[Hardware Unboxed] Ryzen 2400G/2200G Vega Graphics Performance

Red Hawk

Diamond Member
Jan 1, 2011
3,197
0
106
#1

In short: the Vega 11 graphics in the 2400G trades blows with low end discreet graphics like the Geforce GT 1030, trounces Intel's HD Graphics 630, and the 2200G's Vega 8 graphics isn't too far behind. Also crushes AMD's last APU and Bulldozer's "swan song", the A12-9800.

In fact, looking just at graphics and game performance, the 2200G looks like better bang for your buck if you're aiming to spend the absolute least amount you can on a system and still have it viable for current games at low settings.

Seems to me that Ryzen with Vega graphics has arrived at both the most opportune and least opportune moment. Most opportune due to inflated discreet GPU prices at the moment, making a low cost alternative all the more appealing. Least opportune due to inflated memory prices, especially since these chips' performance scales directly with memory speed all the way up to 3200 MHz. You may be saving money by foregoing a dGPU, but you may just end up spending that money on faster RAM.

Also worth mentioning is the price and performance comparison to consoles, even though the video doesn't touch on this. The Vega 11 graphics has 1 less compute unit (64 less stream processors) than the original Xbox One/Xbox One S, but the higher clock speed and more modern Vega architecture should help it close the performance gap (1250 MHz for Vega 11 vs 914 MHz for the Xbox One S). And of course, 4 Ryzen cores are going to bury the consoles' 8 Jaguar-based cores, with or without SMT. But the Xbox One S just costs $280 USD right now, and the PS4 Slim costs $300. Ryzen w/ Vega may be a great value specific to the PC CPU and GPU market, but when you factor in the cost of the other components, especially RAM and a blu-ray drive (if like me you'd want to use this as a living room media center that can also game), a Windows license, and peripherals for gaming, you'd probably be pushing the price into the $400-500 range, at which point you might as well just buy a PS4 Pro or Xbox One X for massively improved graphics performance. Consoles right now are just a really good value proposition in comparison to budget PCs for gaming, even with their CPU Achilles heel, and I don't think Ryzen w/ Vega Graphics does much to change this.

Anyone planning on picking one of these up?

Edit: It's worse than I thought. I picked out parts to go with a 2400G. Only 2 4GB sticks of DDR4. No disc drive. Ended up with with a shopping cart total of $594. In no way are custom built PCs viable as a price alternative for consoles, when you can just pick up a PS4 Slim for $300 or an Xbox One X for $500 right now...
 
Last edited:

dogen1

Senior member
Oct 14, 2014
739
0
91
#2
The Vega 11 graphics has 1 less compute unit (64 less stream processors) than the original Xbox One/Xbox One S, but the higher clock speed and more modern Vega architecture should help it close the performance gap (1250 MHz for Vega 11 vs 914 MHz for the Xbox One S).
It also has ~1/4 the memory bandwidth. RR has 2x the GPU L2 cache and is more bandwidth efficient in general, but I don't think it will make up the entire difference.
 
Mar 8, 2013
925
0
136
#3
It also has ~1/4 the memory bandwidth. RR has 2x the GPU L2 cache and is more bandwidth efficient in general, but I don't think it will make up the entire difference.
The Xbox One has 68.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth, as it uses DDR3. Even if we assume dual channel DDR4-2400, Raven Ridge has more than 1/2 the Xbox's memory bandwidth. If we assume dual channel DDR4-3200, it has 3/4 the memory bandwidth. The PS4 has a lot more of course, which is probably what you meant.

I'm guessing that Vega 11, even with the lower memory bandwidth is ahead of the Xbox One on average. It's pretty close to the GT 1030, which must be faster than a downclocked DDR3 R7 260.
 

24601

Golden Member
Jun 10, 2007
1,683
0
86
#4
Everything using DDR4 under i5-8400 is DOA due to 400-500% DDR4 prices.
 
Oct 14, 2003
5,735
68
126
#7
The Xbox One also has eSRAM that has 170-200GB/s bandwidth and can be optimized by the developers of the game. Consoles also have a massive advantage of having a stable(not changing) platform for a few years, while PC developers have to optimize for all the hardware available.

Not saying Consoles win absolutely, but performance wise per hardware they do, because of the above.

Can't fix stupid.
Nothing stupid about that. Some people have better things to do than spend hours looking for what's the best hardware of the time. They may not get the best hardware per dollar, but they don't see it as important.
 

tamz_msc

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2017
2,148
86
106
#8
Everything using DDR4 under i5-8400 is DOA due to 400-500% DDR4 prices.
2x4GB 3000MHz memory isn't that much more expensive than 2400Mhz you know? Like only around 20$ more on Newegg.
 

