Ryzen 3 2200g respect

[Berfs1]

2 minutes ago, SSJGodemis said:

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. 

Because the 2200G has only 4 threads, and the overall performance is not as good as SMT enabled chips.

[GoldenLag]

13 hours ago, SSJGodemis said:

GPU is almost always worth spending more on than the CPU, unless you goal is 144hz in demanding titles. 

unless you are building HEDT this is allways the case. 

and for APU systems where you spend 0$ on a GPU

 

13 hours ago, Berfs1 said:

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

yes....... because Dualcores are great CPUs..............

there is a limit to how much you want to cheapskate. and you honestly do not buy dualcores anymore. 

 

13 hours ago, Berfs1 said:

Because the 2200G has only 4 threads, and the overall performance is not as good as SMT enabled chips.

SMT is overrated. 2200G is much better buy than the 2400G. 

SMT matters, but honestly not that much

[Berfs1]

13 hours ago, GoldenLag said:

unless you are building HEDT this is allways the case. 

 

and for APU systems where you spend 0$ on a GPU

yes....... because Dualcores are great CPUs..............

 

there is a limit to how much you want to cheapskate. and you honestly do not buy dualcores anymore. 

Where you spend zero dollars... you just spent 700$ on a Radeon VII...700≠0. If there is a limit to how much you want to cheapskate, then why not just save the money instead of losing it when you have to resell it?

 

EDIT: The 200GE ALSO has an iGPU.

 

13 hours ago, GoldenLag said:

SMT is overrated. 2200G is much better buy than the 2400G. 

 

SMT matters, but honestly not that much

SMT is overrated? Really? Ok, for applications that take more than 4 threads (which there are a lot of), it will suffer tremendously. Sure, you get 4 true cores, but, the performance increase is much bigger when SMT is enabled. I'M NOT SAYING THE 2200G IS A BAD CHOICE, IT'S A BAD CHOICE IF YOU ARE WAITING FOR 3000 SERIES BECAUSE YOU CAN JUST SAVE YOUR MONEY. It's very likely that if you are building a new system, but already have a PC, and you are waiting for 3000 series, so why would you buy a 400 series motherboard now, when 500 series is launching with 3000 series and will offer guaranteed PCIe 4.0 speeds? Not sure why you would want to settle for less, but that's your choice on how you want to spend your money. Just use your old PC if that is the case, until 3000 series comes out.

[GoldenLag]

4 minutes ago, Berfs1 said:

Where you spend zero dollars... you just spent 700$ on a Radeon VII...700≠0. If there is a limit to how much you want to cheapskate, then why not just save the money instead of losing it when you have to resell it?

show me a realistic build that is not hedt where you spend more on the CPU than on the GPU. ill wait.

 

also a 2200G is a nice piece of hardware. its a good placeholder. 

3 minutes ago, Berfs1 said:

when 500 series is launching with 3000 series and will offer guaranteed PCIe 5.0 speeds?

um..... we are only getting PCIe 4.0..........

3 minutes ago, Berfs1 said:

SMT is overrated? Really? Ok, for applications that take more than 4 threads (which there are a lot of), it will suffer tremendously. Sure, you get 4 true cores, but, the performance increase is much bigger when SMT is enabled.

its like 15% depending on the workload offcourse. and unless you are streaming, its actually pretty overrated. yes minimum framerate is affected in some titles. 

4 minutes ago, Berfs1 said:

ECAUSE YOU CAN JUST SAVE YOUR MONEY. It's very likely that if you are building a new system, but already have a PC, and you are waiting for 3000 series, why would you buy a 400 series motherboard now,

because not everyone can wait.  Ryzen 3000 is quite the while away. its offcourse best to wait if you can, but not everyone can. ive pursvaded like 30-40 people to wait. but ive also had 30 people who couldnt wait. 

 

[Berfs1]

7 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

show me a realistic build that is not hedt where you spend more on the CPU than on the GPU. ill wait.

