AMD could have made them a real Pentium killer if they unlocked them. But @ $55 I guess that's why they didn't. Still disappointing though.
AMD has done much better at this price point in the past.
AMD could have made them a real Pentium killer if they unlocked them. But @ $55 I guess that's why they didn't. Still disappointing though.
The ram speed should be able to be raised.AMD could have made them a real Pentium killer if they unlocked them. But @ $55 I guess that's why they didn't. Still disappointing though.
At least, they could have allowed OCing the (relative to other Ryzen APUs) weak iGPU. Maybe if they had a cTDP up, or maybe a TDP limit increase. I know that the UEFI of my Asus B350-E Prime board, had that for Bristol Ridge. (Some sort of TDP limit setting.)AMD could have made them a real Pentium killer if they unlocked them. But @ $55 I guess that's why they didn't. Still disappointing though.
At least, they could have allowed OCing the (relative to other Ryzen APUs) weak iGPU. Maybe if they had a cTDP up, or maybe a TDP limit increase. I know that the UEFI of my Asus B350-E Prime board, had that for Bristol Ridge. (Some sort of TDP limit setting.)
the a12-9800 results are amazing, that's where AMD was not long ago, very low performance and horrible power draw,
the 200GE is such a nice upgrade, very decent cheap CPU, also GPU beating the i3 8100; still I agree, it's a huge shame it's locked... all to justify the small clock bump models... maybe they could release a "200G Black Edition" or something for a little something extra (but not much), given they would also get more for b350 over a320, it just makes sense.
I wonder if they plan quad core Athlons, no turbo and all locked like this to differentiate from the 2200G.
I know that NVidia won't certify a motherboard, for SLI operation, unless it has a minimum of x8 / x8 PCI-E slots, but I've thus far NEVER heard of an NVidia card REFUSING to work in a slot with less than that number of lanes. (You might not be able to enable SLI on a Crossfire x16 / x4 mobo, but you should be able to populate both slots with NV cards to use with GPU compute applications.)Only with AMD GPU because apparently some said nvidia won't work with x4 PCIe lane.
As i see or remember, much more people is disagree or whining for "red problem being Locked for overclocking" vs "i5 8400 locked for overclocking+no SMT".It's all very funny, or pretty good story for one new future Monty Python episode.
Red problem, price 55$
i5 8400. price 200$
I know that NVidia won't certify a motherboard, for SLI operation, unless it has a minimum of x8 / x8 PCI-E slots, but I've thus far NEVER heard of an NVidia card REFUSING to work in a slot with less than that number of lanes. (You might not be able to enable SLI on a Crossfire x16 / x4 mobo, but you should be able to populate both slots with NV cards to use with GPU compute applications.)
I hear you my friend. If the 200GE were shipped unlocked, it would go down in history, along with the Celeron 300A. (Well, maybe not quite as magnanimous, but at least like the E5200 and the G3258. The G4560 could have been in that club too, if only it were unlocked.)by far my favorite CPUs have been $50-80 CPUs that I could easily OC, like E5200, XP 1700+ Tbred B.
Why use it with a GPU? If you need better graphics than it already has then get a 2200G for $100 instead of the 200GE.Yeah, it's too bad this isn't unlocked, it really would have made the Pentium chips irrelevant. Let's hope AMD is not considering locking newer CPUs as well.
As far as performance, this lands exactly where I expected it and it's a perfect CPU for a family or office computer, I will have zero qualms about recommending it to friends who want something to do some light work on.
Also, this is great for a kid's computer if you combine it with an inexpensive GPU, should give pretty good results in the most popular games .
I have no experience in running recent cards on x4 mode, that's why I said "apparently"."apparently some said" is now reliable?
I know that NVidia won't certify a motherboard, for SLI operation, unless it has a minimum of x8 / x8 PCI-E slots, but I've thus far NEVER heard of an NVidia card REFUSING to work in a slot with less than that number of lanes. (You might not be able to enable SLI on a Crossfire x16 / x4 mobo, but you should be able to populate both slots with NV cards to use with GPU compute applications.)
Tried to order one just now, but they only accept CC# for backorders. Was going to try to use Paypal.Newegg back order
Why use it with a GPU? If you need better graphics than it already has then get a 2200G for $100 instead of the 200GE.
