Why use it with a GPU? If you need better graphics than it already has then get a 2200G for $100 instead of the 200GE.
Sure, I'll explain. Let me preface this by saying that the iGPU is more than enough for any light office work, HTPC decoding loads etc. But, if I were to build a computer for a kid, I would certainly look into perhaps pairing this Athlon processor with a faster, dedicated GPU, such as a 1050, RX 560 or 1050Ti, provided that the kid probably wants to play videogames their friends are playing at school or on their consoles.
My reasoning behind this is that, first off, the iGPU is slow, but the CPU is fast enough for the most popular games, such eSports titles, at least for now and best of all it is very inexpensive at 55$.
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.