 

also a 2200G is a nice piece of hardware. its a good placeholder. 

um..... we are only getting PCIe 4.0..........

its like 15% depending on the workload offcourse. and unless you are streaming, its actually pretty overrated. yes minimum framerate is affected in some titles. 

because not everyone can wait.  Ryzen 3000 is quite the while away. its offcourse best to wait if you can, but not everyone can. ive pursvaded like 30-40 people to wait. but ive also had 30 people who couldnt wait. 

 

My bad, meant to say PCIe 4.0. 15%? So, in cinebench, 37% is nothing? Because that simulates CPU encoded video editing. Also, 15% is a lot, AFTER YOU CONSIDER THE TOTAL COST OF THE SYSTEM. I am emphasizing that, because the TOTAL COST OF THE SYSTEM, percentage wise, is not as big as the CPU price difference. If you cannot wait to get a new system, then how about going with the 200GE if you are planning to upgrade later? or actually now the 220GE or 240GE? Also, 4 threads is no longer enough to not be a bottleneck in newer applications, considering you are probably multitasking with discord and other gamer apps as well.

 

EDIT: As for your challenge of me finding a non-HEDT build where the CPU is more expensive, how about this: RX 590 and i5-8400, or i5-9400(F)?

[GoldenLag]

1 minute ago, Berfs1 said:

So, in cinebench, 37% is nothing? Because that simulates CPU encoded video editing. Also, 15% is a lot, AFTER YOU CONSIDER THE TOTAL COST OF THE SYSTEM. I am emphasizing that, because the TOTAL COST OF THE SYSTEM, percentage wise, is not as big as the CPU price difference.

cost is still too large. and most workloads arent rendering workloads. rendering does scale rather well with more threads. 

2 minutes ago, Berfs1 said:

If you cannot wait to get a new system, then how about going with the 200GE if you are planning to upgrade later?

because it limits you to MSI mobos for overclocking it and if you dont its performance is hindering enough to the point you dont really want to be using it. 

3 minutes ago, Berfs1 said:

Also, 4 threads is no longer enough to not be a bottleneck in newer applications, considering you are probably multitasking with discord and other gamer apps as well.

its enough. test havee shown all of these things have low or no real impact when it comes to gameplay because the background tasks mostly utilize idleclocks to do their stuff. 

[Berfs1]

3 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

cost is still too large. and most workloads arent rendering workloads. rendering does scale rather well with more threads. 

because it limits you to MSI mobos for overclocking it and if you dont its performance is hindering enough to the point you dont really want to be using it. 

its enough. test havee shown all of these things have low or no real impact when it comes to gameplay because the background tasks mostly utilize idleclocks to do their stuff. 

Ok so all of a sudden you now have to overclock in order to have an HTPC. Got it. Thanks for voiding a lot of people's warranties.

[SSJGodemis]

1 minute ago, Berfs1 said:

Ok so all of a sudden you now have to overclock in order to have an HTPC. Got it. Thanks for voiding a lot of people's warranties.

Overclocking rarely if ever voids a warrant or actually kills a cpu. What you are saying is nonsense. 

[GoldenLag]

2 minutes ago, Berfs1 said:

Ok so all of a sudden you now have to overclock in order to have an HTPC. Got it. Thanks for voiding a lot of people's warranties.

these guys where playing games yes/no?

 

as a placeholder CPU, and using a dualcore that is sort of a must

[Berfs1]

13 hours ago, SSJGodemis said:

Overclocking rarely if ever voids a warrant or actually kills a cpu. What you are saying is nonsense. 

Ok clearly you don't understand how warranty works. It seems like you haven't been overclocking much. You wanna know what isn't nonsense? Me killing 3 G3258s. You would know that I killed them through overclocking, and then you would say they are all trash and last very short periods of time. The truth? I fed them ~1.8V Vcore when I was going for the world record frequencies. I wasn't gaming on them, they were bought strictly for overclocking.

