Ryzen 3 2200g respect

[SSJGodemis]

This is a pretty dang good CPU for the price. My buddy currently bought a 2560x1080 monitor for 60fps gaming and general work from home stuff.  He has it paired with an RTX 2070 and together they power through everything. If you need super high refresh rates, then yes, this wont cut it. But for 60fps gaming, this little $80 CPU does wonderful with a good GPU. 

 

Highly recommended. 

[Eastman51]

9 minutes ago, SSJGodemis said:

He has it paired with an RTX 2070

Welcome to the land of CPU bottlenecking.

 

Seriously, the 2200G is a little weak for a 2070. If he was playing 4k, I could maybe see it; since you are more GPU bound at higher resolutions. I wouldn't be surprised if he got a sizable performance bump if he put a 2400G or 2600 in there instead.

 

Not saying its bad, just that this pairing is wonky.

[Berfs1]

20 minutes ago, Eastman51 said:

Welcome to the land of CPU bottlenecking.

 

Seriously, the 2200G is a little weak for a 2070. If he was playing 4k, I could maybe see it; since you are more GPU bound at higher resolutions. I wouldn't be surprised if he got a sizable performance bump if he put a 2400G or 2600 in there instead.

 

Not saying its bad, just that this pairing is wonky.

If you are going for high refresh rates, why on earth are you going Ryzen 2000 series? Intel's Skylake and newer platform outperform Ryzen in terms of IPC, and clock speed!

 

EDIT: Not to mention, I would have recommended at least a Ryzen 5 2600X instead of a 2200G, as that one lowers your PCIe lane count to x8, and that can further degrade your performance.

[Eastman51]

1 hour ago, Berfs1 said:

If you are going for high refresh rates, why on earth are you going Ryzen 2000 series? Intel's Skylake and newer platform outperform Ryzen in terms of IPC, and clock speed!

Intel has higher clocks, yes. Intel has higher single thread performance, yes. 

 

Unless you get 9th gen, Intel CPUs don't have a soldered IHS so your thermals are much worse than if you go with AMD. Ryzen also has pretty damn good multi-thread performance, so Intel isn't the greatest choice if that's what you need.

 

Then there's price. The i5-9600k is ~$250, while the R5 2660x is ~$183. idk about you, but the slightly worse performance is a good tradeoff for the amount you save (that you could put towards a nicer GPU); plus, the 2600x has double the threads of the 9600k. Their clock speeds are pretty damn close as well, and you can OC to easily make up the difference. When it comes to gaming, both are going to be performing pretty similarly; depending on how the game utilizes the CPU ofc. 

 

And fyi, the 2200G has more than 8 PCIe lanes. In fact, it has 12. The "PCIe version x8" on the AMD product page means that its max bandwidth is PCIe x8, not that it only has 8 lanes. 

[SSJGodemis]

2 hours ago, Eastman51 said:

Welcome to the land of CPU bottlenecking.

 

Seriously, the 2200G is a little weak for a 2070. If he was playing 4k, I could maybe see it; since you are more GPU bound at higher resolutions. I wouldn't be surprised if he got a sizable performance bump if he put a 2400G or 2600 in there instead.

 

Not saying its bad, just that this pairing is wonky.

There wont be a noticeable performance bump for Ultra Wide 1080p at 60hz. I feel people simply dont understand that Intel merely takes the lead in pushing a crap ton of FPS. In Metro Exodus, he's at Ultra and maintains 60fps.  There wont be a bottleneck until he runs into a game that is insanely CPU dependent. 

 

Here are benchmarks of the 2200g and the RTX 2080 at 1080p. All games are well over the 60fps marker, except for AC.  The RTX 2070 wont be a large bottleneck at this resolution and FPS. 

 

 

[Eastman51]

1 minute ago, SSJGodemis said:

There wont be a noticeable performance bump for 1080p at 60hz. I feel people simply dont understand that Intel merely takes the lead in pushing a crap ton of FPS. In Metro Exodus, he's at Ultra and maintains 60fps.  There wont be a bottleneck until he runs into a game that is insanely CPU dependent. 

