My Daughter's First PC Build, Input Needed

[Subyman]

My daughter has been playing on my PC for over year now. She came up and said she'd love to have her own and I'd like to play games with her over LAN so I agreed to start putting something together. I haven't built a computer in probably 2-3 years, so I'm not aware of everything available now. Here's what I've put together so far:

CPU: Ryzen 2200G
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-AB350M-Gaming 3
Ram: Corsair Vengeance LPX 2x4GB 3000Mhz C15
SSD: Kingston A400 240GB
GPU: ???
Case: Corsair something I have laying around
PSU: 600W one I have in storage

So the logic with this build is to get her going with the built in graphics on the Ryzen and add a GPU with good behavior . However, is it pointless to even try to game on the APU? Is the CPU side of the 2200G decently powerful enough to add something like a 1060 later? I know the Ryzen platform gives us a decent upgrade path down the road for a faster CPU too.

Would you guys suggest something different? Hoping to get the CPU, GPU, MB, Ram, and SSD for under $500 if possible.

Thanks!

 

[Yuriman]

As long as she doesn't expect 4k or ultra settings, most games run fine on the integrated graphics. When I first got into gaming I was thrilled to even be playing games, even if they were running at 25fps lowest settings. A 2200G will do better than that.

The 2200G performs somewhere around a 3rd or 4th gen i5, which for the most part is "plenty". In games like Civ, which are very thread-heavy, a 2400G is very significantly faster, but both are acceptable.

 

[whm1974]

The 2200G will be fine for your daughter, but you may want to add a one or two Terabyte HDD to the build as a 240GB SSD is rather small for today's games.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

IMO, get a 2400G. You can do a LOT of 1080p gaming on that thing.

Depending on how old she is, she'll probably need a laptop for school (college? Yeah, dad, that's your wallet crying) before she needs an upgraded GPU.

 

[Subyman]

Thanks guys. She mostly plays Minecraft, Ark, BeamNG, and RCT3. I think it will run those on low/medium no problem. I've got several 1TB HDDs sitting around so that shouldn't be a problem adding that. Glad to know the 2200G will provide enough graphics umph to get her started and we can always add a GPU later.

 

[Subyman]

IMO, get a 2400G. You can do a LOT of 1080p gaming on that thing.

Depending on how old she is, she'll probably need a laptop for school (college? Yeah, dad, that's your wallet crying) before she needs an upgraded GPU.

Since we can put off the GPU, the 2400G is probably doable. She's only 9, so we've got a ways to go before college thank god.

 

[LTC8K6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryzen#Desktop
There is a chart with the specs of the 2200G and 2400G for comparison.

 

[whm1974]

IMO, get a 2400G. You can do a LOT of 1080p gaming on that thing.

Depending on how old she is, she'll probably need a laptop for school (college? Yeah, dad, that's your wallet crying) before she needs an upgraded GPU.

With a better iGPU and SMT that APU should last a bit longer then the 2200G. So it will a better choice.

 

[richaron]

I can appreciate the goal is a low cost gaming APU system. So in gaming both 2200G & 2400G are usually bottlenecked by the inbuilt graphics, which are both in turn basically bottlenecked by the DDR4 memory. If you were not considering adding a dedicated GPU in the future I would say the lower end system (2200G) with close enough performance is the best buy.

But if you were seriously planning on adding a dedicated GPU in the future then the situation would change, and the extra few dollars you spend now on a 2400G could have a significant impact on gaming in the future. In OP's situation I doubt a "high end" CPU would ever be on the cards for the duration of the system, but a 2400G with double the threads should be able to keep up with a normal mid range GPU if OP decides for a moderate upgrade in the future. A 2200G might not.

 

[Subyman]

I'd say we will seriously consider getting a gpu for the system depending on how much she gets into it. So the 2400G will probably serve us well.

 

[XavierMace]

So the logic with this build is to get her going with the built in graphics on the Ryzen and add a GPU with good behavior . However, is it pointless to even try to game on the APU? Is the CPU side of the 2200G decently powerful enough to add something like a 1060 later? I know the Ryzen platform gives us a decent upgrade path down the road for a faster CPU too.

Ark is going to be really rough on the 2200G (or 2400G). The rest should be fine. I posted some stock benches around here somewhere on mine. TF2, CSGO were fine at 1080p. Warframe fine at 720p (which surprised me). I can install Ark later if you want and give it a spin, but I'm not going to expect much.