 

13 hours ago, GoldenLag said:

these guys where playing games yes/no?

as a placeholder CPU, and using a dualcore that is sort of a must

You said HTPC, not Gaming PC. It is not really a must for HTPC if you are just streaming video, all you really need is an SSD and at least 4 threads (the 200GE has it).

[SSJGodemis]

4 minutes ago, Berfs1 said:

Ok clearly you don't understand how warranty works.

I do understand. AMD chips support OC and there Mobos offer it.  Unless you completely kill your CPU by cranking up the Voltage to dangerous level, It is fine. Anyways Im done.  Your "advice" has honestly been wrong several times. Especially with the PCIE lanes. 

 

4 cores are fine for now and 60fps gaming. In the next 3-5 years, they wont be but by then most will have upgraded. Same as most will have upgraded their Ryzen 2600. 

[Berfs1]

4 minutes ago, SSJGodemis said:

I do understand. AMD chips support OC and there Mobos offer it.  Unless you completely kill your CPU by cranking up the Voltage to dangerous level, It is fine. Anyways Im done. 

Yeah, and uh, you probably don't know the safe voltage for Ryzen. It's 1.35V. After that, you get rapid degradation (in a matter of a few months). Not everyone in the world building a computer wants to deal with overclocking and maintaining the overclock. It is similar to cars. Not everyone buying a car wants to maintain the car themselves or have the time to do so, so they take it to someone that does know about cars, such as dealerships. Anyways, since we are going so off topic, the question was is the 2200G a good CPU? Yes, but it's usefulness is next to none unless in VERY SPECIFIC scenarios such as HTPC. In almost all other scenarios, there is always a better option.

[SSJGodemis]

2 minutes ago, Berfs1 said:

Yeah, and uh, you probably don't know the safe voltage for Ryzen. It's 1.35V. After that, you get rapid degradation (in a matter of a few months). Not everyone in the world building a computer wants to deal with overclocking and maintaining the overclock. It is similar to cars. Not everyone buying a car wants to maintain the car themselves or have the time to do so, so they take it to someone that does know about cars, such as dealerships. Anyways, since we are going so off topic, the question was is the 2200G a good CPU? Yes, but it's usefulness is next to none unless in VERY SPECIFIC scenarios such as HTPC. In almost all other scenarios, there is always a better option.

There is an official supported max and a real safe max.  Rapid degradation in a few months?  More nonsense. 

[Berfs1]

3 minutes ago, SSJGodemis said:

There is an official supported max and a real safe max.  Rapid degradation in a few months?  More nonsense. 

I have tested that, several others have tested that, it is true. You do get degradation after a few months using voltages over 1.35V. Of course, the EXACT voltage down to the hundredth value, can differ for different batches, but it is roughly around 1.35V.

 

EDIT: This applies to workstation users, and users that use the CPU to its maximum performance for long periods of time.

[GoldenLag]

3 minutes ago, Berfs1 said:

Yeah, and uh, you probably don't know the safe voltage for Ryzen. It's 1.35V

Um no... Its 1,42 volts........

8 minutes ago, Berfs1 said:

You said HTPC, not Gaming PC. It is not really a must for HTPC if you are just streaming video, all you really need is an SSD and at least 4 threads (the 200GE has it).

Um yes...... Id still get a 2200G tho. Its a whole lot easier to resell. Also werent we talking about temporary CPUs here. Used for Gaming?

 

You kinda flipped the convo a bit or i missed something

2 minutes ago, SSJGodemis said:

There is an official supported max and a real safe max.  Rapid degradation in a few months? You are so full of it man. Seriously.  

You can do 1,45 but 1,42 is honestly the most id recommend for 24/7. And on cheaper mobo you usually cant do this much due to poor VRM

[Berfs1]

1 minute ago, GoldenLag said:

Um no... Its 1,42 volts........

Um yes...... Id still get a 2200G tho. Its a whole lot easier to resell. Also werent we talking about temporary CPUs here. Used for Gaming?

