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

[epsilon84]

Yeah the G4560 is insufficient for smooth 64p BF1 but the 2200G wouldn't fare *that* much better either, I know because BF1 was the game that finally made me upgrade from my 2500K, even overclocked to 4.5GHz I was getting pretty bad min fps, the upgrade to a 3770K helped a lot, though I did upgrade to 16GB of faster DDR3 2400 as well, from 8GB DDR3-1600, which probably helped as well.

So pretty much you need at least a 4C/8T CPU for BF1 MP, a 2200G is still better than a G4560 I'm sure, but the 2400G is preferable for the extra threads, which help a lot.

The only problem is that if you are going to use a 2400G with a dGPU, you may as well get a Ryzen 1600 or i5 8400 as they are both only slightly more than the 2400G and offer better gaming performance, and performance in general.

 

[epsilon84]

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.

I don't agree entirely with this post, you *can* upgrade from a G4560 to a 7700, that is going from 2C/4T to 4C/8T plus higher clocks, which is a substantial upgrade. Of course, the 2200G/2400G is more 'future proof' so you won't have to upgrade them for longer in the first place, and will get a choice of future AM4 chips when the time comes to finally upgrade, so AMD obviously has the better upgrade path. Still, your claim that you can't upgrade on the Intel platform is factually wrong.

The G4560 is certainly underpowered for CPU intensive games like BF1 64P, but it actually fares very well in most other games that don't hit the CPU quite as hard, and I would say based on the following link, is sufficient to power a GTX 1060 without serious bottlenecking
https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/2913-when-does-the-intel-pentium-g4560-bottleneck-gpu

A G4560 + GTX 1050 is a perfectly fine combination, a 2200G + GTX 1050 is slightly better of course, but both will be GPU bottlenecked at 1080P.

 

[krumme]

Yeah the G4560 is insufficient for smooth 64p BF1 but the 2200G wouldn't fare *that* much better either, I know because BF1 was the game that finally made me upgrade from my 2500K, even overclocked to 4.5GHz I was getting pretty bad min fps, the upgrade to a 3770K helped a lot, though I did upgrade to 16GB of faster DDR3 2400 as well, from 8GB DDR3-1600, which probably helped as well.

So pretty much you need at least a 4C/8T CPU for BF1, a 2200G is still better than a G4560 I'm sure, but the 2400G is better yet still.

The only problem is that if you are going to use a 2400G with a dGPU, you may as well get a Ryzen 1600 or i5 8400 as they are both only slightly more than the 2400G and offer better gaming performance, and performance in general.

Agree. For near 100% consistent 60fps in bf1 MP64 the 1600 or 8400 is where it starts. Pubg run better on the 8400 so thats my take for the budget class for aaa mp games right now. The zen plus might change it 2 months from now.
Its just important to note a dual core is a no go in bf4 mp64. Simply unplayable no matter the settings.
So if bf1 is on top dual cores is 100% out of the question. You cant play imo.
Note i upgraded from 3570 4c4t also and as i wrote its borderline.
I wouldnt even buy a 4c4t 2200 now. Its simply not future proof enough. The 2c4t intel stuff was dead in the water. And always was. They got way to much attention just because they perform well in old style game engines.

 

[krumme]

I don't agree entirely with this post, you *can* upgrade from a G4560 to a 7700, that is going from 2C/4T to 4C/8T plus higher clocks, which is a substantial upgrade. Of course, the 2200G/2400G is more 'future proof' so you won't have to upgrade them for longer in the first place, and will get a choice of future AM4 chips when the time comes to finally upgrade, so AMD obviously has the better upgrade path. Still, your claim that you can't upgrade on the Intel platform is factually wrong.

The G4560 is certainly underpowered for CPU intensive games like BF1 64P, but it actually fares very well in most other games that don't hit the CPU quite as hard, and I would say based on the following link, is sufficient to power a GTX 1060 without serious bottlenecking
https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/2913-when-does-the-intel-pentium-g4560-bottleneck-gpu

A G4560 + GTX 1050 is a perfectly fine combination, a 2200G + GTX 1050 is slightly better of course, but both will be GPU bottlenecked at 1080P.

Disagree here. I take a tour of 720 in bf1 on a 2200 over a g4560 every day. The experience playing is simply much much better.
If you buy a 4560 there is some games you simply cant play due to lack of raw compute power.
Its like the old bd cores. Some games simply didnt run acceptable due to lack of st perf.
And when the cpu tanks the gaming stops. No one want fps mins tanking and fps variation.
Unlike gpu where you can alter resolution and quality to get acceptable mins.

