Raven Ridge Desktop APU´s Finally Here!

[DanielMDA]

So, AMD. 

At CES today AMD just unveiled their brand new, and expected APU´s, now based on Ryzen with Vega Cores. They are... surprising, specially for the price. 

There are 2 variants

 

Ryzen 5 2400G APU (3.6GHz Base up to 3.9 GHz Boost) 4C/8T, 11 Vega Compute Units (704 SP) 

Ryzen 3 2200G APU (3.4 GHz Base up to 3.7 GHz Boost) 4C/4T, 8 Vega Compute Units (512 SP)

 

First, the 2400G, its priced at $169, which in my opinion is a bit too high, it should be $149. It packs quite a nice punch on the graphical area, but I dont think its an evolution of the Ryzen 5 1400, I think its most similar to the 1500X, because of the clocks (Ryzen 5 1500X is 3.5 Base 3.7 Boost) while the 1400 is much lower. I believe the decisive factor to which it should be compared is the cache. The 1400 is 8MB while the 1500X is 16MB. I hope its comparable to the 1500X! The Vega 11 Chip is Great for light gaming and light video editing, now based on Vega (GCN 5.1, 12nm) its a great improvement over older APUs, we can expect 90-110% Performance Uplift over last Gens Flagship, the A12 9800 APU!

 

Now, moving to the 2200G, priced at $99 (GREAT Pricing). Its great, way better than the previous APU Flaghip, the Excavator v2 (28nm) Based (2M/4C 3.8GHz Base up to 4.2GHz Boost) A12 9800 APU, which used a 3rd Generation Radeon R7 iGPU (Based on GCN 3, 28nm) with 8CU´s (512 SP). While the new 2200G has the same number of SPs than the A12 9800, we can expect a 40-70% performance uplift, since we are talking two Architectures and a much smaller manufacturing process. On to the CPU, the 2200G drops some clockspeeds (also on the GPU) and the SMT, however, like the 2400G, Im not comparing it to its number predecessor (1200), but to the 1300X, they have the exact same clockspeeds, presumably have the same cache, core count, etc. Only at 1200 pricing.

 

And finally the part that REALLY bugs me...

 

These APUs by themselves are great, BUT the pricing on the 2400G is a bit higher than expected it should be $20 off, not $169 but $149 (we may see the price drop after 2-3 months), since its still an APU. However the real thing that bothers me. These APU´s leave the  RX 550 (Polaris, GCN 4.1 (14nm), 8CU´s/ 512 SP) completely pointless, specially if you compare it to the 2400G´s Vega 11. Yes, the RX 550 has dedicated memory, but it has less Compute Units, made on an older architecture, with a bigger process (14nm vs 12nm) and nearly the same clocks, also Power Consumption. The 2400G´s Vega 11 iGPU will most likely surpass the RX 550 by a small margin. And lets look at numbers, a Ryzen 3 1200 or 1300X (with the Price dropped) is now $99, add $80-85 (for a 2GB version $99 for 4GB, pointless) and you end up at $180-190 when you will most likely be beaten by an APU on the CPU whiuch not only comes with higher clocks, SMT (20-40% improvement on Multithreaded workloads) but also on the GPU by 30% more SPs, a new architecture and a new manufacturing process. This bothers me because technically the RX 500 series are still current-gen Graphics, since we havent seen RX 600 Series based on Vega yet. Now, the possible solution is dropping the price to $70-60 of the 2GB version (and to $80 the nonsense 4GB version)

 

(I bet the RX 650 will have 12 Vega CU´s, RX 660 20CU-24CU´s, RX 670 32-36CU´s and RX 680 40-48 CU´s)

 

So to close up, youll be beaten harshly on the CPU side, and to some degree on the GPU side, WHILE HAVING A $10-20 MORE EXPENSIVE "CURRENT GEN" SETUP. The RX 550 is now  kind of obsolete, even though is current Gen, AMD should just phase it out of the Market, and release the RX 600 Series (Vega Based) as quickly as possible. 

 

I personally loved this APU´s, theyll change school computing and Offimatics, specially if the 2400G gets that awesome $20 Price-Drop with time. The Graphics are amazing, and the CPU side is great, comparable to their last gen bigger brothers. They pack the same TDP (65W) and most likely their corresponding Wraith Coolers. Great Value for the Money! The only thing that doesnt make sense to me is that the 2400G is able to surpass the RX 550, even though is more expensive and shouldnt be kept on the Market if that happens (or price drop it). Aside from that I think Raven Ridge is Great! (I hope next years Revan Ridge Refresh not only uses Zen+ (already confirmed) but uses Vega 7nm (GCN 5.2) since Navi is reserved for Zen 2 (and Matisse, for APU´s)

 

What do you think of the APUs?

 

Are they good Value?

 

Are they comparable to their bigger brothers from last gen, or their direct predecessors?

 

Do they fit an use case?

 

Is the RX 550 now obsolete?

 

Lemme know in the Poll and on the commments down below!

