
Rise of Tomb raider - 5:05:35
Overwatch - 5:19:41 (medium 78FPS)
Overwatch - 5:32:00
Superposition - 5:46:00
PUBG - 6:10:49
CSGO - 6:46:20
Rocket league - 6:54:04
Dark souls 3 - 7:26:45
Destiny 2 - 7:52:38
Diablo - 8:07:35
UserBenchmark - 8:15:35
Killing floor 2 - 8:32:28
Killing floor 2 - 8:39:00
Doom - 8:48:45 (1080p vulkan low upper 30's mid 40's.)
Final fantasy XV - 8:56:00
Super position - 9:03:40
Rise of Tomb raider - 9:08:00
3D Mark Time Spy - 9:13:54
Cinebench R15 OpenGL - 9:22:40
Dirt Rally - 9:34:35
PUBG - 9:45:45
GTA V - 10:07:33
CSGO - 10:13:03
The amazon listing https://sonofatech.com/amd-yd2400c5...essor-with-radeon-rx-vega-11-graphics-169-00/
I'm just saying, ASRock has a mini-site calling out support for "Next-Gen Ryzen APUs", and they specifically mention the AB350M Pro4, the 3.40 "Bridge BIOS", and the newest 4.50 UEFI as "the" BIOS for Raven Ridge, and it's garbage for 1000-series Ryzen CPUs.
I literally couldn't even boot Windows 10 using that BIOS, or it would blue-screen shortly after booting. It was THAT bad. And yes, I was careful to clear CMOS, both before and after flashing the BIOS. (Well, in UEFI, selecting "Reset to UEFI Defaults".)
From what I can see, that new AGESA is garbage, or ASRock's BIOS engineers are (which hasn't been my experience).
I bought a Gigabyte B350 board, recently, for my Raven Ridge adventures. I don't trust ASRock not to botch things.
Im no suprised, looks like some brands are in some kind of competition to see who launches the worse possible bios for an AM4 board...
Gigabyte->Broken legacy PXE Lan booting, A320 boards broken UEFI lan boot as well.
MSI->A320M-Pro Plus with an BR does not boot the first time with the VGA, you have to use HDMI.
Asrock A320-> Broken audio with generic realtek driver driver.
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?
It's proving exactly that,the things you are saying,because everyone was saying that 4/8 has to beat 4/4 hands down while the truth is that 4 additional threads can't even compensate for just 20% ( maximum) higher clocks.
Also the pic is from AC: Origins with the 4/8 ryzen running at ~100% so this game does not prefer 4 fast cores,since it can use up even 8 cores...at games that only use 4 threads the i5 would be much faster.
So for PUBG, 720p Very Low = 30-55fps, and 1080p Very Low = 10-30fps both with highly irritating random sudden freezes? As for the first link 1080p Low + 2200G + 3200MHz RAM = Witcher 3 = 15-22fps / AC:Unity = 13-26fps / BF1 = 26-40fps / Far Cry Primal = 16-25fps / Fallout 4 = 19-35fps / Fortnite = 19-40fps / Hitman = 23-30fps / Rise of The Tomb Raider = 12-26fps / Wolfenstein 2 = 16-25fps.
So realistically, even with 3200Mhz RAM and everything turned down to rock-bottom "Low" settings, these are still pretty much "720p only" chips for everything but older games in order to avoid sub 20fps slowdowns? That's a little disappointing. I don't mind dropping presets but personally I find non-native res upscaled gaming looks ugly as hell (and that's something most reviews never show as it's visible only by filming the monitor not just capturing the GPU output).
So for PUBG, 720p Very Low = 30-55fps, and 1080p Very Low = 10-30fps both with highly irritating random sudden freezes? As for the first link 1080p Low + 2200G + 3200MHz RAM = Witcher 3 = 15-22fps / AC:Unity = 13-26fps / BF1 = 26-40fps / Far Cry Primal = 16-25fps / Fallout 4 = 19-35fps / Fortnite = 19-40fps / Hitman = 23-30fps / Rise of The Tomb Raider = 12-26fps / Wolfenstein 2 = 16-25fps.
So realistically, even with 3200Mhz RAM and everything turned down to rock-bottom "Low" settings, these are still pretty much "720p only" chips for everything but older games in order to avoid sub 20fps slowdowns? That's a little disappointing. I don't mind dropping presets but personally I find non-native res upscaled gaming looks ugly as hell (and that's something most reviews never show as it's visible only by filming the monitor not just capturing the GPU output).
