New desktop computer

skaertus

Senior member
Mar 20, 2010
217
28
91
The thing is, I have recently moved and I will probably build a new desktop computer in the following months. I do not live in the U.S., I live in Brazil, and, in addition to the impossibly high taxes on electronic devices, the exchange rate is very unfavorable these days, so my budget is definitely not unlimited.

I currently have an HP ProDesk G3 Mini, equipped with a Core i5-7500T (http://www8.hp.com/us/en/products/desktops/product-detail.html?oid=15287510#!tab=specs). I added some custom components, and now it has 8 GB RAM, and a 256 GB SSD. It works fine for basic tasks, such as web browsing and office productivity. In addition to it, I have a Dell XPS 9550 and a 13-inch MacBook Pro (with TouchBar), as laptops (both of which have 16 GB RAM and 512 GB SSD).

However, after I added a 32-inch 3840x2160 monitor, the computer does not seem to respond so well, probably because the integrated video card is not powerful enough for some tasks.

I like the form factor, but perhaps I could use some more power. And, of course, I could benefit from more ports, and the possibility of adding both an SSD and an HDD. And perhaps some casual gaming (which I already do with the integrated video card, and it is not that bad for what I need).

I am looking at my options here and there seems to be plenty. First, whenever I built computers in the past, or bought laptops, I always went with an Intel processor, as I had bad experiences with AMD processors in the past (as they seemed to be much weaker). The desktop-class AMD K6-2 and the laptop-class AMD Athlon 64 X2 were so weak back in the day that AMD really lost me. However, I am not so sure anymore, as I am hearing very good things about Ryzen. I was wondering whether I should wait for Intel to release the 9th gen of Core processors, since it is so near launch. But from what I have heard, there should not be many improvements.

My initial thought was to get a Core i5-8400, since it is six-core and should offer decent performance. But then I looked at the Core i5-8500 and Core i5-8600, and the price difference does not seem that much. The Core i7-8700 is certainly more expensive, but it also has HyperThreading enabled. How much difference does these virtual cores make in performance, anyway?

I also looked at Ryzen and I am intrigued. It has more cores, and HyperThreading for a lower price point. The Ryzen 2600X is selling for the same price as the Core i5-8400. The Ryzen 2700 and 2700X are both 8-core processors, but cheaper than the Core i7-8700, even though a bit more expensive than the Core i5-8600K. I do multi-tasking, but not to an extreme degree. I use mainly Microsoft Office applications, Adobe Reader, and web browsers (sometimes with 30+ tabs opened). And some gaming as well.

I have seen tests with mixed results. Ryzen seems to fare better when there is multi-tasking, but Core processors are better at single-core performance. I have seen some tests in which the Core i5-8400 fared better than the Ryzen 2700X in single core performance. I am wondering whether the single core performance of the Ryzen processor will be weak to the point it reminds me of (yikes!) AMD K6-2 and Athlon 64 X2.

Also, I will buy a desktop with a dedicated video card, and I should choose between NVIDIA and AMD. I aways bought NVIDIA in the past, and I guess it may still be the best choice. But is it really? I also wonder whether I should wait for NVIDIA to release new video cards. As for the video cards, I noticed the GeForce GTX 1050 has a more reasonable price, but it also seems to be much weaker than the GTX 1060. Should it be OK for a 3840x2160 monitor? As for the GTX 1060, does 3GB or 6GB make as much of a difference? The GTX 1070 could also be an option, but I do not think I would go much higher than that.

Finally, I do not want a computer that makes too much noise or is much hot. I already live in a hot country, and a computer that goes hot is a no-go for me. The mini desktop with a weak processor and no video card that I currently have certainly does not make too much noise, and runs cool (or at least not hot enough to make the room uncomfortable), but I am worried about this.

My last built desktop was in 2010, and it had a Core i7-870 2.93 GHz processor, an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 470, 8 GB RAM, a 64 GB SSD, and an HDD. It was a real beast back then. However, it also ran hot, really hot (I guess the main culprit should have been the video card). In the summer, it was a pain to use the computer. As time went by, the components were not as good anymore, but they still ran hot. I eventually dropped it for a laptop, and only more recently I bought a mini desktop. I wonder whether a new computer would run as hot, or if I should buy some components not as powerful, or if I should invest in a better cooling system.

Thanks.
 

whm1974

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2016
9,460
1,570
96
Well the Ryzen CPUs do come with a better HSF then Intel's CPU do. So there is that. It may help to invest in better cooler for both the CPU and the case as well. And don't overclock as that will add more heat.

