Compared to the original 14nm Intel changed the Fin height and pitch lenght, what are you saying is nonsense therefore. 14nm+/14nm++ wasn't just a renaming and it's not the exact same process either. You should learn about the process in advance.
It's not like intel who just renames the exact same process (14nm) for PR purposes.
I'm under similar dilemma. The difference would mainly be in cpu performance. I don't expect gpu performance of the 2 to vary much. Obviously, I'll decide on the basis of review and market situation. But at the moment I'm leaning towards 2200G and dual channel ram.You seem to have a lot of experience with APU´s just looking at your signature, do you think it´s worth the money to buy the 2400G over the 2200G? (Of course they aren´t out yet and benchmarks should be done first.... But theoretically speaking). 169 vs 100 dollars is a significant price difference in my humble opinion, and maybe that 69 dollars could be better spent buying dual channel ram. (Speaking for myself and most likely other builders on a budget).
I also seriously doubt the speculative claims about how well an APU will play W3. I have played it with a HD7770. I know it is old now, but faster than any pre Zen apu, and probably competiitve with Zen APUs. 1080p was totally unplayable. In fact, at 900p, low, it was a very borderline experience. Yes, I could have made a video showing I could get "30FPS", by picking the right area when nothing was going on, but there were a lot of times it dipped into the low/mid 20s. And that is ave FPS, I dont even know how low the minimums were.
Yea, I totally agree. Like I said before, an APU only makes sense for a budget gaming build for esports, older/less demanding games. The upgrading game is just a losing battle, no matter how hard the APU fans try to hype it. Better off to just save up a bit longer and get the performance you want at the beginning. After all, gaming is a hobby, not a need. Waiting a few month is not the end of the world. The only possible way to justify the upgrade path is with the 2200, due to the low initial price. But to upgrade the 2400 with a discrete card is just absurd. Better to buy a 1600 for only 30 dollars more and add a discrete card from the beginning.
I also seriously doubt the speculative claims about how well an APU will play W3. I have played it with a HD7770. I know it is old now, but faster than any pre Zen apu, and probably competiitve with Zen APUs. 1080p was totally unplayable. In fact, at 900p, low, it was a very borderline experience. Yes, I could have made a video showing I could get "30FPS", by picking the right area when nothing was going on, but there were a lot of times it dipped into the low/mid 20s. And that is ave FPS, I dont even know how low the minimums were.
Is there any particular reason u cannot just get a 1050/1050ti? These two GPUs have been hardly affected by mining. So 2200G +1050(ti) + single 8gb stick of ram makes the most sense.This is exactly where I am. I doubt the big claims some make about Witcher 3 performance, so I am more likely to wait until discrete cards are to the price I consider more reasonable, to bother upgrading.
I now only buy my games from GOG and for the most part everything is older and handled by my old computer. Witcher 3 is my focus, because it is the ONE GOG game I want to play, that my computer can't handle.
If an APU could handle Witcher 3 to my satisfaction, it would get me to upgrade sooner. But if it doesn't I can wait. I have >60 games in my GOG account, at least 40 that I have never played.
I am really pissed about the insane GPU/RAM prices which I think is more about collusion, and profit taking, than mining/smartphones.
IMO it's pretty reasonable to to mark a updated process with +, to signify changes but maintaining the same approx density.
It's a lot less reasonable to change the claimed size, when really it is just the same old process with similar tweaks. Like TSMC 12nm FFN that they use to build GV100, which appears to be essentially the same density as their 16nm process, and I strongly suspect GF 12nm, is really just similar tweaks to 14nm.
And yet you complain about Raven Ridge being on GF 14nm+. Why is it ok for intel to call the same process "+" but not Global Foundries? They are doing the exact same thing. On top of that, intel started doing it first.