So for PUBG, 720p Very Low = 30-55fps, and 1080p Very Low = 10-30fps both with highly irritating random sudden freezes? As for the first link 1080p Low + 2200G + 3200MHz RAM = Witcher 3 = 15-22fps / AC:Unity = 13-26fps / BF1 = 26-40fps / Far Cry Primal = 16-25fps / Fallout 4 = 19-35fps / Fortnite = 19-40fps / Hitman = 23-30fps / Rise of The Tomb Raider = 12-26fps / Wolfenstein 2 = 16-25fps.
So realistically, even with 3200Mhz RAM and everything turned down to rock-bottom "Low" settings, these are still pretty much "720p only" chips for everything but older games in order to avoid sub 20fps slowdowns? That's a little disappointing. I don't mind dropping presets but personally I find non-native res upscaled gaming looks ugly as hell (and that's something most reviews never show as it's visible only by filming the monitor not just capturing the GPU output).
Shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone, the 2200G especially is not a 1080P AAA capable APU, the 2400G *may* break 30fps avg at low settings but that is right on the limits of 'playability' and frankly depends on your own individual tolerance towards framerate dips.
As I have said previously, if you can ONLY afford to game on an APU, then these are much better than gaming on Intel graphics. If you can afford a GTX 1050 or RX560 or better, then that opens up a whole new world of graphical settings and smoothness that an APU simply cannot provide.
At the end of the day, it's a $99 APU so expectations should be in line with the price.
So for PUBG, 720p Very Low = 30-55fps, and 1080p Very Low = 10-30fps both with highly irritating random sudden freezes? As for the first link 1080p Low + 2200G + 3200MHz RAM = Witcher 3 = 15-22fps / AC:Unity = 13-26fps / BF1 = 26-40fps / Far Cry Primal = 16-25fps / Fallout 4 = 19-35fps / Fortnite = 19-40fps / Hitman = 23-30fps / Rise of The Tomb Raider = 12-26fps / Wolfenstein 2 = 16-25fps.
So realistically, even with 3200Mhz RAM and everything turned down to rock-bottom "Low" settings, these are still pretty much "720p only" chips for everything but older games in order to avoid sub 20fps slowdowns? That's a little disappointing. I don't mind dropping presets but personally I find non-native res upscaled gaming looks ugly as hell (and that's something most reviews never show as it's visible only by filming the monitor not just capturing the GPU output).
I think you have missed most of the results from the video,so I added them.
Game 1: Battlefield One. 2200G: 40 AV/26 MIN
8100:22 AVG/10MIN
Game 2: COD WW2. 2200G: 46 AV/26 MIN
8100:26 AV/15 MIN
Game 3:Crysis3. 2200G:50 AV/35 MIN
8100 27 AV/15 MIN
Game 4: CS GO 2200G:130 AV/75 MIN
8100:65 AV/48 MIN
Game 5: DOOM. 2200G:47 AV/34 MIN
8100: 20 AV/11 MIN
Game 6: DOTA 2. 2200G: 79 AV/32 MIN
8100: 48 AV/25 MIN
Game 7: Fallout 4. 2200G: 35 AV/19 MIN
8100: 15 AV/7 MIN
Game 8: Fifa18. 2200G: 69 AV/46 MIN
8100: 34 AV/30 MIN
Game 9: AC Unity. 2200G: 26 AV/13 MIN
8100: could not run
Game 10: Battlefield 4. 2200G: 57 AV/48 MIN
8100: 34 AV/25 MIN
Game 11: Far Cry Primal. 2200G: 25 AV/18 MIN
8100: could not run
Game 12: Fornite. 2200G: 40 AV/19 MIN
8100: 16 AV/9 MIN
Game 13: GTA 5. 2200G: 36 AV/26 MIN
8100: 14 AV/8 MIN
Game 14. Hitman. 2200G:30 AV/23 MIN
8100: could not run
Game 15. Overwatch. 2200G: 69 AV/50 MIN
8100: 41 AV/31 MIN
Game 16. PUBG. 2200G: 15 AV/7 MIN
8100: could not run
Game 17. Rainbow 6. 2200G: 55 AV/40 MIN
8100:30 AV/19 MIN
Game 18. Resident Evil 7. 2200G 53 AV/32 MIN
8100 30 AV/17 MIN
Game 19. Rise of the Tombraider. 2200G: 26 AV/12 MIN
8100: could not run
Game 20: Rocket League. 2200G: 60 AV/48 MIN
8100: 38 AV/31 MIN
Game 21: Shadow of War. 2200G: 16 AV/7 MIN
8100: could not run
Game 22: Star Wars Battlefront. 2200G: 46 AV/24 MIN
8100: 19 AV/10 MIN
Game 23. Titanfall 2. 2200G: 61 AV/42 MIN
8100: 42 AV/24 MIN
Game 24. Total Warhammer. 2200G: 25 AV/11 MIN
8100: could not run
Game 25. War of the Tanks. 2200G: 62 AV/42 MIN
8100 36 AV/24 MIN
Gamer 26. Witcher 3. 2200G: 22 AV/15 MIN
8100: could not run
Game 27. Wolfenstein. 2200G: 25 AV/16 MIN
8100: could not run
Game 28. Mortal Combat XL. 2200G: 41 AV/24 MIN
8100: 20 AV/8 MIN
There are popular titles like Rocket League,CS GO,Overwatch,War of the Tanks,Fifa18 and DOTA 2,which run far better on the cheaper 2200G than the 8100.