Sucks that you live in Brazil though. We in the US are spoiled when it comes to computer parts prices.
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,226
9,990
126
Do you actually want to play "real" games on your 4K UHD display? Or just view the desktop, web browse, watch 4K YouTube, etc.? If so, then consider a Ryzen APU rig. Either the 2200G, or the 2400G. The 2400G has SMT, and more cache, I believe. Both have decent integrated APU graphics ("Vega 8 and Vega 11"), for driving a 4K UHD desktop. In fact, I was using a 2200G tonight, hooked up to (one of) my 4K UHD screen(s), and it was driving it just peachy. I did have dual-channel DDR4-3000 RAM, which, being an off-brand, only was willing to run at 2667 without errors. I also overclocked the APU to 3.80Ghz, a pretty nice speed. (I do believe that it turbos nearly that high anyways, but I like it always that speed.)
 

skaertus

Senior member
Mar 20, 2010
217
28
91
Well the Ryzen CPUs do come with a better HSF then Intel's CPU do. So there is that. It may help to invest in better cooler for both the CPU and the case as well. And don't overclock as that will add more heat.

Sucks that you live in Brazil though. We in the US are spoiled when it comes to computer parts prices.

Thanks. I thought Ryzen would be hotter, as some of them operate in higher TDPs.
 

skaertus

Senior member
Mar 20, 2010
217
28
91
Do you actually want to play "real" games on your 4K UHD display? Or just view the desktop, web browse, watch 4K YouTube, etc.? If so, then consider a Ryzen APU rig. Either the 2200G, or the 2400G. The 2400G has SMT, and more cache, I believe. Both have decent integrated APU graphics ("Vega 8 and Vega 11"), for driving a 4K UHD desktop. In fact, I was using a 2200G tonight, hooked up to (one of) my 4K UHD screen(s), and it was driving it just peachy. I did have dual-channel DDR4-3000 RAM, which, being an off-brand, only was willing to run at 2667 without errors. I also overclocked the APU to 3.80Ghz, a pretty nice speed. (I do believe that it turbos nearly that high anyways, but I like it always that speed.)

What you mean by "real" games? Well, I intend to play games, but I do not need to play them at 4K. Full HD would be fine for most of them. Still, I would play only occasionally, and the main purpose of the PC is for general tasks, including work and web browsing.

As for the AMD APU, is it good? I thought it had a weak processor. In all comparisons I have seen, the Core i5-8400 performs better than it, in both single and multi core tests.
 

whm1974

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2016
9,460
1,570
96
Thanks. I thought Ryzen would be hotter, as some of them operate in higher TDPs.
Only the X CPUS. The Ryzen 2200G, 2400G APUs and the Ryzen 2600 and 2700 run at 65 Watts TDP if you don't overclock, which I don't recommend in a hotter country like Brazil anyway.
 

skaertus

Senior member
Mar 20, 2010
217
28
91
Only the X CPUS. The Ryzen 2200G, 2400G APUs and the Ryzen 2600 and 2700 run at 65 Watts TDP if you don't overclock, which I don't recommend in a hotter country like Brazil anyway.

Thanks.

The package seems attractive indeed, as AMD offers a quad-core processor and a graphics card for less than a good Intel processor.

As for performance, how are these processors? I am afraid they may be a little on the weak side. The CPU in the AMD Ryzen 2400G, for instance, compares to what CPU in the Intel line-up?

As for the GPU, the one in the 2400G would compare to which Nvidia or AMD card? And how much faster is it compared to the Intel integrated card?
 

whm1974

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2016
9,460
1,570
96
Thanks.

The package seems attractive indeed, as AMD offers a quad-core processor and a graphics card for less than a good Intel processor.

As for performance, how are these processors? I am afraid they may be a little on the weak side. The CPU in the AMD Ryzen 2400G, for instance, compares to what CPU in the Intel line-up?

As for the GPU, the one in the 2400G would compare to which Nvidia or AMD card? And how much faster is it compared to the Intel integrated card?
The 2400G is around the same performance as the i5-8400. The iGPU is really close to the Geforce 1030 w/ GDDR5. The Ryzen 2200G or 2400G is what I would consider getting if I didn't have money for a Geforce 1050 or better. Here are some builds with both APUs:
https://pcpartpicker.com/list/fDwpQZ
https://pcpartpicker.com/list/xhbLFt
https://pcpartpicker.com/list/fDwpQZ
https://pcpartpicker.com/list/tqR8Hh

Hope those help. Which store or website in Brazil are you buying the parts from? That will tell us what you are working with. And your budget?
 

skaertus

Senior member
Mar 20, 2010
217
28
91
The 2400G is around the same performance as the i5-8400. The iGPU is really close to the Geforce 1030 w/ GDDR5. The Ryzen 2200G or 2400G is what I would consider getting if I didn't have money for a Geforce 1050 or better. Here are some builds with both APUs:

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/fDwpQZ

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/xhbLFt

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/fDwpQZ

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/tqR8Hh


Hope those help. Which store or website in Brazil are you buying the parts from? That will tell us what you are working with. And your budget?


Thanks a lot for this.


