AMD Ryzen 5 2400G and Ryzen 3 2200G APUs performance unveiled

[whm1974]

In February. Mid Feb I believe.

And I for can't wait to read the reviews, as I'm thinking that the 2200G along with an SSD will be a nice upgrade for my dad.

 

[IRobot23]

Not a fair comparison.
Ryzen APU has really good CPU.

Something like I7/ryzen with VEGA could save mining a bit.

 

[cbn]

With PC usage moving away from desktop (in general) I got to wondering how easy would it be for an OEM to make a desktop replacement laptop out of one of these chips?

Maybe one that can also use an MXM card (for use with dCPU) or maybe dual graphics with the APU? (Is dual graphics still supported?)

.

 

[whm1974]

With PC usage moving away from desktop (except for gamer and workstation) I got to wonder how easy would it be for an OEM to make a desktop replacement laptop out of one of these chips?

Unless I'm looking for portable workstation class Laptop, I'm going to stick mostly to real desktops for most of my use cases.

 

[daveybrat]

And I for can't wait to read the reviews, as I'm thinking that the 2200G along with an SSD will be a nice upgrade for my dad.

I'm ready to buy it when it comes out myself. Going with the 2200G too as it'll make a nice HTPC to replace my old Phenom II rig.

 

[whm1974]

I'm ready to buy it when it comes out myself. Going with the 2200G too as it'll make a nice HTPC to replace my old Phenom II rig.

Of course this will depend on how well Linux is supported.

 

[formulav8]

or maybe dual graphics with the APU? (Is dual graphics still supported?)

If you're meaning crossfire, I read somewhere, maybe AMD's site, that there is no crossfire with these chips.

 

[whm1974]

If you're meaning crossfire, I read somewhere, maybe AMD's site, that there is no crossfire with these chips.

Not a problems as Crossfire along with SLI doesn't work most of the time anyway.

 

[msroadkill612]

EXACTLY! You both hit the the nail on the head here, Ryzen is overclock capable, offers more cores Vs intel, another level graphics, perhaps more importantly it's completely upgradable.

I'm going to get a decent B series mobo, a decent good looking mini itx case, 5-600w PSU, high end cooler, fast SSD 120GB, 1 TB harddrive (or buy external drive for keeping large files) And spend alot on high end Ram. (16GB >3200mhz).

I'm then going to overclock the hell out of this little APU, why? Because this will be just enough for me to play games at respectable settings @ 30fps...whilst waiting for my true goal....either zen 2/3 plus Navi/successor....both easy drop in upgrades when I'm ready....if I decide to wait until zen 3 and Navi successor on 7nm+...I can pick up a dirt cheap 1050TI to tide me over....as the 4/8 thread RYZEN CPU is just enough to handle modern games the next couple of years.
Happy days

This kind of value both in the here and now and future proofing is not available for intel CPUs due to their greed.

Re high end cooler, Liquid C00ling is very cost effective, as they are cooling both processors. AMD conservatively claim a 40% OC on the Vega IGP w/ 3200 ram on air, so I hate to think what's possible.

As I recall, we can also expect better clocks from the 400 series mobos.

I expect all these APU naysayers have a lazy $1500+ for a soon to be redundant "proper" GPU.

This gpu situation is a godsend for the launch of the 2400 apu

Its also Freesync, which I am told economically equals quite a few fps in user perceptions.

 

[Glo.]

Haven't we seen tests done with those GPUs using 2400 MHz RAM?

3200 MHz RAM might bring up to 10% more performance for Vega 11, after all, and bring it in to 10% of GT1030.

The CPU will no doubt be as fast as Core i3 8100. AMD may have the best deal if you are on budget, and all you play is e-sports titles.

Not to mention - Freesync might be a thing with those APUs, and there is plenty of low-cost high quality monitors out there.

 

[Shivansps]

Haven't we seen tests done with those GPUs using 2400 MHz RAM?

