Peter Farkas
Posts: 654 +530
Does it support AMD Freesync??
Ryzen CPU + Vega Graphics on a Chip: AMD Ryzen 5 2400G & Ryzen 3 2200G Review
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
MaikuTech
Posts: 1,127 +190
They are man, just look at both chip makers neck by neck, if your still not sure you could ask him to clarify some things
http://www.techist.com/forums/members/pp-mguire/
Seems like amd wins a big one, maybe a month later they automatically began to close the gap again.
That is what I have been noticing right before the release and the release of amd ryzen lineup.
If they didn't have a new engineer who knew how to make things actually work for what they are.
AMD would have to hang it up right about now. =/
CheekyP
Posts: 75 +55
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.
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.
Last edited:
How you can benchmark dota 2 1080p high setting with intel G4560 igp hd 610, because my screen get dark when I do that(problem with intel igp)
from cpu itself 2400G loses because only have 4 MB L3 cache, but only some benchmarks/games use cache intensive. vega 11 easy beat rx550 if bandwidth not a problem.
GreenNova343
Posts: 454 +336
Not 100% sure where the pricing is coming from, but your prices for the RX 560 & DDR4 RAM seem a bit low:
https://au.pcpartpicker.com/list/nDDXsZ -- shows the component price as $462 AUD (note that the only/cheapest GeiL DDR4-2400 RAM set they had was actually more expensive than a set of Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4-3000 RAM). With the cost of an ASRock B350M motherboard & RAM only running $248 AUD (https://au.pcpartpicker.com/list/GXVFM8), you have $214 AUD to spare to match prices with the Pentium-based system...or $234 if you decided to go for an A320M board (https://au.pcpartpicker.com/list/cKm2wV), since this would even up the "unable to overclock" issue with the Pentium.
Also, there's the BIOS problem. Hopefully, by now the retailers have applied the appropriate BIOS updates to their 100-series boards (designed for Skylake) so that they'll run Kaby Lake chips like the G4560. If not, you'll have to buy a Skylake Pentium so that you can update it...or settle for a B250M or H270M motherboard, which further increases your price.
But then you also have the problem of a "dead" ecosystem for the Pentium system. Want a future upgrade? You're limited to Kaby Lake Core CPUs only; Coffee Lake & later Intel CPUs aren't backwards-compatible with the Skylake/Kaby Lake chipsets. In contrast, the Ryzen system will be able to take the future Zen 2 CPUs, & anything down the pipe through to at least 2020 (AMD's committed to keeping the AM4 platform through then).
For someone on a budget buying a cheap PC, Intel really doesn't have an answer for this.
Sure, you can get a cheap pentium, h110, and Rx 550, but you are stuck with a dead end platform. The 2400g would still be a solid cpu platform if you get a more powerful gpu in the future.
With every game release, any cpu with 4 threads or less is looking pretty bad. A 4/8 or 6/6 system has far more life.
As for a CFL system, Intel still only offers the z370 which is too pricey.
Sure, you can get a cheap pentium, h110, and Rx 550, but you are stuck with a dead end platform. The 2400g would still be a solid cpu platform if you get a more powerful gpu in the future.
With every game release, any cpu with 4 threads or less is looking pretty bad. A 4/8 or 6/6 system has far more life.
As for a CFL system, Intel still only offers the z370 which is too pricey.
If you can get an Rx 560, mb and G4560 for US $120, $56, and $64 respectively, then sure. Here, not so much. Also, it looks like the 2200g is overpriced there as well.
PetrolHead
Posts: 68 +36
Memory bandwidth may be a factor, but the cache is probably not. Overall, I wouldn't expect it to lose on the CPU side. When comparing to the 1300X, the 2400G has smaller cache latency, slightly higher clock speeds and eight threads instead of four. Also, the benchmarks should also be mainly GPU-limited, especially at 1080p, where the RX 550 wins as well. It would be interesting to see what the numbers are like with a 2400G + RX 550, though.
On paper the Vega 11 is a slightly stronger performer than the RX 550 (if you look at theoretical floating-point performance etc.), so it may be that the drivers (or games) are just not yet properly optimized and that Vega 11 will be stronger in the future. Then again that significantly lower memory bandwidth may also play a role and prove to be a bottleneck.