I did some research on my own to get some numbers on the performance of processors and video cards. I got some results from Passmark.com, which I always thought to be a reasonably reliable website for this.


To sum it up, if those numbers are reliable, it seems that the 2400G is a weak offering, aimed at cost-benefit only. Weak single-threaded performance, weak (but acceptable) multi-threaded performance, weak GPU performance. However, I wonder if it would be OK for my kind of use.


CPU (single-threaded)


The speed in single-threaded tests seems to be very similar in the 2nd gen Ryzen processors. The Ryzen 7 2700X 3.7 GHz (the highest performance) was only about 20% faster than then Ryzen 3 2200G 3.5 GHz (the lowest performance). This does not seem a lot to me.


I wonder why the Ryzen 3 2200GE 3.2 GHz was a tad faster than the Ryzen 3 2200G 3.5 GHz (only 3%, but still faster). The 2400G was 5% faster than the 2200G.


The 2nd gen Ryzen processors seem to be a little bit faster than the 1st gen in single-threaded apps. They seem to be 10-15% faster than their equivalents from the previous generation, but this may vary.


Intel processors revealed to be much better in single-threaded apps. The Core i5-8400 was faster than any Ryzen processor, and was 22% faster than the 2400G (and 28.5% faster than the 2200G). The Core i7-8700K was 23.5% faster than the Ryzen 2700X, and 41% faster than the 2400G. Even the Pentium G4560 was 3% faster than Ryzen 2400G. In fact, the Core i3-8300 3.7 GHz is about the same speed as the Ryzen 2700X (less than 1% difference).


As for my own basis of comparison, the 2400G is 6.5% faster than the Core i7-6700HQ 2.6 GHz equipping my Dell XPS 9550; 4% slower than the Core i7-6567U 3.3 GHz equipping my 13-inch MacBook Pro; 25.5% faster than the Core i7-3635QM 2.4 GHz equipping my 2013 15-inch MacBook Pro; 47% faster than the Core i7-870 2.93 GHz that equipped my last built desktop; and 3% faster than the Core i5-7500T equipping my current desktop.


I have to say this CPU (as well as the entire Ryzen 2 line-up) seems to be a little bit disappointing in terms of single-core performance. A 3.5 GHz desktop processor can barely beat a two-year old Intel 2.6 GHz mobile processor in single-core performance.


CPU (multi-threaded)

AMD processors performed a lot better here.


The Ryzen 5 2400G performs 26% faster than the Ryzen 3 2200G, which is not negligible. The Ryzen 2700X speed is: 12% over the 2700, 17% over the 2600X, 25% over then 2600, 82% over the 2400G, and 130% over the 2200G. The 2600 is still 46% faster than the next in the line-up, which is the 2400G. A jump from 4 to 6 cores here seemed to have made all the difference (but the jump from 6 to 8 cores not that much).


The Core i5-8400 still performs a lot better than the 2400G, being 27% faster, probably thanks to its 6 cores. The Ryzen 2400G is about 6% faster than the Core i3-8300,14% faster than the Core i3-8100, and 89% faster than the Pentium G4560. The Pentium G4560 is indeed weak, as even the 2200G is 50% faster than it (and the 2200G seems to be slower than the Core i3-8100).


The Ryzen 2700X, being 8-core, performed 6% faster than the Core i7-8700K, 11% faster than the Core i7-8700, and 32% faster than the Core i5-8600K. The 2600X was 12% faster than the Core i5-8600K, and the 2600 was 5.5% faster than it. The non-APU Ryzen processors seem to fare quite well in multi-threaded performance, while the Ryzen 2400G is still lagging all Intel processors but the i3s.


Compared to what I have (or had), the Ryzen 2400G is 14% faster than the Core i7-6700HQ 2.6 GHz equipping my Dell XPS 9550; 64% faster than the Core i7-6567U 3.3 GHz equipping my 13-inch MacBook Pro (which is a dual-core); 39% faster than the Core i7-3635QM 2.4 GHz equipping my 2013 15-inch MacBook Pro; 73% faster than the Core i7-870 2.93 GHz that equipped my last built desktop; and 31% faster than the Core i5-7500T equipping my current desktop.


The 2400G seems to offer much better performance in multi-core processing. All Ryzen processors are good in multi-threading, but that seems to be thanks to the fact that AMD put lots of cores inside, and not because they are particularly good processors.


GPU


Passmark.com shows G3D and G2D Mark scores. As the G2D Mark scores seem all very similar to each other (does it measure 2D performance, is that it?), I took for basis G3D Mark.


The Radeon RX Vega 11 of the Ryzen 2400G is 15% faster than the Radeon Vega 8 of the Ryzen 2200G. It is slower than all other AMD offerings, though. The Radeon RX 540 is 25% faster; the RX 550 is 48% faster; the RX 560 is 55% faster; the RX 570 is 107% faster; and the RX 580 is 277% faster.