3200 MHz RAM might bring up to 10% more performance for Vega 11, after all, and bring it in to 10% of GT1030.

The CPU will no doubt be as fast as Core i3 8100. AMD may have the best deal if you are on budget, and all you play is e-sports titles.

Not to mention - Freesync might be a thing with those APUs, and there is plenty of low-cost high quality monitors out there.

maybe on a benchmark, remember the cpu uses bandwidth as well, and probably more than BD cores.
Witcher 3 for example, loves memory bandwidth and hates IGPs. Cant be a coincidence.

 

[french toast]

Re high end cooler, Liquid C00ling is very cost effective, as they are cooling both processors. AMD conservatively claim a 40% OC on the Vega IGP w/ 3200 ram on air, so I hate to think what's possible.

As I recall, we can also expect better clocks from the 400 series mobos.

I expect all these APU naysayers have a lazy $1500+ for a soon to be redundant "proper" GPU.

This gpu situation is a godsend for the launch of the 2400 apu

Its also Freesync, which I am told economically equals quite a few fps in user perceptions.

To be honest I have never used free sync so I'm not entirely sure what kind of a difference it would make in the real world, I've seen s ton of screen tearing on igp tests, if it could stop that then it could be a good feature.
Why don't all TVs and monitors support it? Seems like a no brainer seeing as Xbox one X has it.

If you were wanting something as a 18month - 2 year stop gap whilst you wait for 7nm CPU/gpu then it could become a viable setup.
Water cool it, 3200 memory OC, 400 series mobo, overclock the hell out of it.... perfectly fine for 900p high gaming or old titles I'm sure, which is all I want for the time being.

 

[IRobot23]

HuH,
@Shivansps about your comparison.

http://store.steampowered.com/stats/
If we look at 25-30 games from the top. Yet we have to know that there are some games that are being played a lot and they are not on steam.

Mostly, I see games that are not GPU demanding to get those 60-100 Fps on medium to high or even ultra settings at 1080p. Some would scale well with G4560 and GTX 1050....
And there are games that are both CPU&GPU demanding and you will need at least 4C maybe 4C/8T and GTX 1060 to run it smooth steady (60fps) or beyond.

I cannot see how can be G4560 good investment for someone who like to play games... get i3 or R3 with GTX 1050 and even than you might have some fps drops. I did few build and pople were complaining about i5 7400 and GTX 1050Ti or R3 1200 in some games, I discovered that they had CPU bottleneck. Since I could simply give faster DRAM (+OC) to R3 and OC to 3,6-3,8GHz easily it was faster and smoother.

Anyway getting balanced build today depends completely on user!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCrkwProiuo
CPU bottleneck? ... that IMC sucks.

 

[raghu78]

maybe on a benchmark, remember the cpu uses bandwidth as well, and probably more than BD cores.
Witcher 3 for example, loves memory bandwidth and hates IGPs. Cant be a coincidence.

Witcher 3 does reasonably well on even a 8CU Ryzen 2500U with a 25w CTDP.

https://techreport.com/review/32877/amd-ryzen-5-2500u-apu-reviewed/8

2400G with 11CU at 65w TDP and combined with dual channel DDR4 3200 should be able to provide GT 1030 in gaming performance or atleast close enough to not make a difference. This is exactly what we see with 3DMark Firestrike score of 3300 with 2 ch DDR4 3200 which is roughly on par with GT 1030 score.

https://www.pcper.com/news/Processors/CES-2018-AMD-Ryzen-Desktop-CPU-Ryzen-Graphics-Coming-Feb-12
https://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-1030-Desktop.223522.0.html

Given the mining inflated dGPU prices the AMD Ryzen APUs are going to be killer value for entry level gaming PCs for < USD 500. R5 2400G and R3 2200G are going to be very popular. The only question is can AMD supply enough of these chips ? The other question is will miners start to use AMD APUs too for mining given the Vega arch is impressive at mining.

