Budget gaming build - Intel G4560 or AMD 2200G / 2400G?

[krumme]

Yes, times certainly have changed. For only about 30.00 more than the 2400 one can get a six core 12 thread 1600 or a six core i5 8400 which is faster in gaming overall than any AMD processor. And yes, the 2400 will have better cpu performance than the 2200, but worse than the only slightly more expensive hex cores. And I would argue that igpu gaming will be quite similar on the 2200 and 2400 because you will be bandwidth/gpu limited in most conditions at any decent resolutions. For sure, moving up to the 2400 from the 2200 will only be an incremental improvement, not a new tier altogether like adding a 1050 or above level dgpu. So I have always contended and still do that the 2400 is too close in igpu performance to the cheaper 2200 and too much slower than the much better performing hex cores in cpu performance to make it a good value relative to the other cpus on the market now.

"
the cheapest UK mobo for this CPU is £40 (GA-A320M-HD2)
the cheapest UK 8400 mobo is £89 (Z370P D3)
the 8400 itself is £149

so you're looking at £127 vs £238, which is a substantial saving. "

Those 8400 prices is smokescreen because you need a z370 to run it.
Typical Intel sales strategy.

Always the same broken record. Whatever it takes.
Yes. Some things dont change.

 

[TheELF]

"
the cheapest UK mobo for this CPU is £40 (GA-A320M-HD2)
the cheapest UK 8400 mobo is £89 (Z370P D3)
the 8400 itself is £149

so you're looking at £127 vs £238, which is a substantial saving. "

Those 8400 prices is smokescreen because you need a z370 to run it.
Typical Intel sales strategy.

Always the same broken record. Whatever it takes.
Yes. Some things dont change.

Yes one does in deed get that feeling from you...

The 2200g is miles behind the 8400 so why are you comparing those two in pricing?

Frozen was clearly talking about the 2400g wich is £138 plus the 47 for the mobo so around 190,he wasn't that far off with his statement,and if you want a good mobo and cooling and good mem for the APU to be able to OC without worrying too much he would probably be spot on.

 

[frozentundra123456]

"
the cheapest UK mobo for this CPU is £40 (GA-A320M-HD2)
the cheapest UK 8400 mobo is £89 (Z370P D3)
the 8400 itself is £149

so you're looking at £127 vs £238, which is a substantial saving. "

Those 8400 prices is smokescreen because you need a z370 to run it.
Typical Intel sales strategy.

Always the same broken record. Whatever it takes.
Yes. Some things dont change.

And you conveniently forget the 1600 from AMD, which is also only slightly more than the 2400. There will eventually be cheaper motherboards for the 8400 as well. And you either didnt understand, or more likely conveniently ignored, the whole point of my post, which was that the 2400, NOT the 2200 was too close in price to the much more powerful cpus. Granted, they are in a "whole different class" of cpu. But that is the point, for only 30.00 more you get a "whole different class" of cpus.

Only thing I agree with you about is your last sentence, but I am sure in a very different way than you do. Have to admit you are off you game though, you didnt mention BF1 in this post.

 

[PcPete69]

And you conveniently forget the 1600 from AMD, which is also only slightly more than the 2400. There will eventually be cheaper motherboards for the 8400 as well. And you either didnt understand, or more likely conveniently ignored, the whole point of my post, which was that the 2400, NOT the 2200 was too close in price to the much more powerful cpus. Granted, they are in a "whole different class" of cpu. But that is the point, for only 30.00 more you get a "whole different class" of cpus.

Only thing I agree with you about is your last sentence, but I am sure in a very different way than you do. Have to admit you are off you game though, you didnt mention BF1 in this post.

Oh come on, I'm not disputing you would get a far better experience with your i5 8400, but the pricing is no way near the same.

Ryzen 2400g + mobo = £185
i5 8400 + mobo = £250, but you then need to add a GPU, so total comes to either £320 or £375 depending on gtx 1030 or gtx 1050.

