We test the newcomers Ryzen 3 2200G and Ryzen 5 2400G, an excellent choice for those who do not want to spend as much money on the game.
Compared to a similar system based on Intel Core i3, the Ryzen 3 2200G is up 142 percent faster in 3dmark Firestrike, 154 percent faster in 3dmark Time Spy and 203 percent faster in Rainbow Six Siege. These are just a few of the highlights of our test results, as we describe a little further in this article.
In daily use, the new budget processors should be able to offer 60 frames per second (fps) with 720p resolution for most games. In some cases, there may also be numbers of 60 fps with 1080p resolution, which makes it possible to build a sleek gaming computer at a really low price.
The entry model Ryzen 3 2200G employs four zeno-cores without symmetrical multithreading (SMT), which is AMD's equivalent to Intel's Hypertension (HT). The core has a 3.5 gigahertz clock frequency, which can be raised to 3.7 gigahertz as needed.
As for the graphics, eight Vega cores are used, that is, the same type used in the popular graphics cards with the same name.
If we continue to Ryzen 5 2400G, there are also four Zen zenos here, but in addition, it offers symmetrical multithreading (SMT), which produces twice as many threads in the end. The clock frequency, on the other hand, is elevated to 3.6 and 3.9 gigahertz, while the Vega cores are eleven in number.
Both the Ryzen 3 2200G and Ryzen 5 2400G use the AM4 socket, so there are quite a few compatible motherboards out there on the market. It can also be mentioned that the processes are not locked, so it is possible to overclock them as needed.
Ryzen APU vs. Ryzen CPU
If we compare Ryzen 5 2400G (APU) with Ryzen 5 1400 (CPU), there are some things that stand out, including half the amount of L3 cache and half as many pcie paths. In addition, a single CCX (Core Complex) is used instead of two, which means that the four zen kernels are collected in a single cluster.
The reason that only one CCX is used in the Ryzen 5 2400G is that AMD needs space for the extra Vega cores. The disadvantage is that the amount of cache decreases, as each CCX has its own cache. In addition, AMD has chosen to raise the clock frequency a snap compared to Ryzen 5 1400.
AMD has not said why they reduced the number of pcie paths, but according to our experience, it does not have any significant impact on graphics performance.
Then we performed the tests
Before we start our tests, we assemble a computer consisting of the motherboard MSI B350 Pro AC, 16 Gigabytes G.Skill Flare DDR4 / 3200 RAM, and the Kingston HyperX Savage SATA SSD of 240 gigabytes.
To compare performance, we use an equivalent computer with dual core Intel Core i3-7100 and Intel HD 630. The motherboard in that computer is Gigabyte GA-H270M-DS3H MicroATX card. The reason we do not choose the four-core Core i3-8100 is that it requires a more expensive motherboard, which makes it a big difference in the final price. Since the Core i3-8100 lacks hypertension and has a lower clock frequency, the difference to Core i3-7100 should be negligible in practice.
Regarding the Ryzen 5 2400G, there are problems with the preset XMP 3200 profiles. Hopefully, it will be resolved in future updates.
It should also be noted that Core i3 can not take advantage of the entire power of the working memory we choose, so we are pleased to report the results of the DDR4 / 2400 in some of the tests. Otherwise, the difference would have been a further five percent in our measurements.
In conclusion, it should be said that we have installed the latest updates for the Meltdown and Specter security deficiencies, which may adversely affect the result slightly.
3d rendering with Cinebench
In our first test, we use Cinebench R15.038 based on Maxon's professional rendering engine. Basically, it is a purely cpu test that takes into account both the number of threads and the number of cores.
The result is no surprise, the four-core Ryzen 3 2200G gets 42 percent higher points than the dual core Core i3 when multiple strings are used. The Ryzen 5 2400G is on its side 35 percent faster than a little brother, thanks to the support for symmetrical multithreading (smt).
We also fit in to drive a single-threaded test with the Cinebench R15 and here's the Core i3 winner, followed by Ryzen 5 2400G and Ryzen 3 2200G. The difference is mainly due to Intel's processor having a clock speed of 3.9 gigahertz, which is more than in AMD's models.
Coding with Handbrake and 7-Zip Compression
In our next test, we use the popular Free Handbrake software to convert a 1080p resolution file.
As expected, the difference in number of threads results, and the best is the Ryzen 5 2400G. If you want similar performance on the Intel page, you get Core i3-8100, which means you have almost a thousand dollars less to spend on other things.
There is no huge difference in the name of honesty, so in this regard, Intel Core i3 is a good thing.
