Ryzen CPU + Vega Graphics on a Chip: AMD Ryzen 5 2400G & Ryzen 3 2200G Review

[dirtyferret]

No. Especially not when both are oc'ed

Spoiler

Catastrophic drops on the 4c i5

But hey, don't let reality get in the way of your opinion (y)

Too bad pcgamer, techpowerup, tomshardware, anadtech all disagree but hey truth has never stopped you from tossing one of your famous immature hissy fits. I'm out, leaving this thread so I won't be reading whatever drivel you decide to reply with since we both no it won't ever be fact based.

 

[Evernessince]

I never said the results were in the video on which this article is based on, although I admit I could have pointed the correct title out right away. You want the video titled "GT 1030 vs. RX 550 / Ryzen 3 vs Core i3, Finding The Best Budget Gaming Combo", which was released prior to the Ryzen APU video and presents benchmarks done in preparation of the APU benchmarks. And true, the original comment was more broad but included the R6S performance by implication.



The whole comment was never meant to cover only R6S performance. That was just the starting point. Your initial point of confusion was 'You say "not quite" and then go on to prove my point.' and it should now be pretty clear that the "not quite" referred to the R6S performance. Now you're confused about "the results are surprisingly close" which isn't in contradiction with anything that has been said by either of us, so it certainly seems like the goal posts are moving...

Since this has become a bit of a back and forth, I think we both agree my first post was not as well structured or thought out as it could have been. So, here's what I was trying to say:

1. You were incorrect about the R6S results since the R3 1300X + RX550 performs better in all presented benchmarks apart from one specific metric.
2. Apart from Rocket League the results are surprisingly close (IMHO), so I don't disagree with you and meric on the statement that we are seeing RX 550 level performance. Essentially that is the case, especially if the iGPU of the 2400G is overclocked.

Yeah, agreed. This is getting a bit confusing at this point and your points at the bottom sum it up without adding additional confusion.

 

[Nightfire]

The only place where a 7600k has an advantage is at 1080p on lower settings with something like a gtx 1080 or better.
However, there are several games where a 4/4 cpu will fall on its face. Crisis 3 and FF15 just off the top of my head.
Low to mid range gamers will not miss the few extra frames at lower settings, but would rather have a something more future proof so your point is moot.

The 4/4 Intel butthurt is strong in this thread...

 

[Evernessince]

If for whatever reason you can't get a dGPU and can only game on integrated graphics, these chips obviously blow the respective Intel chips out of the water with 2 - 3x the 3D performance of the UHD 600 series iGPUs. However, I'm not entirely sold on them as a budget gaming solution, partly because of the price of DDR4-3200 which is required for optimal performance, and the fact that you can build a G4560 type system with an RX 560/GTX 1050 GPU for cheaper than the cost of a 2400G setup, or about the same as a 2200G setup. Of course in this case you get an inferior CPU, but a far superior GPU which is more important in a gaming setup.

Just a quick pricing summary (Australian dollars, as thats where I'm from)

Pentium G4560: $80
Asrock H110 motherboard: $70
2x4GB Geil DDR4-2400: $110
RX 560: $150
Total: $410

Ryzen 2200G: $140
Ryzen 2400G: $235
Asrock B350 motherboard: $90
2x4GB Corsair DDR4-3200: $180
Total: $410 for 2200G or $505 for 2400G

In this scenario, for the same price, the G4560 setup will get about 2.5x times the gaming performance of the 2200G for the same price, or 2x the gaming performance of the 2400G for $100 less.

Yes, I'm aware that if you need to use your CPU for productivity or video encoding, the G4560 is a far inferior CPU. I'm strictly looking at this from a gaming perspective and price/performance in 3D gaming.

This comment is extremely inaccurate

The 2400G costs $170, not $235 as you listed here

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B079D8FD28/?tag=httpwwwtechsp-20

The 2200G costs $100, not $140 as you listed here

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B079D3DBNM/?tag=httpwwwtechsp-20

8GB of DDR4 3000 can be had for $113. Going DDR3 3200 specifically to waste money is, of course, a waste when performance improvements from RAM on Ryzen taper off after 2933.