 

You kinda flipped the convo a bit or i missed something

You can do 1,45 but 1,42 is honestly the most id recommend for 24/7. And on cheaper mobo you usually cant do this much due to poor VRM

And most people buying HTPCs, and 2200Gs, are not trying to overspend for motherboards. You are now about to shift your argument to say "Just get a better motherboard because your current one isn't as overclocking friendly". If someone doesn't want to change the CPU out, what makes you think they would want to change out AN ENTIRE MOTHERBOARD?

[GoldenLag]

13 hours ago, Berfs1 said:

You do get degradation after a few months using voltages over 1.35V. Of course, the EXACT voltage down to the hundredth value, can differ for different batches, but it is roughly around 1.35V.

At 1,42 volts you overclock will last really long. 

At 1,45 you can start to expect a degredation though usually at the 2 year mark.

And if what you were saying is true, my CPU would be dead by now.

 

13 hours ago, Berfs1 said:

EDIT: This applies to workstation users, and users that use the CPU to its maximum performance for long periods of time.

In other words. Stay below 1,42 volts. 

Profesionals avoid OC alltogether for max stability. Or thise that do say below the 1,42 volt mark. 

 

13 hours ago, Berfs1 said:

And most people buying HTPCs, and 2200Gs, are not trying to overspend for motherboards. You are now about to shift your argument to say "Just get a better motherboard because your current one isn't as overclocking friendly". If someone doesn't want to change the CPU out, what makes you think they would want to change out AN ENTIRE MOTHERBOARD?

Um....,

What are you on about. Im sinply pointing out safe voltages and the fact cheaper mobos cant handle heavy voltage. Doesnt mean you cant overclock or that it isnt OC friendly.

[Berfs1]

13 hours ago, GoldenLag said:

At 1,42 volts you overclock will last really long. 

At 1,45 you can start to expect a degredation though usually at the 2 year mark.

And if what you were saying is true, my CPU would be dead by now.

 

In other words. Stay below 1,42 volts. 

Profesionals avoid OC alltogether for max stability. Or thise that do say below the 1,42 volt mark. 

I was at around 1.38V. It degraded the chip (1700) from running at 3725 MHz, down to having to run it at 3600 MHz. That number is stable at around 1.35V. Yes, I have fully stressed it under ray tracing loads in Autodesk Inventor Pro 2019, and yes, most overclocks that people SAID would be fine, never pass in that load. Maybe because 90% of the time, it is not realistic stability that people say on the internet.

 

EDIT1: read this post, maybe it will explain what I meant: 

 

 

13 hours ago, GoldenLag said:

Um....,

What are you on about. Im sinply pointing out safe voltages and the fact cheaper mobos cant handle heavy voltage. Doesnt mean you cant overclock or that it isnt OC friendly.

It goes hand in hand with suggesting people to go with cheaper CPUs and then overclock them, and then they can't go as high as others because their motherboard isn't very good, then they ask "why didn't I just go with a GPU and a 1600".

Edited March 18, 2019 by Berfs1
added link

[SSJGodemis]

2 minutes ago, Berfs1 said:

It goes hand in hand with suggesting people to go with cheaper CPUs and then overclock them, and then they can't go as high as others because their motherboard isn't very good, then they ask "why didn't I just go with a GPU and a 1600".

You dont have to OC either. A stock 2200g/1200 is not that far in IPC from a 1600 at stock.  

 

I also posted Benchmarks of what a Ryzen 1200 can do at 1080p and it easily pushes FPS above 60fps at ultra in most games.  The only game shown was AC:Odyessy which is a monster on the CPU. 