I'm not saying he made a bad choice, or that he can't get 60fps, etc, etc.

All I'm saying is that he made a strange choice.

[SSJGodemis]

3 minutes ago, Eastman51 said:

I'm not saying he made a bad choice, or that he can't get 60fps, etc, etc.

All I'm saying is that he made a strange choice.

It definitely is not the normal trend haha.   I told him if he stays at 60fps, then almost all modern CPUs can handle it with relativity no issue. Thats when he pumped more money into the GPU. Initially it was going to be a Ryzen 2700x and GTX 1660 Ti build. Which is kind of another mismatched pair to some extend. Though, I still think for $80 dollars more, getting a Ryzen 2600, would have been more future proof! 

[Eastman51]

Just now, SSJGodemis said:

It definitely is not the normal trend haha.   I told him if he stays at 60fps, then almost all modern CPUs can handle it with relativity no issue. Thats when he pumped more money into the GPU. Initially it was going to be a Ryzen 2600 and GTX 1660 Ti build. Which seems more balanced in terms of CPU to GPU. However, I think he is happy with his choice. 

I did a R5 2600 + 1660Ti build for one of my friends, it outperforms my 2600x + 1070 system. But now I have a 2080, so not anymore lol.

Yea, as long as he doesn't want above 60fps, I don't see him having many problems. 1440p he might be able to get 120hz, maybe.

[Mister Woof]

Odd to go RTX 2070 and 1080p/60.

 

Coulda saved $300 and got an RX 580 with the same results.

[SSJGodemis]

5 minutes ago, Plutosaurus said:

Odd to go RTX 2070 and 1080p/60.

 

Could saved $300 and got an RX 580 with the same results.

Yeah, hes always been like this. He had an FX-6350 and AMD 7970 for 1080p 60fps which he purchased in 2012. Then bought the 2560x1080 UW last year. His build gave him 7 years until his 7970 died. So he wanted to go overkill again and have something last him long. 

 

Meanwhile here I am upgrading my GPU every 2 years lol. 

[Mister Woof]

Just now, SSJGodemis said:

Yeah, hes always been like this. He had an FX-6350 and AMD 7970 for 1080p 60fps which he purchased in 2012. Then bought the 2560x1080 UW last year. His build gave him 7 years until his 7970 died. So he wanted to go overkill again and have something last him long. 

 

Longevity is a valid reason.

 

I'll allow it.

[aisle9]

2 hours ago, Berfs1 said:

If you are going for high refresh rates, why on earth are you going Ryzen 2000 series? Intel's Skylake and newer platform outperform Ryzen in terms of IPC, and clock speed!

 

EDIT: Not to mention, I would have recommended at least a Ryzen 5 2600X instead of a 2200G, as that one lowers your PCIe lane count to x8, and that can further degrade your performance.

In terms of price to performance, which is the metric most important to most PC builders out there, it's hard to beat an R5 2600 (even a 1600 on sale) and an RX 570 or 580. I'm not an AMD fanboy by any means (look at my signature), but I'll readily acknowledge that for the typical gamer, an R5 2600 is a way, way better buy than the comparable ninth-gen i5 and i7 chips.

[Berfs1]

On 3/14/2019 at 3:18 PM, aisle9 said:

In terms of price to performance, which is the metric most important to most PC builders out there, it's hard to beat an R5 2600 (even a 1600 on sale) and an RX 570 or 580. I'm not an AMD fanboy by any means (look at my signature), but I'll readily acknowledge that for the typical gamer, an R5 2600 is a way, way better buy than the comparable ninth-gen i5 and i7 chips.

If you are going for all out performance, go Intel i7-9700K (as of right now). If you have ANY budget restriction, Ryzen is most likely the way to go. Believe me, I know a R5 2600 is great. I built my brother a system around that (and an RX 570) and the PC works performs great. Albeit, with a custom air cooling solution (swapped the fan for an Aura Sync compatible fan), maybe it would have been worth saving for a better chip such as the 2600X or the 2700, but it does more than enough for what he does, so I ain't complaining. Price to performance, generally speaking Ryzen outperforms Intel, however, when it comes to application, sometimes an i3-8100 not overclocked can beat the overclocked Ryzen 5 2600 system. Ryzen will be more future proof though.