That's a considerable amount more expensive for a budget gaming pc

 

[Mondozei]

Yeah right...the added latency ,even if his internet connection is perfect, on a twitch shooter is going to be worse then anything the budget CPUs could cause,which would still have to run the game anyways.

Depends on his distance to the server. Sweclockers did a test earlier this year and they had 8 in ping with no latency problems.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Oh come on, I'm not disputing you would get a far better experience with your i5 8400, but the pricing is no way near the same.

Ryzen 2400g + mobo = £185
i5 8400 + mobo = £250, but you then need to add a GPU, so total comes to either £320 or £375 depending on gtx 1030 or gtx 1050.

That's a considerable amount more expensive for a budget gaming pc

Would you not get a far better experience with the 1600 as well? Maybe you should price that out. Funny how selective perception rules these forums. When the 1600 came out, people couldnt rush fast enough to recommend it. Now that it spoils the value equation of the 2400, it is conveniently forgotten.

 

[PcPete69]

Would you not get a far better experience with the 1600 as well? Maybe you should price that out. Funny how selective perception rules these forums. When the 1600 came out, people couldnt rush fast enough to recommend it. Now that it spoils the value equation of the 2400, it is conveniently forgotten.

How is it forgotten, with the 1600 you need a GPU.
The 2400g you can game on, but maybe not to your standards. 3 years ago I had an amd a6 6600k and I could play games on it, this chip is far better.

Edit: Just checked pricing
R5 1600 + mobo + GPU = £280 or £330 depending on GPU, that's still cheaper than i5 but also nearly £100 more than the 2400g for almost the same performance

 

[krumme]

Would you not get a far better experience with the 1600 as well? Maybe you should price that out. Funny how selective perception rules these forums. When the 1600 came out, people couldnt rush fast enough to recommend it. Now that it spoils the value equation of the 2400, it is conveniently forgotten.

Well what is excactly the alternative to a 2400g at a similar total cost cpu+mb+gpu?

 

[krumme]

When a 7700k dips to 40fps in bf1 mp64 you know you dont want less power and threads.

 

[msroadkill612]

Hey guys, I'm a long time reader of Anandtech (back when Anand used to write the articles himself!) but never got around to making a forum account until today.

As my username might suggest, I'm a bang for buck kind of gamer, so I generally prefer to stay a bit behind the bleeding edge and get reasonably priced hardware that still runs games well.

With GPU and RAM prices being what they are, I've held off building anything the past few months hoping supply issues would sort itself out... well, a quick look at GPU and RAM prices at most PC parts sites would suggest otherwise.

Anyhow, with no end in sight it seems to the inflated GPU and RAM prices, I've decided to bite the bullet and just build the best gaming PC I can for my budget, which I've set at $400 USD, though this isn't a hard budget limit and I'm open to exceeding it slightly, within reason. I am re-using my old Coolermaster case, PSU, SSD and 24" Samsung 1080P monitor, so pretty much only need a CPU, motherboard, RAM and GPU to get up and running.

My initial research, based on various tech site and YouTube reviews, was to opt for an Intel G4560 paired with a GTX 1050, which seemed to be a good combo for 1080P gaming, for shown in this video by JayzTwoCents: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoqO-JkmlnQ

The G4560, being a dual core CPU, does seem a bit weak but according to that video, runs games as well if not better than a Ryzen 3 1200, for a lower price.

I was pretty much set on the G4560 / GTX 1050 based build until I found out about the recently launched Ryzen 2200G and 2400G CPUs with integrated Vega graphics. I have to admit that the graphics power of the integrated Vega GPUs surprised me, my previous experiences with integrated graphics is that they pretty much suck when it comes to actual 3D gaming. However with the 2400G basically matching a GT 1030 GPU in most games, and the 2200G only a bit behind that, it got me thinking whether the G4560 and GTX 1050 is still the best approach?