Personally I think the 2400G is a waste. People lose perspective when comparing products because they are going entirely off benchmarks numbers rather than looking at the experience they provide. Lets take a step back and be realistic, keeping in mind your goals for this. Neither can play new AAA titles at 1080p. Both can play Source era games at 1080p just fine (meaning acceptable framerates). Yes, in heavy multithreaded loads the 2400G can get a somewhat sizable lead over the 2200G. But it's still beaten by every other product in the Ryzen line. The 2400G is 60% more expensive than the 2200G. Even in a multithreaded scenario (such as Civ VI), it's only about a 20% difference between the two. The amount of scenarios where that performance difference equates to a game being playable or not is very, very small.

IMO, save the $60 and stick with the 2200G. Neither are going to run Ark great, and you can use that savings to put towards future upgrades.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

Ark is going to be really rough on the 2200G (or 2400G). The rest should be fine. I posted some stock benches around here somewhere on mine. TF2, CSGO were fine at 1080p. Warframe fine at 720p (which surprised me). I can install Ark later if you want and give it a spin, but I'm not going to expect much.

Personally I think the 2400G is a waste. People lose perspective when comparing products because they are going entirely off benchmarks numbers rather than looking at the experience they provide. Lets take a step back and be realistic, keeping in mind your goals for this. Neither can play new AAA titles at 1080p. Both can play Source era games at 1080p just fine (meaning acceptable framerates). Yes, in heavy multithreaded loads the 2400G can get a somewhat sizable lead over the 2200G. But it's still beaten by every other product in the Ryzen line. The 2400G is 60% more expensive than the 2200G. Even in a multithreaded scenario (such as Civ VI), it's only about a 20% difference between the two. The amount of scenarios where that performance difference equates to a game being playable or not is very, very small.

IMO, save the $60 and stick with the 2200G. Neither are going to run Ark great, and you can use that savings to put towards future upgrades.

I was thinking the extra 3 GPU units in the 2400G would make it "better enough" to make a marginally-playable game on a 2200G actually not-half-bad and lessen the likelihood that she'd need a GPU at all.

Assuming a kid would be playing fewer high-end-graphics, AAA, competitive FPS, survival-horror or blood-and-guts type games and more Rimworld or Bridge Constructor type stuff that's fairly light on graphics to begin with. But I don't really know what kids are up to these days.

Hell, the 2004 remake of Sid Meier's Pirates is still worth a play-through or two. At least in the opinion of this soft-headed "f*****g casual."

 

[whm1974]

Ark is going to be really rough on the 2200G (or 2400G). The rest should be fine. I posted some stock benches around here somewhere on mine. TF2, CSGO were fine at 1080p. Warframe fine at 720p (which surprised me). I can install Ark later if you want and give it a spin, but I'm not going to expect much.

Personally I think the 2400G is a waste. People lose perspective when comparing products because they are going entirely off benchmarks numbers rather than looking at the experience they provide. Lets take a step back and be realistic, keeping in mind your goals for this. Neither can play new AAA titles at 1080p. Both can play Source era games at 1080p just fine (meaning acceptable framerates). Yes, in heavy multithreaded loads the 2400G can get a somewhat sizable lead over the 2200G. But it's still beaten by every other product in the Ryzen line. The 2400G is 60% more expensive than the 2200G. Even in a multithreaded scenario (such as Civ VI), it's only about a 20% difference between the two. The amount of scenarios where that performance difference equates to a game being playable or not is very, very small.

IMO, save the $60 and stick with the 2200G. Neither are going to run Ark great, and you can use that savings to put towards future upgrades.

Dude, the OP's daughter is only 9 Y/O. But the time she is ready to play the more demanding AAA games, the OP will be a building a new system for her anyway.

 

[XavierMace]

I was thinking the extra 3 GPU units in the 2400G would make it "better enough" to make a marginally-playable game on a 2200G actually not-half-bad and lessen the likelihood that she'd need a GPU at all.

That's the catch, is it's really not because the difference between the two isn't all that big in the grand scheme of things. It's generally a 10%-15% difference between the $96 2200G and the $169 2400G which translates to a couple of FPS in most cases. You can get a GT1030 for $86 which beats out both the 2200G and 2400G. The gap between the GT 1030 and the 2400G is larger than the gap between the 2400G and the 2200G but it's still not playing AAA titles at 1080p either. A GT 1050 which can be had for $140, gives a comparatively huge boost over any of the other three options.

Dude, the OP's daughter is only 9 Y/O. But the time she is ready to play the more demanding AAA games, the OP will be a building a new system for her anyway.

