I don't think they will... Considering thay they hired Koduri.And if they continue like that, even Power VR would defeat them...
Dont tell me when you wrote the prior post you thought the 630 was in the same ballpark as the 2200? Because it was not a 610?Price.
I think that this entire dGPU comparison is just bullshit. Who *actually* cares if Raven Ridge is faster than Nvidias slowest dGPU? It's nice to see how they compare but in the end that comparison is just artificial. Nobody sane would ever buy a GT1030 for gaming, not even combined with a slower Intel iGPU.
The main market of these APUs is in cheap prebuilt PCs that are not meant primarily for gaming - however if these cheap PCs can play some games nonetheless that is still a huge plus for a lot of people (and for OEMs). The 2200G will compete against i3-8100 and Pentium Gold G5600 and it's the first time for AMD that the CPU performance is on par with Intel. Even if we completely ignore the GPU speed advantage, AMD can now compete with Intel's lineup. And AMD is earlier in the market than Intels competitive CPUs too.
BTW: what is the real reason why H310 and B360 Intel boards are not released yet? I don't think they are delayed due to Meltdown and Spectre. I would rather guess that the market is still flooded with lower tier Sky Lake and Kaby Lake CPUs / mainboards that couldn't be sold any more once quad core Pentiums and i3s are available for the same price.
I do agree with your point, however, tell me where do you see Core i3 8100 performance level(or higher) + GT1030 performance level, for 20$ less, as overpriced?Are you serious, or just trying to dismiss any data that does not make an APU look like the choice for gaming? A dgpu vs APU is EXACTLY the comparison one has to look at if the APU does not offer sufficient performance. And "nobody sane" would buy a 1030 for gaming, right? Why? Because it is too slow. So why would they buy an APU that is probably even slower (2200), or "maybe" will be competitive with it (2400) at an overpriced price point.
I know several folks who would love to have a new computer with 2200G or 2400G performance, and the ability to play many games at at reasonable speeds even at low settings will be a godsend to them.I do agree with your point, however, tell me where do you see Core i3 8100 performance level(or higher) + GT1030 performance level, for 20$ less, as overpriced?
Intel doesnt have anything in the 2200G segment to compete, period.
I know several folks who would love to have a new computer with 2200G or 2400G performance, and the ability to play many games at at reasonable speeds even at low settings will be a godsend to them.
Raven Ridge will do that even better.The A8-9600 can do that already. Kaveri has been doing it for a few years now as well.
I know several folks who would love to have a new computer with 2200G or 2400G performance, and the ability to play many games at at reasonable speeds even at low settings will be a godsend to them.
Who said anything about replacing? Low end gpus will always have a market. Again you are moving the goalpost here.Wrong, the idea of APU wasn't to replace low-end GPU, rather to give consumer an opportunity to play less demanding/older games without it.
Something i had mentioned before, a lot of times actually, but the thing is, you cant know, it depends on the workload, A 7600 Kaveri was able to match an R7 240 with just DDR3-1600 in some cases, in others it needed DDR3-1866 or more.False, 2200G with DDR4-3200 would have significantly less bandwith than GT 1030 because it must be shared between CPU and IGP.
The thread started because AMD relased the slides of APU Ryzen, those same slides compared to Kaveri, Richland, Trinity, etc slides are missing a crucial element, a gaming comparison vs a low end Nvidia GPU. I dont see how that is pointless.Discussion about marketing slides is pointless to me.
Ill be honest, until this thread if someone on this forum said he will be buying a 4/4 for gaming, the usual people would show up and say that "NO!, buy a 4/8 or 6/12 Ryzen" 4/4 is dead. So im finding very funny now that some people say its OK to spend extra money on a futureless CPU. It would be better? yes i just dont know it if worth it, you are probably better off buying a more future proof cpu if you want to spend any extra money.2200G + GTX 1050 would be defintely more future-proof setup for a bit higher price - I wouldn't advice to buy Bristol Ridge or dual core with HT in 2018 for gaming.
If you have limited budget, then buy 2200G or 8100 if bigger 8400 or 1600 (also upcoming 2600).
The 2200G is not really expensive, it kinda worries me it is only replacing the A12-9800, the 2400G it is expensive, $70 for SMT and 3 CU that there is a high chance you cant make a good use off.I wouldn't call good APU for 100 dollars expensive - comparing it with Bristol Ridge doesn't make sense to me.