24601

Golden Member
Jun 10, 2007
1,683
0
86
#9
2x4GB 3000MHz memory isn't that much more expensive than 2400Mhz you know? Like only around 20$ more on Newegg.
I'm talking about DDR4 vs not DDR4.
 

24601

Golden Member
Jun 10, 2007
1,683
0
86
#10
The Xbox One also has eSRAM that has 170-200GB/s bandwidth and can be optimized by the developers of the game. Consoles also have a massive advantage of having a stable(not changing) platform for a few years, while PC developers have to optimize for all the hardware available.

Not saying Consoles win absolutely, but performance wise per hardware they do, because of the above.



Nothing stupid about that. Some people have better things to do than spend hours looking for what's the best hardware of the time. They may not get the best hardware per dollar, but they don't see it as important.
Aka, instead of buying what they need, they buy something that marketing told them to buy.

Aka, Can't Fix Stupid.

The fact that Sandy/Ivy/Haswell full system + GT 1030 wasn't popular before today should tell you exactly how stupid that decision was.
 

tamz_msc

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2017
2,148
86
106
#11
Aka, instead of buying what they need, they buy something that marketing told them to buy.

Aka, Can't Fix Stupid.

The fact that Sandy/Ivy/Haswell full system + GT 1030 wasn't popular before today should tell you exactly how stupid that decision was.
Well if you're buying new then the GT 1030 is pretty much dead compared to RR.
 

Glo.

Platinum Member
Apr 25, 2015
2,623
12
106
#13

sontin

Diamond Member
Sep 12, 2011
3,091
11
91
#14
It was an example and a rather popular one. Sure, i could use Wolfenstein 2 but there are more than 200 hundred games in front of it on steam...

The 2400G costs more and doesnt deliver more performance.
 
Last edited:

Glo.

Platinum Member
Apr 25, 2015
2,623
12
106
#15
It was an example and a rather popular one. Sure, i could use Wolfenstein 2 but there are more than 200 hundred games in front of it on steam...

The 2400G costs more and doesnt deliver more performance.
Did you put into equation, the performance of the CPU, which is higher than Core i3 8100, and total cost of 8100+GT1030 is higher than 2400G?

There is NOTHING in the world, in budget market, that can compete with the APUs. You either sacrifice cost, or performance of CPU or GPU.
 

sontin

Diamond Member
Sep 12, 2011
3,091
11
91
#16
Yes, i have. And no it doesnt matter for most people who just want to play games and watch videos on youtube.

BTW: A i3-8100 with a GTX1050 cost a little bit more than a 2400G + difference 2400Mhz to 3200Mhz memory here in germany. It delivers up to 75% more performance in games and in most cases more CPU performance. And should anybody care to put in a much better GPU the difference will only grow.
 

tamz_msc

Platinum Member
Jan 5, 2017
2,148
86
106
#17
Your definition of "dead" is a little bit off:

https://pclab.pl/art76962-11.html

Here is another popular game: https://techreport.com/review/33235/amd-ryzen-3-2200g-and-ryzen-5-2400g-processors-reviewed/6

If somebody would buy new the combination of Pentium G4560 and dGPU is still better.
That's just two of the top 10 most played games on Steam. If we include other popular games including those that are not on Steam, then the 2400G is either equal to or better than the G4560+GT 1030 in
  1. R6:Siege
  2. CS:GO
  3. Rocket League
  4. Overwatch
  5. BF1(dual cores really struggle here)
So no, the G4560+GT 1030 isn't always better.
 

Red Hawk

Diamond Member
Jan 1, 2011
3,197
0
106
#18
Yes, i have. And no it doesnt matter for most people who just want to play games and watch videos on youtube.

BTW: A i3-8100 with a GTX1050 cost a little bit more than a 2400G + difference 2400Mhz to 3200Mhz memory here in germany. It delivers up to 75% more performance in games and in most cases more CPU performance. And should anybody care to put in a much better GPU the difference will only grow.
An i3 8100 and a Geforce 1050 would be $270 here in the US. The 2400G is $180, and the difference between 8GB 2400 DDR4 and 3200 is only $20 or so. So while the 1050 definitely performs better, it's also definitely more expensive. If you have an eye for adding a better graphics card further down the road, I'd rather have the unlocked 2400G with SMT to pair with it rather than the locked 8100 with no SMT.
 