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod...0233828&cm_re=ddr4_ram-_-20-233-828-_-Product

Motherboard pricing should be the same, as a decent AMD board costs as much as a decent Intel board. The only difference being the cheaper AMD boards actually let you over clock (B350 and above). You can't OC on H110 mobos.

So the real total would be:

$363 for an AMD system with a

2400G $170
8GB DDR4 3000 $113
MSI B350 Gaming Pro mobo $80

You could even shave an addition $15 off the price of the mobo by buying lower end models or refurbished.

Pentium G4560: $80
Asrock H110 motherboard: $70
2x4GB Geil DDR4-2400: $110
RX 560: $150
Total: $410

Total price of your Intel system: $410


- The 2400G has double the cores and threads.
- The 2400G has a higher boost clock, while the G4560 doesn't even come with Intel turbo boost enabled. This also means that it has better single threaded performance, as it has a 0.4GHz higher max clock speed.
- The 2400G is overclock-able, the G4560 isn't. This will simply widen the single core IPC gap in games
- The 2400G is on a platform that allows future upgradibility. The G4560 is not.
- Higher speed RAM means better all around performance, not just gaming performance.
- The 2400G is soldered and has a better stock cooler, which leads to better thermal performance.


"2x the gaming performance of the 2400G for $100 less."

I've already debunked the "$100 less" claim above, I want to focus here on the "2x" gaming performance callout here. The RX 560 is about 40% faster than the RX 550, which places the system you listed as around 48% with a very rough estimate. We also know that the G4560 is going to be slower in both single thread oriented games and multi-thread oriented games as it lacks both clock speed, cores, threads, and overclocking. Intel's 3% IPC advantage does nothing to make up for those factors, it's simply dwarfed by them. So at best you can hope for up to 48% more FPS in games if it doesn't use more than 2 cores (which some games won't even run on dual core CPUs) and if it happens to favor the polaris architecture and not the vega architecture. I'm going to err on the side of caution here and say that was some very extreme hyperbole.

Even 48% extra performance is a very very optimistic picture for the G4560 as demonstrated in this very review.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1574-amd-ryzen-5-2400g-and-ryzen-3-2200g/page4.html

The G4560 is below the 2400G regardless of whether it uses the more powerful 1030 or it's integrated graphics. And just look at those minimum framerates.

In the end, you really couldn't recommend the G4560 in any situation. The cost of the build is higher, it's going to be slower in a majority of games even with a higher end GPU, it's slower at general computing, it's a dead end platform, it's going to choke on title more as time passes and CPU requirements go up, and it's going to require a mobo upgrade if you want a newer CPU.

 

[marees]

I'm not saying you personally need to like the experience these APUs provide. Having used a GTX 650 (1GB model) less than two years ago I have some idea what gaming with these APUs might be like and agree that consoles would provide a better gaming experience. However, I believe those that are considering these APUs are either interested in games that are only available on PC, or want more flexibility than what the consoles provide. Also, based on my personal experience with the GTX 650 I'd also say there's plenty of gaming fun to be had with these APUs, even with non-esports titles.

I think people are a lot better off buying a Pentium and a 1050ti or something. Its more expensive but I think you get so much more gaming PC for your money, much more bang for your buck. Even a 750ti can be had for next to nothing these days and that would outperform these APU's. Another thing I dont like is only 8 lanes? 8! in 2018. AMD dont intend for people to be plugging much into them then. It certainly rules out 4K gaming as an upgrade option imo. As I mentioned earlier, I think where these will shine is in small or office based solutions where you can now get a better all rounder chip than Intel for the same money. One of these would be a decent upgrade for my office PC. Well, until my new thinkstation arrives .

Agree, you Don't have have to sell a kidney to buy the 1050ti.
Just buy a skylake pentium with lga1150 m/b & 8gb ddr3 1333 ram — this should give you sufficient spare savings to be able to upgrade to the 1050ti which can deliver the holygrail of 1080p 60fps gaming in most games

 

[marees]

If for whatever reason you can't get a dGPU and can only game on integrated graphics, these chips obviously blow the respective Intel chips out of the water with 2 - 3x the 3D performance of the UHD 600 series iGPUs. However, I'm not entirely sold on them as a budget gaming solution, partly because of the price of DDR4-3200 which is required for optimal performance, and the fact that you can build a G4560 type system with an RX 560/GTX 1050 GPU for cheaper than the cost of a 2400G setup, or about the same as a 2200G setup. Of course in this case you get an inferior CPU, but a far superior GPU which is more important in a gaming setup.

