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

[Bouowmx]

A igpu can't be too good from AMD otherwise it will start cannibalising their own dedicated gpu market (the lower end stuff).

According to Anandtech, that market is now killed.

I always believed the bottom of the dedicated GPU selection is mostly reserved for augmenting older computers with modern display outputs and video decode. That market will always exist. Rarely does it ever make sense to pair the bottom dedicated GPU with a current-generation processor (as many reviews did).

 

[Shivansps]

According to Anandtech, that market is now killed.

Kaveri killed it, the credit for that goes to the A8-7600 and the A10-7870K, the RX550 is far more than the usual low end cards, itrs petty much the R7 250X of that time.

The GT1030 is the only remaining super low end gpu that exist that can be actually used to play games, and that is mostly because it is a "mobile GPU first".

 

[Glo.]

The GT1030 is the only remaining super low end gpu that exist that can be actually used to play games, and that is mostly because it is a "mobile GPU first".

Aaaaand, you forgot about RX550 right now?

P.S. Now you all know why AMD "released" with Sapphire 640 GCN core version of RX 550. If Vega 11 kills everything else in this market, including both GT1030, and RX550, it is wise to pull higher core count GPU, out of their a**, to not canibalize the sales of their own dGPUs.

 

[thecoolnessrune]

2x4GB is dumb on A320, you are going to fill the ram slots, making more dificult to upgrade later on. Also remember the IGP uses dynamic memory, so it will always use up to 2GB in a game.
2200G+GT1030 is cheaper than the 2400G, if you consider using AB350 and fast dual channel rams for the 2400G. You are also not forced to go 2x4GB what is really a bad idea and you have the full 8GB of ram for use.

It is a valid option, to me only if you OC the GT1030. Otherwise i rather go GTX1050 on 2200G or the 2200G alone, as i said.

What's dumb is you keep coming up with these completely random goalposts to try and make a rather silly point. At this budget, there's absolutely nothing wrong with 2x4GB RAM. 8GB is more than enough for a Windows Gaming machine on the low end for the forseeable future, including the "up to 2GB" used by the IGP. Pushing in AB350 and all that silly stuff is just things you're bringing up without evidence. Seriously, are we talking about budget gaming rigs or some sort of custom use-case that you're making up the rules for? Do you have any benchmarks to show heavy FPS degradation when using 512MB, 1GB, or 2GB in games, vs. the near margin of error percentage reported by other sites?

 

[majord]

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..

 

[Shivansps]

Aaaaand, you forgot about RX550 right now?

P.S. Now you all know why AMD "released" with Sapphire 640 GCN core version of RX 550. If Vega 11 kills everything else in this market, including both GT1030, and RX550, it is wise to pull higher core count GPU, out of their a**, to not canibalize the sales of their own dGPUs.

no no i did not, but the RX550 cost more money, i rather go for the RX560 or the GTX1050 in that case.

 

[The Stilt]

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.

 

[LTC8K6]

Kaveri killed it, the credit for that goes to the A8-7600 and the A10-7870K, the RX550 is far more than the usual low end cards, itrs petty much the R7 250X of that time.

The GT1030 is the only remaining super low end gpu that exist that can be actually used to play games, and that is mostly because it is a "mobile GPU first".

Kaveri had a poor CPU compared to the Ryzen APUs.

 

[Shivansps]

What's dumb is you keep coming up with these completely random goalposts to try and make a rather silly point. At this budget, there's absolutely nothing wrong with 2x4GB RAM. 8GB is more than enough for a Windows Gaming machine on the low end for the forseeable future, including the "up to 2GB" used by the IGP. Pushing in AB350 and all that silly stuff is just things you're bringing up without evidence. Seriously, are we talking about budget gaming rigs or some sort of custom use-case that you're making up the rules for? Do you have any benchmarks to show heavy FPS degradation when using 512MB, 1GB, or 2GB in games, vs. the near margin of error percentage reported by other sites?

What goalpost? Are you kidding me? There is everything wrong with 2x4GB killing the RAM upgratibility, you shouldt do that unless its absolutely necesary, and i as said those IGP used dynamic memory up to 2GB, even if its set to 32MB is going to use up to 2GB get your facts right.

 

[Shivansps]

Kaveri had a poor CPU compared to the Ryzen APUs.

