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

[wahdangun]

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!?

There something wrong in their testing because in Tom's hardware it's was quite fast, and still capable to achieve more than 60 fps

 

[happy medium]

There something wrong in their testing because in Tom's hardware it's was quite fast, and still capable to achieve more than 60 fps

Lower resolution and medium settings mabe? That's why its doing 60 plus fps.

 

[DigDog]

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_fr...RC2.A0.H0.Xgtx+770.TRS0&_nkw=gtx+770&_sacat=0

three Buy It Now GTX770 under $70

add a i5 8400, cheap mobo, and you are done.

 

[mikeymikec]

I'm slightly confused. The OP is planning on getting a graphics card, yet is considering a lower-spec Ryzen for the sake of an integrated GPU? Get a Ryzen without the integrated graphics because they have more L3 cache.

 

[SPBHM]

Lower resolution and medium settings mabe? That's why its doing 60 plus fps.

yes, BF1 has lower CPU loads with medium settings compared to high and ultra.
also hardware.fr used DX11 because DX12 is slower on the 1080, and basically Ultra in regards to settings that affect CPU performance with some GPU bound settings reduced.

"This latest opus in the Battlefield series uses Dice's Frostbite 3 engine. If this engine has a DX12 mode, again it is less efficient on our GeForce GTX 1080, so we test in DX11. Nevertheless, Frostbite 3 is very multithreaded. We measure performance on a predefined move in a particularly greedy area. The game is set in Ultra mode, we set the maximum FOV (105 °). To avoid the GPU limit, we disable the HBAO and set the lighting to high, and we pass the post-processing in normal mode."

so the tomshardware test can't be compared to the hardware.fr test

 

[LTC8K6]

I'm slightly confused. The OP is planning on getting a graphics card, yet is considering a lower-spec Ryzen for the sake of an integrated GPU? Get a Ryzen without the integrated graphics because they have more L3 cache.

The Raven Ridge CPU seems to be faster than the regular Ryzen CPU, I think?

 

[SPBHM]

The Raven Ridge CPU seems to be faster than the regular Ryzen CPU, I think?

it's not, it's slower because of the smaller l3, and also the PCIE slot works at x8 max, if you are not going to use the IGP it's not a good choice compared to the older Ryzen and i3 8100 and i5-8400 (if you ignore the Z370 requirement)

 

[LTC8K6]

it's not, it's slower because of the smaller l3, and also the PCIE slot works at x8 max, if you are not going to use the IGP it's not a good choice compared to the older Ryzen and i3 8100 and i5-8400 (if you ignore the Z370 requirement)

I thought I saw testing that showed it (2400G) was faster, and people speculating as to why? I was even surprised because I also thought the lack of cache would hurt it. Maybe my memory is faulty?

 

[SPBHM]

I thought I saw testing that showed it (2400G) was faster, and people speculating as to why? I was even surprised because I also thought the lack of cache would hurt it. Maybe my memory is faulty?

it's only faster with a 300Mhz advantage
https://www.hardware.fr/articles/973-22/indices-performance-cpu.html

but it depends on the application, some will not really show a loss of performance due to l3, others will show more.

but to be fair, the difference is not huge most of the time, so having that IGP there if needed for an emergency of for reusing the PC later on is not a bad idea, I would probably go with the APUs, unless the 1600 and the 8400 are an option.

and if that BF1 result is due to some bug and not something to be found in other applications

 

[mikeymikec]

Most of the benchmarks I've seen say the G-types are slightly slower. SPBHM's argument about a backup GPU is sound, though if one is building for gaming, then a backup GPU is only worthwhile as an absolute emergency option and in the era of mobile devices I'm wondering just how much of an emergency it is to do without a dGPU.

 

[wahdangun]

Lower resolution and medium settings mabe? That's why its doing 60 plus fps.

Doesn't matter, I'm just showing that the Apu is capable of 60 fps plus, and in that benchmark it's still gpu bottlenecked, so if you use faster gpu like 1080, the CPU won't holding you back.

And you can still overclock it, to squeeze extra performance.

 

[frozentundra123456]

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

But then if you add a discrete card, you are stuck with a quad core cpu, when you could have had a hex core for only about 30.00 more, or a similar gaming experience on the 2200 for 70.00 less.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

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.

Fist off, please leave the bleeding edge and HEDT crowd out of this, it is a budget build thread. And your comment about future proofing makes it read like you are defining incorrectly. That "old" Ryzen (the hyperbole is strong in this one) Can have a new Ryzen dropped in later, that is future proofing. I do not understand the sudden resistance to swapping components later in a budget build. That has been the mantra around here forever. Comments along the lines of - do not invest in that cheap FX system, it has no upgrade path. Build a pentium or i3 system and you have an upgrade path later. Good advice. What has changed so much that it is bad advice now with the Ryzen platform? Very confusing, since Ryzen is a good budget gamer and there are no power, heat, and therefore, extra cooling costs, that have to be consider as there were with FX.

 

[Kenmitch]

Seeing how the OP hasn't visited the thread lately he either made up his mind, already made his purchases, or is just crunching the data to decide.

He's probably better off in the long run if he just saves up some more cash. The budget is really tight which will lead to making a sacrifice that will most likely lead to buyers remorse in the not to distant future.