Just a quick pricing summary (Australian dollars, as thats where I'm from)

Pentium G4560: $80
Asrock H110 motherboard: $70
2x4GB Geil DDR4-2400: $110
RX 560: $150
Total: $410

Ryzen 2200G: $140
Ryzen 2400G: $235
Asrock B350 motherboard: $90
2x4GB Corsair DDR4-3200: $180
Total: $410 for 2200G or $505 for 2400G

In this scenario, for the same price, the G4560 setup will get about 2.5x times the gaming performance of the 2200G for the same price, or 2x the gaming performance of the 2400G for $100 less.

Yes, I'm aware that if you need to use your CPU for productivity or video encoding, the G4560 is a far inferior CPU. I'm strictly looking at this from a gaming perspective and price/performance in 3D gaming.

If you are not sold on igp, then wouldn't you go with 1050ti class solution rather than 560 or vanilla 1050 ?
What is price of skylake pentium, lga 1150 m/b & 8gb ddr3 1333 ram in Australia?

 

[Strawman]

Its very good value for money. Im not disputing this. Im disputing that its a good experience. Or am I going to be savaged for claiming that <60fps at 720p is a bad gaming experience in 2018? Gamers are better off with an Xbox one or a PS4, they cost about the same and you dont have to buy all the other bits!

Considering xbox / ps4 are not PC's, so you'll need a PC on top of that, and considering they dont even get close to 60 fps in plenty of games (heck, PUBG for example drops to 18!!!), I'm not really sure why you are comparing them

But I would point out that you can get a decent GPU for that money. Plenty of second hand HD7950's or GTX670 etc on ebay for way less than $100 and these would give you a much better budget gaming experience. Hell, Ive got a couple of 280x's id sell for $70 each.

You are comparing old used equipment to brand new though. I'm sure 5 months in the 2200g would cost less than 70$ used, so again, moot point frankly. Also, you can't really put a 7950 on a budget PC that has a cheap PSU that will go medieval on your ***.

 

[Shadowboxer]

Considering xbox / ps4 are not PC's, so you'll need a PC on top of that, and considering they dont even get close to 60 fps in plenty of games (heck, PUBG for example drops to 18!!!), I'm not really sure why you are comparing them



You are comparing old used equipment to brand new though. I'm sure 5 months in the 2200g would cost less than 70$ used, so again, moot point frankly. Also, you can't really put a 7950 on a budget PC that has a cheap PSU that will go medieval on your ***.

I’m comparing consoles as a benchmark to represent a specific level of performance that we can relate to. And the consoles are better, you will get better image quality out of a console than you will on one of these APU’s. Mostly down to optimisation. Obviously it’s not a direct comparison. I’m a bit surprised I need to explain that.

And a cheap PSU is bad for any card. A 7950 is not going to blow up any quicker than any other card. It’s a very good 1080p card actually. And when we are talking about prices that we are here I don’t see why budget gamers shouldn’t consider second hand when you consider how much more you can get. You can get a second hand graphics card that destroys this APU for less than $100 easily, if I were that budget stricken I’d definitely rather buy second hand than throw all my money at something that also needs expensive memory to game at 720p

But my point is this, the gaming experience is a bit rubbish. Sure the performance numbers make it excellent value for money. But that doesn’t make it a good solution. In fact I think these APUs are fantastic for everyone but gamers and removes the requirement for people to buy a graphics card. But for gamers I’d still say getting a card is still a better option. In the U.K. an R5 1600 is cheaper than the advertised price of the 2400G. Just get the 1600 and buy a 1050ti. It will be twice the price but you’ll get 50% more CPU power and more than twice as much graphics power. Oh and it will actually be able to run games at full HD 1080!

At the end of the day, I do think this APU is very good value for money. But I also think it’s a poor gaming solution and I genuinely pity anyone playing 3D games on one of these things.

