Budget gaming build - Intel G4560 or AMD 2200G / 2400G?

[USER8000]

If you are going to play Battlefield 1 online,go for a Ryzen 3 2200G at a minimum.

 

[SirDinadan]

It's not surprising at all to me. I was trying to make clear how pathetic and unfun gaming on a 1030/Vega APU is.

Yeah, sure, if you want to play the most recent AAA titles, you want a beefy dGPU.
Don't forget that three AAA release-date game costs more than the APU + MOBO combo. Just to put things into perspective. The biggest shortcoming is the DDR4 system RAM, the price for these is insane.

Ryzen 3 2200G is the ideal setup for a PC gamer who only buy 2-3 years old games, with heavy price cuts during sales. I'm sure that 1080p medium is not an unrealistic aim for the majority of games (Witcher, Crysis and other more demanding games are problematic, no question about that).

 

[Thunder 57]

If you are going to play Battlefield 1 online,go for a Ryzen 3 2200G at a minimum.

Agreed. I would not want to play BF1 on a dual core. That was probably holding you back more than the 7850.

EDIT

So I was curious and loaded up BF1 with just two cores. It was brutal. It took noticeably longer to load the map, and when it finally did, it still took like 30 seconds before it "caught up" and I could join a squad. From there it was just choppy. Playable perhaps, but at a level where I was at a serious disadvantage. After a few deaths I put it back on 4 cores and it was a night and day difference.

For reference, I have a 3570k, set to 4.2GHz all core, so 4.2GHz under "dual core" as well.

 

[whm1974]

Agreed. I would not want to play BF1 on a dual core. That was probably holding you back more than the 7850.

At $100/$120 I'm thinking that 4c/4t should be the minimum APU/CPU for Gaming/Basic PCs with 4c/8c APU/CPU given consideration for longer term use.

 

[Thunder 57]

At $100/$120 I'm thinking that 4c/4t should be the minimum APU/CPU for Gaming/Basic PCs with 4c/8c APU/CPU given consideration for longer term use.

Sounds about right. I edited my post and it certainly seems to prove this. I have been on 4C/4T for 10 years now that I think about it. About 5 years on a Phenom II and another 5 on this 3570k. If I were building today 4C/8T would be the minimum, though I plan on going 6C/12T with Zen+ later this year. Maybe. If only I had waited a little longer and gotten Haswell with 16GB of DDR4, then I wouldn't have to worry about memory prices

 

[whm1974]

Sounds about right. I edited my post and it certainly seems to prove this. I have been on 4C/4T for 10 years now that I think about it. About 5 years on a Phenom II and another 5 on this 3570k. If I were building today 4C/8T would be the minimum, though I plan on going 6C/12T with Zen+ later this year. Maybe. If only I had waited a little longer and gotten Haswell with 16GB of DDR4, then I wouldn't have to worry about memory prices

Well in my case back in 2013 when I built my rig, by design it is capable of lasting 10 years if needed. Although I didn't plan on keeping it that long.

 

[Thunder 57]

Well in my case back in 2013 when I built my rig, by design it is capable of lasting 10 years if needed. Although I didn't plan on keeping it that long.

That's a very long time to keep a PC. If Intel didn't play games with sockets I'd gladly put a Skylake or Coffelake i7 in here and be good for many more years. When I built this one in 2013 I had no idea how long I expected it to last. I've upgraded my SSD and video card, otherwise the guts are the same.

As for the OP, I would go with the 2400G. That should be sufficient to last awhile video wise. Prices will adjust one way or another. Production is being increased, and all it takes is a coin crash to find ebay loaded with GPU's way under MSRP. It's happened before. I got a 270X for about half price years ago. Even if that doesn't happen, prices can't go much higher.

Wait until the right time to snag a GPU. In the meantime you will have a rock solid CPU with decent integrated video. I wouldn't advise the 2200G. These days I don't think I'd care for any CPU without SMT. That is probably my biggest regret with the i5 I have. The i7 with it's 4C/8T has aged much better.

 

[whm1974]

That's a very long time to keep a PC. If Intel didn't play games with sockets I'd gladly put a Skylake or Coffelake i7 in here and be good for many more years. When I built this one in 2013 I had no idea how long I expected it to last. I've upgraded my SSD and video card, otherwise the guts are the same.

As for the OP, I would go with the 2400G. That should be sufficient to last awhile video wise. Prices will adjust one way or another. Production is being increased, and all it takes is a coin crash to find ebay loaded with GPU's way under MSRP. It's happened before. I got a 270X for about half price years ago. Even if that doesn't happen, prices can't go much higher.