Crysis 3 runs at 1080p on the 2200G with nearly a 60FPS average. So yes it can run Crysis!
I think you have missed most of the results from the video,so I added them.
Game 1: Battlefield One. 2200G: 40 AV/26 MIN
8100:22 AVG/10MIN
Game 2: COD WW2. 2200G: 46 AV/26 MIN
8100:26 AV/15 MIN
Game 3:Crysis3. 2200G:50 AV/35 MIN
8100 27 AV/15 MIN
Game 4: CS GO 2200G:130 AV/75 MIN
8100:65 AV/48 MIN
Game 5: DOOM. 2200G:47 AV/34 MIN
8100: 20 AV/11 MIN
Game 6: DOTA 2. 2200G: 79 AV/32 MIN
8100: 48 AV/25 MIN
Game 7: Fallout 4. 2200G: 35 AV/19 MIN
8100: 15 AV/7 MIN
Game 8: Fifa18. 2200G: 69 AV/46 MIN
8100: 34 AV/30 MIN
Game 9: AC Unity. 2200G: 26 AV/13 MIN
8100: could not run
Game 10: Battlefield 4. 2200G: 57 AV/48 MIN
8100: 34 AV/25 MIN
Game 11: Far Cry Primal. 2200G: 25 AV/18 MIN
8100: could not run
Game 12: Fornite. 2200G: 40 AV/19 MIN
8100: 16 AV/9 MIN
Game 13: GTA 5. 2200G: 36 AV/26 MIN
8100: 14 AV/8 MIN
Game 14. Hitman. 2200G:30 AV/23 MIN
8100: could not run
Game 15. Overwatch. 2200G: 69 AV/50 MIN
8100: 41 AV/31 MIN
Game 16. PUBG. 2200G: 15 AV/7 MIN
8100: could not run
Game 17. Rainbow 6. 2200G: 55 AV/40 MIN
8100:30 AV/19 MIN
Game 18. Resident Evil 7. 2200G 53 AV/32 MIN
8100 30 AV/17 MIN
Game 19. Rise of the Tombraider. 2200G: 26 AV/12 MIN
8100: could not run
Game 20: Rocket League. 2200G: 60 AV/48 MIN
8100: 38 AV/31 MIN
Game 21: Shadow of War. 2200G: 16 AV/7 MIN
8100: could not run
Game 22: Star Wars Battlefront. 2200G: 46 AV/24 MIN
8100: 19 AV/10 MIN
Game 23. Titanfall 2. 2200G: 61 AV/42 MIN
8100: 42 AV/24 MIN
Game 24. Total Warhammer. 2200G: 25 AV/11 MIN
8100: could not run
Game 25. War of the Tanks. 2200G: 62 AV/42 MIN
8100 36 AV/24 MIN
Gamer 26. Witcher 3. 2200G: 22 AV/15 MIN
8100: could not run
Game 27. Wolfenstein. 2200G: 25 AV/16 MIN
8100: could not run
Game 28. Mortal Combat XL. 2200G: 41 AV/24 MIN
8100: 20 AV/8 MIN
There are popular titles like Rocket League,CS GO,Overwatch,War of the Tanks,Fifa18 and DOTA 2,which run far better on the cheaper 2200G than the 8100.
Crysis 3 runs at 1080p on the 2200G with nearly a 60FPS average. So yes it can run Crysis!
Wow, it is faster than intel igpu. What a shock. It probably is still slower than my ancient low end system with a SB i5 and a HD7770. Not to mention 7 out of the 28 games fall below what is generally considered unplayable, including some very popular older games like W3 and ROTR, as well as Fallout 3 which I did not include as unplayable, but would be a very bad experience with a 19 FPS min.