That did not stopped it from become an excellent choice for budget gaming, the A8-7600 was just good performing for 720P until recently when some title started to cause problems, the CPU perf ended up to be a secondary thing, and more of a problem if your ever trought about "adding a dgpu later", most people never did. These Ryzen APU fixes that, not sure how much important its going to be at the end, people getting the 2400G are the one who probably think about "adding a dGPU later".

 

[alexruiz]

What goalpost? Are you kidding me? There is everything wrong with 2x4GB killing the RAM upgratibility, you shouldt do that unless its absolutely necesary, and i as said those IGP used dynamic memory up to 2GB, even if its set to 32MB is going to use up to 2GB get your facts right.

At these RAM prices, and for the target market that the Ryzen G APUs are targetting, future upgrade to 16GB is not a priority.
But if you think that upgrading to 16GB down the road in an A320 board is a major selling point, and 2x4GB won't cut it, then check the Gigabyte GA-A320MA-m.2... that board has 4 RAM slots, and its price is right in line with other A320 boards.

 

[thecoolnessrune]

What goalpost? Are you kidding me? There is everything wrong with 2x4GB killing the RAM upgratibility, you shouldt do that unless its absolutely necesary, and i as said those IGP used dynamic memory up to 2GB, even if its set to 32MB is going to use up to 2GB get your facts right.

Do you buy a PC looking at the numbers on the box or the performance you get from it? There is nothing wrong with 2x4GB "killing upgrade ability" if you're unlikely to upgrade meaningfully in the system's lifetime. 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. The difference between these 3 settings is essentially Margin of Error.

Since you keep saying that the difference between 6GB and 8GB in games is obviously a big deal at this level of performance, you have facts to back this up, correct? A link? Benchmark? I'd accept a 2200G or 2400G with a 1030 and without a 1030. Or is this all just guessing?

 

[rainy]

There is everything wrong with 2x4GB killing the RAM upgratibility

Most of potential users of 2200G don't need more RAM, idea of 16GB for budget PC is quite ridiculous honestly.

Btw, you've already made 162 posts (11 percent overall) in this thread - for me it's clearly a sign of trolling.

Member call-outs (troll, fanboy, etc.)
are not allowed here.

AT Mod Usandthem

 

[Harmaaviini]

I think the Anandtech reviewers decision to use unplayable settings for large part of the iGPU benchmarks was terrible and I hope that mistake is corrected in future reviews.

 

[Mockingbird]

And what do you think i going to say after watching a video of a guy who got the 2400G early, using OEM drivers labeled "with Raven Ridge support" that crashes every 5 minutes? "nah thats fine?" Thats some kind of selective memory you got there.

So what you are saying is that AMD should have released the drivers early so that Joe Blow, who received his processor early, can enjoy his 24 hours of fame.

You are just grasping at straws at this point.

 

[IRobot23]

So ~4Ghz is still max (24/7) for now on Ryzen.

If you have time @The Stilt try memory OC and maybe 8GB vs 16GB (both dual channel).

 

[The Stilt]

So ~4Ghz is still max (24/7) for now on Ryzen.

If you have time @The Stilt try memory OC and maybe 8GB vs 16GB (both dual channel).

I have the time, but I don't have any 4GB DIMMs available.
Only a crapload of 8GB and 16GB B-dies.

 

[Thunder 57]

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.

Yea, I think it's safe to say it's process limited at this point. I do hope "12nm" brings 10%, so we would have something more like a 4/4.4 Zen instead of 3.6/4, but I'm not holding my breath. Maybe 4.4 with XFR.

 

[Shivansps]

At these RAM prices, and for the target market that the Ryzen G APUs are targetting, future upgrade to 16GB is not a priority.
But if you think that upgrading to 16GB down the road in an A320 board is a major selling point, and 2x4GB won't cut it, then check the Gigabyte GA-A320MA-m.2... that board has 4 RAM slots, and its price is right in line with other A320 boards.

But i never said anything about going to 16GB with a 2200G, but yes there a options, any board with 4 slots is a excellent choice if you go 2x4GB, even if it cost a little bit more.

Most of potential users of 2200G don't need more RAM, idea of 16GB for budget PC is quite ridiculous honestly.

Btw, you've already made 162 posts (11 percent overall) in this thread - for me it's clearly a sign of trolling.

I never said about 16GB on a 2200G, if someone wants to do it it is their choice, there are others, like going to a mb w/4 slots for just a little more or not using the IGP to play.
If you absolutely must do 2x4GB on 2 slots thats fine, its a budget build after all, but if you can you should avoid it.