 

On 3/14/2019 at 2:47 PM, Eastman51 said:

Intel has higher clocks, yes. Intel has higher single thread performance, yes. 

 

Unless you get 9th gen, Intel CPUs don't have a soldered IHS so your thermals are much worse than if you go with AMD. Ryzen also has pretty damn good multi-thread performance, so Intel isn't the greatest choice if that's what you need.

 

Then there's price. The i5-9600k is ~$250, while the R5 2660x is ~$183. idk about you, but the slightly worse performance is a good tradeoff for the amount you save (that you could put towards a nicer GPU); plus, the 2600x has double the threads of the 9600k. Their clock speeds are pretty damn close as well, and you can OC to easily make up the difference. When it comes to gaming, both are going to be performing pretty similarly; depending on how the game utilizes the CPU ofc. 

 

And fyi, the 2200G has more than 8 PCIe lanes. In fact, it has 12. The "PCIe version x8" on the AMD product page means that its max bandwidth is PCIe x8, not that it only has 8 lanes. 

If you don't mind voiding your warranty by delidding an 8th gen CPU, 8th gen is better because they generally can overclock better compared to an equivalent 9th gen CPU that has a soldered IHS. Sure, its soldered, but its garbage solder. Trust me, you cannot easily overclock a ryzen to get the same performance of a 9600K (which you can also overclock). Also, the 2200G supports up to 8 lanes, I just looked it up to confirm what I was saying, and it is 8. I don't know where you heard that it can support 12, now, with CHIPSET lanes, TOTAL PCIE LANES may be 12, but that doesn't mean you can share them across components. It is x8 because the Vega iGPU takes up 8 lanes. Please show me a source other than wikichip, because they don't have a source to verify their information. Either way, the 2200G is a very good chip, in very restrictive scenarios; and it is not a suitable option for future proofing.

 

EDIT1: I see you also compared the 2600X vs the 9600K; equally, I could bring up the argument that the 2600 brings more value because it is cheaper, but can still be overclocked. Also, for gaming, actually the 9600K WILL perform better because of the fact that it doesn't have hyperthreading or any form of SMT, which makes it more optimal for gaming, hence why the i7-9700K is the best gaming chip and beats an i9 9900K, because it doesn't have hyperthreading. Oh, I should note, SMT brings a lot of performance for AMD, whereas Hyperthreading doesn't bring as much more performance. So, if you disable SMT on a ryzen chip, or go with the 2200G, you will lose TONS of performance.

[SSJGodemis]

16 hours ago, Berfs1 said:

If you don't mind voiding your warranty by delidding an 8th gen CPU, 8th gen is better because they generally can overclock better compared to an equivalent 9th gen CPU that has a soldered IHS. Sure, its soldered, but its garbage solder. Trust me, you cannot easily overclock a ryzen to get the same performance of a 9600K (which you can also overclock). Also, the 2200G supports up to 8 lanes, I just looked it up to confirm what I was saying, and it is 8. I don't know where you heard that it can support 12, now, with CHIPSET lanes, TOTAL PCIE LANES may be 12, but that doesn't mean you can share them across components. It is x8 because the Vega iGPU takes up 8 lanes. Please show me a source other than wikichip, because they don't have a source to verify their information. Either way, the 2200G is a very good chip, in very restrictive scenarios; and it is not a suitable option for future proofing.

 

EDIT1: I see you also compared the 2600X vs the 9600K; equally, I could bring up the argument that the 2600 brings more value because it is cheaper, but can still be overclocked. Also, for gaming, actually the 9600K WILL perform better because of the fact that it doesn't have hyperthreading or any form of SMT, which makes it more optimal for gaming, hence why the i7-9700K is the best gaming chip and beats an i9 9900K, because it doesn't have hyperthreading. Oh, I should note, SMT brings a lot of performance for AMD, whereas Hyperthreading doesn't bring as much more performance. So, if you disable SMT on a ryzen chip, or go with the 2200G, you will lose TONS of performance.