Some of my personal thoughts and experiences on Raven:
Based on the results of my test suite, the IPC of Raven varies between -4.8% - +2.8% compared to Zeppelin. The average difference being ~1.5% improvement. The difference is most likely a result of the changes made to the L2 & L3 caches, rather than the changes made to the actual Zen CPU cores themselves.
The early rumors were correct and Raven does in fact have a significantly lower L2 cache latency than Zeppelin does. The L2 cache in Raven has 12 CLK latency, whereas the L2 latency for Zeppelin is 17 CLKs. The L2 caches in Zeppelin never posed a limitation of any sort to the Fmax, so considering the halved L3 cache in Raven, getting rid of the “slack” in the L2 latency was a smart and most likely a highly beneficial move.
It is hard to tell exactly how small or large the penalty from the halved L3 cache is, as the L2 has been altered significantly at the same time. Generally, however the performance hit from the halved L3 cache varies between small and non-existent. Workloads which hit the > L1 caches hard, such as Bullet Physics library perform < 5% worse on Raven than on Zeppelin, which is equipped with twice the L3 cache per core. Considering that Bullet was relatively the worst performing workload in the whole test suite for Raven, it is rather safe to say that the hit from the smaller L3 cache is extremely minor in general.
The difference between the Vega 8 (8CU/2RB) iGPU and Vega 11 (11CU/2RB) iGPU at the same frequency is extremely minor, usually around 8-11% depending on the memory frequency. At stock Vega 8 operates at 1100MHz engine clock and Vega 11 at 1240MHz (1251MHz nominal) engine clock. The typical overclock for both of the variants is >= 1600MHz at 1.200V SoC voltage. Due to the present memory bandwidth limitation, both of them will perform almost the same when they are overclocked close or to the typical maximum frequency.
One major thing to consider prior overclocking the iGPU on Raven APUs is the power consumption. Most of the mainstream AM4 motherboards have a 2 phase VRM for the VDDCR_SoC voltage rail (in varying quality and with varying cooling as well), which on Raven not only supplies the SoC portion of the chip but the GPU cores as well. At stock the peak power consumption of Vega 11 is around 36W. When overclocked to the typical 1600MHz engine frequency, the power consumption will raise to 55-60W. While 60W doesn't sound too high, it is more than plenty for the average 2 phase VRM (around 25A per phase).
Just like Zeppelin, Raven also features the so called "OC-Mode". On Raven there are two separate triggers to activate the “OC-Mode”: by increasing the CPU frequency or by increasing the iGPU engine frequency. Triggering either one will get rid all of the limiters (power, current, utilization) and voltage controllers, the same way as it did on Zeppelin. The only difference is that by triggering just iGPU “OC-Mode”, the Turbo / XFR features of the CPU will not be lost like they were on Zeppelin. However at least for the time being, it is not advised to only trigger the iGPU “OC-Mode”: Activating either of the “OC-Modes” will disable all of the voltage controllers, meaning that when the Turbo / XFR will still remain active the CPU voltage will raise to extremely high levels. When the CPU “OC-Mode” is activated Turbo and XFR will be disabled as well, just like on Zeppelin and the CPU voltage will remain at reasonably sane levels due to the slightly lower resulting frequencies.
Activating either of the “OC-Modes” will also immediately disable the dLDO for the GPU cores. At stock the iGPU dLDO feeds on the VDDCR_SoC voltage rail and the typical voltage drop on the regulator is around 250mV. Once the “OC-Mode” is activated the GPU dLDO is placed in a bypass mode, meaning the GPU cores will then receive the source voltage directly without any further dropouts.
The memory controller on Raven clearly contains some changes in comparison to Zeppelin, however the said changes unfortunately appear to be rather minor and quite possibly affect more the firmwares of the controller than the actual hardware IP itself. On average the memory latency has decreased by ~3% at the same settings, but the bandwidth seems to have regressed slightly at the same time. Also, the highest achievable memory frequency seems to be exactly the same as on Zeppelin, 3400 - 3533MHz depending on the silicon quality, the motherboard and the DRAM modules used. Fortunately, at least the memory training speed and reliability has been vastly improved.
Similar to Zeppelin, the frequency headroom for the CPU cores themselves is very slim over the stock frequencies. The typical, highest practical CPU frequency will be around 3.85 - 3.95GHz depending on the silicon quality.