Also you have no idea what the density of GF 12nm is or what improvements it offers. All you know is publicly available info which does state an improvement in density and power characteristics all of which are much better than intel's 14nm+ and ++.
cpu is i5 2350, 8gb of ram. cpu utilization is about 50%, and gpu is pegged at 100% the entire time. So definitely gpu limited.HD7770 is a card from first generation of GCN and released almost six years ago.
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/308/radeon-hd-7770-ghz-edition
Btw, interesting piece of information would be details about CPU and amount/speed of RAM of your config.
I am not complaining about RR being on GF 14nm+, I am pointing out that GF 14nm+ does NOT exist. One way or another, it was abandoned in favor of "12nm".
Show me anything from GF specifying their 14nm+ process. AFAIK, there is no such process. It was likely a future outlook conveyed to AMD, that AMD used in roadmaps, but what emerged instead was 12nm, and AMD roadmaps were changed to reflect that.
OTOH, you can find information about GF 12nm, because that actually exists.
I can't say for certain whether GF 12nm is just a renaming of the roadmapped GF 14nm+, or if GF 14nm+ was scrapped in favor of GF 12nm, but either way GF 14nm+, does NOT exist.
Is there any particular reason u cannot just get a 1050/1050ti? These two GPUs have been hardly affected by mining. So 2200G +1050(ti) + single 8gb stick of ram makes the most sense.
Compared to the original 14nm Intel changed the Fin height and pitch lenght, what are you saying is nonsense therefore. 14nm+/14nm++ wasn't just a renaming and it's not the exact same process either. You should learn about the process in advance.
Now GF is following intel's lead, and some posters are frustrated because only intel is allowed to lie and get away with it.
cpu is i5 2350, 8gb of ram. cpu utilization is about 50%, and gpu is pegged at 100% the entire time. So definitely gpu limited.
Edit: btw, even though it is old, it still has 72gb bandwidth,
Yes, that is the cpu. But like I said, definitely gpu limited, so the poster claiming med at 1080p seems very "optimistic". Remember, I am talking barely playable with my ststem at low settings, 900p.You mean i5-2320?
https://ark.intel.com/products/53446/Intel-Core-i5-2320-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_30-GHz
On CPU side 2200G would be definitely stronger on default clocks and IGP despite having significantly less bandwith (DDR4-3200) and less SP (640 vs 512) probably not slower and could be even a bit faster.
Yes, that is the cpu. But like I said, definitely gpu limited, so the poster claiming med at 1080p seems very "optimistic". Remember, I am talking barely playable with my ststem at low settings, 900p.
It is the exact same process. Same fin pitch, same density, same metal layers, same libraries. As the process matures the fin height improves (this happens on literally every process in history). So do power characteristics.
If you look at system requirements, it's hardly surprising:
http://en.cdprojektred.com/support/tw3-system-requirements/
Yes, that is the cpu. But like I said, definitely gpu limited, so the poster claiming med at 1080p seems very "optimistic". Remember, I am talking barely playable with my ststem at low settings, 900p.
You seem to have a lot of experience with APU´s just looking at your signature, do you think it´s worth the money to buy the 2400G over the 2200G? (Of course they aren´t out yet and benchmarks should be done first.... But theoretically speaking). 169 vs 100 dollars is a significant price difference in my humble opinion, and maybe that 69 dollars could be better spent buying dual channel ram. (Speaking for myself and most likely other builders on a budget).
You don't know that. You don't know whether the rx550 can or cannot use that extra available bandwidth.
Also I'm pretty sure no way 2200g igpu can be faster than 1030.its straight up impossible even if u use 5000mhz ram if such a thing existed.
I dont believe anyone talked about 1080p Medium for RR in Witcher 3.
With high performance ram 2400g can play Witcher 3 medium 1080p at console level FPS probably with similar pitfalls (novigrad/crookback bog)
Ahem...
wait he said console level fps ! quit different than desktop fps! , therefor TW3 desktop is not same as console.I believe 1080p Low quality on PC version ~ medium quality( or maybe a bit more) on console version.