 

[Strawman]

I’m comparing consoles as a benchmark to represent a specific level of performance that we can relate to. And the consoles are better, you will get better image quality out of a console than you will on one of these APU’s. Mostly down to optimisation. Obviously it’s not a direct comparison. I’m a bit surprised I need to explain that.

Yes, but consoles are not PC's. So you'll need a PC on top of the console to do all the PC things

And a cheap PSU is bad for any card.

No, not really. The APU for example draws ~100W, a 150 / 200W PSU is sufficient to run this thing. The 7950 alone draws up to 200W. New low end cards draw less than 75W. So old high end cards require adequate PSU's that you won't probably find in low end PC's.

I don’t see why budget gamers shouldn’t consider second hand when you consider how much more you can get. You can get a second hand graphics card that destroys this APU for less than $100 easily, if I were that budget stricken I’d definitely rather buy second hand than throw all my money at something that also needs expensive memory to game at 720p

Because you are comparing used hardware to brand new. Do I really need to explain it to you? I mean, seriously. Wait a couple of months and these APU's will be cheaper as used compared to the cards you are talking about. You know, no warranty, maybe a faulty card, maybe it's close to being damaged, maybe the VRM's are overworked etcetera. You just don't compare brand new to 7 year old used hardware, it's ridiculous.

At the end of the day, I do think this APU is very good value for money. But I also think it’s a poor gaming solution and I genuinely pity anyone playing 3D games on one of these things.

High end gaming isn't everything. I mean using your argument I can say I pity people who play on 1080p 60 fps, because for double the money you can get more CPU power and Y% more GPU power and enjoy 1440p @ 144hz. And fact is, I do pity people at 1080p @ 60 since I have a 32" UW 144hz and a 1080ti but hey, it costs 5 times what this APU costs. There are lots and lots of people with 22" 900p monitor playing e-sporty titles like lol and cs go. This APU would be an excellent choice for them, and that's what it is aimed at.

 

[CheekyP]

This comment is extremely inaccurate

The 2400G costs $170, not $235 as you listed here

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B079D8FD28/?tag=httpwwwtechsp-20

The 2200G costs $100, not $140 as you listed here

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B079D3DBNM/?tag=httpwwwtechsp-20

8GB of DDR4 3000 can be had for $113. Going DDR3 3200 specifically to waste money is, of course, a waste when performance improvements from RAM on Ryzen taper off after 2933.

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod...0233828&cm_re=ddr4_ram-_-20-233-828-_-Product

Motherboard pricing should be the same, as a decent AMD board costs as much as a decent Intel board. The only difference being the cheaper AMD boards actually let you over clock (B350 and above). You can't OC on H110 mobos.

So the real total would be:

$363 for an AMD system with a

2400G $170
8GB DDR4 3000 $113
MSI B350 Gaming Pro mobo $80

You could even shave an addition $15 off the price of the mobo by buying lower end models or refurbished.

Pentium G4560: $80
Asrock H110 motherboard: $70
2x4GB Geil DDR4-2400: $110
RX 560: $150
Total: $410

Total price of your Intel system: $410


- The 2400G has double the cores and threads.
- The 2400G has a higher boost clock, while the G4560 doesn't even come with Intel turbo boost enabled. This also means that it has better single threaded performance, as it has a 0.4GHz higher max clock speed.
- The 2400G is overclock-able, the G4560 isn't. This will simply widen the single core IPC gap in games
- The 2400G is on a platform that allows future upgradibility. The G4560 is not.
- Higher speed RAM means better all around performance, not just gaming performance.
- The 2400G is soldered and has a better stock cooler, which leads to better thermal performance.


"2x the gaming performance of the 2400G for $100 less."

I've already debunked the "$100 less" claim above, I want to focus here on the "2x" gaming performance callout here. The RX 560 is about 40% faster than the RX 550, which places the system you listed as around 48% with a very rough estimate. We also know that the G4560 is going to be slower in both single thread oriented games and multi-thread oriented games as it lacks both clock speed, cores, threads, and overclocking. Intel's 3% IPC advantage does nothing to make up for those factors, it's simply dwarfed by them. So at best you can hope for up to 48% more FPS in games if it doesn't use more than 2 cores (which some games won't even run on dual core CPUs) and if it happens to favor the polaris architecture and not the vega architecture. I'm going to err on the side of caution here and say that was some very extreme hyperbole.