What the new apu offer is a solution to play all games due to kind of adequate cpu perf for a budget build. Its a very very important quality.

 

[epsilon84]

Is the 2200G really *that* much better than the G4560? Especially with a GTX 1050? I have my doubts.
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_3_2200G_Vega_8/14.html

 

[krumme]

Is the 2200G really *that* much better than the G4560? Especially with a GTX 1050? I have my doubts.
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_3_2200G_Vega_8/14.html

Yes in bf1 mp64 it is because 2200 is already borderline even oc.
And even in a game like overwatch the 4560 will have a hard time on the intense mp fights.
This graph just shows how idiotic averages of games over averages in games can be. Meaningless.
The playability is defined by lowest 1% fps and defined by the games that taxes the cpu most.
Today its games like bf1 mp 64. It takes tons of cpu grunt when you are in a middle of a mess.
There is no way around it. 2c just doesnt cut it no matter how you slice it.
Its insane this 4560 had this reputation. Now budget gamer have cpu that doesnt work for new aaa mp games at 60fps but is blazingly 180fps fast in old dx9 stuff. How stupid is that. The wonders of averages.

Anyway a 1050 is a completely other budget anyway. 180 for gpu vs a 99usd cpu+gpu. Makes no sense to compare it. I dont understand it.

Btw in this budget class freesynch is a great plus that nearly approaches the 1030/apu to 1050 perf difference.

 

[Triloby]

Is the 2200G really *that* much better than the G4560? Especially with a GTX 1050? I have my doubts.
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_3_2200G_Vega_8/14.html

The graph you posted is misleading due to the fact that those results were given at 1080p on Ultra details with a GTX 1080. Unless the OP has $800 or more to spend on a GTX 1080 along with the CPU, the G4560 is going to choke at 1080p on CPU-bound games like BF1 and PUBG. That's just assuming he'll be able to play both games at 1080p maxed out, which he obviously won't with the given hardware.

Even with a G4560 and GTX 1050, he'll have to turn down settings as necessary.

 

[epsilon84]

Yes in bf1 mp64 it is because 2200 is already borderline even oc.
And even in a game like overwatch the 4560 will have a hard time on the intense mp fights.
This graph just shows how idiotic averages of games over averages in games can be. Meaningless.
The playability is defined by lowest 1% fps and defined by the games that taxes the cpu most.
Today its games like bf1 mp 64. It takes tons of cpu grunt when you are in a middle of a mess.
There is no way around it. 2c just doesnt cut it no matter how you slice it.
Its insane this 4560 had this reputation. Now budget gamer have cpu that doesnt work for new aaa mp games at 60fps but is blazingly 180fps fast in old dx9 stuff. How stupid is that. The wonders of averages.

Anyway a 1050 is a completely other budget anyway. 180 for gpu vs a 99usd cpu+gpu. Makes no sense to compare it. I dont understand it.

Btw in this budget class freesynch is a great plus that nearly approaches the 1030/apu to 1050 perf difference.

I actually meant the 2200G + GTX 1050 shouldn't be much different to a G4560 + GTX 1050 because both will be GPU bottlenecked at 1080P.

The OP has already indicated he intends to get a GTX 1050 because PUBG isn't playable at 1080P on a 2200G APU alone.

FWIW I actually am running my old 2500K with a 1050 and it's pretty much the limiting factor for 1080P gaming, you really don't need a fast CPU to get the most out of a GTX 1050.

 

[krumme]

I actually meant the 2200G + GTX 1050 shouldn't be much different to a G4560 + GTX 1050 because both will be GPU bottlenecked at 1080P.

The OP has already indicated he intends to get a GTX 1050 because PUBG isn't playable at 1080P on a 2200G APU alone.

FWIW I actually am running my old 2500K with a 1050 and it's pretty much the limiting factor for 1080P gaming, you really don't need a fast CPU to get the most out of a GTX 1050.

The old 2500k slightly oc to 4ghz is killing the 4560 in bf1 overwatch what not. And a average graph doesnt change it.

Why get a 4560. Its slower than a 2200 no matter what?

A 4560 in bf1 mp64 is just a no go and the difference is the 4560 is unplayable. That simple.
Why are you remotely adressing it when the op want to play bf1 and the 4560 is just a 100% no go?