3dmark sky diver
Now we have seen that the extra cores and threads of AMD's processors have an effect when it comes to standard programs and the question is how it comes to gaming. Here, Intel, as you know, has a certain lead to the worst competitor.
We start with 3dmark Sky Diver which provides a good benchmark for integrated graphics, in this case Vega compared to Intel HD 630.
The result shows that the Ryzen 3 2200G with its 8 Vega cores gets 133 percent more points than the Intel Core i3 with the HD 630. The Ryzen 5 2400G with its 11 Vega cores, for its part, has 178 percent more points, which is the clean opening.
3dmark fire strike
Now it's time to use 3dmark Fire Strike and, to broaden the perspective, we've also included the Ryzen 5 1600 + Radeon RX 550 (2GB) combination. The focus is on the graphics, so the extra kernels should not get such a big deal in practice.
Because there were problems with the 3200 profiles, the Ryzen 5 2400G has been tested with the 2933 megahertz profile instead, so expect a slightly worse result than expected on that front.
Rather than surprising, the Radeon RX 550 + Radeon RX 550 is top notch, but given that the combination costs more than $ 10,000 extra, the difference is not very big in practice. So you get really great gaming performance for your money if you choose Ryzen 3 2200G or Ryzen 5 2400G. For the money you save, you can buy more storage and more work memory, which in the end may prove to be a better buy.
3dmark time spy
Our final 3dmark test for the day is Time Spy, a test that focuses on measuring performance in Direct X 12. Here's the basically dead race between the Radeon RX 550 and the Vega cores in the Ryzen 5 2400G. The result for the Ryzen 3 2200G is also impressive and finally, Intel's HD 630 graphics are again found.
Again, it is once again difficult to justify the price difference, so our recommendation is to invest in AMD's cheaper alternatives.
Tom Clancy Rainbow Six Siege
Now it's time to see how the new Ryzen models handle real games. We start with Tom Clancy Rainbow Six Siege who has a couple of years on his neck at this time.
We test the game in several different resolutions and with a variety of settings, but the results are as impressive as we do. In fact, the Ryzen 5 2400G even gets better results than the Radeon RX 550 + Radeon RX 550 combination.
The Ryzen 5 2400G comes up at 51 fps at 1080p resolution, while the Ryzen 3 2200G comes up at 40 fps. At this point, it's not even an idea to compare with Intel Core i3 + HD 630, the chart speaks its clear language.
Rise of the Tomb Raider
Rise of the Tomb Raider from 2015, unlike Rainbow Six Siege, is not playable at 1080p resolution (1920x1080), it's simply too demanding. In other words, you'll be satisfied with 720p if you choose AMD's new Ryzen processors.
With that said, it is once again impressive results from the Ryzen 5 2400G and Ryzen 3 2200G.
Despite the fact that Crysis has eleven years on its neck, it's still a game that requires a part of your computer. But it's no problem for the Ryzen 5 2400G and Ryzen 3 2200G to handle the classic game. For fun, we chose to compare the results with the Geforce 8800 GTX, a so-called hot card that was almost a must when Crysis was new in 2007.
As you can see in the diagram above, the old Geforce card does not have a chance against the Vega cores in the new Ryzen models. In fact, the Intel HD 630 has almost the same performance as the Geforce 8800 GTX, so the integrated graphics have come a long way in a decade.
How much does the memory mean?
If you've looked closely at our charts, you've probably noticed that faster working memory affects the results a lot. Unlike renowned graphics processors with special memory, the graphics circuits in Ryzen 5 use 2400G and Ryzen 3 2200G of the usual work memory.
In the diagram below for the Ryzen 3 2200G, you can see the difference between different operating frequency clock frequencies, from 2133 megahertz to 3200 megahertz. We also see the difference between one channel and two channels.
The results show that you get about 9.5 percent more performance if you go from DDR4 / 2400 to DDR4 / 3200. If you can afford faster memory, it may be worth placing an extra slant on that front. You should also make sure to bet on two memories instead of one, it makes a big difference in graphical performance.
Review and conclusion
Over the years we have tested lots of processors with integrated graphics, but until now we have always had a number of goodies. In the case of the Ryzen 5 2400G and Ryzen 3 2200G, we do not need to bring any braids at all.
- Want to save time managing your WordPress weblogs? Control them all with CMS Commander!
- Dropship Rocket vs AliDropship for Custom Dropshipping Store Creation – Eartha Haines
- Management : One review page is for selling Make money online product, one is for weight loss… – InfographicNow.com | Your Number One Source For daily infographics & visual creativity
- Understanding SEO as a Blogger or Online Entrepreneur
- How to Safeguard Your Firm’s Online Reputation | E-Commerce | E-Commerce Times