Which was my point. There's no point in spending the extra money on the 2400G because it does nothing for the OP. Ark is the only wildcard and I'm thinking maybe you're not familiar with Ark (which the OP specifically mentioned as being played).

MINIMUM:
OS: Windows 7/8.1/10 (64-bit versions)
Processor: Intel Core i5-2400/AMD FX-8320 or better
Memory: 8 GB RAM
Graphics: NVIDIA GTX 670 2GB/AMD Radeon HD 7870 2GB or better
DirectX: Version 10
Storage: 60 GB available space
Additional Notes: Requires broadband internet connection for multiplayer

Per Steam. Some people call it the new Crysis from a benchmarking/system requirements standpoint.

Let me go start the download on my 2200G rig and see how it goes. I'll be shocked if 1080p30 happens at anything above min settings, if at all. But again, the 2400G isn't going to be a huge change.

 

[XavierMace]

Thanks guys. She mostly plays Minecraft, Ark, BeamNG, and RCT3. I think it will run those on low/medium no problem. I've got several 1TB HDDs sitting around so that shouldn't be a problem adding that. Glad to know the 2200G will provide enough graphics umph to get her started and we can always add a GPU later.

Disclaimer: I built my 2200G box early March and it's been powered off pretty much since then. So BIOS and Drivers are probably out of date. Running stock clocks as it's an HTPC box primarily. Tested running locally hosted server on same rig.

Ark @ 1080p on low is iffy. Mostly stays above 30fps unless you start sprinting and spinning quickly, then there's a dip down to the mid teens while it streams new data. No actual stalls though, so may not be a big deal to a 9yo. Dropping it down to 720p doubles the frame rate. I can try to experiment some more later if you'd like.

 

[daveybrat]

Go with the 2400G like the other's have said. But do NOT get that motherboard. It does not have native support for that cpu and requires bios version F10 or higher. If the board comes with a lower bios you'll get no video.

Go with this newer board:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813145056&ignorebbr=1

First, it's only $64.99, so you save $20. Second, it actually uses the X370 chipset (even though it's called an AB350M). Also it has native support starting with bios F1 for the 2200G and 2400G.

 

[amd6502]

2200g is fine unless unless streaming, or if u want to go with the fastest ddr4 and max out graphics

 

[Subyman]

I was thinking the extra 3 GPU units in the 2400G would make it "better enough" to make a marginally-playable game on a 2200G actually not-half-bad and lessen the likelihood that she'd need a GPU at all.

Assuming a kid would be playing fewer high-end-graphics, AAA, competitive FPS, survival-horror or blood-and-guts type games and more Rimworld or Bridge Constructor type stuff that's fairly light on graphics to begin with. But I don't really know what kids are up to these days.

Hell, the 2004 remake of Sid Meier's Pirates is still worth a play-through or two. At least in the opinion of this soft-headed "f*****g casual."

She's not really into FPS shooters or anything. Ark is the highest end game she will likely play for awhile but it scales pretty well.

Dude, the OP's daughter is only 9 Y/O. But the time she is ready to play the more demanding AAA games, the OP will be a building a new system for her anyway.

Mostly older games and such. BeamNG might be a no go due to it being very compute heavy.

Disclaimer: I built my 2200G box early March and it's been powered off pretty much since then. So BIOS and Drivers are probably out of date. Running stock clocks as it's an HTPC box primarily. Tested running locally hosted server on same rig.

Ark @ 1080p on low is iffy. Mostly stays above 30fps unless you start sprinting and spinning quickly, then there's a dip down to the mid teens while it streams new data. No actual stalls though, so may not be a big deal to a 9yo. Dropping it down to 720p doubles the frame rate. I can try to experiment some more later if you'd like.

Thanks for the test. Low is likely just fine for her. She never complains about graphics. Shoot, she plays minecraft for hours and hours. As long as it is playable then thats fine. I'll likely throw a low end GPU in there somewhat soon.

Go with the 2400G like the other's have said. But do NOT get that motherboard. It does not have native support for that cpu and requires bios version F10 or higher. If the board comes with a lower bios you'll get no video.

Go with this newer board:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813145056&ignorebbr=1

First, it's only $64.99, so you save $20. Second, it actually uses the X370 chipset (even though it's called an AB350M). Also it has native support starting with bios F1 for the 2200G and 2400G.

Thanks for the suggestion. It looks like it may be a crap shoot with some boards trying to get an updated one from the factory.

 

[aigomorla]

Ark is the highest end game she will likely play for awhile but it scales pretty well.

Ark scales horribly....
It completely depends on what setting you have, and how many people are running around.