 

P.S. Really Vote thats how your Voice is Heard! Also, do I write nicely (Trump Voice)

[zombienerd]

Well, in the AMD Slides, they compared the 2400G to an i5 with a GT 1030, and showed it having an equal score.  If we go by that alone, the RX 550 handily beats the GT 1030 by a decent margin.  I'm not sure if your calculations are taking into effect the lack of being a discrete solution, and being thermally limited due to the entire cpu/gpu combo's total 65W TDP.

[Streetguru]

These APUs look like they're going to fix things for budget gamers. If only RAM still wasn't insane.

[DanielMDA]

1 minute ago, zombienerd said:

Well, in the AMD Slides, they compared the 2400G to an i5 with a GT 1030, and showed it having an equal score.  If we go by that alone, the RX 550 handily beats the GT 1030 by a decent margin.  I'm not sure if your calculations are taking into effect the lack of being a discrete solution, and being thermally limited due to the entire cpu/gpu combo 65W TDP.

Mostly no, the RX 550 beats the GT 1030 by about 5% if they arent in the same percentiles. (Also, OCing and fast RAM may matter here)

[DanielMDA]

Just now, Streetguru said:

These APUs look like they're going to fix things for budget gamers. If only RAM still wasn't insane.

And its only going to get worse... 

[zombienerd]

Just now, DanielMDA said:

Mostly no, the RX 550 beats the GT 1030 by about 5% if they arent in the same percentiles. (Also, OCing and fast RAM may matter here)

I just use UserBenchmark's results for these comparisons, which shows the 550 having a 14% edge over the 1030.

 

http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GT-1030-vs-AMD-RX-550/m283726vs3925

[Cyracus]

Just now, DanielMDA said:

And its only going to get worse... 

Should be getting better by mid year....

[DanielMDA]

Just now, Cyracus said:

Should be getting better by mid year....

of 2019...

[zombienerd]

I'm also thinking that a 2400G + a RX 550 in Crossfire would be not bad at all  

 

 

Edit:  I guess Hybrid Crossfire died a long time ago..  I really need to keep up on the AMD side of graphics  

[DanielMDA]

Just now, zombienerd said:

I'm also thinking that a 2400G + a RX 550 in Crossfire would be not bad at all  

Would it even work? I mean, those are 2 different architectures. I was talking about Gaming, not Productivity (on the GPU thing)

[Streetguru]

4 minutes ago, zombienerd said:

 

That website really isn't useful

APU dual graphics was never worth it either.

[DanielMDA]

1 minute ago, Streetguru said:

That website really isn't useful

APU dual graphics was never worth it either.

What?! Was that ever pssible?

[zombienerd]

2 minutes ago, DanielMDA said:

Would it even work? I mean, those are 2 different architectures. I was talking about Gaming, not Productivity (on the GPU thing)

Depends on driver support.  Hybrid Crossfire was decent once upon a time.  Quite some time ago, I had a 1st gen APU and made use of it for 20-30% FPS increases.

[zombienerd]

Just now, DanielMDA said:

What?! Was that ever pssible?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Hybrid_Graphics#Hybrid_CrossFire_/_Hybrid_CrossFireX_/_Dual_Graphics

[DanielMDA]

Just now, zombienerd said:

Depends on driver support.  Hybrid Crossfire was decent once upon a time.  Quite some time ago, I had a 1st gen APU and made use of it for 20-30% FPS increases.

You are telling me newbie the stuff of legends, a long time ago (Ive been into PCs since August)

[zombienerd]

I guess my info is far out of date, lol...  And I happen to know it worked (mostly) with my A8 and a HD7770.  There were some workarounds to get the 7770 to play ball.

 

So, you can strike my original comment, as I doubt it will be available on the current chipsets lol.

 

[Crunchy Dragon]

1 minute ago, zombienerd said:

 A8 and a HD7770.

If this is the first-gen APU you spoke of in your previous post, then that was probably the best time for hybrid crossfire. By the time I got an APU(A6-5400K) it was pretty bad and there wasn't enough of a performance increase to justify doing it, you might as well have gotten a good dGPU.

 

[Energycore]

So the question, does the Ryzen 5 2400G compare to a 1500X or a 1400, that all depends on how much cache it's got enabled. If it's the 1400's 8MB, it's not gonna be great, if it's the 16MB of the 1500X it's gonna have way better performance.

[DanielMDA]

6 minutes ago, zombienerd said:

I guess my info is far out of date, lol...  And I happen to know it worked with my A8 and a HD7770.  

 

So, you can strike my original comment, as I doubt it will be available on the current chipsets lol.

 

I made myself 2 PC´s, one for my house (mom and sister) and my gaming Machine.

