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

[whm1974]

I am one of those people, but this opinion is only about higher end gaming.

This quad core is excellent because it is so cheap. Price is key here.

The days of $300+ quad cores are dead.

The price of the 2200 and 2400 make it a no brainer for new gamers on a budget. There are so many current gamers on much slower graphics!

Yes the are, especially with the high prices of dGPUs and these two APUs will serve as as a nice stop gap until prices come down.

 

[frozentundra123456]

So? No one said there is no market for them. AMD needed that to be competitive with the 8th gen once H310 drops in anyway.
And im not talking about games here, every Ryzen desktop CPU should have an IGP if you ask me.

Funny how that works out. Seems like AMD's biggest obstacle in this day and time is the internet warriors that run around stating all things AMD suck. It doesn't really matter how good a product they produce you'll always find them trashing the products for one reason or another. Not like they're hard to spot in the end....Makes you wonder if they're getting some kind of compensation for their efforts in the end.

Wrong, previous generations of AMD APU with DDR3 were in better position against low-end graphics cards equipped with DDR3 too, than 2200G/2400G with DDR4 vs GDDR5 in GT 1030 - the latter have effectively significantly more bandwith.
I don't think, that you're so ignorant on technical side, then it must be trolling or simply example of bias against AMD.




You're wrong again: A8-9600 is a 4 thread APU, 2200G is a real quad-core.
I'm repeating this again - for additonal 30 dollars, you will get much better CPU performance and also better IGP.
Btw, probably I shouldn't expect anything else from a person, who recommending buying Bristol Ridge parts in 2018.

AMD themselves list the A8-9600 as a quad core. link

 

[VirtualLarry]

AMD themselves list the A8-9600 as a quad core. link

That doesn't change the FACT that WE KNOW it's based on Carizzo, which is based on Excavator, which is a BullDozer derivative, which uses a "Module" architecture and a shared-front-end design, so correctly, it's a 2M/4T APU, AMD's marketing to laymen notwithstanding.

Whereas, the Ryzen 2200G APU is a true 4C/4T, and the 2400G APU is a true 4C/8T.

 

[AtenRa]

Even if A8-9600 was a "True" Quad Core with the same performance, it would still be slow for todays standards (Ryzen 2200G).

 

[CHADBOGA]

P.S. It is curious that nearly every scheduled AT forum maintenance date coincides with an AMD product launch. That's quite the coincidence.

Hmmmmmmm, interesting.

 

[LTC8K6]

A8-9600 is GCN3 whereas 2200G is GCN5, which is a decent jump in performance.

 

[crazzy.heartz]

Put up the AMD slide that shows the 2400G tied with a GT1030 card.

I don't think I mentioned GT1030 anywhere in my post. Have quoted the same here for your reference.

These CPUs from AMD with IGP are quite fantastic really..

10-15 year olds who are in need of their first PC will buy this in a heartbeat.. & why not; AMD is giving them RX 550 level performance for free..

Pair these with basic 2400Mhz RAM and it'll play games at 1080p.. 51 FPS in Battlefield 1 ain't too shabby..


Furthermore, once the RAM price drops, anyone who buys these with a 3000/3200 MHz RAM enjoys 10% higher performance rightaway. Bump the GPU clockspeed another 100-200 MHz and enjoy another 10-15% higher performance..

Those who really wanna squeeze the lemon can extract upto 35-40% higher performance..

https://www.pcper.com/files/imagecache/article_max_width/news/2018-01-07/08.jpg

Anyhow, I drew inference regarding RX 550 Gfx Card and Ryzen 5 2400G's IGP from the slides published by AMD Below -

https://img.purch.com/r/600x450/aHR...vLmNvbS8xL1YvNzQxMzc5L29yaWdpbmFsLzA3LkpQRw==


& Benchmarks from one of their graph card reviews :

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-rx-560-4gb,5254-9.html

Ryzen 2400G scored 52 & 31 FPS in Battlefield 1 & Witcher 3 whereas, Rx 550 scored 41 & 33, in those games, respectively.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Even if A8-9600 was a "True" Quad Core with the same performance, it would still be slow for todays standards (Ryzen 2200G).

That post was in reply to the poster who was claiming the A8-9600 was not a quad core.