The RX Vega 11 performed exactly the same as the GeForce GT 1030. The GTX 1050 was 106% faster; the GTX 1060 was 303% faster; the GTX 1070 was 402% faster; and the GTX 1080 was 452% faster.


Compared to what I have (or had), the RX Vega 11 is about the same as the GTX 960M equipping my Dell XPS 9550; 38% faster than the Iris 550 of my 13-inch MacBook Pro; 82% faster than the GT 650M equipping my 2013 15-inch MacBook Pro; 38% slower than the GTX 470 that equipped my last built desktop; and 99% faster than the Intel HD Graphics 630 that equips my current desktop.


I expected more from the RX Vega 11, as it seems to be too similar to Intel Iris. It is much faster than most integrated Intel cards, but not double its speed. And the higher end Nvidia cards are at least four times faster. It is also a lot slower than the video card I bought back in 2010, eight years ago.


Budget


As for my budget, I do not really have one, but I would prefer not to spend a lot, especially since the exchange rate is not favorable: the U.S. dollar is up 25% in the last year. There is a store here which seems to be the cheapest around (https://www.terabyteshop.com.br/).


Ryzen 5 2400G, Asus Prime A320M-K motherboard, 8 GB RAM 2400MHz, HD Toshiba P300 2 TB 7200 RPM, SSD Kingston A400 240 GB SATA III (500 MB/s reading, 350 MB/s writing), sells for BRL 2,372 (about USD 600).


Core i5-8400, Gigabyte H310M S2P motherboard, 8 GB RAM 2400MHz, HD Toshiba P300 2 TB 7200 RPM, SSD Kingston A400 240 GB SATA III, sells for BRL 2,790 (about USD 700).


Core i5-8400, Gigabyte H310M SP2 motherboard, 8 GB RAM 2400MHz, HD Seagate Barracuda ST1000DM010 1 TB 7200 RPM, SSD Kingston A400 240 GB SATA III, Galax GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, sells for BRL 3,815 (about USD 950). The same one with a Galax GeForce GTX 1060 OC 3 GB, sells for BRL 4,133 (about USD 1,030). The same one with a Core i5-8600 instead sells for BRL 4,717 (about USD 1,180).


Ryzen 2600, Asus Prime A320M-K, 8 GB RAM 2400MHz, HD 1 TB 7200 RPM, SSD Kingston A400 240 GB, GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB, sells for BRL 4,241 (USD 1,060).


Core i7-8700K, Asus GeForce GTX 1070 8 GB, Asus TUF B360M-Plus, 16 GB 2400MHz, HD 2 TB 7200 RPM, SSD PNY CS900 SATA III (550 MB/s reading, 500 MB/s writing), BRL 7,396 (USD 1,840).


Lots of options, indeed. Not sure what would fit best, though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VirtualLarry

whm1974

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2016
9,460
1,570
96
Thanks a lot for this.


I did some research on my own to get some numbers on the performance of processors and video cards. I got some results from Passmark.com, which I always thought to be a reasonably reliable website for this.


To sum it up, if those numbers are reliable, it seems that the 2400G is a weak offering, aimed at cost-benefit only. Weak single-threaded performance, weak (but acceptable) multi-threaded performance, weak GPU performance. However, I wonder if it would be OK for my kind of use.


CPU (single-threaded)


The speed in single-threaded tests seems to be very similar in the 2nd gen Ryzen processors. The Ryzen 7 2700X 3.7 GHz (the highest performance) was only about 20% faster than then Ryzen 3 2200G 3.5 GHz (the lowest performance). This does not seem a lot to me.


I wonder why the Ryzen 3 2200GE 3.2 GHz was a tad faster than the Ryzen 3 2200G 3.5 GHz (only 3%, but still faster). The 2400G was 5% faster than the 2200G.


The 2nd gen Ryzen processors seem to be a little bit faster than the 1st gen in single-threaded apps. They seem to be 10-15% faster than their equivalents from the previous generation, but this may vary.


Intel processors revealed to be much better in single-threaded apps. The Core i5-8400 was faster than any Ryzen processor, and was 22% faster than the 2400G (and 28.5% faster than the 2200G). The Core i7-8700K was 23.5% faster than the Ryzen 2700X, and 41% faster than the 2400G. Even the Pentium G4560 was 3% faster than Ryzen 2400G. In fact, the Core i3-8300 3.7 GHz is about the same speed as the Ryzen 2700X (less than 1% difference).


As for my own basis of comparison, the 2400G is 6.5% faster than the Core i7-6700HQ 2.6 GHz equipping my Dell XPS 9550; 4% slower than the Core i7-6567U 3.3 GHz equipping my 13-inch MacBook Pro; 25.5% faster than the Core i7-3635QM 2.4 GHz equipping my 2013 15-inch MacBook Pro; 47% faster than the Core i7-870 2.93 GHz that equipped my last built desktop; and 3% faster than the Core i5-7500T equipping my current desktop.