CheekyP
Posts: 75 +55
Steve is actually from Australia but he is probably just pulling numbers from Newegg or something to cater for the (prodiminantly) US crowd.
I guess I should I have shown my sources to avoid posts like yours accusing me of fudging numbers:
FYI I got all my prices from www.staticice.com.au
G4560 https://staticice.com.au/cgi-bin/search.cgi?q=Pentium+G4560&spos=3
Asrock H110 https://staticice.com.au/cgi-bin/search.cgi?q=asrock+H110&spos=1
Geil 2x4GB DDR4-2400 https://staticice.com.au/cgi-bin/search.cgi?q=2x4gb+DDR4++potenza&spos=1
RX560 https://staticice.com.au/cgi-bin/search.cgi?q=RX560&spos=1
No. Especially not when both are oc'ed
Catastrophic drops on the 4c i5
But hey, don't let reality get in the way of your opinion (y)
CheekyP
Posts: 75 +55
I got all my prices from www.staticice.com.au which I always use to get the lowest prices in Australia. You can check my post above to see the particular searches I did to get the prices that I did.
The particular Asrock H110 motherboard definitely supports the G4560: http://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/H110M-HDV/?cat=CPU
I am mostly looking at price/performance for gaming, and it is obvious to me that for the same or higher platform cost, the 2200G/2400G doesn't come close to a G4560+RX560 or GTX 1050 when it comes to actual gaming. Of course you get a substantially more powerful CPU with AMD, but as I said earlier gaming is mostly about the GPU, not the CPU, especially at the budget / entry level market.
I do acknowledge your point about potential upgrade paths, though a G4560 to a 4C/8T i7 is a substantial enough upgrade path I feel to keep the system relevant for many years to come for gaming.
Shadowboxer
Posts: 2,074 +1,655
This is odd. I just read the article and it seems they have the graphs wrong? The whole time through he keeps saying its a great budget gaming CPU and lots of very positive stuff. But then the graphs show it struggles to hit 60fps at 720p in a lot of games? Im sorry but I have graphics cards from over 10 years ago that perform better than this. 720p lol, I wonder how many times that fits into my 4k monitor. I get it, its got a better GPU than Intel gives you for free in their CPU. But you have to be at a last resort to try and game on either thing. At least they have one now, something no reviewer criticised Ryzen for lacking and often then go on and say its better for a basic office machine than Intel seemingly forgetting that you would need to buy a graphics card in that sitiuation. I wish the reviewer had put in a comparison with a 1050ti, just to show how little extra you have to spend to get a lot more performance.
I dont see many people buying these and actually using them for gaming. Well, not unless they are desperate for a gaming experience from 2008!
I dont see many people buying these and actually using them for gaming. Well, not unless they are desperate for a gaming experience from 2008!
cliffordcooley
Posts: 13,141 +6,441
Can you honestly not think of a reason why 720p might have been used?
Shadowboxer
Posts: 2,074 +1,655
At no point did I state that I did not understand why 720p is being tested. But if it helps you, its clear to see that these chips simply cant give you a playable experience at 1080p. A resolution I upgraded to back in August 2008. So apparently a good budget gaming experience in 2018 is <60fps at 720p. Personally I would say thats a terrible experience, even if its a lot better than Intels iGPU. Intels iGPU is an even more terrible experience!
Shadowboxer
Posts: 2,074 +1,655
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!
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.
PetrolHead
Posts: 68 +36
The 2400G struggles to hit 60 fps at 720p in two games out of nine tested. Not what I'd call "a lot". Several of the games also seem to have headroom for turning the graphics quality up a bit.
2400G 720 p results 1% min/avg:
CS:GO (very high) 91 / 215
PUBG (low) 41 / 57
Fortnite (medium) 70 / 75
Overwatch (medium) 83 / 98
Rocket League (high) 68 / 99
Dota 2 (best looking) 45 / 75
Rainbow Six Siege (low) 103 / 129
SW Battlefront 2 (low) 84 / 101
Wolfenstein II (low) 88 / 95
Qualitatively the 2200G isn't really much worse. If you want to compare the Vega 11 to older discrete GPUs, it's somewhere between a GTX 650 and a GTX 660. Not great by modern standards, but still perfectly usable, especially at 720p.
GreenNova343
Posts: 454 +336
eSports.
eSports focuses on the "lower" end of graphic resolution. 720p/HD is considered a decent resolution, as the focus on the games is less on resolution/image quality & more on squeezing a minimum number of frames out of the hardware.