 

[Shivansps]

The 2200G doesn't replace the A8-9600.
Considering what i see in mobile i would expect a 4/4 with 6CU to replace it later on, it could also be a 2/4 with 6CU if the Athlon 200GE ends up to be Ryzen.

 

[Shivansps]

I don't think I mentioned GT1030 anywhere in my post. Have quoted the same here for your reference.




Anyhow, I drew inference regarding RX 550 Gfx Card and Ryzen 5 2400G's IGP from the slides published by AMD Below -

https://img.purch.com/r/600x450/aHR...vLmNvbS8xL1YvNzQxMzc5L29yaWdpbmFsLzA3LkpQRw==


& Benchmarks from one of their graph card reviews :

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-rx-560-4gb,5254-9.html

Ryzen 2400G scored 52 & 31 FPS in Battlefield 1 & Witcher 3 whereas, Rx 550 scored 41 & 33, in those games, respectively.

Neither BF1 or the Witcher 3 was at Medium on the AMD slide, thats 1080P LOW, otherwise they would have said so, like they did with overwatch. Those numbers are around GT1030 level, maybe a little bit lower, impossible to be sure unless i use the same test escenario on both.

The RX550 has 112GB/s of bandwidth, the 2400G w/DDR4-3200 only has around 52GB/s, its imposible for the 2400G to match a RX550, GT1030 in other hand only has 48GB/s, so it has a chance.

 

[LTC8K6]

But the 2400G GPU shares that memory bandwidth with the CPU, so in reality the GT1030 still has the advantage in memory bandwidth even though the raw numbers are close.

 

[Peter Watts]

Neither BF1 or the Witcher 3 was at Medium on the AMD slide, thats 1080P LOW, otherwise they would have said so, like they did with overwatch. Those numbers are around GT1030 level, maybe a little bit lower, impossible to be sure unless i use the same test escenario on both.

The RX550 has 112GB/s of bandwidth, the 2400G w/DDR4-3200 only has around 52GB/s, its imposible for the 2400G to match a RX550, GT1030 in other hand only has 48GB/s, so it has a chance.

Looks pretty damn good to me....

 

[Shivansps]

But the 2400G GPU shares that memory bandwidth with the CPU, so in reality the GT1030 still has the advantage in memory bandwidth even though the raw numbers are close.

I know but we cant be sure about how much memory bandwidth the cpu uses, it depends on the workload. On the old APUs a A10-7850K was trading blows with GT740 DDR3 128 bits, GT730 GDDR5 and R5 250 DDR3 128 bits.

Altrought ive only seen APU with BD based cores so far, the Ryzen cores may be more bandwidth hungry.

 

[Shivansps]

Looks pretty damn good to me....

It is, IF the 2200G can keep up with that, a A12-9800 can barely archive that on 720P, it should be able to if it has enoght bandwidth, unless there is another unknown factor.

I would expect the 2400G to be in the middle of a GT1030->RX550, but i would be happy if it can trade blows with the GT1030. Im lowering my expectations already, maybe it will suprise me.

 

[rainy]

That post was in reply to the poster who was claiming the A8-9600 was not a quad core.

I'm not claiming, technically it's two modules APU based on Excavator core without L3.
Depending on the task it performance could be similar to Intel's dual-cores, sometimes (rarely) closer to quad-cores.
Btw, it would be not funny to watch, when 2200G will bulldoze A8-9600 in CPU performance, especially, if you're owner of the latter.

 

[The Stilt]

A8-9600 is GCN3 whereas 2200G is GCN5, which is a decent jump in performance.

Is there any example which would show Vega having significantly higher performance compared to Fiji at the same specs? A serious question, because I haven't found any.

EDIT: https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/2977-vega-fe-vs-fury-x-at-same-clocks-ipc

 

[ao_ika_red]

That doesn't change the FACT that WE KNOW it's based on Carizzo, which is based on Excavator, which is a BullDozer derivative, which uses a "Module" architecture and a shared-front-end design, so correctly, it's a 2M/4T APU, AMD's marketing to laymen notwithstanding.

And according to Passmark, its ST performance is comparable to Sandy Bridge's i3.
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=755&cmp[]=3078

 

[LTC8K6]

Is there any example which would show Vega having significantly higher performance compared to Fiji at the same specs? A serious question, because I haven't found any.