Elfear

Diamond Member
May 30, 2004
6,789
17
106
#19
Your definition of "dead" is a little bit off:

https://pclab.pl/art76962-11.html

Here is another popular game: https://techreport.com/review/33235/amd-ryzen-3-2200g-and-ryzen-5-2400g-processors-reviewed/6

If somebody would buy new the combination of Pentium G4560 and dGPU is still better.
From Anandtech:

"When we compare the Ryzen 5 2400G with any CPU paired with the NVIDIA GT 1030, both solutions are within a few percent of each other in all of our 1080p benchmarks. The NVIDIA GT 1030 is a $90 graphics card, which when paired with a CPU, gets you two options: either match the combined price with the Ryzen 5 2400G, which leaves $80 for a CPU, giving a Pentium that loses in anything multi-threaded to AMD; or just increases the cost fo the system to get a CPU that is equivalent in performance. Except for chipset IO, the Intel + GT 1030 route offers no benefits over the AMD solution: it costs more, for a budget-constrained market, and draws more power overall. There's also the fact that the AMD APUs come with a Wraith Stealth 65W cooler, which adds additional value to the package that Intel doesn't seem to want to match."

One or two games does not a conclusion make.
 

sontin

Diamond Member
Sep 12, 2011
3,091
11
91
#20
You dont need a $100 CPU for gaming. The low GPU performance makes even a G4560 very attractive. And most people dont care about the better CPU performance of a 2200G or 2400G.

PurePC has more options in their review: https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/tes...aven_ridge_zen_i_vega_w_jednym_ciele?page=0,9

It just doesnt make sense to take something slower than a GTX1050 to have at least an acceptable gaming experience.
 

whm1974

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2016
6,067
198
96
#21
You dont need a $100 CPU for gaming. The low GPU performance makes even a G4560 very attractive. And most people dont care about the better CPU performance of a 2200G or 2400G.

PurePC has more options in their review: https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/tes...aven_ridge_zen_i_vega_w_jednym_ciele?page=0,9

It just doesnt make sense to take something slower than a GTX1050 to have at least an acceptable gaming experience.
The $100 2200G APU isn't that much more then the G4560, so why buy the dual core Pentium when you can have four cores?
 

Red Hawk

Diamond Member
Jan 1, 2011
3,197
0
106
#22
You dont need a $100 CPU for gaming. The low GPU performance makes even a G4560 very attractive. And most people dont care about the better CPU performance of a 2200G or 2400G.

PurePC has more options in their review: https://www.purepc.pl/procesory/tes...aven_ridge_zen_i_vega_w_jednym_ciele?page=0,9

It just doesnt make sense to take something slower than a GTX1050 to have at least an acceptable gaming experience.
A 4560 costs $80 in the US. With a 1050 that's closer to the 2400G, but still more expensive, and for that price you're now getting half the CPU cores and half the threads. CPU requirements are more static than GPU requirements, not really scaling with resolution, textures, effects, etc. A dual core can really hamper gaming.

You're not considering that someone could want to buy a CPU and use a weaker graphics chip as a placeholder until they can buy a better graphics card - a very likely situation with the current state of GPU prices. A 2400G would go pretty well with something like a GTX 1060 or an RX-580 without being a bottleneck. I wouldn't be so sure about the G4560.

And of course, if you're looking to save as much money as possible while maintaining decent CPU performance and a GPU that won't choke at the most casual gaming, there's no beating the 2200G. Just one Benjamin and you're on your way.

So no, there are a few scenarios where buying these chips with gaming in mind makes sense.
 

Glo.

Platinum Member
Apr 25, 2015
2,623
12
106
#23
If I would be in a market for dGPU, low-end, like GTX 1050... I would go straight for RX 560. Why? Offers the same performance level, costs the same, however offers something which Nvidia will not give you on a budget. High Quality monitor with adaptive sync.

There is a ton of chap, high quality monitors. That you can use both with RX 560, and with APU GPU.
 

sontin

Diamond Member
Sep 12, 2011
3,091
11
91
#24
The $100 2200G APU isn't that much more then the G4560, so why buy the dual core Pentium when you can have four cores?
It's just an example. Problem with the 2200G is the limited PCIe connection. Maybe a R5 1400 would be better. It has 4C/8T like the 2400G.
 

Red Hawk

Diamond Member
Jan 1, 2011
3,197
0
106
#25
It's just an example. Problem with the 2200G is the limited PCIe connection. Maybe a R5 1400 would be better. It has 4C/8T like the 2400G.
If you're going to put enough graphics hardware in your PC to the point that the amount of available PCI-E lanes starts to matter, you're not looking in this price segment for a CPU to begin with.
 


ASK THE COMMUNITY