A 1050ti likely needs to be paired with a better CPU than a 200GE, and it's $180 by itself.because the 2200G IGP is still pretty slow, if you are buying a better GPU, like a GTX 1050 ti you are still saving the difference and probably won't notice the difference in CPU performance, probably.
AMD could have made it better but the 35W TDP is welcomed however as well as the price. This something I would use to build a system for a kid.A 1050ti likely needs to be paired with a better CPU than a 200GE, and it's $180 by itself.
There's still a gap unfilled, we still don't have the APU we all seem to be looking for.
Why use it with a GPU? If you need better graphics than it already has then get a 2200G for $100 instead of the 200GE.
It's the CPU part that I believe is just too slow, though.Sure, I'll explain. Let me preface this by saying that the iGPU is more than enough for any light office work, HTPC decoding loads etc. But, if I were to build a computer for a kid, I would certainly look into perhaps pairing this Athlon processor with a faster, dedicated GPU, such as a 1050, RX 560 or 1050Ti, provided that the kid probably wants to play videogames their friends are playing at school or on their consoles.
My reasoning behind this is that, first off, the iGPU is slow, but the CPU is fast enough for the most popular games, such eSports titles, at least for now and best of all it is very inexpensive at 55$.
The 2200G is a much better CPU, however its iGPU, which I really dig by the way, is still nowhere near as fast as the cards I mentioned. So, I'd build a system around this Athlon CPU and pair it with one of the dGPUs I mentioned, with the prospect that in the near future, the user (or their parent in this case) will upgrade the CPU to something a little nicer, perhaps next year we'll have quad cores for the price of these Athlons. Or you know, it might turn out that it is fast enough for the kid.
Growing up I went through a couple of really terrible computer builds, which I'll list just for the sake of sharing a few laughs and memories. The first computer I ever owned was the previous family computer which I got as a hand-me-down once we upgraded. It was a Pentium 133 with 32MB EDO RAM and an S3 Virge. This would be fine and all, but I got this in mid 2000, so it was quite slow and I certainly couldn't play most of the games around.
I then moved to a Celeron 900 on an SiS 630 based motherboard, with no AGP slot and just a dinky little integrated chip for graphics. This was at a time of cheap GeForce2/4 MX and Radeon 9000/9200 cards and Duron CPUs, so...
Lastly, I ended up with a Northwood based Celeron 2.4GHz and a GeForce FX 5600 XT. Wow, this was bad. The CPU was amazingly slow, thanks to its 128KB cache which probably hit the Netburst architecture way too hard. Even if the CPU was clocked at 4GHz it wouldn't have amounted to much performance increase. The GeForce FX 5600 was also a pretty lame mid-range GPU that was probably slower than the card it was supposed to replace, the Ti 4200. On top of that, I had the XT version which in contrast to ATi's offerings was underclocked, but thankfully not 64bit.
Anyway, while Ι was always envious of other people's faster systems, I learned to appreciate having my own computer and I got by with lower framerates (probably lower than 30 back then ). I mention all of this, because of the point I was making above. The slower CPU with a faster GPU may actually end up being fast enough for the kid and if not, it was just 55$ anyway, on a platform that can get you some really nice CPU upgrades if you wish!
Sorry for the rant, I hope this clarifies it.
Yeah the Athlon 200GE is only suitable for a low cost budget system and the Ryzen 3 2200G is a better deal anyway as it will last longer.It's the CPU part that I believe is just too slow, though.
An R3 1200 handily defeats it for $100 and with 4 cores it will last a while, and it's unlocked.
I upgrade the CPU in system exactly once in my life in 2001 and came close to breaking the motherboard doing it. Yes I know things are easier now but you are actually better getting a decent APU/CPU up front and saving up for a video card later.You said it yourself, it is 100$.
Lots of people went ahead and bought the G4560 and later the G5400 and paired them with decent dGPUs and they suit them fine and if the get a bit too long in the tooth they can always upgrade to a nice i5 8400 later for example.
Same principle applies to the Athlon 200GE. I don't see what's different here.
I say the same thing. I'll buy the cheap i3 and then when it gets too slow, I'll throw an i7 in there.You said it yourself, it is 100$.
Lots of people went ahead and bought the G4560 and later the G5400 and paired them with decent dGPUs and they suit them fine and if the get a bit too long in the tooth they can always upgrade to a nice i5 8400 later for example.
Same principle applies to the Athlon 200GE. I don't see what's different here.