Wait until the right time to snag a GPU. In the meantime you will have a rock solid CPU with decent integrated video. I wouldn't advise the 2200G. These days I don't think I'd care for any CPU without SMT. That is probably my biggest regret with the i5 I have. The i7 with it's 4C/8T has aged much better.

Yeah but the 2400G is around half the price of what Intel I7 CPUs normally sold for. Back in 2013 something like this wasn't available for $170.

 

[ZGR]

Yeah but the 2400G is around half the price of what Intel I7 CPUs normally sold for. Back in 2013 something like this wasn't available for $170.

Exactly. this APU is faster than my i7 5775C at half the price!

 

[budgetgamerguy]

Hey guys, just saw this video with PUBG benchmarked on the 2200G Vega GPU and unfortunately it isn't playable at 1080P: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGWT_syIilI

So I think I'll stick with my original plan of a GTX 1050, pretty much just deciding between the G4560 and Ryzen 2200G as the CPUs now, I do save $60 with the G4560 and which keeps things under my initial budget, though I do understand its an older platform and dual core etc so I'll probably have to upgrade it sooner than the 2200G.

 

[LightningZ71]

One thing that I haven't seen tested a lot is the 2200G and 2400G in a setup with a dGPU. Specifically, for me, I'm still on the fence about my situation:

Currently, I have an i5-2400, 16GB of generic DDR3, and an Nvidia NVS 510 (think underclocked GT630 DDR3). The motherboard does not support Ivy Bridge processors.

I am considering paying about $50 to a friend that's got an i7-3770K with a high end motherboard (for the era) as an upgrade for me.

I am also considering just saving more money and getting something newer...

My current thinking is that I'm going to get an 2400G, a decent motherboard, 8GB DDR4 Kit and run that for a while, will eventually invest in a decent dGPU (something in the 1050ti-1070-RX560-570 range), and later will upgrade to 16GB DDR4 and sell off my 8GB kit.

I'm interested in how well the 2400G will perform once it's paired with a passable to decent dGPU. I fairly certain that the 8x PCIe lanes won't be an issue. I'm also fairly certain that, with the iGPU disabled, there will be a reduction in memory bandwidth contention, improving the scores of the CPU portion of the 2400G. I suspect that it will do quite well overall and will be a good long-term investment. As you can see from the CPU that I currently have, I tend to keep my computers for a very long time.

Anyone know of any good reviews of the 2200g/2400g that test it's performance with a dGPU?

 

[epsilon84]

One thing that I haven't seen tested a lot is the 2200G and 2400G in a setup with a dGPU. Specifically, for me, I'm still on the fence about my situation:

Currently, I have an i5-2400, 16GB of generic DDR3, and an Nvidia NVS 510 (think underclocked GT630 DDR3). The motherboard does not support Ivy Bridge processors.

I am considering paying about $50 to a friend that's got an i7-3770K with a high end motherboard (for the era) as an upgrade for me.

I am also considering just saving more money and getting something newer...

My current thinking is that I'm going to get an 2400G, a decent motherboard, 8GB DDR4 Kit and run that for a while, will eventually invest in a decent dGPU (something in the 1050ti-1070-RX560-570 range), and later will upgrade to 16GB DDR4 and sell off my 8GB kit.

I'm interested in how well the 2400G will perform once it's paired with a passable to decent dGPU. I fairly certain that the 8x PCIe lanes won't be an issue. I'm also fairly certain that, with the iGPU disabled, there will be a reduction in memory bandwidth contention, improving the scores of the CPU portion of the 2400G. I suspect that it will do quite well overall and will be a good long-term investment. As you can see from the CPU that I currently have, I tend to keep my computers for a very long time.

Anyone know of any good reviews of the 2200g/2400g that test it's performance with a dGPU?

dGPU performance of the 2200G/2400G are close to their Ryzen 3 / 5 equivalents, with the APUs being slightly slower (a few percent) due to the smaller L3 cache. So a 2200G is between a R3 1200/1300X and the 2400G between a 1400/1500X: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_5_2400G_Vega_11/14.html

I actually went from a 2500K to 3770K for my main gaming rig, its worth the upgrade if you can get the 3770K (or even a standard 3770) for a decent price. You'll need a decent GPU to notice the difference though, at least a GTX 1060 / RX 580, otherwise you may as well just keep your current CPU and put a budget GPU like a 1050 / RX 560 for a quick performance boost. A 3770K would be pretty close to a 2400G (similar IPC and stock clocks) though the 3770K has the edge in overclocking headroom, I run mine at 4.5GHz for daily use.