The Ryzen 2200g does not have SMT. 

[Berfs1]

35 minutes ago, SSJGodemis said:

The Ryzen 2200g does not have SMT. 

Exactly, so the Ryzen 5 2400G experiences significant performance improvements with SMT enabled. I am providing two links, the first links to a 2200G submission: https://hwbot.org/submission/4086548_hardware_numb3rs_cinebench___r15_ryzen_3_2200g_764_cb

The second links to a 2400G submission: https://hwbot.org/submission/3963573_snegovick_cinebench___r15_ryzen_5_2400g_1047_cb

The 2400G has a 37% increase in performance, DESPITE the 2200G having better memory tuning and almost 100MHz higher. If it was an apples-to-apples comparison, it would be even larger of a difference. What I am trying to say is, Ryzen's performance is, generally speaking, noticeably worse if SMT is not enabled. However, this is strictly speaking about applications which take advantage of more than 4 threads.

[SSJGodemis]

4 minutes ago, Berfs1 said:

Exactly, so the Ryzen 5 2400G experiences significant performance improvements with SMT enabled. I am providing two links, the first links to a 2200G submission: https://hwbot.org/submission/4086548_hardware_numb3rs_cinebench___r15_ryzen_3_2200g_764_cb

The second links to a 2400G submission: https://hwbot.org/submission/3963573_snegovick_cinebench___r15_ryzen_5_2400g_1047_cb

The 2400G has a 37% increase in performance, DESPITE the 2200G having better memory tuning and almost 100MHz higher. If it was an apples-to-apples comparison, it would be even larger of a difference. What I am trying to say is, Ryzen's performance is, generally speaking, noticeably worse if SMT is not enabled. However, this is strictly speaking about applications which take advantage of more than 4 threads.

Ahh I see what you are saying now.  Yes, my friend actually read this forum and returned his Ryzen 2200g and picked up a Ryzen 1700 on sale at Frys for  $139.99. Overall, he would not have had issues, but his goal was a 5-7 year gaming system. 

 

Yeah, my brother actually as the 2400G and a Radeon 7 that he uses for 4k gaming.   

[Berfs1]

26 minutes ago, SSJGodemis said:

Ahh I see what you are saying now.  Yes, my friend actually read this forum and returned his Ryzen 2200g and picked up a Ryzen 1700 on sale at Frys for  $139.99. Overall, he would not have had issues, but his goal was a 5-7 year gaming system. 

 

Yeah, my brother actually as the 2400G and a Radeon 7 that he uses for 4k gaming.   

Ok, if he has a Radeon VII, I STRONGLY suggest going with a CPU that has 16 lanes, because it can affect the bandwidth of the GPU, since that GPU is likely to saturate more than 8 PCIe lanes. I would recommend, at least a Ryzen 5 2600, however a Ryzen 5 1400, 1500X, 1600, or 1600X can also do the job. If you have no budget restrictions, then go for the 2700X, or consider waiting for 3000 series. Now that I think of it, have you gotten crossfire to work with the iGPU and the Radeon VII? Just curious because, maybe it could help performance? (It's just a theory at this point)

[SSJGodemis]

19 hours ago, Berfs1 said:

Ok, if he has a Radeon VII, I STRONGLY suggest going with a CPU that has 16 lanes, because it can affect the bandwidth of the GPU, since that GPU is likely to saturate more than 8 PCIe lanes. I would recommend, at least a Ryzen 5 2600, however a Ryzen 5 1400, 1500X, 1600, or 1600X can also do the job. If you have no budget restrictions, then go for the 2700X, or consider waiting for 3000 series. Now that I think of it, have you gotten crossfire to work with the iGPU and the Radeon VII? Just curious because, maybe it could help performance? (It's just a theory at this point)

 There is a negligible difference between 8 PCIE and 16 PCIE lanes.  Do you think it would impact his memory that much?  