I have to say this CPU (as well as the entire Ryzen 2 line-up) seems to be a little bit disappointing in terms of single-core performance. A 3.5 GHz desktop processor can barely beat a two-year old Intel 2.6 GHz mobile processor in single-core performance.


CPU (multi-threaded)

AMD processors performed a lot better here.


The Ryzen 5 2400G performs 26% faster than the Ryzen 3 2200G, which is not negligible. The Ryzen 2700X speed is: 12% over the 2700, 17% over the 2600X, 25% over then 2600, 82% over the 2400G, and 130% over the 2200G. The 2600 is still 46% faster than the next in the line-up, which is the 2400G. A jump from 4 to 6 cores here seemed to have made all the difference (but the jump from 6 to 8 cores not that much).


The Core i5-8400 still performs a lot better than the 2400G, being 27% faster, probably thanks to its 6 cores. The Ryzen 2400G is about 6% faster than the Core i3-8300,14% faster than the Core i3-8100, and 89% faster than the Pentium G4560. The Pentium G4560 is indeed weak, as even the 2200G is 50% faster than it (and the 2200G seems to be slower than the Core i3-8100).


The Ryzen 2700X, being 8-core, performed 6% faster than the Core i7-8700K, 11% faster than the Core i7-8700, and 32% faster than the Core i5-8600K. The 2600X was 12% faster than the Core i5-8600K, and the 2600 was 5.5% faster than it. The non-APU Ryzen processors seem to fare quite well in multi-threaded performance, while the Ryzen 2400G is still lagging all Intel processors but the i3s.


Compared to what I have (or had), the Ryzen 2400G is 14% faster than the Core i7-6700HQ 2.6 GHz equipping my Dell XPS 9550; 64% faster than the Core i7-6567U 3.3 GHz equipping my 13-inch MacBook Pro (which is a dual-core); 39% faster than the Core i7-3635QM 2.4 GHz equipping my 2013 15-inch MacBook Pro; 73% faster than the Core i7-870 2.93 GHz that equipped my last built desktop; and 31% faster than the Core i5-7500T equipping my current desktop.


The 2400G seems to offer much better performance in multi-core processing. All Ryzen processors are good in multi-threading, but that seems to be thanks to the fact that AMD put lots of cores inside, and not because they are particularly good processors.


GPU


Passmark.com shows G3D and G2D Mark scores. As the G2D Mark scores seem all very similar to each other (does it measure 2D performance, is that it?), I took for basis G3D Mark.


The Radeon RX Vega 11 of the Ryzen 2400G is 15% faster than the Radeon Vega 8 of the Ryzen 2200G. It is slower than all other AMD offerings, though. The Radeon RX 540 is 25% faster; the RX 550 is 48% faster; the RX 560 is 55% faster; the RX 570 is 107% faster; and the RX 580 is 277% faster.


The RX Vega 11 performed exactly the same as the GeForce GT 1030. The GTX 1050 was 106% faster; the GTX 1060 was 303% faster; the GTX 1070 was 402% faster; and the GTX 1080 was 452% faster.


Compared to what I have (or had), the RX Vega 11 is about the same as the GTX 960M equipping my Dell XPS 9550; 38% faster than the Iris 550 of my 13-inch MacBook Pro; 82% faster than the GT 650M equipping my 2013 15-inch MacBook Pro; 38% slower than the GTX 470 that equipped my last built desktop; and 99% faster than the Intel HD Graphics 630 that equips my current desktop.


I expected more from the RX Vega 11, as it seems to be too similar to Intel Iris. It is much faster than most integrated Intel cards, but not double its speed. And the higher end Nvidia cards are at least four times faster. It is also a lot slower than the video card I bought back in 2010, eight years ago.


Budget


As for my budget, I do not really have one, but I would prefer not to spend a lot, especially since the exchange rate is not favorable: the U.S. dollar is up 25% in the last year. There is a store here which seems to be the cheapest around (https://www.terabyteshop.com.br/).


Ryzen 5 2400G, Asus Prime A320M-K motherboard, 8 GB RAM 2400MHz, HD Toshiba P300 2 TB 7200 RPM, SSD Kingston A400 240 GB SATA III (500 MB/s reading, 350 MB/s writing), sells for BRL 2,372 (about USD 600).


Core i5-8400, Gigabyte H310M S2P motherboard, 8 GB RAM 2400MHz, HD Toshiba P300 2 TB 7200 RPM, SSD Kingston A400 240 GB SATA III, sells for BRL 2,790 (about USD 700).


Core i5-8400, Gigabyte H310M SP2 motherboard, 8 GB RAM 2400MHz, HD Seagate Barracuda ST1000DM010 1 TB 7200 RPM, SSD Kingston A400 240 GB SATA III, Galax GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, sells for BRL 3,815 (about USD 950). The same one with a Galax GeForce GTX 1060 OC 3 GB, sells for BRL 4,133 (about USD 1,030). The same one with a Core i5-8600 instead sells for BRL 4,717 (about USD 1,180).