EDIT: https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/2977-vega-fe-vs-fury-x-at-same-clocks-ipc

It should be a lot faster, wonder why it doesn't seem to be? Drivers?

https://www.anandtech.com/show/11002/the-amd-vega-gpu-architecture-teaser/2

 

[french toast]

It is, IF the 2200G can keep up with that, a A12-9800 can barely archive that on 720P, it should be able to if it has enoght bandwidth, unless there is another unknown factor.

I would expect the 2400G to be in the middle of a GT1030->RX550, but i would be happy if it can trade blows with the GT1030. Im lowering my expectations already, maybe it will suprise me.

If the 2400G can match a great 1030 with 3200 ddr4 then I for one would consider that very impressive indeed.

 

[IntelUser2000]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-rx-560-4gb,5254-9.html

Ryzen 2400G scored 52 & 31 FPS in Battlefield 1 & Witcher 3 whereas, Rx 550 scored 41 & 33, in those games, respectively.

I highly doubt its just a bit behind RX 460.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-radeon-rx-550-2gb,5034-4.html
http://www.relaxedtech.com/reviews/amd/radeon-rx-550/3

Battlefield One on Low settings correspond to the performance on the AMD slide.

The RX 550 is getting 68 fps on BF1 from RelaxedTech. On Tomshardware its getting 64.2 fps on BF1. The important part is the HD 630. It's getting 19 fps on Relaxed Tech and 15 fps on Tomshardware.

AMD themselves claimed in Rocket League RX 550 can get 94 fps: https://technewswith.me/amd-rx-550-benchmarks-full-review/

RX 550 can get 70 fps on Overwatch with High settings: https://www.techspot.com/review/1488-esports-geforce-gt-1030-vs-radeon-rx-550/

DoTA comparisons are hard to do because you'd have to check whether the review is using Vulkan or not.

 

[LightningZ71]

With respect to memory bandwidth contention as compared to the most recent Bristol Ridge chips, please remember that Ryzen G has an actual L3 cache (4MB to be precise). This will make a significant difference in the behavior of the memory controller. The flip side will be that, in the full fat Ryzen 5Gs with 4 cores and 8 threads, there can be 8 active threads all clamoring for memory bandwidth at the same time, which will definitely hit the L3 cache hard.

All that said, there will still be a major bottleneck with respect to memory bandwidth. I firmly believe that we will see a significant performance uplift over Bristol Ridge given the increased efficiency of the core internals, especially when considering thermal and power budgets, but, the lack of a major improvement in memory bandwidth will still put an absolute limit on higher resolution performance that will be unacceptable to many. While I realize that AMD has a still very limited R&D budget, I think that it would have been worth their while to consider cutting the CUs down to 8, expanding the die size by 20%, and including a roughly 128MB L4 cache to further help with memory bandwidth contention issues. We've already seen that this approach can make a noticeable improvement in iGPU performance from Intel's IRIS Pro products, and it could have done the same here. I also realize that it would have increased the cost of the chips by a non-trivial amount and would likely make them all at least 20% more expensive. I would take a 2200G that cost $125 over $99 and a 2400g that was a bit over $200 if it offered performance that was solidly past 1030/RX550 performance levels and nearing RX560 levels.

 

[LTC8K6]

With respect to memory bandwidth contention as compared to the most recent Bristol Ridge chips, please remember that Ryzen G has an actual L3 cache (4MB to be precise). This will make a significant difference in the behavior of the memory controller. The flip side will be that, in the full fat Ryzen 5Gs with 4 cores and 8 threads, there can be 8 active threads all clamoring for memory bandwidth at the same time, which will definitely hit the L3 cache hard.

Well, a $150 R5-1400 has 8MB of L3 cache, 4 more than the 2400G.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

It is, IF the 2200G can keep up with that, a A12-9800 can barely archive that on 720P, it should be able to if it has enoght bandwidth, unless there is another unknown factor.

There is. BR's DDR4 controller isn't on the same level as Summit Ridge. The improved one in Raven Ridge/Pinnacle Ridge should be even better.

 

[coercitiv]

Well, a $150 R5-1400 has 8MB of L3 cache, 4 more than the 2400G.

And that L3 is spread across 2 CCXes.

 

[LTC8K6]

And that L3 is spread across 2 CCXes.

It's only 4C8T, shouldn't it have one CCX?