As for the "sub-par" performance, the only game where the integrated Vega graphics struggled to reach 60FPS at 720p... was PUBG, which is notorious for struggling to hit 60FPS with other systems. Heck, even with a GTX 1080TI that Pentium barely makes it over at 1080p/Ultra (https://www.techspot.com/article/1532-pubg-cpu-benchmarks/)...& loses out to the non-Vega versions of Ryzen at that resolution. And let's not forget that the only reason the Pentium came out ahead (& then only by a 25% margin) was because it had the GT 1030; with the Pentium's integrated graphics, you might as well be watching a PowerPoint slideshow. PUBG may not be the worst optimized game ever, but it comes awfully close. And for 1080p, sure, they struggled with Fortnight, but so did the Pentium (not even able to reach 50FPS on Medium with a GT 1030 = no better than the Ryzen/Vegas, & unable to even hit 10 FPS on iGPU = worthless).
That's the key right there: with just using integrated graphics (not even a GT 1030), the Ryzen/Vega chips handily beat all of the cheaper Intel CPUs, including their 4C/4T i3-8350K. And with the same dedicated GPU (RX 550) they still beat all of the Intel CPUs. That's the key, especially for small mATX or (especially) M-ITX builds, because then you start looking at power requirements. The Pentium version, per PCPartPicker, needs at least 209W, so you'll want at least a 300W PSU for a safe margin. OTOH, the Ryzen model currently only need 134W, so (if it was available) a 200W PSU would do the trick. Now, sure, they probably don't come that small...but if 1 system uses 33% less power than the other, then for a user in an area where electricity isn't as cheap, that might be a deciding factor for them.
But let's say someone's not worried about that. They plan on having a really good gaming system...but for right now they can't necessarily afford all of the components, or (more likely) they can't afford the top-flight GPU they really want, but they also don't want to have to immediately replace their CPU either. CPU-wise, the Pentium is killed by vanilla Ryzen CPUs as well as these APUs. The i3-8350K is a different story...but the iGPU on the i3 is just as crappy as the Pentium's. So they can pay the same amount for a "dead" Pentium-based system with a bargain-basement GPU as for a Ryzen APU system, or pay a ton more for a Coffee Lake i3 (sans dedicated GPU) that, while potentially better on the CPU side will lag behind in gaming. Given that the Ryzen system would not only allow for a better CPU/APU but also a dedicated GPU (once prices drop back down), something you only get now by picking the more expensive i3 option, I see this as more of a win for AMD.
eSports focuses on the "lower" end of graphic resolution. 720p/HD is considered a decent resolution, as the focus on the games is less on resolution/image quality & more on squeezing a minimum number of frames out of the hardware.
As for the "sub-par" performance, the only game where the integrated Vega graphics struggled to reach 60FPS at 720p... was PUBG, which is notorious for struggling to hit 60FPS with other systems. Heck, even with a GTX 1080TI that Pentium barely makes it over at 1080p/Ultra (https://www.techspot.com/article/1532-pubg-cpu-benchmarks/)...& loses out to the non-Vega versions of Ryzen at that resolution. And let's not forget that the only reason the Pentium came out ahead (& then only by a 25% margin) was because it had the GT 1030; with the Pentium's integrated graphics, you might as well be watching a PowerPoint slideshow. PUBG may not be the worst optimized game ever, but it comes awfully close. And for 1080p, sure, they struggled with Fortnight, but so did the Pentium (not even able to reach 50FPS on Medium with a GT 1030 = no better than the Ryzen/Vegas, & unable to even hit 10 FPS on iGPU = worthless).
That's the key right there: with just using integrated graphics (not even a GT 1030), the Ryzen/Vega chips handily beat all of the cheaper Intel CPUs, including their 4C/4T i3-8350K. And with the same dedicated GPU (RX 550) they still beat all of the Intel CPUs. That's the key, especially for small mATX or (especially) M-ITX builds, because then you start looking at power requirements. The Pentium version, per PCPartPicker, needs at least 209W, so you'll want at least a 300W PSU for a safe margin. OTOH, the Ryzen model currently only need 134W, so (if it was available) a 200W PSU would do the trick. Now, sure, they probably don't come that small...but if 1 system uses 33% less power than the other, then for a user in an area where electricity isn't as cheap, that might be a deciding factor for them.