Ryzen 2600, Asus Prime A320M-K, 8 GB RAM 2400MHz, HD 1 TB 7200 RPM, SSD Kingston A400 240 GB, GeForce GTX 1060 3 GB, sells for BRL 4,241 (USD 1,060).


Core i7-8700K, Asus GeForce GTX 1070 8 GB, Asus TUF B360M-Plus, 16 GB 2400MHz, HD 2 TB 7200 RPM, SSD PNY CS900 SATA III (550 MB/s reading, 500 MB/s writing), BRL 7,396 (USD 1,840).


Lots of options, indeed. Not sure what would fit best, though.
I would look at the applications you are using in addiction to the benchmarks you are looking at to see if AMD or Intel would be the best choice for you.
 

skaertus

Senior member
Mar 20, 2010
217
28
91
I would look at the applications you are using in addiction to the benchmarks you are looking at to see if AMD or Intel would be the best choice for you.

As I said, I use mostly Microsoft Office (Word, Excel, PowerPoint and PowerPoint), Edge and Chrome, Adobe Reader, Zotero or Endnote, Spotify, Netflix, Copernic Desktop. As for games, I bought some on Steam and Gog.
 

whm1974

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2016
9,460
1,570
96
As I said, I use mostly Microsoft Office (Word, Excel, PowerPoint and PowerPoint), Edge and Chrome, Adobe Reader, Zotero or Endnote, Spotify, Netflix, Copernic Desktop. As for games, I bought some on Steam and Gog.
I highly doubt that you will see much different in performance between Ryzen and Coffee Lake processors.
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,226
9,990
126
Well, yeah,
The RX Vega 11 performed exactly the same as the GeForce GT 1030. The GTX 1050 was 106% faster; the GTX 1060 was 303% faster; the GTX 1070 was 402% faster; and the GTX 1080 was 452% faster.


Compared to what I have (or had), the RX Vega 11 is about the same as the GTX 960M equipping my Dell XPS 9550; 38% faster than the Iris 550 of my 13-inch MacBook Pro; 82% faster than the GT 650M equipping my 2013 15-inch MacBook Pro; 38% slower than the GTX 470 that equipped my last built desktop; and 99% faster than the Intel HD Graphics 630 that equips my current desktop.


I expected more from the RX Vega 11, as it seems to be too similar to Intel Iris. It is much faster than most integrated Intel cards, but not double its speed. And the higher end Nvidia cards are at least four times faster. It is also a lot slower than the video card I bought back in 2010, eight years ago.

The fact that ANY integrated-GPU on CPU silicon, can reach the performance of the lowest-end, current-generation, discrete-GPU, is a STUNNING achievement, IMHO.

You should NOT be comparing the Vega 11 iGPU against the NVidia discrete 1080 GPU. They are in totally separate categories of performance, and cost.

Compare it against Intel's "Best" iGPU, and, in comparison, the AMD blows it away.

Edit: Thanks for all of the comparisons, though, that helps put some of this tech in perspective.
 

skaertus

Senior member
Mar 20, 2010
217
28
91
I highly doubt that you will see much different in performance between Ryzen and Coffee Lake processors.

Thanks. I was afraid that if I went for AMD I could get something similar to what I had with my K6-2 in the past: it was announced as a competitor to Pentium II, but I could notice it was a weak processor and AMD used some kind of gimmick to make it "feel" faster, even tough it was really lacking.
 

skaertus

Senior member
Mar 20, 2010
217
28
91
Well, yeah,


The fact that ANY integrated-GPU on CPU silicon, can reach the performance of the lowest-end, current-generation, discrete-GPU, is a STUNNING achievement, IMHO.

You should NOT be comparing the Vega 11 iGPU against the NVidia discrete 1080 GPU. They are in totally separate categories of performance, and cost.

Compare it against Intel's "Best" iGPU, and, in comparison, the AMD blows it away.

Edit: Thanks for all of the comparisons, though, that helps put some of this tech in perspective.

Thanks.

Well, actually, if you take the benchmarks provided by Passmark.com, then AMD integrated video cards are not that good. Here is a comparison of the latest integrated GPUs in Intel (8th gen Core) and AMD (2nd gen Ryzen) processors (benchmarks using G3D Mark in Passmark.com):

Intel UHD Graphics 610: 725
Intel UHD Graphics 620: 1001
Intel UHD Graphics 630: 1148
Intel Iris Plus 655: 1962

AMD Radeon Vega 8: 1933
AMD Radeon Vega 11: 2228

While most Intel GPUs are weak, the stronger Iris Plus is quite similar to AMD offerings. Vega 8 is the same speed as Iris Plus 655, and Vega 11 is only 13.5% faster. Perhaps there are not that many Iris Plus 655 GPUs integrated in Intel processors, and all desktops seem to use weaker GPUs. I have not found any other real comparison between the Vega 11 and the Iris 655, but they seem not that different in terms of performance.