11% and i was mostly right for everything i said, ergo, not expecting 2400G to be better than a GT1030 based on AMD slides, or expecting SMT to be the top selling reason of the 2400G because IGP cant really take off because its limited by bandwidth. The rest were replies to people to who attacked me for saying that. The top argument was petty much "you are a Intel fanboy" in an direct or indirect way. But im the one trolling here... yeah sure.

Do you buy a PC looking at the numbers on the box or the performance you get from it? There is nothing wrong with 2x4GB "killing upgrade ability" if you're unlikely to upgrade meaningfully in the system's lifetime. 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. The difference between these 3 settings is essentially Margin of Error.

Since you keep saying that the difference between 6GB and 8GB in games is obviously a big deal at this level of performance, you have facts to back this up, correct? A link? Benchmark? I'd accept a 2200G or 2400G with a 1030 and without a 1030. Or is this all just guessing?

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.

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.

 

[Thunder 57]

I can't believe some of the bickering going on here. The most important reason for this part by far is that AMD now has a Zen that can be sold in every office and home out there. OEM's should be all over that. The CPU is comparable to Intel, and offers better performance/$. You can play a game too? Great, but not many will see that as a selling point. Remember this is a tech forum filled with gamers, so I understand the "can it/can't it" game aspect. But for pretty much anyone out there that asks me for a recommendation, I would have no problem recommending one of these.

Most people I recommend to don't care about gaming at all. If they do it's something like World of Tanks. These are solid chips that well sell like hotcakes. That's a great thing for AMD. The only thing I'd like to see is a higher TDP model for laptops. Sure, supposedly they can run at 25, but how can you know? At least with desktops you know it's basically going to be a 65W part and the other option will be a different SKU that's 35W. I wish AMD went that way with laptops. Maybe the 15-25w ones we have (which I bet are 95% 15W), and a different model with a 30 or 35W TDP. Oh well.

 

[Shivansps]

I can't believe some of the bickering going on here. The most important reason for this part by far is that AMD now has a Zen that can be sold in every office and home out there. OEM's should be all over that. The CPU is comparable to Intel, and offers better performance/$. You can play a game too? Great, but not many will see that as a selling point. Remember this is a tech forum filled with gamers, so I understand the "can it/can't it" game aspect. But for pretty much anyone out there that asks me for a recommendation, I would have no problem recommending one of these.

Most people I recommend to don't care about gaming at all. If they do it's something like World of Tanks. These are solid chips that well sell like hotcakes. That's a great thing for AMD. The only thing I'd like to see is a higher TDP model for laptops. Sure, supposedly they can run at 25, but how can you know? At least with desktops you know it's basically going to be a 65W part and the other option will be a different SKU that's 35W. I wish AMD went that way with laptops. Maybe the 15-25w ones we have (which I bet are 95% 15W), and a different model with a 30 or 35W TDP. Oh well.

And im 100% agree, the 2200G just kills the R3 1200 w/GT710 for general or office use, same for R5 1400 w/GT710, that alone is great news, specially if someone expected to play anything with that, belive me it happened.
As for Intel yeah, with those CPU numbers im seeing, even if the 8100 dropped to $100 (or they launch the I3-8000 at $100), there is no point in getting an I3 over the 2200G, for general, office, IGP or dGPU gaming.

 

[ScottAD]

To prevent creating another thread I figured I would just ask here. Would either of these processors be a good fit for a 4K htpc I plan on streaming local media and 4K content through the internet thank you for answering people smarter than me

 

[BSim500]

To prevent creating another thread I figured I would just ask here. Would either of these processors be a good fit for a 4K htpc I plan on streaming local media and 4K content through the internet thank you for answering people smarter than me

The APU's themselves do 4K, yes. Biggest problem right now though is nearly all current motherboards HDMI ports are only v1.4 with no HDMI 2.0 or HDCP 2.2. So for 4K HTPC, it's still a waiting game for decent HDMI 2.0 motherboards...

 

[PeterScott]

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..

Totally False. There has been no shift. All through this threads history people have said the 1030 was garbage and the minimum acceptable was the GTX 1050.

The reviews changed nothing.

 

[Thunder 57]

Totally False. There has been no shift. All through this threads history people have said the 1030 was garbage and the minimum acceptable was the GTX 1050.

The reviews changed nothing.

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.