Even 48% extra performance is a very very optimistic picture for the G4560 as demonstrated in this very review.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1574-amd-ryzen-5-2400g-and-ryzen-3-2200g/page4.html

The G4560 is below the 2400G regardless of whether it uses the more powerful 1030 or it's integrated graphics. And just look at those minimum framerates.

In the end, you really couldn't recommend the G4560 in any situation. The cost of the build is higher, it's going to be slower in a majority of games even with a higher end GPU, it's slower at general computing, it's a dead end platform, it's going to choke on title more as time passes and CPU requirements go up, and it's going to require a mobo upgrade if you want a newer CPU.

In your haste to prove me wrong, you completely missed the part in my post where it states I'm using AUSTRALIAN DOLLARS as I am from AUSTRALIA. This renders your value analysis as completely invalid as you are now using US DOLLARS to compare prices with AUSTRALIAN DOLLARS. Seriously?! Please revisit my original post, you can double check the prices I got from www.staticice.com.au which is an Australian price comparison site for PC hardware.

I know the technical differences between the 2200G/2400G and G4560, there is no need to write a long winded post detailing the differences. In fact, some of your 'advantages' are completely wrong, as you assume the 2400G has better single threaded performance because it clocks higher, but conveniently forget that Kabylake has higher IPC in the first place. The 2400G is also not soldered, but uses TIM just like the G4560, please get your facts right.

Anyhow, my point is that FOR GAMING, the CPU has FAR LESS impact than the GPU, especially at the entry level. Therefore, a weaker CPU + stronger GPU will trump a stronger CPU + weaker GPU for gaming, always. [The 2400G might be 20% faster than a G4560 for gaming, but the next tier of GPUs (RX560 or GTX 1050) are TWICE as fast for gaming, sometimes THREE times as fast.

The following graphs from Techarps review perfectly illustrates my point about the advantage of an RX560/GTX 1050 tier of GPUs vs the 2200G/2400G APUs:
Review link: https://www.techarp.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-5-2400g-apu-review/

And yes, the RX560 is comparable to the GTX 1050, in case you want to argue that point too:
https://www.techspot.com/review/1430-radeon-rx-560-vs-geforce-gtx-1050/

 

[Shadowboxer]

Yes, but consoles are not PC's. So you'll need a PC on top of the console to do all the PC things



No, not really. The APU for example draws ~100W, a 150 / 200W PSU is sufficient to run this thing. The 7950 alone draws up to 200W. New low end cards draw less than 75W. So old high end cards require adequate PSU's that you won't probably find in low end PC's.



Because you are comparing used hardware to brand new. Do I really need to explain it to you? I mean, seriously. Wait a couple of months and these APU's will be cheaper as used compared to the cards you are talking about. You know, no warranty, maybe a faulty card, maybe it's close to being damaged, maybe the VRM's are overworked etcetera. You just don't compare brand new to 7 year old used hardware, it's ridiculous.



High end gaming isn't everything. I mean using your argument I can say I pity people who play on 1080p 60 fps, because for double the money you can get more CPU power and Y% more GPU power and enjoy 1440p @ 144hz. And fact is, I do pity people at 1080p @ 60 since I have a 32" UW 144hz and a 1080ti but hey, it costs 5 times what this APU costs. There are lots and lots of people with 22" 900p monitor playing e-sporty titles like lol and cs go. This APU would be an excellent choice for them, and that's what it is aimed at.

Dude. I’m not really up for a ping pong discussion. You like these APUs, you are happy with less than 60fps for 720p presumably because it’s really cheap. Fine, let’s agree to disagree. I think it’s a waste of money for a gamer.

Furthermore there is nothing ridiculous about comparing 7 year old hardware to new hardware of it performs better and costs less.

For the record, I was not directly comparing a console to a PC. I don’t understand why you think I am. And you can get a lot more than twice the gaming power for twice the money.

Presumably you are intending to buy one of these APU’s and game on it. How old is your 720p monitor?

 

[ET3D]

Steve, I've seen reports that current motherboards, advertised as having HDMI 1.4, are capable of outputting 4K@60Hz with these APU's. Can you verify? (If so, I might just go ahead and buy a 2200G now.)