I don't want to compare the Vega 11 with GeForce GTX 1080. But the GTX 1050 is more than 2x as fast as the Vega 11, and the GTX 1060 is 4x as fast. Not even close.

What I would like to know is whether the integrated GPU will be enough for what I intend to do, regardless of it offering good or acceptable performance for what it is.

In Passmark.com, Vega 11 is a lot slower than my old GTX 470 that I bought in 2010. In this website, however, it is said the opposite (that Vega 11 is actually faster than the GTX 470): http://hwbench.com/vgas/radeon-rx-vega-11-vs-geforce-gtx-470. This hierarchy chart seems nice as well: http://hwbench.com/vgas. In these benchmarks, however, the Vega 11 seems to be similar but a little bit slower than both my previous GTX 470 (http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compar...0-vs-AMD-RX-Vega-11-Ryzen-iGPU/m7820vsm401440) and GTX 960M (http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GTX-960M-vs-AMD-RX-Vega-11-Ryzen-iGPU/m27242vsm401440).
 

whm1974

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2016
9,460
1,570
96
Thanks.

Well, actually, if you take the benchmarks provided by Passmark.com, then AMD integrated video cards are not that good. Here is a comparison of the latest integrated GPUs in Intel (8th gen Core) and AMD (2nd gen Ryzen) processors (benchmarks using G3D Mark in Passmark.com):

Intel UHD Graphics 610: 725
Intel UHD Graphics 620: 1001
Intel UHD Graphics 630: 1148
Intel Iris Plus 655: 1962

AMD Radeon Vega 8: 1933
AMD Radeon Vega 11: 2228

While most Intel GPUs are weak, the stronger Iris Plus is quite similar to AMD offerings. Vega 8 is the same speed as Iris Plus 655, and Vega 11 is only 13.5% faster. Perhaps there are not that many Iris Plus 655 GPUs integrated in Intel processors, and all desktops seem to use weaker GPUs. I have not found any other real comparison between the Vega 11 and the Iris 655, but they seem not that different in terms of performance.

I don't want to compare the Vega 11 with GeForce GTX 1080. But the GTX 1050 is more than 2x as fast as the Vega 11, and the GTX 1060 is 4x as fast. Not even close.

What I would like to know is whether the integrated GPU will be enough for what I intend to do, regardless of it offering good or acceptable performance for what it is.

In Passmark.com, Vega 11 is a lot slower than my old GTX 470 that I bought in 2010. In this website, however, it is said the opposite (that Vega 11 is actually faster than the GTX 470): http://hwbench.com/vgas/radeon-rx-vega-11-vs-geforce-gtx-470. This hierarchy chart seems nice as well: http://hwbench.com/vgas. In these benchmarks, however, the Vega 11 seems to be similar but a little bit slower than both my previous GTX 470 (http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compar...0-vs-AMD-RX-Vega-11-Ryzen-iGPU/m7820vsm401440) and GTX 960M (http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GTX-960M-vs-AMD-RX-Vega-11-Ryzen-iGPU/m27242vsm401440).
If you are planning to play games at 4K, then I would get the 1080Ti or whatever very high end card you can afford living in Brazil. What sort of games are you playing?
 

skaertus

Senior member
Mar 20, 2010
217
28
91
If you are planning to play games at 4K, then I would get the 1080Ti or whatever very high end card you can afford living in Brazil. What sort of games are you playing?

Well, I do not really need to play games at 4K. I bought the 4K monitor for web browsing and word processing. I can play games at Full HD or even lower if this is the case.

I have been playing 2D platform games, adventure games, strategy games, soccer, and racing. I am not very fond of 3D shooters and I have not been playing anything very immersive, since I do not have time for this.

As I mentioned, I currently have a mini desktop with a Core i5-7500T processor and an integrated graphics card. It still works OK, but I want something faster. Of course a desktop equipped with a Ryzen 2400G has an attractive price, but how good an update is it over what I currently have? On the other hand, a GTX 1080 Ti may be overkill for what I do.
 

whm1974

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2016
9,460
1,570
96
Well, I do not really need to play games at 4K. I bought the 4K monitor for web browsing and word processing. I can play games at Full HD or even lower if this is the case.

I have been playing 2D platform games, adventure games, strategy games, soccer, and racing. I am not very fond of 3D shooters and I have not been playing anything very immersive, since I do not have time for this.

As I mentioned, I currently have a mini desktop with a Core i5-7500T processor and an integrated graphics card. It still works OK, but I want something faster. Of course a desktop equipped with a Ryzen 2400G has an attractive price, but how good an update is it over what I currently have? On the other hand, a GTX 1080 Ti may be overkill for what I do.
Sounds like adding something like the 1050 Ti card will give the performance you need then without needing to build a new system.

