8 threaded zen powered apu 2400g a budget gamin on 1 chip with a nice boost off ddr4 memory compared to ddr3

I'm interested to see how well these perform and OC. Considering one for my backup rig to replace the Kaveri chip I presently have. Dual GFX with a dedicated card would be cool, too.

LEEc337:

8 threaded zen powered apu 2400g a budget gamin on 1 chip with a nice boost off ddr4 memory compared to ddr3

Really nice budget gaming indeed until we remember DDR4 prices are insane...... T_T

Seems the 2400G ought be able to play last-gen console games at 1080p consistently at 60FPS with stock clocks. I'm sure it can play well-ported current-gen games at 1080p @ 30FPS. For the cost and wattage of that chip, that's honestly pretty good.

2400G, the shader count on that one seems really really odd, 704, would have expected 768 shaders.

Dazz:

2400G, the shader count on that one seems really really odd, 704, would have expected 768 shaders.

They went with 11 CUs for some reason... Odd number I know, but it is what it is.

schmidtbag:

Seems the 2400G ought be able to play last-gen console games at 1080p consistently at 60FPS with stock clocks. I'm sure it can play well-ported current-gen games at 1080p @ 30FPS. For the cost and wattage of that chip, that's honestly pretty good.

My Kaveri surprised me. I can play a lot of older games at 1080p and 60 FPS, this should have a good amount of power behind it, not to mention a pretty kickass CPU bundle.

I think, they have to make the 1300X, 1200, 1400 and 1500X cheaper. Because the 2200G has better clocks than the 1300X, is as cheap as the 1200 and has a gpu in it, but half the L3-Cache, which isnt that bad. Same with the 2400G, better clocks than the 1500X, but is as cheap as the 1400. So I think that the new prices of the processors without gpu should be: Ryzen 5 2400G = 169$(164€) Ryzen 5 1500X = 159$(155€) Ryzen 5 1400 = 139$(135€) Ryzen 3 2200G = 99$(96€) Ryzen 3 1300X = 89$(87€) Ryzen 3 1200 = 79$(77€) Just my opinion, would make it incredibly attractive. The others should look like this: Ryzen 1950X: 799$ Ryzen 1920X: 599$ Ryzen 1900X: 399$ Ryzen 7 1800X: 319$ Ryzen 7 1700X: 289$ Ryzen 7 1700: 269$ Ryzen 5 1600X: 219$(normal price atm, wouldnt change it) Ryzen 5 1600: 189$(normal price atm, wouldnt change it)

I'll have to sell my b350 and ryzen 3 1200 and get one of those 2200g with a new mobo

BLEH!:

They went with 11 CUs for some reason... Odd number I know, but it is what it is. They have 12 CU's , 1 CU is reserved for yields, so they sell 11 CU part

mameira:

I'll have to sell my b350 and ryzen 3 1200 and get one of those 2200g with a new mobo

Why sell the motherboard? B350 should be compatible with the 2200G, you'll likely just need a BIOS update.

schmidtbag:

Why sell the motherboard? B350 should be compatible with the 2200G, you'll likely just need a BIOS update.

My B350 doesn't have a video output (maybe im wrong let me recheck), and I want to be able to sell my GPU and still have a capable iGPU for overwatch while I wait for a new one EDIT: Yup, I went full retard, I got a ASRock AB350M which doesn't have a video output. lol

"Dark mode for RGB heathens" lol 😀

That Ryzen 5 2400G looks tempting. Would like to see a Ryzen 5 2600G with 12 CUs to replace my 1600....

considering intel i7-8705g is 65TDP and 2400g is 15, there probably some performance margin, as well as price.

sverek:

considering intel i7-8705g is 65TDP and 2400g is 15, there probably some performance margin, as well as price.

2400g is 45-65w tdp too. It's the 2700 that has 15w tdp.

heffeque:

2400g is 45-65w tdp too. It's the 2700 that has 15w tdp.