I'm leaning towards the G4560 / GTX 1050 build because the GPU is still a lot faster than the integrated Vega GPUs, but the G4560 being a dual core will probably start struggling in future games sooner than the quad core AMD CPUs will.

I've priced out my potential builds on Amazon and the cart price comes down to this:
Pentium G4560: $67
MSI B250 Pro VDH: $65
Kingston HyperX 2x4GB DDR4-2400: $102
Gigabyte GTX1050 2GB: $135
Total: $369

Ryzen 2200G: $99 OR Ryzen 2400G: $169
MSI B350 Tomahawk: $80
Corsair LPX 2x4GB DDR4-3200: $116
Total: $295 for 2200G or $365 for 2400G

Another option is to add a GTX 1050 to the 2200G build, but that would push the total to $430, a bit more than what I had in mind budget wise, but I'm thinking it may run future titles better than the G4560 due to better multi-threading ability?

Sorry for the long winded post by the way, in case that was too much to read:

TLDR: For a budget gaming build, would you recommend a Pentium G4560 plus GTX 1050 or the new Ryzen 2200G / 2400G CPUs?

Thanks in advance

Just sayin, it seems silly to be decided on a discrete cpu at the outset, and wasting the gpu and 8 lanes by going for an apu anyway.

Warts and all, I would hunt up a; cheap, now redundant 4 core ~1500x ryzen to go with my am4 & dgpu, and keep my 8 lanes.

There should be some real bargains over the next month with the new zen+ models hitting in april, and the now defunct 4 core models. The 6 core ryzen is now $190 on newegg

Split the difference. Budget $150 for a bargain ryzen in the next month - maybe a 6 core even?

 

[msroadkill612]

Hey guys, just saw this video with PUBG benchmarked on the 2200G Vega GPU and unfortunately it isn't playable at 1080P: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGWT_syIilI

So I think I'll stick with my original plan of a GTX 1050, pretty much just deciding between the G4560 and Ryzen 2200G as the CPUs now, I do save $60 with the G4560 and which keeps things under my initial budget, though I do understand its an older platform and dual core etc so I'll probably have to upgrade it sooner than the 2200G.

Then consider my earlier suggestion. Budget~$150 for a clearance bargain 4 or 6 core ryzen in the next month's lead up to ryzen+.

With the apu your dgpu loses 8 lanes.

 

[Dribble]

I see reports of stuttering and general inconsistency with those apu's, that would pretty much decide it in my mind. Not worth the risk being dependent on AMD's driver team to fix all the timing and other issues for a apu that's borderline to start with.

 

[Gideon]

With the apu your dgpu loses 8 lanes.

Which with the 1050 probably won't even lose a single FPS.

 

[krumme]

I see reports of stuttering and general inconsistency with those apu's, that would pretty much decide it in my mind. Not worth the risk being dependent on AMD's driver team to fix all the timing and other issues for a apu that's borderline to start with.

Its just not gpu perf for 1080 for many new games.
Its 1030 class perf for the 2400g. And its suitable for solid 720. Testing as its 1050 class just makes no sense. The compettion is not separate gpu its core i3/i5 sans gpu. Its fairly obvious looking at the price. And as a sidenote its made for notebooks.

I have played some bf1 on a 1050 i use as backup and even it cant pull 60fps consistently at low settings but tanks at times. Its just a stretch and we are 9 months away from a new bf! Makes little sense imo.

I say 1060 3gb/570 4gb plus some solid 4c/8t or preferable 6c to make it last long is where a budget build starts.
Or a 2200g and only play old stuff. Or a console. As i wrote earlier its stupid to skimp down there as so few dollars gives you so much and is so much cheaper in the long run.

 

[budgetgamerguy]

Thought I might update you guys on what I ended up getting... and it was actually none of my existing choices! Well I did end up ordering the GTX 1050 from Amazon for $135, which arrived today, but ended up going for a used PC that my cousin no longer needed, as he has moved into a small apartment with limited space.