 

[CheekyP]

If you are not sold on igp, then wouldn't you go with 1050ti class solution rather than 560 or vanilla 1050 ?
What is price of skylake pentium, lga 1150 m/b & 8gb ddr3 1333 ram in Australia?

There is a significant jump in price between an RX560/GTX 1050 to a GTX 1050 Ti, from around $150 - $160, to $220 - $230 for the 1050 Ti.

The Skylake Pentiums are pretty much phased out in Australia, there is one shop selling it for $70 however, so you aren't really getting any savings over a G4560. DDR3 would most definitely be cheaper than DDR4, though I wouldn't buy it new to be honest, used DDR3 8GB kits sell for as low as $30 - $40 here.

 

[Nightfire]

Even if you can get the Pentium/1050 combo for a similiar price as the 2400g system (picking pieces here and there), I still wouldn't want the 2/4 or even 4/4 threads for gaming and daily use.

I see consoles taking alot of the mid range gamers if this pricing continues.

For those with a moderate budget: A One X for $500 and then whip together a cheap pc. Maybe $800 total (most have parts they can reuse)

Low budget: 2400g. Still a good all around pc and no low min frames. CPU overclocking. Also, a solid cpu to upgrade the gpu later. Around $500 depending on what you already have.

Very low budget: 2200g. Around $400 (I am not giving exact prices, again depends what you have). Pretty much a throw away cpu if you want to upgrade, but you still have an AM4 mb, b450 if you wait a bit.

 

[CheekyP]

Even if you can get the Pentium/1050 combo for a similiar price as the 2400g system (picking pieces here and there), I still wouldn't want the 2/4 or even 4/4 threads for gaming and daily use.

I see consoles taking alot of the mid range gamers if this pricing continues.

For those with a moderate budget: A One X for $500 and then whip together a cheap pc. Maybe $800 total (most have parts they can reuse)

Low budget: 2400g. Still a good all around pc and no low min frames. CPU overclocking. Also, a solid cpu to upgrade the gpu later. Around $500 depending on what you already have.

Very low budget: 2200g. Around $400 (I am not giving exact prices, again depends what you have). Pretty much a throw away cpu if you want to upgrade, but you still have an AM4 mb, b450 if you wait a bit.

OK serious question, have you actually used a 2C/4T or 4C/4T CPU for general computing? Like web browsing, media streaming, even gaming. What exactly is it that makes these CPUs unsuitable for daily use?

I have used numerous different CPU configurations ranging from 2C/4T to 4C/8T. My old laptop uses a 2C/4T i7 4510u. My current laptop has a 4C/4T i5 7300HQ. My desktop is a 4C/8T 3770K @ 4.5GHz. If you go by CPU benchmarks alone, my 3770K @ 4.5GHz is 2 - 3 times as fast as the i7 4510u and 1.5 - 2 times as fast as the 7300HQ. But you know what? For general desktop usage there is NO noticeable difference between the CPUs. All three are equipped with SSDs which is what makes for a snappy desktop experience. Sure, if I were to encode a video or use Photoshop, the 3770K would be much faster, so I'm not disputing the benefits of a faster CPU. But for general desktop usage, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a 2C/4T or 4C/4T CPU for the average user who only wants to view Youtube, Netflix and play the occasional game.

Anyhow, comparing PC to console gaming is about as apples to oranges as you can get, so I'm not even going to get into that debate. As mainly a FPS player, with occasional dabbles into RTS, I have always preferred PC gaming, for obvious reasons (mouse and keyboard is much better for these genres). If you think $500 on a console is better money spent than $500 on a gaming PC, then each to their own. There is no right or wrong on this matter, its simply personal preference.

 

[Evernessince]

In your haste to prove me wrong, you completely missed the part in my post where it states I'm using AUSTRALIAN DOLLARS as I am from AUSTRALIA. This renders your value analysis as completely invalid as you are now using US DOLLARS to compare prices with AUSTRALIAN DOLLARS. Seriously?! Please revisit my original post, you can double check the prices I got from www.staticice.com.au which is an Australian price comparison site for PC hardware.