Edit:

Wait a minute, a mini desktop you say? Is it low profile? A Ryzen 2400G should be a nice step up in both CPU and iGPU performance since it runs at full speed and has SMT. But keep in mind you will need DDR4-3000 or better to get the most out of it.
 
Last edited:

skaertus

Senior member
Mar 20, 2010
217
28
91
Sounds like adding something like the 1050 Ti card will give the performance you need then without needing to build a new system.

Edit:

Wait a minute, a mini desktop you say? Is it low profile? A Ryzen 2400G should be a nice step up in both CPU and iGPU performance since it runs at full speed and has SMT. But keep in mind you will need DDR4-3000 or better to get the most out of it.

Yes, I have a mini desktop. An HP ProDesk 400 G3 (http://www8.hp.com/us/en/products/d...af&utm_source=aw&utm_campaign=VigLink+Content).

It has a Core i5-7500T 2.7 GHz PU, and an integrated graphics card (Intel HD Graphics 630). I cannot put a dedicated video card in it.

I just ran a benchmark test with Passmark.com software. The results were as follows:

CPU Mark: 7000.6
2D Graphics Mark: 645.9
3D Graphics Mark: 975.2

My Core i5-7500T CPU runs about as fast as the standard i5-7500T in Passmark.com (the score there is 7061, just 0.81% above mine. I will run another test later.

The video card, however, is a little bit slower. The standard HD Graphics 630 video card reaches 821 in G2D Mark (27% faster), and 1121 in G3D Mark (15% faster). Not a huge difference, but some.

The Ryzen 2400G hits 9255 in CPU Mark, which is 32% above mine. The integrated GPU (Vega 11) hits 684 in G2D Mark (6% faster), and 2332 in G3D Mark (139% faster). The CPU is faster, but not a lot faster considering that this is an upgrade. The video card is certainly faster, but mine is very slow anyway.
 

whm1974

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2016
9,460
1,570
96
Yes, I have a mini desktop. An HP ProDesk 400 G3 (http://www8.hp.com/us/en/products/d...af&utm_source=aw&utm_campaign=VigLink+Content).

It has a Core i5-7500T 2.7 GHz PU, and an integrated graphics card (Intel HD Graphics 630). I cannot put a dedicated video card in it.

I just ran a benchmark test with Passmark.com software. The results were as follows:

CPU Mark: 7000.6
2D Graphics Mark: 645.9
3D Graphics Mark: 975.2

My Core i5-7500T CPU runs about as fast as the standard i5-7500T in Passmark.com (the score there is 7061, just 0.81% above mine. I will run another test later.

The video card, however, is a little bit slower. The standard HD Graphics 630 video card reaches 821 in G2D Mark (27% faster), and 1121 in G3D Mark (15% faster). Not a huge difference, but some.

The Ryzen 2400G hits 9255 in CPU Mark, which is 32% above mine. The integrated GPU (Vega 11) hits 684 in G2D Mark (6% faster), and 2332 in G3D Mark (139% faster). The CPU is faster, but not a lot faster considering that this is an upgrade. The video card is certainly faster, but mine is very slow anyway.
You may want to consider getting a Ryzen 2600 and suitable video card instead of the 2400G if your budget permits.
 

whm1974

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2016
9,460
1,570
96
Yes, my budget allows that. Or a 2600X. Are they worth it more than a Core i5?
Since you live in a hot country I would get the 2600 since its TDP is 65W instead of 95W for the X model. And yes, they are worth it over the Core i5.
 

skaertus

Senior member
Mar 20, 2010
217
28
91
Since you live in a hot country I would get the 2600 since its TDP is 65W instead of 95W for the X model. And yes, they are worth it over the Core i5.

OK. And what would qualify as a suitable video card? A GTX 1050 or 1060 perhaps?
 

whm1974

Diamond Member
Jul 24, 2016
9,460
1,570
96
OK. And what would qualify as a suitable video card? A GTX 1050 or 1060 perhaps?
Well if you only playing at 1080p, then a 1050 Ti will do. If you want to play at 2560x1440 then the 1060 6GB will do the job quite well.
 

skaertus

Senior member
Mar 20, 2010
217
28
91
Well if you only playing at 1080p, then a 1050 Ti will do. If you want to play at 2560x1440 then the 1060 6GB will do the job quite well.

Thanks.

I am wondering how much RAM do I need as well.

I have been doing some researches on the Internet, and I noticed that Chrome was consuming over 3 GB of memory. As it was consuming too much, I switched to Microsoft Edge, and it still consumed over 3 GB of memory with several tabs opened. In both scenarios, the computer became really slow. I wonder if this would be fixed by more RAM (such as 16 GB).

Suggestions?