 

[whm1974]

To be honest I have never used free sync so I'm not entirely sure what kind of a difference it would make in the real world, I've seen s ton of screen tearing on igp tests, if it could stop that then it could be a good feature.
Why don't all TVs and monitors support it? Seems like a no brainer seeing as Xbox one X has it.

If you were wanting something as a 18month - 2 year stop gap whilst you wait for 7nm CPU/gpu then it could become a viable setup.
Water cool it, 3200 memory OC, 400 series mobo, overclock the hell out of it.... perfectly fine for 900p high gaming or old titles I'm sure, which is all I want for the time being.

I'm wondering how many people with BR or AM3 CPUs will be upgrading after the 2200G and 2400G APUs are released? And yes, the 2400G w/ 3200 memory would make for a nice stopgap until dGPU prices come back to normal.

 

[Glo.]

maybe on a benchmark, remember the cpu uses bandwidth as well, and probably more than BD cores.
Witcher 3 for example, loves memory bandwidth and hates IGPs. Cant be a coincidence.

If you are using Witcher 3 as your point - sure. It may struggle with iGPUs.

But there 129846187345082365081246392514738524985234 other games that do not struggle with iGPUs.

If you are on budget, there is just no option from Intel. Either you buy Core i3 8100 + GTX 1050, which is not exactly budget option, or you buy Pentium G4560+ GT1030/RX 550. Ryzen 5 2400G will give you Core i3 8100(likely higher) performance on CPU side, and around GT1030 on GPU side, with 3200 MHz RAM, for LESS MONEY, and will allow you to build mu simpler computer, possibly in very small form factor case.

Competition, at its best.

 

[LTC8K6]

A GTX1050 is $150 minimum and it's only got 2gb of Vram. It is GDDR5, which kills the ram the 2400G has, but overall the APUs look like the better buy.

 

[The Stilt]

A GTX1050 is $150 minimum and it's only got 2gb of Vram. It is GDDR5, which kills the ram the 2400G has, but overall the APUs look like the better buy.

Yeah, but keep in mind that even the GTX 1050 is ~83% faster (~ 6100 vs. 3322 in Fire Strike) than the 2400G paired with 3200MHz RAM.
That's a huge difference, especially at the entry level.

Fast DRAM is extremely expensive at the moment and the APUs are totally memory bound.
Based on the data released by AMD, increasing the iGPU clock by 24% on the 2400G resulted in 8.2% performance improvement.
And that's with 3200MHz memory.

 

[IRobot23]

Yeah, but keep in mind that even the GTX 1050 is ~83% faster (~ 6100 vs. 3322 in Fire Strike) than the 2400G paired with 3200MHz RAM.
That's a huge difference, especially at the entry level.

Fast DRAM is extremely expensive at the moment and the APUs are totally memory bound.
Based on the data released by AMD, increasing the iGPU clock by 24% on the 2400G resulted in 8.2% performance improvement.
And that's with 3200MHz memory.

Maybe fire strike is not best comparison since its not that bandwidth limited.

I agree with you! And that's why I am talking that, if 2200G will be 100-110$ then G4560 + GT 1030 deal is off the table. Either you go with 2400G or 2200G you are getting much better CPU performance and with 2400G you can simply reach for that 1070/60 or RX 56/RX 480 performance in the future. Yet still it won't fall behind GT 1030 that much.

 

[raghu78]

Yeah, but keep in mind that even the GTX 1050 is ~83% faster (~ 6100 vs. 3322 in Fire Strike) than the 2400G paired with 3200MHz RAM.
That's a huge difference, especially at the entry level.

Fast DRAM is extremely expensive at the moment and the APUs are totally memory bound.
Based on the data released by AMD, increasing the iGPU clock by 24% on the 2400G resulted in 8.2% performance improvement.
And that's with 3200MHz memory.