I know the technical differences between the 2200G/2400G and G4560, there is no need to write a long winded post detailing the differences. In fact, some of your 'advantages' are completely wrong, as you assume the 2400G has better single threaded performance because it clocks higher, but conveniently forget that Kabylake has higher IPC in the first place. The 2400G is also not soldered, but uses TIM just like the G4560, please get your facts right.

Anyhow, my point is that FOR GAMING, the CPU has FAR LESS impact than the GPU, especially at the entry level. Therefore, a weaker CPU + stronger GPU will trump a stronger CPU + weaker GPU for gaming, always. [The 2400G might be 20% faster than a G4560 for gaming, but the next tier of GPUs (RX560 or GTX 1050) are TWICE as fast for gaming, sometimes THREE times as fast.

The following graphs from Techarps review perfectly illustrates my point about the advantage of an RX560/GTX 1050 tier of GPUs vs the 2200G/2400G APUs:
Review link: https://www.techarp.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-5-2400g-apu-review/

And yes, the RX560 is comparable to the GTX 1050, in case you want to argue that point too:
https://www.techspot.com/review/1430-radeon-rx-560-vs-geforce-gtx-1050/

It's not haste when you have the currency burred in a text block in parenthesis. Next time use AUD.

Kaby Lake's roughly 3% clock for clock IPC advantage, like I explicitly mentioned in my comment, does not nearly make up even the 0.4 GHz higher clock of the ryzen CPU. It makes up 0.1 GHz if you do the math, that's it. This shows it...

https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Proce...d-Zen/Clock-Clock-Ryzen-Broadwell-E-Kaby-Lake

I don't know why you keep beating the "Intel superior IPC" drum but ever since Ryzen came out, Intel's IPC is nearly margin of error. It gives them an ever slight edge but it's nothing that will overcome a clock disadvantage.

"This renders your value analysis as completely invalid as you are now using US DOLLARS to compare prices with AUSTRALIAN DOLLARS"

Actually no. The G4560 actually goes for $80 USD, the motherboard also goes for $70 USD, and RX 560s do indeed go for around $160 USD. So yeah, your setup costs the same here in USD as it does in aussie in AUD. You can lookup those prices yourself if you wish. Ditto goes for the RAM too.

So, the value comparison is still completely relevant.

"Anyhow, my point is that FOR GAMING, the CPU has FAR LESS impact than the GPU, especially at the entry level. Therefore, a weaker CPU + stronger GPU will trump a stronger CPU + weaker GPU for gaming,"

Wrong. For gaming, you need at least need a quad core. If you don't have that, you aren't going to get good FPS in a majority of modern titles. You might have a better position if you said for eSports gaming / legacy gaming. Even counterstrike uses 3 cores now though and Overwatch can use the extra core. Hell, even back in 2015 one could massively benefit from a quad core CPU.

https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Syste...oShock-Infinite-and-Civilization-Beyond-Earth

A weak CPU can't do anything if it's at 100% utilization and anytime windows does anything in the background your FPS dips. Minimum FPS on dual cores is much worse than quad cores, simply because the game only have one core to work on while it shares the other with the OS.

Go find me a reviewer that will recommend a dual core CPU in 2018 for anything but light gaming, eSports, or legacy gaming.

"The following graphs from Techarps review perfectly illustrates my point about the advantage of an RX560/GTX 1050 tier of GPUs vs the 2200G/2400G APUs:"

Um, no they illustrate my point. They have the RX 560 paired with an even higher end Ryzen R5 processor. Do you honestly think a G4560 is going to get the same performance as a 3.8GHz Ryzen with 6 cores and 12 threads in the majority of games. No, not at all. Like I said earlier, that illustrates performance of an RX 560 that isn't bottlenecked by the CPU.

"And yes, the RX560 is comparable to the GTX 1050, in case you want to argue that point too:"

Dude's making up random arguments.

 

[ET3D]

Another thing I would like tested: effect of amount of RAM.

Budget buyers will likely pair a 2200G with 2x4GB RAM. TechSpot did an article about the effect of the amount of RAM on gaming. Since the 8GB is shared between CPU and GPU, that's less than 8GB for the game. Would be interesting how well this work for gaming, and how 720p vs. 1080p works and how reducing texture size helps.

 

[Shadowboxer]

Another thing I would like tested: effect of amount of RAM.