Right, I was comparing mobile devices. If I am not wrong i7-8705g is targeted for mobile devices, so we compare i7-8705g (mobile 65TDP) vs Ryzen 7 2700U (mobile 15TDP)

From the early benchmarks i saw for the new processor Ryzen 5 2400G , its not worth it unless you really need the integrated graphics. The Ryzen 5 1600 which is about the same price is much faster for multitasking (+37% multi-core speed) which makes a big difference. I already own a graphics card like most people and dont ever plan on buying integrated graphics. Everyone knows that what is integrated is usually slower and cheaper. I am pretty sure it also slows down the overall computer processing. The integrated graphics are from Radeon and we also know that Nvidia cards are better (look at the top graphics cards in the benchmarks if you dont believe me). Unless you absolutely need integrated graphics and dont have a good graphics card or cant afford to get one and dont play games , you better get a processor from the first series of Ryzen 5 or better or something else than the G series and get a good graphics card. An article i saw was saying that the Ryzen 7 2000 series wont even have integrated graphics because high-end users use their own graphics card due to a better performance. I think this says it all. Why would you pay a huge price on a processor to use cheap integrated graphics... Get yourself a good graphics card (Geforce GTX 1050-1060 or better) and a better processor instead than those G series if you plan on doing any gaming. Like we always say , you get what you pay for. When you try so save a bit of money. you often end up losing alot on quality. I did the mistake when buying the Ryzen 3. They are very slow at multi-tasking and i ended up buying a Ryzen 5 1600 instead. I had alot problems with the Ryzen 3 making my computer run slow as soon i was starting to open a few windows and having a few software or browsers running at the same time. The 2400G should have the same problem and i dont recommend it.

eric boutin:

1st post Wall of Text...

"and dont ever plan on buying integrated graphics." => Good to see you do not intend to buy any intel's chips... "if you dont believe me" => I think that you do not realize what forums you are posting to. "An article i saw was saying that the Ryzen 7 2000 series wont even have integrated graphics because high-end users use their own graphics card" => There are APUs and CPUs, learn difference. "Why would you pay a huge price on a processor to use cheap integrated graphics" => Because HTPC, Office, ... Or maybe because 2400G has iGPU providing same performance as $80 dGPU? And maybe, because anything above RX-560 is still permanently sold out due to mining? "I had alot problems with the Ryzen 3" => PICNIC "The 2400G should have the same problem and i dont recommend it." => I do recommend to ignore your babbling.

eric boutin:

From the early benchmarks i saw for the new processor Ryzen 5 2400G , its not worth it unless you really need the integrated graphics. The Ryzen 5 1600 which is about the same price is much faster for multitasking (+37% multi-core speed) which makes a big difference.

Of course a Hexacore processor with SMT is going to be better at multi-tasking than a Quad core with SMT..... To think otherwise would be utterly stupid.

eric boutin:

I already own a graphics card like most people and dont ever plan on buying integrated graphics. Everyone knows that what is integrated is usually slower and cheaper. I am pretty sure it also slows down the overall computer processing. The integrated graphics are from Radeon and we also know that Nvidia cards are better (look at the top graphics cards in the benchmarks if you dont believe me)..

Good for you!!! It's great that you own a graphics card already!! No everyone actually needs a dedicated graphics card. Some people can get buy just fine on an integrated graphics processor. HTPC users are a great example. Sure, NVidia graphics cards are better. However, NVidia doesn't sell x86 processors or offer their GPU for integration into an x86 processor. Therefore, whatever point you were trying to make is completely invalidated.... Actually, the iGPU doesn't slow the processor down at all. With the right SDK, the iGPU can actually make the processor faster.....

eric boutin:

Like we always say , you get what you pay for. When you try so save a bit of money. you often end up losing alot on quality. I did the mistake when buying the Ryzen 3. They are very slow at multi-tasking and i ended up buying a Ryzen 5 1600 instead. I had alot problems with the Ryzen 3 making my computer run slow as soon i was starting to open a few windows and having a few software or browsers running at the same time. The 2400G should have the same problem and i dont recommend it.

Ryzen 3 processors are simple Quad core processors. Ryzen 5 processors are either Quad core processors with SMT or Hexacore processors with SMT. Ryzen 3 are budget processors whereas Ryzen 5 are mid-range processors. Following so far? Ryzen 5 2400G is going to handle multi-tasking just as well as Ryzen 5 1400 does, which is still considerably better than a Ryzen 3 1300X.... So, my recommendation at this point, is for you to stop posting bullshit....

eric boutin:

...

Trust me, AMD's new APUs fit perfectly on numerous use cases, it doesn't have to fit yours for it to be a great option. The main problem is that they launch APUs... but they don't try to sell them for some reason (I'm guessing drivers aren't 100% ready, or manufacturing isn't going as good as expected). I'm kind'a sad that the 2700U APU is still a paper launch, since it's still nowhere to be seen in actual stores.