 

My machine: R5 1600X + RX 580 8GB (Grabbed it for $279) + 16GB of DDR 4 3200MHz (2x8)GB, WD Black M.2 PCIe SSD (256GB, grabbed it for $99) and a FireCuda 2TB (Grabbed it for $89) (I play at 1440p)

 

My house machine: A12 9800 APU (gonna change it for a 2400G, or a 2300X + RX 550/650) 8GB or DDR 4 2400 (2x4GB), WD Blue 3D NAND M.2 SSD (SATA) 256GB (1440p Monitor), also connected to a 4K TV.

 

 

[Streetguru]

1 minute ago, Energycore said:

So the question, does the Ryzen 5 2400G compare to a 1500X or a 1400, that all depends on how much cache it's got enabled. If it's the 1400's 8MB, it's not gonna be great, if it's the 16MB of the 1500X it's gonna have way better performance.

I thought there was no real difference for gaming between the 2

[DanielMDA]

1 minute ago, Streetguru said:

I thought there was no real difference for gaming between the 2

Ahm... clockspeed? (At stock)

[kaiju_wars]

Just now, DanielMDA said:

of 2019...

I've heard analysts say anywhere from mid this year to mid of 2019.  Basically, don't hold your breath.

 

As for other things.  

RX 550 isn't bad.  It's not great, but according to Userbenchmark, it does beat the 1030 by 14%.  

I don't see this making the RX 550 useless. 

The RX 550 was made for people needing to replace integrated graphics, people need to remember.  So in that sense it'll still have a use.  Plus say you have an old, like, Dell prebuilt, like with a first gen core i5 or i7, the 550 is a great cheap GPU to get to throw in there and make a budget gaming rig, especially for e-sports titles.  

It might chew into the sales of the 550 and 1030 though.  Especially for the current market due to RAM.  Say you'd get the 1200 ($100) and a 550 or 1030 (between $60 and $70), well a lot of these budget builders might take a hit in the RAM, especially due to it's pricing.  (I've seen people try to do $300 and $350 budget builds with all new parts and had to go down to 4GB of RAM).

Well, this could offset that, you get the 2200G for $100, take that $60 to $70 and spend that on RAM, getting 8GB then.  

But I only seeing it eat into the sales of new builds.

Prebuilts and older builds like I mentioned earlier, I still see a thriving market for the 550.

 

 

As for pricing.  In terms of MSRP, the 2200G and 2400G should be compared to the 1200 and 1400, and honestly those are the two CPUs I see taking the biggest hit.  
I know quite a few people on who will go with a 1200 in the hopes of winning the silicon lottery to hit 1300X speeds, and some of those same people who will stretch for the 1400 for that hyperthreaded goodness.  

 

 

[Energycore]

Just now, Streetguru said:

I thought there was no real difference for gaming between the 2

I'm going by TechPowerUp's numbers

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_5_1400/

Spoiler

 

 

 

Review was made in May when the part launched.

[Energycore]

1 minute ago, DanielMDA said:

Ahm... clockspeed? (At stock)

The difference in cache amount actually matters for gaming (see above). It's because 8MB cache is 4MB per CCX, so each core only has access to 4MB of L3 cache at cache speeds, whereas the other 4MB is available with higher latency through the Infinity Fabric.

[DanielMDA]

2 minutes ago, kaiju_wars said:

I've heard analysts say anywhere from mid this year to mid of 2019.  Basically, don't hold your breath.

 

As for other things.  

RX 550 isn't bad.  It's not great, but according to Userbenchmark, it does beat the 1030 by 14%.  

I don't see this making the RX 550 useless. 

The RX 550 was made for people needing to replace integrated graphics, people need to remember.  So in that sense it'll still have a use.  Plus say you have an old, like, Dell prebuilt, like with a first gen core i5 or i7, the 550 is a great cheap GPU to get to throw in there and make a budget gaming rig, especially for e-sports titles.  

It might chew into the sales of the 550 and 1030 though.  Especially for the current market due to RAM.  Say you'd get the 1200 ($100) and a 550 or 1030 (between $60 and $70), well a lot of these budget builders might take a hit in the RAM, especially due to it's pricing.  (I've seen people try to do $300 and $350 budget builds with all new parts and had to go down to 4GB of RAM).

Well, this could offset that, you get the 2200G for $100, take that $60 to $70 and spend that on RAM, getting 8GB then.  

But I only seeing it eat into the sales of new builds.

Prebuilts and older builds like I mentioned earlier, I still see a thriving market for the 550.

 

 

As for pricing.  In terms of MSRP, the 2200G and 2400G should be compared to the 1200 and 1400, and honestly those are the two CPUs I see taking the biggest hit.  
I know quite a few people on who will go with a 1200 in the hopes of winning the silicon lottery to hit 1300X speeds, and some of those same people who will stretch for the 1400 for that hyperthreaded goodness.  

 

 

and some people stretch a bit for the the extra cache and cooler on the 1500X (plus the clockspeed) and then the extra cores on the 1600 and the clockspeed of the 1600X and all the way up to the 1700/1700X. Its a good marketing move from AMD.

 

The 2200G does have 1300X speeds, and the 2400G has higher clocks than even the 1500X.