How is you guys still discussing it. Mehh muhh blahh "not much".... Its just slower. All bending words to frame a 4560 as an alternative. Reminds me of the people defending bd back in the days. Wake up. Its just a turd.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Yes in bf1 mp64 it is because 2200 is already borderline even oc.
And even in a game like overwatch the 4560 will have a hard time on the intense mp fights.
This graph just shows how idiotic averages of games over averages in games can be. Meaningless.
The playability is defined by lowest 1% fps and defined by the games that taxes the cpu most.
Today its games like bf1 mp 64. It takes tons of cpu grunt when you are in a middle of a mess.
There is no way around it. 2c just doesnt cut it no matter how you slice it.
Its insane this 4560 had this reputation. Now budget gamer have cpu that doesnt work for new aaa mp games at 60fps but is blazingly 180fps fast in old dx9 stuff. How stupid is that. The wonders of averages.

Anyway a 1050 is a completely other budget anyway. 180 for gpu vs a 99usd cpu+gpu. Makes no sense to compare it. I dont understand it.

Btw in this budget class freesynch is a great plus that nearly approaches the 1030/apu to 1050 perf difference.

I agree with your POV here. And this decade has borne out that those who went with more cores, and more, and faster, ram, invested wisely.

My free advice: You have to have ram in a new build, that is where you should waste your money i.e. 16GB of high speed ram. Do not waste money on a vid card, they age faster than the rest of the platform, making it a poor place to throw money on a tight budget, and a 4GB 1050ti at anything over $150 is a sick joke. Waste meaning- because both are so overpriced now. I like the 2400G as the platform investment, because you can avoid being heavily gouged on a vid card, and throw one in if sanity returns to the market, or you get a hot deal. 2c CPUs should be dead to us gamers moving forward. And as with the G4400, the new Pentium looks good as a budget gaming CPU Du Jour, but it will age poorly. And suggesting a 2c/4t feels like the "8GB is plenty for your budget gaming build" advice less than 2 years ago: based on a snapshot from that day with no extrapolation of trends or consideration of history in the industry. I also think this decade the term futureproof has finally taken on substance too. E.G. how well Sandy and Ivy i7 and 16GB have held up over time.

 

[epsilon84]

The old 2500k slightly oc to 4ghz is killing the 4560 in bf1 overwatch what not. And a average graph doesnt change it.

Why get a 4560. Its slower than a 2200 no matter what?

A 4560 in bf1 mp64 is just a no go and the difference is the 4560 is unplayable. That simple.
Why are you remotely adressing it when the op want to play bf1 and the 4560 is just a 100% no go?

How is you guys still discussing it. Mehh muhh blahh "not much".... Its just slower. All bending words to frame a 4560 as an alternative. Reminds me of the people defending bd back in the days. Wake up. Its just a turd.

I'm not trying to frame anything, I already stated earlier the 2200G will most likely be the better performer for BF1 MP.

Just putting in my own personal experience with the GTX 1050 - it doesn't require a fast CPU. I actually don't need to OC the 2500K to get 100% GPU usage, but I leave it at 4.5GHz anyway since I'm an enthusiast and overclock everything by habit more than necessity.

In a nutshell, the OP should go with the 2200G if he can fit it in the budget, if not, the G4560 isnt the end of the world and will still run MOST games at an acceptable level. Yes BF1 64P is an exception, but even the 2200G will struggle there, based on my 2500K experience.

 

[Dribble]

For a budget desktop system I'd be focused on the upgrade path. In a years time when you are feeling richer how easy will it be to slot in a fast cpu or gpu or more memory or an SSD? Can the mb fit whatever you think would be worth upgrading too? Can you find the upgrade cpu cheap (i.e. bought second hand)?

Remember you can sell the existing cpu/gpu when you upgrade so it might not be that expensive (that is a bit of a minus for the apu as you can't sell that on till you upgrade both the cpu and graphics).

 

[bsp2020]

I don't agree entirely with this post, you *can* upgrade from a G4560 to a 7700, that is going from 2C/4T to 4C/8T plus higher clocks, which is a substantial upgrade.

You can also upgrade iPad by buying a new iPad Pro. Heck, I can also upgrade my Ryzen 1800X PC with ThreadRipper by buying new motherboard, and CPU. If you have throw away a working CPU (or sell it on eBay to recoup 50% of the money), and buy $300+ dollar CPU to upgrade your PC, you are missing the point of budget build.

