Compilation of Ryzen APU reviews

[MageTank]

3 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

Def not an i5, I suggested a 1600 which is not much more than a 2400g. Great performance increase for next to nothing extra.

Indeed it is, and it's certainly a superior CPU from a multi-threading standpoint, but for gaming, it hardly yields any advantage in framerates, and lacks an iGPU, which is arguably the greatest appeal of APU's in the first place. Even with only 8 PCIe lanes being used for the GPU, you are not going to be bottlenecked by that limitation, nor would you see a significant boost in performance from the additional 2 cores in every application you test it on. For the majority of gaming titles, a quad core will suffice.

 

5 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

I am looking for benches of the 2400g with say a 1060 to see how it handles but at least this afternoon was not able to find it in reviews. No doubt it can handle 1060 just fine, not optimal but fine. If you have benches please share!!!!!

There were reviews showing the 2400G with a 1080 Ti, against other Ryzen and Intel CPU's. https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/AMD-Ryzen-5-2400G-and-Ryzen-3-2200G-Review-Return-APU/Discrete-Gaming-Tests

 

I'd say, while it still performs worse than the i3 8100, it's still matching the R5 1400 in relative CPU performance, while offering a very competitive iGPU at only $20 more that will certainly tide people over to invest more of their money into a good GPU in the future. Using your very own logic of investing in better hardware... If one was getting say, $1000 back from their taxes, and planned to use the entire refund on building a PC, would they not be better off in the long run by investing in a solid motherboard, this $170 CPU, decent ram, and then using the majority of the funds on a good GPU and monitor (the monitor being the more important of the two in my opinion, G-Sync and Freesync are amazing)? Throwing all of your money into a CPU might work well if you make enough money to handle these "one component at a time" upgrade intervals, but most people would rather have a complete system up front to serve as a foundation, then upgrade that as the need arises.

 

17 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

Its just a lot of people are in the mind set of now, I need it now! If you can wait a month or two for some extra spending its worth it in the long run. Again these are entry gaming cpus, it doesnt just stop at 1080@30

If this were literally just a year ago, I'd be agreeing with you 100%. I have spent a lot of time on this forum talking people out of investing in the antiquated FX series from AMD, out of the fear that they would throw their money into a dead platform with no future, only to need to upgrade later on to salvage their gaming experience, but this is no longer the case. AMD's budget options are still very competitive with Intel's mid-range gaming solutions, and depending on the titles that people enjoy, these APU's offer plenty of performance to make for a great gaming experience. I've seen people achieve 100+fps on overwatch with tweaked settings. Overwatch, even on it's lowest settings, still looks quite lovely and runs smoothly. The same can be said for most MOBA's and competitive shooters like counterstrike. Will it play modern AAA RPG's on lifelike realism settings? Certainly not, but it's a matter of picking the right tool for the job. If your APU is no longer cutting it for you in the future, you can invest in a much better GPU, and when the CPU portion of that APU becomes a bottleneck, you still have a strong platform with a ton of upgrade options to choose from. 

 

I know in that situation, you see the original $170 as a net loss that could have been better spent on buying superior hardware in the first place, but I see it as a product that served it's purpose, and will then remain on the shelf as both a CPU and GPU diagnostic tool  

[mr moose]

As I always say, buy the best you can afford now and enjoy it.  For many people this APU is going to be the best they can afford now.  Even in Aus where a 1050ti is the same price as the 2400g or the R5 1600, at least with the 2400G you don't need to upgrade the CPU only the GPU and you won't be stuck with a worthless 1030 card at the end.

 

 

[MoonSpot]

Cool.  4c8t CPU thats got some grunt to it on a platform with some legs for $170USD.   Plus free on chip graphics which aren't complete shit.  Noice.

 

Whats to hate?  Though if I am honest, I don't really care for the 2200g.  In many ways its 'better', but only in an academic $/perf exercise that ignores the reality of getting stuck using it.  I don't see the 2200Gs pref meeting my acceptable min perf in either CPU(need more than 4 threads from now on) or GPU.  So its not worth considering beyond a strict office and facebook machines in my books.  Might only be 99USD but you know what, CanadianTire has 12.5kg bags of cow manure for ONLY $2.99CDN and I don't give a shit because neither manages a good enough PC experience(shipping that weight and only selling for 3 dollars I do think is impressive though)

 

But the 2400G looks good, maybe even great.  if you can muster the extra $70, try to.

[Kirrr]

Read the whole topic up to this point. I still have no idea why should I buy this if I'm on a budget. I bought the pc in my signature (without the SSD) for 100USD + the videocard was another 100USD... can't beat it with this. Future proofness is okay with the new APU-s, but for tight budget it's not. Sure it gets you going but going to an upgrade path that will be expensive in the long run.

 

If you are on a very, very, very tight budget: used prebuilt office pc + used last gen mid tier graphics is always the win.