He wanted $100 for it, and it's actually not a half bad machine, it is a 2015 built Lenovo SFF with an i5 4460, 8GB RAM and a 1TB HDD (plus some crappy GeForce 705 that is totally unsuitable for gaming). I was worried about how the 270W PSU would handle the GTX 1050 but it runs just fine! Still, I'll probably end up putting my existing 650W PSU into the system for peace of mind.

Anyway PUBG runs pretty well at 1080P medium settings, BF1 I must admit still stutters a bit during heavy firefights, I guess you guys were right about the game needing ideally a 4 core / 8 thread processor to run perfectly smoothly. It could have been worse though, if I had got the G4560 as initially planned!

All in all I spent $235, and my framerates have literally doubled (not exact of course, but a rough estimate) compared to my old G3258 / 7850 system. I'm pretty happy with the system overall, its a slight bummer that I can't overclock the CPU and I'm sure that would have helped BF1 a bit, but for the money I paid, I can't complain. Maybe I'll keep an eye out for used i7 4770s or 4790s, I could probably sell the i5 4460 to recoup some of the cost as well.

 

[whm1974]

Not bad at all for under $250 if it works out for you.

 

[Iron Woode]

Thought I might update you guys on what I ended up getting... and it was actually none of my existing choices! Well I did end up ordering the GTX 1050 from Amazon for $135, which arrived today, but ended up going for a used PC that my cousin no longer needed, as he has moved into a small apartment with limited space.

He wanted $100 for it, and it's actually not a half bad machine, it is a 2015 built Lenovo SFF with an i5 4460, 8GB RAM and a 1TB HDD (plus some crappy GeForce 705 that is totally unsuitable for gaming). I was worried about how the 270W PSU would handle the GTX 1050 but it runs just fine! Still, I'll probably end up putting my existing 650W PSU into the system for peace of mind.

Anyway PUBG runs pretty well at 1080P medium settings, BF1 I must admit still stutters a bit during heavy firefights, I guess you guys were right about the game needing ideally a 4 core / 8 thread processor to run perfectly smoothly. It could have been worse though, if I had got the G4560 as initially planned!

All in all I spent $235, and my framerates have literally doubled (not exact of course, but a rough estimate) compared to my old G3258 / 7850 system. I'm pretty happy with the system overall, its a slight bummer that I can't overclock the CPU and I'm sure that would have helped BF1 a bit, but for the money I paid, I can't complain. Maybe I'll keep an eye out for used i7 4770s or 4790s, I could probably sell the i5 4460 to recoup some of the cost as well.

that's what I would have recommended.

Your system is similar to mine except I am using a 4690K and a GTX 1060 3GB. I can play Doom @1080P with max settings and average 100fps except when there's heavy fighting and it drops to about 85 - 90fps. I don't play many games and haven't tried BF1.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Its just not gpu perf for 1080 for many new games.
Its 1030 class perf for the 2400g. And its suitable for solid 720. Testing as its 1050 class just makes no sense. The compettion is not separate gpu its core i3/i5 sans gpu. Its fairly obvious looking at the price. And as a sidenote its made for notebooks.

I have played some bf1 on a 1050 i use as backup and even it cant pull 60fps consistently at low settings but tanks at times. Its just a stretch and we are 9 months away from a new bf! Makes little sense imo.

I say 1060 3gb/570 4gb plus some solid 4c/8t or preferable 6c to make it last long is where a budget build starts.
Or a 2200g and only play old stuff. Or a console. As i wrote earlier its stupid to skimp down there as so few dollars gives you so much and is so much cheaper in the long run.

Nobody in their right mind would call the igpu on the intel cpus the "competition" for the 2200g for gaming. Of course, It makes the product look powerful if you rule out any competition which gives better performance, as you seem to be doing.