Personally, I'd get 2400G and wait until dGPU prices to come down to earth. I suggested 2200G since that would minimize the cost right now. If one was considering G4560, I'd assume sticking below the budget was the highest priority at the moment.

 

[SPBHM]

Yeah the G4560 is insufficient for smooth 64p BF1 but the 2200G wouldn't fare *that* much better either, I know because BF1 was the game that finally made me upgrade from my 2500K, even overclocked to 4.5GHz I was getting pretty bad min fps, the upgrade to a 3770K helped a lot, though I did upgrade to 16GB of faster DDR3 2400 as well, from 8GB DDR3-1600, which probably helped as well.

So pretty much you need at least a 4C/8T CPU for BF1 MP, a 2200G is still better than a G4560 I'm sure, but the 2400G is preferable for the extra threads, which help a lot.

The only problem is that if you are going to use a 2400G with a dGPU, you may as well get a Ryzen 1600 or i5 8400 as they are both only slightly more than the 2400G and offer better gaming performance, and performance in general.

according to this the 2200G is surprisingly bad in BF1 as a CPU, way bellow a stock 2500K
https://www.hardware.fr/articles/973-16/jeux-3d-battlefield-1-the-witcher-3.html

weird!?

 

[whm1974]

according to this the 2200G is surprisingly bad in BF1 as a CPU, way bellow a stock 2500K
https://www.hardware.fr/articles/973-16/jeux-3d-battlefield-1-the-witcher-3.html

weird!?

Driver issues? Or maybe due to the 4MB L3 cache?

 

[frozentundra123456]

Meh, the 2400 makes no sense to me. Without a discrete gpu, yes, it is "better" than the 2200, but by what, maybe 20% average (gaming performance). Certainly not at another tier of performance like adding a 1050 or higher dgpu to either the 2200 or 2400. Yes the 2400 will have better cpu performance, and gaming performance with a dgpu, but if one wants cpu performance alone or gaming performance with a dgpu, and the ever promoted "future proofing", the the Ryzen 1600 or when cheaper motherboards are available, the 8400 make much more sense at only about 30.00 more.

 

[whm1974]

Meh, the 2400 makes no sense to me. Without a discrete gpu, yes, it is "better" than the 2200, but by what, maybe 20% average (gaming performance). Certainly not at another tier of performance like adding a 1050 or higher dgpu to either the 2200 or 2400. Yes the 2400 will have better cpu performance, and gaming performance with a dgpu, but if one wants cpu performance alone or gaming performance with a dgpu, and the ever promoted "future proofing", the the Ryzen 1600 or when cheaper motherboards are available, the 8400 make much more sense at only about 30.00 more.

It does makes sense atm due the high prices of dGPUs right now. I refuse to pay those high prices for a decent video card.

 

[krumme]

according to this the 2200G is surprisingly bad in BF1 as a CPU, way bellow a stock 2500K
https://www.hardware.fr/articles/973-16/jeux-3d-battlefield-1-the-witcher-3.html

weird!?

Its sp test as i can tell? so not usefull as comparison. The numbers is useless.
In mp64 the taxing of more threads is completely different. But anyway the 2200g is borderline and so is the 2500k.

I simply cant understand all this meaningless bf1 sp testing. For more than 10 years mp load have been known to tax the cpu.

 

[frozentundra123456]

You can also upgrade iPad by buying a new iPad Pro. Heck, I can also upgrade my Ryzen 1800X PC with ThreadRipper by buying new motherboard, and CPU. If you have throw away a working CPU (or sell it on eBay to recoup 50% of the money), and buy $300+ dollar CPU to upgrade your PC, you are missing the point of budget build.

Personally, I'd get 2400G and wait until dGPU prices to come down to earth. I suggested 2200G since that would minimize the cost right now. If one was considering G4560, I'd assume sticking below the budget was the highest priority at the moment.

When one really analyzes the situation carefully though, for a budget build, "upgradability" is highly over-rated. In fact "upgrading" is really just paying for the component twice. If one wants to really save money in the long run, better to wait and buy a better system initially.

 

[whm1974]

When one really analyzes the situation carefully though, for a budget build, "upgradability" is highly over-rated. In fact "upgrading" is really just paying for the component twice. If one wants to really save money in the long run, better to wait and buy a better system initially.