[leadeater]

5 hours ago, mynameisjuan said:

I am looking for benches of the 2400g with say a 1060 to see how it handles but at least this afternoon was not able to find it in reviews. No doubt it can handle 1060 just fine, not optimal but fine. If you have benches please share!!!!!

4 cores from Ivy Bridge and Haswell are not limiting the performance of a 1060, I don't think Sandy Bridge is either and if it is not by much. If paring a 4 core Intel CPU makes sense with a 1060 then the AMD 2400G makes equal sense from a performance perspective, both will CPU limit the GPU in games that will do that so not a win for either.

[Taf the Ghost]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

4 cores from Ivy Bridge and Haswell are not limiting the performance of a 1060, I don't think Sandy Bridge is either and if it is not by much. If paring a 4 core Intel CPU makes sense with a 1060 then the AMD 2400G makes equal sense from a performance perspective, both will CPU limit the GPU in games that will do that so not a win for either.

@mynameisjuan It performs right in line with a 1500X. Maybe a few % either way. Could look up those benchmarks for a fairly good idea. Even with the Nvidia Driver + Ryzen issues, a 1060 should not be CPU limited in all but just a few titles with a 2400G.

[Brooksie359]

10 hours ago, mynameisjuan said:

Im not saying they are not decent because they are, im just saying for an extra ~$200 you get over double the performance with a better GPU that can actually handle 60fps, 2 more cores, full PCI lanes and better OCing. 

 

But based on the comments here me basing this on logic that budget PCs are always upgraded in the future, its just smarter to save and spend on the final build, which usually is a swap of the CPU which mean $170 thrown away. 

That's the problem. You assume that they would need to swap the cpu when they don't have to. If they are building a budget entry level build and add a gpu latter chances are it isn't a 1080ti. Chances are it would be something like a 1060 which is a perfect match for these cpus. Yeah you could save more money to buy the whole tho g in one go but the problem is gpu prices make that a bit difficult atm

[Trixanity]

12 hours ago, mynameisjuan said:

But based on the comments here me basing this on logic that budget PCs are always upgraded in the future, its just smarter to save and spend on the final build, which usually is a swap of the CPU which mean $170 thrown away. 

The thing is that there isn't a swap. That's the whole God damn point. It's a flat $170. You keep suggesting adding hundreds of dollars more for no logical reason. You can easily buy a GPU a year later and drastically augment performance. And you can get an Ampere or Navi GPU by then. 

 

You get a PC now and you get extra performance later. There is no real penalty for doing it. However there is a penalty with your approach. That's why you're being called out.

[MageTank]

6 hours ago, Trixanity said:

The thing is that there isn't a swap. That's the whole God damn point. It's a flat $170. You keep suggesting adding hundreds of dollars more for no logical reason. You can easily buy a GPU a year later and drastically augment performance. And you can get an Ampere or Navi GPU by then. 

 

You get a PC now and you get extra performance later. There is no real penalty for doing it. However there is a penalty with your approach. That's why you're being called out.

Even with his logic of replacing the CPU itself down the line, I still don't personally see it as a net loss of $170, but rather an investment that down the line, doubles as a diagnostic tool. Having a spare CPU that also has integrated graphics, allows you to diagnose both a CPU failure and a GPU failure, without needing two different products. Seeing as this Ryzen CPU performs as well as the R5 1400 while only costing $5-$10 more, it's safe to say it's a worthy investment to get the integrated graphics and have that available for future diagnostics, even long after you've bought a higher end CPU and GPU.

 

I use a 7700k and 1080 Ti, but I also keep both my i5 6600T and a 750 Ti lying around for extra diagnostic purposes. I guess it really depends on your individual outlook, but I personally don't see having backup hardware as a net loss from an investment standpoint. 

[Trixanity]

17 minutes ago, MageTank said:

Snip

Could also buy a Zen2 processor in a couple of years (buy it used even - to save money) and it should slot into your existing motherboard. You could end up spending less than $200 a year on your PC. That's a decent proposition for many and keeps your PC running great well into the 20s - even on a budget. That's fairly cheap maintenance all things considered. Then again, you could choose to stick to the APU and save a lot of money and still be able to do low fidelity gaming.

[mr moose]

19 hours ago, Kirrr said:

Read the whole topic up to this point. I still have no idea why should I buy this if I'm on a budget. I bought the pc in my signature (without the SSD) for 100USD + the videocard was another 100USD... can't beat it with this. Future proofness is okay with the new APU-s, but for tight budget it's not. Sure it gets you going but going to an upgrade path that will be expensive in the long run.

 

If you are on a very, very, very tight budget: used prebuilt office pc + used last gen mid tier graphics is always the win.

Yes there are always a few different options, but just remember not every CPU  is going to last, if money is a concern now then longevity is more likely to be a concern and buying a PC with a CPU that only has a year or two left in it might be more costly than buying the 2400g upfront.  I'm not saying you can't get ripper second hand stuff, I am saying beware you don't end up with good machine now that won't run the iteration of PUBG/BF/ETC because of thread limitations.