If your playing solo, then yeah, it can be manageable, but if your playing on a public server, and you got a ton of people running around doing stuff, then your system will cry.

Ark is like any other MMO, the more people you have the more it will cripple your system.

Games like GW2 , WoW, and such are known to never be able to run smoothly in a full out world event raid style, because of all the stuff that goes on in the background.


AS you said depending on how much your daughter will get into gaming i would go with a platform which has the most choices of ugprades.

Davey gave an excellent suggestion on that board if its truely a X370 chipset.
It should allow your daughter to upgrade to a higher tier ryzen 7 if she decides to go with more core intensive games.

I would also second on maxing the GPU out as much as possible.

It seems like GPU prices are getting better again after the many months of Crypto currency hell we went though and availability.
For example a GTX 1060 or a RX580 should pretty much be solid work horses on any fps game you throw at it in 1080p.

Lastly, there is a marked difference in quality on low/medium vs high/ultra... So much that once u start gaming in ultra, you really dont want to go back, and you end up spending that extra 200-300 dollars on that gpu so you can stay in ultra.

 

[daveybrat]

Yeah, it's weird why they'd put an X370 chipset on a B350 class board, but even gigabytes own website as well as others have noted it:

https://www.gigabyte.com/Motherboard/GA-AB350M-DS3H-rev-1x#sp

Also, with the latest bios F22 the board supports all the way up to the 2700X

 

[Subyman]

Update for you guys...

We were in STL this weekend for a Cardinals game so I browsed Microcenter while I was there. I forgot how good their deals are! They had the 2200G for $79.99. I grabbed one of those then checked out the motherboards. Got a ASUS TUF X470 PLUS-GAMING open box for $119.99 - $30 motherboard bundle deal, so $89.99. Also got 2x4GB DDR4 Corsair 3000mhz and a Samsung 860 Evo 250GB. Walked out of there for around $360 after tax. The other parts I already had.

Complete specs (*Already have):
CPU: Ryzen 2200G
Motherboard: ASUS TUF X470 Plus Gaming
RAM: Corsair Vengeance LPX 2x4GB 3000mhz
SSD: Samsung 860 EVO 250GB
*Case: Corsair Obsidian 550D
*PSU: PC P&C Silencer MKII 600W
*Monitor: Dell 2005FPW

Pretty good set up for under $400 spent total. Plays minecraft just fine and the monitor is only 1440x900, so its even easier than 1080p! I think it leaves a lot of room for her to grow into it over the next few years. Glad I went ahead and found the X470 motherboard for such a good deal so we have plenty of future options. I'll likely report back after we play some more games.

Thanks everyone!

 

[Subyman]

Ark scales horribly....
It completely depends on what setting you have, and how many people are running around.

If your playing solo, then yeah, it can be manageable, but if your playing on a public server, and you got a ton of people running around doing stuff, then your system will cry.

Ark is like any other MMO, the more people you have the more it will cripple your system.

It will just be me and her playing for quite a while. Not ready for her to play online multiplayer with strangers for years! So not many people on screen.

Games like GW2 , WoW, and such are known to never be able to run smoothly in a full out world event raid style, because of all the stuff that goes on in the background.


AS you said depending on how much your daughter will get into gaming i would go with a platform which has the most choices of ugprades.

No MMOs for awhile. I'm sure we will be upgraded once shes ready for that kind of stuff.

Davey gave an excellent suggestion on that board if its truely a X370 chipset.
It should allow your daughter to upgrade to a higher tier ryzen 7 if she decides to go with more core intensive games.

I would also second on maxing the GPU out as much as possible.

It seems like GPU prices are getting better again after the many months of Crypto currency hell we went though and availability.
For example a GTX 1060 or a RX580 should pretty much be solid work horses on any fps game you throw at it in 1080p

Not the end of the world if we wait a bit for a dedicated GPU. I've tried minecraft at 1080p (on my monitor) and it runs just fine. Ark may be a struggle but we don't play it too much. The rest of the games are mostly from years ago like RCT3.

Lastly, there is a marked difference in quality on low/medium vs high/ultra... So much that once u start gaming in ultra, you really dont want to go back, and you end up spending that extra 200-300 dollars on that gpu so you can stay in ultra.

Definitely do not care about ultra settings. She is just starting to get a real sense about fps and hitching. Dialing down shadows and such will be fine until she shows a major interest in upgrading (and wanting to do work to pay for that.)

 

[VirtualLarry]

Looks like a great build! Hope that she enjoys it!