 

[Kenmitch]

Nobody in their right mind would call the igpu on the intel cpus the "competition" for the 2200g for gaming. Of course, It makes the product look powerful if you rule out any competition which gives better performance, as you seem to be doing.

Many users around the world would beg to differ. Not everybody needs nor can afford a dGPU.

 

[whm1974]

Many users around the world would beg to differ. Not everybody needs nor can afford a dGPU.

Hence why the Raven Ridge 2200G and 2400G APUs are well suited for this market.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Hence why the Raven Ridge 2200G and 2400G APUs are well suited for this market.

My thoughts exactly.

Back when I was looking at/using Kaveri, a lot of people were quick to point out how much better an i3 or even an x4 + dGPU was compared to something like a A10-7850k running solo. I was fine with it (actually an A10-7700k) anyway at low rez in old games. Today, anyone looking at a 2200G or 2400G, has to look at a high price for dGPUs along with poor availability. It's easy to justify just getting an APU, throwing it on a B350 and calling it a day. Too bad the memory prices are also high. It's ironic that AMD has mostly abandoned their DRAM and SSD brands when today would be the perfect time for some reasonably-priced products to go with an APU + mobo combo. Assuming they could get DRAM at lower prices than average consumers, which maybe they can't.

 

[whm1974]

My thoughts exactly.

Back when I was looking at/using Kaveri, a lot of people were quick to point out how much better an i3 or even an x4 + dGPU was compared to something like a A10-7850k running solo. I was fine with it (actually an A10-7700k) anyway at low rez in old games. Today, anyone looking at a 2200G or 2400G, has to look at a high price for dGPUs along with poor availability. It's easy to justify just getting an APU, throwing it on a B350 and calling it a day. Too bad the memory prices are also high. It's ironic that AMD has mostly abandoned their DRAM and SSD brands when today would be the perfect time for some reasonably-priced products to go with an APU + mobo combo. Assuming they could get DRAM at lower prices than average consumers, which maybe they can't.

My guess is you will need 16GB of DDR4-3200 memory to get the most out of the 2400G. And a good size SSD would be nice to have with the APU as well.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Thanks to the requirement of using system RAM as framebuffer when running an iGPU, 8 GB will not cut it. So yes, you will want a 16GB kit.

 

[Thunder 57]

...BF1 I must admit still stutters a bit during heavy firefights, I guess you guys were right about the game needing ideally a 4 core / 8 thread processor to run perfectly smoothly. It could have been worse though, if I had got the G4560 as initially planned!

Sounds like you did pretty good, and defiantly a good thing you did not get the G4560!

I don't know if you saw my post earlier, but I had always heard how CPU dependent BF is with lots of players so I decided to see just how much so.

So I was curious and loaded up BF1 with just two cores. It was brutal. It took noticeably longer to load the map, and when it finally did, it still took like 30 seconds before it "caught up" and I could join a squad. From there it was just choppy. Playable perhaps, but at a level where I was at a serious disadvantage. After a few deaths I put it back on 4 cores and it was a night and day difference.

For reference, I have a 3570k, set to 4.2GHz all core, so 4.2GHz under "dual core" as well.

I also tried the 3570k at stock clocks, and it still wasn't 100% smooth. It seems to need 4.0GHz+ all core to be smooth. IIRC at stock the 3570k only goes to 3.5GHz under all core. It doesn't sound like that big a difference until you realize over 4 cores that adds up to 2GHz of something multi-threaded enough to be able to use it.

So it sounds like an overclocked 4C4T is the minimum with 4C8T being ideal.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Many users around the world would beg to differ. Not everybody needs nor can afford a dGPU.

That may be true, but the point is that a discrete dgpu is still competition for an APU. One may decide that an apu is "good enough", but a dgpu is still competition for it, although be it at a slightly higher price point. Personally, I dont really buy the "I have to game right now, cant wait and save up a bit more money, cant afford games or a dgpu, but can afford a several hundred dollar PC to play free games on" scenario, but whatever.