No with GDDR5 and 64 bit bus, its impossible to fight a GDDR5 128 bit with DDR4, but with 64 bit is certanly in range.Look at reply 1 and 2.
Btw, switching from DDR3 to DDR4 is much smaller jump than from DDR3 to GDDR5 as it happened to low-end GPUs.
I meant the 2400 is overpriced, the 2200 is priced very well. The 2400 is almost as expensive as the hex core 1600 and i5 8400.I do agree with your point, however, tell me where do you see Core i3 8100 performance level(or higher) + GT1030 performance level, for 20$ less, as overpriced?
Ill be honest, until this thread if someone on this forum said he will be buying a 4/4 for gaming, the usual people would show up and say that "NO!, buy a 4/8 or 6/12 Ryzen" 4/4 is dead. So im finding very funny now that some people say its OK to spend extra money on a futureless CPU. It would be better? yes i just dont know it if worth it, you are probably better off buying a more future proof cpu if you want to spend any extra money.
Are you serious, or just trying to dismiss any data that does not make an APU look like the choice for gaming? A dgpu vs APU is EXACTLY the comparison one has to look at if the APU does not offer sufficient performance. And "nobody sane" would buy a 1030 for gaming, right? Why? Because it is too slow. So why would they buy an APU that is probably even slower (2200), or "maybe" will be competitive with it (2400) at an overpriced price point.
I meant the 2400 is overpriced, the 2200 is priced very well. The 2400 is almost as expensive as the hex core 1600 and i5 8400.
So why would they buy an APU that is probably even slower (2200), or "maybe" will be competitive with it (2400) at an overpriced price point.
I meant the 2400 is overpriced, the 2200 is priced very well. The 2400 is almost as expensive as the hex core 1600 and i5 8400.
Intel dosent had anything to compete with any APU, EVER. I fail to see how that is relevant to the 2200G.
We have to wait for real gaming benchmarks, but the 2400 is 70% more expensive than the 2200. Yes, it will perform better, but by how much? Maybe 20%, but certainly not 70%. So for out of the box gaming, 2200 will undoubtedly be a better value (performance per dollar). And if one wants a more powerful system, better to just get a 1600 or 8400 and a decent dgpu to begin with.You're right, you need to compare them to dGPUs to decide if a dGPU is better suited for what you need. But that comparison has almost zero impact on competitiveness of 2200G and 2400G. Unless there are significantly faster (non-APU) CPUs for the same price or significantly cheaper CPUs with the same performance you can't save money on the APU/CPU when you need a dGPU. People are just not buying a dGPU as long as an APU is "good enough" for what they need. If 2200G and 2400G are "good enough" even a Titan V at 100$ would be a bad purchase (ignoring mining).
And 2400G is certainly not overpriced. Intels cheapest 4c/8t on socket 1151 is Intel Xeon E3-1230 v6, 4x 3.50GHz for 240€ (295$ including VAT).
We have to wait for real gaming benchmarks, but the 2400 is 70% more expensive than the 2200. Yes, it will perform better, but by how much? Maybe 20%, but certainly not 70%. .
Raven Ridge won't do it any better than Kaveri/Richland did some years ago because games have also become that much more demanding as well. Overall picture remains the same. That's not to say 2200G is not good, its a great product but it isn't any more better at playing demanding games than older generation APUs were for playing demanding games of those years.Raven Ridge will do that even better.
And 2400G is certainly not overpriced. Intels cheapest 4c/8t on socket 1151 is Intel Xeon E3-1230 v6, 4x 3.50GHz for 240€ (295$ including VAT).
The 6700 and 7700 are hardly valid comparisons, since even with the higher motherboard prices, you can now get six cores for 50.00 less (8400 for 200.00 plus 50.00 extra for the mb = effectively 250.00).Unfortunately, you need a C-series chipset for an LGA-1151 Xeon. Because Intel...
But the 8400 is available, and has better performance then almost any 4C/8T out there, so that should be the comparison. Unfortunately, you also need a Z370 board for it. Again, because Intel...
But I agree, its not exactly overpriced. Not long ago, the cheapest way to get 4C/8T was $303 (list price) for both the 6700 and 7700 non-K's. Now AMD will sell me that for $170, with a far, far superior IGP.
It's a good thing feelings don't matter.Dont tell me when you wrote the prior post you thought the 630 was in the same ballpark as the 2200? Because it was not a 610?
Looking at your post later i simply get this nagging feeling. Lol.
Welcome to 2018 mate. Wake up.