But let's say someone's not worried about that. They plan on having a really good gaming system...but for right now they can't necessarily afford all of the components, or (more likely) they can't afford the top-flight GPU they really want, but they also don't want to have to immediately replace their CPU either. CPU-wise, the Pentium is killed by vanilla Ryzen CPUs as well as these APUs. The i3-8350K is a different story...but the iGPU on the i3 is just as crappy as the Pentium's. So they can pay the same amount for a "dead" Pentium-based system with a bargain-basement GPU as for a Ryzen APU system, or pay a ton more for a Coffee Lake i3 (sans dedicated GPU) that, while potentially better on the CPU side will lag behind in gaming. Given that the Ryzen system would not only allow for a better CPU/APU but also a dedicated GPU (once prices drop back down), something you only get now by picking the more expensive i3 option, I see this as more of a win for AMD.
Shadowboxer
Posts: 2,074 +1,655
Is it ok for me to think this is an awful experience in 2018? Especially where we are looking at a scenario where the last gen of consoles will probably outdo it for roughly the same money?
But very good value for money. Agreed there. Just I wouldnt pay it.
To me I really dont think AMD are intending to sell a lot of these APU's to gamers. To me they are desinged to compete with Intels smaller stuff like the Pentium and i3 for home or office use. Right up until now you needed a graphics card in a Ryzen rig no matter what. Now thats changed, this is a big deal! Unless you're a gamer, in which case I dont think the performance is good enough and you will still need a graphics card in my opinion.
PetrolHead
Posts: 68 +36
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.
Shadowboxer
Posts: 2,074 +1,655
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
.Shadowboxer, I agree with you 100%. It seems that mid-range pc gamers have been targeting 1080p for the last 10 years. As gpu performance goes up, so does the demand of newer titles.
The tragedy comea in when you compare an older ame like Crisis vs a newer game like PUBG. PUBG looks worse and requires WAY more resources. It is almost like these games are DEoptimized to force the consumer in to buying more hardware every year. Games like BF2 literally need over 10x the frame buffer of an equally good looking game from 5 years ago. And for what??
I still remember how snarky PC gamers were when the last gen consoles could only run 900p or lower in most games. Now the One X is able to do downscaled 4k at up to 60 fps. It seems that the hardcore pc gamers are lashing out at it. Well a midrange gpu should have been able to do that YEARS ago if your games were not optimized so shitty.
The tragedy comea in when you compare an older ame like Crisis vs a newer game like PUBG. PUBG looks worse and requires WAY more resources. It is almost like these games are DEoptimized to force the consumer in to buying more hardware every year. Games like BF2 literally need over 10x the frame buffer of an equally good looking game from 5 years ago. And for what??
I still remember how snarky PC gamers were when the last gen consoles could only run 900p or lower in most games. Now the One X is able to do downscaled 4k at up to 60 fps. It seems that the hardcore pc gamers are lashing out at it. Well a midrange gpu should have been able to do that YEARS ago if your games were not optimized so shitty.
Shadowboxer
Posts: 2,074 +1,655
Yeah I agree with you there, I’ve acquired a 4K monitor for my home setup and my crossfire 280x’s are performing worse than I had hoped. I knew they wouldn’t be great but many games won’t even run. It seems like I am now in desperate need of a card right in the middle of the GPU crisis, great! Il probably just wait until either the market floods with cheap second hand Vegas or 1080 ti’s (unlikely in the current crypto climate) or until next gen Nvidia cards launch - it will probably be that, I’m hoping I can preorder one at MSRP, wish me luck!
Not so sure if that’s entirely down to poor PC optimisation though. I’ve noticed that the games that do run at 4K on my rig can run quite well but the textures look low res. Generally the titles are all about 4 years older older aswell. I think we are just seeing the industry turning to 8gb of display RAM as a minimum standard. Maybe because even the last gen consoles have that much?
Similar threads
- Locked
Latest posts
-
Ghost kitchens are vanishing due to mounting criticism and demand
- Tinderbox replied
-
Fallout TV show secures second season after stellar debut- Che Cazzo replied
-
Logitech thinks the computer mouse needs an AI upgrade- techstrike replied
-
Hackers attempted to trick LastPass employee with cloned voice of CEO- antiproduct replied