DRAM in general is expensive. There is not much price difference between DDR4 2400 and DDR4 3200. The promo on the DDR4 2400 is a temporary one.

DDR4 2400 - 2 x 4GB = USD 103 (USD 10 off till 1/25)
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231886

DDR4 3200 - 2 x 4GB = USD 109
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231900

GTX 1050 is USD 140 and definitely a vastly better GPU. But in very low budget PCs with price USD 400 - 500 which is still a sizeable market the R3 2200G and R5 2400G are going to be unbeatable.

https://techreport.com/review/32967/the-tech-report-system-guide-winter-2017-edition/2

imo the G4560 + GT1030 is simply obsolete once Ryzen APUs arrive. R5 2400G with 4c/8t and unlocked multipler will overclock to 4 Ghz. Paired with DDR4 3200 memory it will perform on par with GT 1030 while killing the Intel G4560 in CPU performance. R3 2200G will be close behind for an unbeatable low budget entry level esports gaming PC for USD 400. In markets like China and India where a lot of people still buy very low cost PCs and play games on PCs with integrated graphics the Ryzen APUs are going to be a godsend and wildly popular. The question is can AMD supply enough as demand is going to be very high in the current market which is badly affected by crypto mining inflated dGPU prices.

 

[neblogai]

Some interesting info regarding RR process (14nm+), overclocking in recent 2000G series demo, and other small things: https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/7s56pd/the_upcoming_ryzen_apus_seem_to_already_be_the/dt23ezf/

P.S.: important bit for budget builders might be- overclock was done with Wraith Max- which is similar in capability to ~€25 CPU coolers. However, 2200G and 2400G will come boxed with the basic Wraith Stealth.

 

[PeterScott]

DRAM in general is expensive. There is not much price difference between DDR4 2400 and DDR4 3200. The promo on the DDR4 2400 is a temporary one.

DDR4 2400 - 2 x 4GB = USD 103 (USD 10 off till 1/25)
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231886

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820158203&cm_re=ddr4-_-20-158-203-_-Product

$74

Lower speed RAM is also much less finicky about brand, so there is no need to buy the more expensive brand, when going with 2400 speed.

imo the G4560 + GT1030 is simply obsolete once Ryzen APUs arrive.

Which is why the post you quoted suggested a GTX 1050. Even before the Ryzen APUs arrive it makes little sense to buy a GT1030.

If you want to game, a $130 GTX 1050 is a reasonable minimum, and with ram savings, hardly that much for a better gaming experience.

 

[Shivansps]

Ill say this again, IF, and its a big IF, if the 2400G performs like a GT1030 in games why AMD avoided a direct game comparison and only showed Firestrike? AMD compared their IGP to dgpus on older gens,this time its different, and we know the APU usually lands better on the benchmarks.

On last gen APUs, the 7600 gave better performance than a R7 240, and the 7800 better than R7 250 DDR3. And AMD targeted the GT740.

Here we are talking about if all planets are aligned, GT1030 performance, what is already slower than RX550, and those two are the slowest dGPU avalible today. The performance vs entry level dgpus is worse than before.

 

[Shivansps]

Maybe fire strike is not best comparison since its not that bandwidth limited.

I agree with you! And that's why I am talking that, if 2200G will be 100-110$ then G4560 + GT 1030 deal is off the table. Either you go with 2400G or 2200G you are getting much better CPU performance and with 2400G you can simply reach for that 1070/60 or RX 56/RX 480 performance in the future. Yet still it won't fall behind GT 1030 that much.

G4560+GT1030 was never on the table to begin with, GTX1050 and RX560 are the minimum. GT1030 while its OK for its price for an old pc that needs to runs some games, it really gets destroyed by a simple GTX1050.

 

[formulav8]

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820158203&cm_re=ddr4-_-20-158-203-_-Product

$74

Those reviews are awful though. Many getting at least a bad stick.