Higher than the mentioned frequencies might be possible, however achieving them will require the voltage to be raised to a point where the power efficiency is long gone and the life time of the silicon is reduced. At frequencies beyond the inflation point (3.9GHz in the chart) the cost of the last 100MHz in frequency can easily be > 25% increase in the power consumption.
With the tested samples 4.1GHz could not be achieved even at 1.550V despite 4.0GHz was deemed stable at 1.375V, which is already high but still well in the realms of sustainable.
With Raven there is also another aspect, which is not present on Zeppelin: Unlike Zeppelin, Raven uses conventional TIM (instead of indium sTIM) between the core and the heatspreader. The conventional TIM used on Raven isn’t the only factor which affects it’s thermals either. Due to the extreme thinness of the Raven die, the heatspreader used for Raven AM4 APUs has been redesigned. Normally the contact surface inside the heatspeader is perfectly flat. The heatspreaders used on Raven have a “hump” inside them, which allows the heatspreader to make contact with the die itself. Without the “hump” the heatspreader would only make contact with the SMD components located around the die, which are standing taller than the die itself. The “hump” adds an extra 0.5mm to the heatspreader thickness and therefore increases the thermal resistance of the heatspreader as well.
Despite the Raven's slightly larger die size, the temperatures are still significantly higher at the same power dissipation and cooling. Even at a modest 65W power dissipation the CPU cores can reach excess of 70°C temperatures.
An aftermarket cooler is definitely recommended at least for the 2400G, especially if there is any plans to overclock the chip. 2400G at the stock configuration is already somewhat bound by the default 65W power limit and the chip can easily dissipate up to 120W of heat when it is overclocked to the typical maximum figures.
Some ballpark 3D performance figures, based on my own testing: RX 550 is around 22% faster and the RX 560 around 68% faster than a stock 2400G APU.
When the 2400G APU is overclocked to the typical maximum figures (1600MHz engine and 3400MHz DRAM) it’s performance is almost identical to a stock RX 550.
- 2400G at stock: 1240MHz engine, 2933MHz DRAM (3236 in 3DMark Fire Strike)
- 2400G at a typical max OC: 1600MHz engine, 3400MHz DRAM (3960 in 3DMark Fire Strike)
- RX 550 at stock: 1210MHz engine, 7000MHz (QDR) DRAM (3955 in 3DMark Fire Strike)
- RX 560 at stock: 1210MHz engine, 7000MHz (QDR) DRAM (5430 in 3DMark Fire Strike)
If you are unfamiliar with some of the terms used, please check the original Ryzen: Strictly Technical write-up.
EDIT 02/12/2017: Regarding the results when delidded, I reassembled the delidded 2400G using Liquid Ultra on both of the surfaces (die and the HS "hump"). The temperatures dropped by 12°C (at 4.0GHz / 1.375V) during Prime95 compared to the stock situation. On the same exact cooler and at the same exact settings. The ambient was most likely 1-2°C higher than it was during the previous test too.
However, despite the lower temperatures there was no improvement in Fmax. 4.0GHz / 1.375V is still the highest stable frequency.
Not bad, but not great. 2400G @ 1080p VS G4560+GT1030:
Wins CSGO
Loses PUBG
Draw Fortnite
Draw Overwatch
Loses Rocket League
Loses Dota 2
Wins Rainbow 6
Wins Battlefront 2
Wins Wolfenstein
It would be an understatement to say that performance is all over the place. The 2200G is usually only a few FPS behind, but that's enough to have 1% lows drop under 30fps in some games whereas the 2400G seemed to always stay above that level. Sometimes the 2400G was more than 2X faster than the GT 1030, sometimes it lost. Could be poor driver optimization by NVIDIA and AMD, depending on the games...
Wow, look at the Single Channel vs Dual Channel memory graph @ 21:38!
Yeah gaming performance of Vega 11 is very competitive with GT 1030 and more consistent. In fact Vega 11 seems to handle games with demanding VRAM requirements like Hitman quite well whereas GT 1030 just crumbles in such scenarios.
Impossible. GTX 1050 costs the same as Ryzen 3 2200G. You would need to sacrifice something to get GTX 1050 in your build.
As a Entry CPU+GPU combo - there is NOTHING in the world that can compete at the moment with those APUs. You either sacrifice cost, CPU or GPU performance.
Impossible. GTX 1050 costs the same as Ryzen 3 2200G. You would need to sacrifice something to get GTX 1050 in your build.
As a Entry CPU+GPU combo - there is NOTHING in the world that can compete at the moment with those APUs. You either sacrifice cost, CPU or GPU performance.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Facebook
Twitter