If you can get a 3770K and motherboard for $50 then I would definitely go with that, especially since you already have 16GB of DDR3 to go with that system. To get an equivalently specced 2400G platform, you're looking at $400 and that's only with 8GB of RAM, with 16GB you're looking at $500.

 

[happy medium]

Budget gamerguy......
I can sell you an Asus z170 -A motherboard, 16 gb of gskill ddr4 3000, a gtx 960 4gb, and a i3 6100 @ 3.7 for 400$ shipped mabe less.
Pm me.

 

[slashy16]

The 3770k with board for $50 is a hell of a good deal. I would pick that up in a second. I sold my 3770 non K for $180 not too long ago. The best part about going with a 3770k you can buy 16gb of used ddr3 cheap.

 

[whm1974]

Budget gamerguy......
I can sell you an Asus z170 -A motherboard, 16 gb of gskill ddr4 3000, a gtx 960 4gb, and a i3 6100 @ 3.7 for 400$ shipped mabe less.
Pm me.

For $400 that doesn't sound bad at all.

 

[whm1974]

Well it has been a week now since Raven Ridge was released and the 2400G is selling a lot better then I expected it to do. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that it is a bad APU, far from it. However I am more likely to buy the R5-1600 with a dGPU, and I'm sure many gamers would normally agree - if it wasn't for the high prices of video cards right now.

For $170 the 2400G is a good deal consider what Intel 4c/8t i7 CPUs are still selling for.

 

[namx01]

If you are going to play Battlefield 1 online,go for a Ryzen 3 2200G at a minimum.

For real, online multiplayer will crush that G4560. Will definitely have to play on small player maps.

 

[whm1974]

For real, online multiplayer will crush that G4560. Will definitely have to play on small player maps.

Isn't BF1 one of those games the more cores and threads the merrier?

 

[namx01]

Isn't BF1 one of those games the more cores and threads the merrier?

It is from my experience. I'm not sure how the 2200G would do either, haven't seen any benchmarks. I had to play smaller maps and use lower settings when I had my Q9650 but it was playable. Now with a i7 7700 and gtx 1070, the game ultras everything out and it runs smooth.

 

[whm1974]

It is from my experience. I'm not sure how the 2200G would do either, haven't seen any benchmarks. I had to play smaller maps and use lower settings when I had my Q9650 but it was playable. Now with a i7 7700 and gtx 1070, the game ultras everything out and it runs smooth.

If I was a big BF1 player I would get the 2400G instead of the 2200G, if I couldn't afford the 1600 and a decent dGPU.

 

[namx01]

If I was a big BF1 player I would get the 2400G instead of the 2200G, if I couldn't afford the 1600 and a decent dGPU.

Yea, with the way video card prices are now that makes sense.

 

[HurleyBird]

1. 2200G/2400 now
2. GTX2050 ti / GTX 2060 somwhere in a year, when the prices do come down (or the rumors are correct, that Nvidia blocks Mining on gaming cards etc)
3. Ryzen 3xxx series 6-core somewhere in 2019-2020. (built on the 7nm process, and should reach 5 GHz)

This right here. With Volta/Ampere around the corner and prices the way they are it doesn't make much sense to buy a video card today.

 

[Peter Watts]

I would just save up a little more, get one of the APU's and put a 1050ti (or follow up most likely to drop in April) card in there.

Thing is the price for a 1050 ti or equivalent needs to be sub 200 dollars, for me to really recommend it right now.

AMD have said the will keep the prices of the 1200 and 1400 (the 2200G and 2400G are the succesors) the same, which is a shame actually because you could have saved some cash on those.

 

[bsp2020]

It seems obscene to me that people are even comparing Pentium G4560 + lowest end dGPU as an alternative to Ryzen 2200G. 2 core 4 thread vs 4 cores. There is no expandability or future proofing with the suggested Intel setup. It was not too long ago that people blasted AMD APU for no having enough CPU power. As soon as AMD comes up with an APU that has competitive CPU power, CPU power does not seem to matter any more...

If your budget is so limited that you can't even get a decent CPU to pair with even the lowest end dGPU, get Ryzen APU and save up more money to buy dGPU later. Or get a console.

 

[krumme]

I play bf1 mp 64 now on backup 1050 card and 1080 on low is a stretch imo. 1030 or any apu wouldnt cut it for consistent 60 fps.
But a dual vore. NO ! You will get killed all the time. A chopfest. Cpu perf is needed when you need it most; in the intense fights.
Buying dual core now is 100% no go even my old 4ghz ib 3570 was choppy at times.
Save up or get a console.
If at all i would play at 720 with a 2200 and at least get 60fps 99% of the time or strecth it to 1080 with some gpu fps mins. But man...