 

https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/2488-pci-e-3-x8-vs-x16-performance-impact-on-gpus

[GoldenLag]

On 3/14/2019 at 12:31 PM, Eastman51 said:

Welcome to the land of CPU bottlenecking.

welcome to the land where CPU bottlenecking is mentioned way to much as it is honestly fearmongering within the community. 

 

On 3/17/2019 at 1:17 PM, Berfs1 said:

Ok, if he has a Radeon VII, I STRONGLY suggest going with a CPU that has 16 lanes, because it can affect the bandwidth of the GPU, since that GPU is likely to saturate more than 8 PCIe lanes. I would recommend, at least a Ryzen 5 2600, however a Ryzen 5 1400, 1500X, 1600, or 1600X can also do the job. If you have no budget restrictions, then go for the 2700X, or consider waiting for 3000 series. Now that I think of it, have you gotten crossfire to work with the iGPU and the Radeon VII? Just curious because, maybe it could help performance? (It's just a theory at this point)

8 lanes is enough for even the biggest GPU avavible. aka the Titan V where it starts to affect the performance a tiny bit. 

 

On 3/17/2019 at 12:42 PM, Berfs1 said:

Exactly, so the Ryzen 5 2400G experiences significant performance improvements with SMT enabled. I am providing two links, the first links to a 2200G

2400G is not a CPU someone should buy. at the budget it occupies a 2200G is better and the 2600 is a 20$ bill above it. 

[SSJGodemis]

5 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

8 lanes is enough for even the biggest GPU avavible. aka the Titan V where it starts to affect the performance a tiny bit. 

 

2400G is not a CPU someone should buy. at the budget it occupies a 2200G is better and the 2600 is a 20$ bill above it. 

Yeah, that was what I had seen also. 

 

He picked up the 2400g on sale at Frys for $90 with a Free Division 2 copy. So he sold the copy for $35 and got it for basically $55.  I mean in gaming at 4k the difference is pretty small and for a great price.  

 

Anyways, I agree 100%. Ryzen 2600 is the best value CPU on the market. 

[GoldenLag]

Just now, SSJGodemis said:

Yeah, that was what I had seen also. 

 

He picked up the 2400g on sale at Frys for $90 with a Free Division 2 copy. So he sold the copy for $35 and got it for basically $55.  I mean in gaming at 4k the difference is pretty small and for a great price.  

at 4k you can get away with most GPUs. 

 

i didnt bother reading through this entire thread, i just interpreted it as another "bottlenecking" debucle. 

 

which im kinda tired of. 

 

you would know if you have a propper bottlnecking issue. there will allways be a component slower than the other, its honestly only bottlenecking if you run int issues like stuttering that cant be mediated by the use of Vsync

[Berfs1]

11 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

8 lanes is enough for even the biggest GPU avavible. aka the Titan V where it starts to affect the performance a tiny bit. 

 

2400G is not a CPU someone should buy. at the budget it occupies a 2200G is better and the 2600 is a 20$ bill above it. 

So if the 2200G is a budget CPU, why would you go with a 700$ GPU?

[GoldenLag]

1 minute ago, Berfs1 said:

So if the 2200G is a budget CPU, why would you go with a 700$ GPU?

its called min-maxing or you are waiting to upgrade to a better CPU with the upcomming Ryzen 3000 and wants to use the 2200G for a HTPC or something. 

 

also because 4K

[SSJGodemis]

2 minutes ago, Berfs1 said:

So if the 2200G is a budget CPU, why would you go with a 700$ GPU?

The RTX 2070 is a $475 dollar GPU.  The 2200g saves money and will still allow for more than 60fps @ 1080 UW. 

 

I dont understand how people can be so confused. GPU is almost always worth spending more on than the CPU, unless you goal is 144hz in demanding titles. 

[Berfs1]

1 minute ago, GoldenLag said:

its called min-maxing or you are waiting to upgrade to a better CPU with the upcomming Ryzen 3000 and wants to use the 2200G for a HTPC or something. 

 

also because 4K

Valid point, but if that were the case, you could have gone with an Athlon 200GE.