Budget buyers will likely pair a 2200G with 2x4GB RAM. TechSpot did an article about the effect of the amount of RAM on gaming. Since the 8GB is shared between CPU and GPU, that's less than 8GB for the game. Would be interesting how well this work for gaming, and how 720p vs. 1080p works and how reducing texture size helps.

That’s a good point, my i7 can use well over 8gb when running games with a discrete card. I wonder if 8GB would be enough for the APU’s graphics and gaming combined, if it turns out this thing needs 16GB to function effectively it’s sours the milk of the value argument, as 8gb of DDR4 2800 memory costs more than a GT1030! Then again, how much display ram does 720p really need?

 

[HyPeroxya]

These are not really for Gamers in the 1st world , they add gfx output for ryzen chips making them competitive to Intels offerings for Office Comps. I see these as for people in the LDC like brazil and India China, affordable, and a big step up from what they currently have, good all round chips, 2 billion ppl waiting to play Rocket leagiue and update their FaceBook profiles, its a very big market.

 

[Nightfire]

OK serious question, have you actually used a 2C/4T or 4C/4T CPU for general computing? Like web browsing, media streaming, even gaming. What exactly is it that makes these CPUs unsuitable for daily use?.

Ok maybe I should have said gaming and computing. Fot daily use 2/4 intel cpus are just fine even with 4 gb ram so long as you dont go crazy on the tabs.

I realize console and pc gaming are still apples and oranges. Still, being able to get rx 580 like performance for $500 has to be tempting for alot of normally-pc gamers right now.
So, buying a cheap PC and a One X is cheaper than buying just a rx 580 equipped pc at this time.

 

[Nightfire]

Another thing I would like tested: effect of amount of RAM.

Budget buyers will likely pair a 2200G with 2x4GB RAM. TechSpot did an article about the effect of the amount of RAM on gaming. Since the 8GB is shared between CPU and GPU, that's less than 8GB for the game. Would be interesting how well this work for gaming, and how 720p vs. 1080p works and how reducing texture size helps.

Here is the older article:
https://www.techspot.com/article/1043-8gb-vs-16gb-ram/page3.html

On Steve's newer article, he showed that the 3 gb GTX 1060 demanded more system memory than the 6 GB version. As if there is a "combined memory" amount needed.

However, at low res, 8 gb combined should be enough as 8 gb combined was enough for even the gtx 980 in most cases.

 

[Strawman]

Presumably you are intending to buy one of these APU’s and game on it. How old is your 720p monitor?

I have a UW 1440p 144 hz monitor. Sorry, you failed. Try harder

If you can't get why it's beyond dumb to compare prices between brand new and 7 year old used hardware then there is no point arguing.

 

[lostinlodos]

I’m so happy we finally see APPLICATION benchmarks and not just games. The charts on this article show what I long thought and have opined publicly. AMD is stomping on Intel in everything other than games.
I’d love to see the Ryzen line comparisons to intel’s current overpriced top level I chips. Like the above aes and 7zip tests. Where real world use is shown and not just maxed out games.

 

[cliffordcooley]

AMD is stomping on Intel in everything other than games.

I could be wrong but I think Intel will have a response for this.

 

[Shadowboxer]

These are not really for Gamers in the 1st world , they add gfx output for ryzen chips making them competitive to Intels offerings for Office Comps. I see these as for people in the LDC like brazil and India China, affordable, and a big step up from what they currently have, good all round chips, 2 billion ppl waiting to play Rocket leagiue and update their FaceBook profiles, its a very big market.

Completely agree. I wouldn’t wish this level of gaming performance on my enemies here in the U.K.

I have a UW 1440p 144 hz monitor. Sorry, you failed. Try harder

If you can't get why it's beyond dumb to compare prices between brand new and 7 year old used hardware then there is no point arguing.

Go on then. Why is it dumb? Il say this, if I were a gamer on a tight budget, I would definitely go for a second hand card over a brand new APU. This is because I can get quite a lot more performance that way. Just out of curiosity, aside from the mild risk involved with buying second hand (I’ve had plenty of luck personally), what exactly is so dumb about choosing a second hand card?

Oh and FYI the HD7950 was released almost exactly 6 years ago. Not 7 years ago.