While I do agree with this, I would want something to that at least the memory can be upgraded and a video card added later, even at the low end.

 

[SPBHM]

Driver issues? Or maybe due to the 4MB L3 cache?

it's odd, the 1200 which is around the same as the 2200G is much faster in this test, so it could be l3, but, the 2400G with the same l3 is also way faster, but it has SMT, at the same time if you compare other CPUs it doesn't look like SMT is doing much for them in this test
(1200 vs 1400; 2500K vs 2600K)
so maybe it's some bug, or with lower amounts of l3 SMT is more important in games like this, still very strange and worrying.

Its sp test as i can tell? so not usefull as comparison. The numbers is useless.
In mp64 the taxing of more threads is completely different. But anyway the 2200g is borderline and so is the 2500k.

I simply cant understand all this meaningless bf1 sp testing. For more than 10 years mp load have been known to tax the cpu.

well, if it's this much worse than other CPUs in SP is likely also bad in MP.
testing MP would be good but it's time consuming and very difficult to properly match the action across hundreds of runs.
some parts of the SP campaign are also CPU bound as that link shows with some CPUs under 50FPS while others hit 180 average...

 

[bsp2020]

When one really analyzes the situation carefully though, for a budget build, "upgradability" is highly over-rated. In fact "upgrading" is really just paying for the component twice. If one wants to really save money in the long run, better to wait and buy a better system initially.

It depends on what you mean by "upgrade". Replacing perfectly good working CPU or GPU just to gain 20%~30% more performance does not make sense to me, since as you said, you are basically paying for it twice. Building a system by buying component over time (i.e. buy APU now. Buy dGPU a year from now.) makes sense to me since it spreads the cost of the build over time and make the whole system more usable.
If one is a fan of Intel and want to buy Intel CPU to start with and add dGPU later, your gaming experience while waiting would horrible. If one is a fan of NVidia and want to buy an NVidia dGPU first and buy a CPU later, well, you can't have a system without a CPU...

 

[whm1974]

It depends on what you mean by "upgrade". Replacing perfectly good working CPU or GPU just to gain 20%~30% more performance does not make sense to me, since as you said, you are basically paying for it twice. Building a system by buying component over time (i.e. buy APU now. Buy dGPU a year from now.) makes sense to me since it spreads the cost of the build over time and make the whole system more usable.
If one is a fan of Intel and want to buy Intel CPU to start with and add dGPU later, your gaming experience while waiting would horrible. If one is a fan of NVidia and want to buy an NVidia dGPU first and buy a CPU later, well, you can't have a system without a CPU...

Hence which is why I would choose the 2400G over the 2200G for a budget gaming PC.

 

[krumme]

it's odd, the 1200 which is around the same as the 2200G is much faster in this test, so it could be l3, but, the 2400G with the same l3 is also way faster, but it has SMT, at the same time if you compare other CPUs it doesn't look like SMT is doing much for them in this test
(1200 vs 1400; 2500K vs 2600K)
so maybe it's some bug, or with lower amounts of l3 SMT is more important in games like this, still very strange and worrying.



well, if it's this much worse than other CPUs in SP is likely also bad in MP.
testing MP would be good but it's time consuming and very difficult to properly match the action across hundreds of runs.
some parts of the SP campaign are also CPU bound as that link shows with some CPUs under 50FPS while others hit 180 average...

Even the worst places sp doesnt go near what mp load does. You go from beeing more st limited to mt limited.
Bf1 mp64 min actually mirrors total throughput of the cpu pretty good.
Computerbase test shows that.
Anyway playing wiyh less than 4c8t is just borderline imo. This games start at 2400g. But as i wrote earlier 1600 or 8400 would be my take on it and 8400 because of pubg for the op.
I know its way way over budget so the 2400g is perhaps a good way to start and then upgrade gfx in a year or two when you can get 1080 level perf on 7nm for cheap. The apu really saves a lot on those expensive gpu today.

 

[Peter Watts]

You guys are talking about "future proofing" yet AMD is phasing out the so called "old" ryzen cpu's lol...

There is no future proofing, unless you decide to stretch out usage yourself. I myself don't really care if a platform is deemed "dead" by the masses, i care about my own objective experience.

There's folks on here and in PC gamerland, who loathe framerates below 100 FPS for instance, and they'll give the advice to go with the fastest and most expensive setups.

Just find what suits you best my friend.