[LukeSavenije]

13 hours ago, Berfs1 said:

I was at around 1.38V. It degraded the chip (1700) from running at 3725 MHz, down to having to run it at 3600 MHz. That number is stable at around 1.35V. Yes, I have fully stressed it under ray tracing loads in Autodesk Inventor Pro 2019, and yes, most overclocks that people SAID would be fine, never pass in that load. Maybe because 90% of the time, it is not realistic stability that people say on the internet.

ah, so you're running on personal experience and not actual facts?

ah, that's probably where you're wrong. some people are lucky, some aren't

that's as simple as silicon lottery gets

 

and btw OP: darn good choice you made

[Berfs1]

12 hours ago, SSJGodemis said:

You dont have to OC either. A stock 2200g/1200 is not that far in IPC from a 1600 at stock.  

IPC wise, after you take into account SMT, it changes the tables. Not to mention with a 1600, you have 3x the threads.

 

12 hours ago, LukeSavenije said:

ah, so you're running on personal experience and not actual facts?

ah, that's probably where you're wrong. some people are lucky, some aren't

 

that's as simple as silicon lottery gets

I have overclocked several very different configurations. I bet you guys only the common "stress tests", and that is probably Prime95 or AIDA64, or Linpack. No one stress tests in Autodesk Inventor 2019, because they never knew how much horsepower is needed for ray tracing to work, or they never knew what Inventor Pro 2019 even was. If you run it off of the CPU (which is the default), it will stress your CPU out more than what P95 or A64 or even LP could do.

[SSJGodemis]

1 minute ago, Berfs1 said:

IPC wise, after you take into account SMT, it changes the tables. Not to mention with a 1600, you have 3x the threads.

The extra threads are nice but mostly in workloads. Not so much in gaming. 

 

 

 

[Berfs1]

1 minute ago, SSJGodemis said:

The extra threads are nice but mostly in workloads. Not so much in gaming. 

 

 

 

You understand that the 2200G is different from the 1200 right? They aren't identical. The 1200 has 8MB cache, as in 2 different CCXs (4MB x2), whereas the 2200G has only 4MB (4MB x1). What that means is they are not the same chip, because one runs off of two CCX modules, and the other on only 1.

[SSJGodemis]

6 minutes ago, Berfs1 said:

You understand that the 2200G is different from the 1200 right? They aren't identical.

Yeah, the 2200g is superior 

 

As you can see with a GTX 1060 it pushes fantastic frames.  With an RTX 2070 is would push even higher but thats not necessary for this specific build. Its only targeting 60fps at 1080p Ultrawide. Which will mean the GPU gets more engaged and the CPU would be even less of the bottleneck in the build. 

 

At the end of the day. Gaming is what the goal of the PC I posted was. Modern CPUs have become excellent even in the budget end. We are in a new era where the only thing that really challenges CPUs is trying to push 144fps at lower resolutions. 

 

As for my brothers build, the 2400g with a Radeon 7 will have no issues with bandwidth. 4k is essentially the great equalizer for CPUs. As time goes on though, he will need to upgrade.  

[GoldenLag]

7 minutes ago, Berfs1 said:

was at around 1.38V. It degraded the chip (1700) from running at 3725 MHz, down to having to run it at 3600 MHz. That number is stable at around 1.35V. Yes, I have fully stressed it under ray tracing loads in Autodesk Inventor Pro 2019, and yes, most overclocks that people SAID would be fine, never pass in that load. Maybe because 90% of the time, it is not realistic stability that people say on the internet.

That is overkill voltage to run at that speed.......

 

Have you tried lowering the voltage to achieve a stable OC? Because it sounds like a powerthrottling mobo. 

 

7 minutes ago, Berfs1 said:

goes hand in hand with suggesting people to go with cheaper CPUs and then overclock them, and then they can't go as high as others because their motherboard isn't very good, then they ask "why didn't I just go with a GPU and a 1600

I mean it light come as a shock, but you sadly cant expect every mobo to have good VRMs for heavy overclocks. 

 

And using a good mobo most Ryzen CPUs will hit their 4,2-4,1ghz/4-3,9 under safe voltage. Assuming a good mobo that is. 

 

And its recommended to go with the non-x CPUs because they are cheaper and can be overclocked.