 

[crazzy.heartz]

I've priced out my potential builds on Amazon and the cart price comes down to this:
Pentium G4560: $67
MSI B250 Pro VDH: $65
Kingston HyperX 2x4GB DDR4-2400: $102
Gigabyte GTX1050 2GB: $135
Total: $369

Ryzen 2200G: $99 OR Ryzen 2400G: $169
MSI B350 Tomahawk: $80
Corsair LPX 2x4GB DDR4-3200: $116
Total: $295 for 2200G or $365 for 2400G

Another option is to add a GTX 1050 to the 2200G build, but that would push the total to $430, a bit more than what I had in mind budget wise, but I'm thinking it may run future titles better than the G4560 due to better multi-threading ability?

Sorry for the long winded post by the way, in case that was too much to read:

TLDR: For a budget gaming build, would you recommend a Pentium G4560 plus GTX 1050 or the new Ryzen 2200G / 2400G CPUs?

Thanks in advance

Ryzen 2200G is basically Ryzen 2400G, when it's GPU is @1500Mhz, which most review websites were able to achieve. Just increase the GPU frequency and leave the CPU alone.

You can neither retain that $67 Pentium, nor a $135 1050, for keeps @ 1080p (Good detail), for 3-4 years.

Just invest that $25 extra, that you are willing to pay for a 1050, into buying a 2200G; vs a $67 Pentium and you have a capable gaming machine ready..

To extract the most out of your money spend on hardware, pair that 2200G with 3200Mhz RAM, set the GPU@1500Mhz, allocate 2GB RAM to the iGPU and enjoy RX550 / 1030 level gaming performance, which is able to churn out playable FPS @ 1080p, lower details for Free !! Well, not exactly free but for $25/27, which you would have overpaid for a low-mid range GPU now..

Once GPU prices come back to sane levels (which can be anywhere from 4-8 months), add a RX580/1060 caliber graphics card which will guarantee you 1080p gaming @ good detail for next 3-4 years..

Furthermore, this CPU socket will be supported till 2020 Thus, in case you wish to swap out this quad core for a 6/8/10 core CPU from AMD, you could so so with ease.. These processors are all CPU and you'd already have 3200Mhz RAM & a Discrete GPU, by then.

 

[DigDog]

i was looking at the 2200g today and could not figure out why the 2400 is almost twice.

 

[mikeymikec]

i was looking at the 2200g today and could not figure out why the 2400 is almost twice.

1: (at least according to UK prices) it's 1.5x the price
2: it's a hex core (vs 2200 which is a quad), faster clock and faster graphics

It can't be beaten on price. Why on earth would they make it even cheaper?

 

[Peter Watts]

1: (at least according to UK prices) it's 1.5x the price
2: it's a hex core (vs 2200 which is a quad), faster clock and faster graphics

It can't be beaten on price. Why on earth would they make it even cheaper?

No the 2400g is 4 cores 8 threads, and the 2200g is 4 cores/threads.

 

[DigDog]

well, quadcore is still the equivalent of a hexa in the vast majority of applications that most generic users would own. And considering it's £88 and just 100hz slower then the 2400, if you were to do a budget build, this would be your choice.

the cheapest UK mobo for this CPU is £40 (GA-A320M-HD2)
the cheapest UK 8400 mobo is £89 (Z370P D3)
the 8400 itself is £149

so you're looking at £127 vs £238, which is a substantial saving.

Now, if you can afford more, sure, get a 8700k with DH-14. If you are 16yo and want to play Overwatch .. then maybe spending half the money on your CPU/MB combo is worth something.

 

[mikeymikec]

No the 2400g is 4 cores 8 threads, and the 2200g is 4 cores/threads.

<checks amd page again>

I stand corrected!

 

[krumme]

i was looking at the 2200g today and could not figure out why the 2400 is almost twice.

Heck for 6 years we were looking at usd 160 4 thread core i5 vs 320 usd core i7 8 thread cpu.
So 160 usd for hyperthreadding. And thats with the same lousy gpu.
Now people say 2200g and 2400g is very similar.
Well...time changes

 

[frozentundra123456]

Yes, times certainly have changed. For only about 30.00 more than the 2400 one can get a six core 12 thread 1600 or a six core i5 8400 which is faster in gaming overall than any AMD processor. And yes, the 2400 will have better cpu performance than the 2200, but worse than the only slightly more expensive hex cores. And I would argue that igpu gaming will be quite similar on the 2200 and 2400 because you will be bandwidth/gpu limited in most conditions at any decent resolutions. For sure, moving up to the 2400 from the 2200 will only be an incremental improvement, not a new tier altogether like adding a 1050 or above level dgpu. So I have always contended and still do that the 2400 is too close in igpu performance to the cheaper 2200 and too much slower than the much better performing hex cores in cpu performance to make it a good value relative to the other cpus on the market now.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Yes, times certainly have changed. For only about 30.00 more than the 2400 one can get a six core 12 thread 1600

Right now, refurbforless has Ryzen 1600 for USD $169.99 FS. Kinda screws with the "value equation" for the 2400G.

 

[Mondozei]

Something OP may not have thought of yet: Geforce Now.

There is an beta invitation to PC going. Granted, it is hard to say when it will start but it should be quite soon. It could be more economical if the price is quite low. At least if you want to play a game like BF1 which is quite demanding, since I doubt a $400 PC will cut it at decent levels in MP in BF1.

 

[TheELF]

Something OP may not have thought of yet: Geforce Now.

There is an beta invitation to PC going. Granted, it is hard to say when it will start but it should be quite soon. It could be more economical if the price is quite low. At least if you want to play a game like BF1 which is quite demanding, since I doubt a $400 PC will cut it at decent levels in MP in BF1.

Yeah right...the added latency ,even if his internet connection is perfect, on a twitch shooter is going to be worse then anything the budget CPUs could cause,which would still have to run the game anyways.