Ryzen 5 2400G & Ryzen 3 2200G APU (with Vega GPUs) review kits are being sent out

[grimreeper132]

These look like they could be quite good, it's just a shame that these isn;t 8 core versions of these as they would be really handy to have in several cases, that being said hopefully these get into some desktops that Dell, HP etc. as thee 1000 series hasn't really and it would be handy for AMD

[TVwazhere]

11 hours ago, Sunshine1868 said:

Work Machine does not equal "budget gaming rig" - I'd do it for the NVMe boot drive that I could put in it as well as the 16GB of fast RAM. Neither this future machine i'm talking about nor the Dell OptiPlex that currently sits under my desk will ever have a game on them.

 

...but I forgot this is the LTT forum and all we care about are frame rates and K-SKUs

I will admit, I missed the "work machine" part, so the GPU part wasnt relevant. However, you still wont gain significant improvements from haswell to Ryzen; it's basically a side-grade. If they made a 2600G, that would be a noticeable difference though.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

On 2/8/2018 at 12:17 PM, Agost said:

DDR4-2933 as an official ram clock? Is it legit?

Sounds reasonable. 2933 It's the lowest Ryzen got at launch, and 3200MHz became standard after the BIOS update frenzy stopped. APUs always supported higher speeds officially, and both AMD and especially Intel tend to officially support much lower speeds than what you can typically use with their chips.

 

On 2/8/2018 at 2:06 PM, Dabombinable said:

Lets just hope that the IMC is as good as that of standalone Ryzen. Lets just say that with previous CMT based APU-it wasn't unusual to see DDR3 1600 being dropped down to DDR3 800 with first-gen-ULV-i5 performance.

Unless someone misread DDR without realizing 800x2=1600, or never tried to load the kit's profile, that's really strange. Bulldozer-Excavator APUs did 2133-2400MHz easily, depending on the generation. Even AM3+, that never got past Piledriver, would do 2133-2400 on one dim per channel (getting two dims per channel to work was more motherboard-specific).

 

20 hours ago, Zubkover said:

Probably misplaced "1" with "9" for some apparent reason. ^^'

Nah, 2933 is quite a recurrent number for Zen  

[Sunshine1868]

3 hours ago, TVwazhere said:

I will admit, I missed the "work machine" part, so the GPU part wasnt relevant. However, you still wont gain significant improvements from haswell to Ryzen; it's basically a side-grade. If they made a 2600G, that would be a noticeable difference though.

Again, CPUs arent everything - the spinning rust in this machine takes forever to boot - replacing with a SATA SSD would be an option, but i'd much prefer to throw an NVMe at it - I'd also like to put more than 8 GB of single-channel RAM in it (the shitty Dell mobo only has one memory slot). Oh, and a socket that I wont have to replace when I upgrade CPUs again in a few years will be nice (it seems intel keeps redesigning sockets - BAD for upgrades). It's the features that come in a new computer that i'm looking for - I dont want to bandaid a 4 year old pre-built dell PoS.

[TVwazhere]

1 hour ago, Sunshine1868 said:

Again, CPUs arent everything - the spinning rust in this machine takes forever to boot - replacing with a SATA SSD would be an option, but i'd much prefer to throw an NVMe at it - I'd also like to put more than 8 GB of single-channel RAM in it (the shitty Dell mobo only has one memory slot). Oh, and a socket that I wont have to replace when I upgrade CPUs again in a few years will be nice (it seems intel keeps redesigning sockets - BAD for upgrades). It's the features that come in a new computer that i'm looking for - I dont want to bandaid a 4 year old pre-built dell PoS.

A SATA SSD would actually do wonders for your overall performance. NVME has limited value for it's extra speed, but in a workload situation it can make a difference. AMD is promising socket compatibility past 2019, and hell, Dual channel memory alone is enough to want to upgrade actually. Not knowing any of this previously, it seemed the 4790 to 2400G was the only reason you wanted to upgrade, but all of that tacked on would, as you put it, actually be a huge improvement.

[Juggar]

6 hours ago, Carclis said:

This might be the chip that saves gamers from the miners. It's reliance on system memory should make it a poor performer in mining whilst still having very decent performance for an iGPU.

No way, Ryzen 3 will sell out instantly. Ive already got some $25 AM4 boards (and some $21 EVGA PSU) from newegg to see what I can get out of them mining wise. Of course i expect some reviewers will release this info on Monday. I expect Ryzen 5 2400G to stay in stock a bit longer as its a worse (cost 70% more for at  best maybe 25% better perf) value in terms of mining performance. 

 

Its true that for some Algos like Ethash it will perform poorly (if it could even allocate 3 GB ram) due to memory bandwidth issues but other algos like  Cryptonight might be much better. Realistically we might see 250 H/s on the Ryzen 2 2200G's CPU and at least the same on the Vega GPU, so at least 500 H/s. With both the CPU and GPU being unlocked I expect at least 550-600 H/s total out of the 2200G. 

 

Remember Vega 64 is good for at least 2000 H/s and the Vega 8 is 1/8th of that power so 250 H/s at least. An easy 500 H/s total for the $99 APU. 

 

If its shown that the $99 2200G does 500-600 H/s cryptonight it WILL sell out overnight. Thats in between RX 560 and 570 speed, closer to the 570. Then you can slap it in an $80 TB350-BTC board to add 6 more GPU's. Absolute no brainer to use as a mining platform CPU. 

 

Mark my words, this CPU isnt for anyone but miners who will use it as the new base CPU in place of celery's that never ROI. $99 for a CPU that will ROI itself in under 3 months is excellent right now. As soon as I confirm this CPU is a decent performer I will buy many of them, believe it. People recently spent a lot more($1000-1200 per server) on servers that do 2000 H/s total but consume a lot more power (500 watts or more)  and have little to no expandability. 

 

https://www.cryptunit.com/

 

500 H/s is good for $1.3 a day right now. 

[Dabombinable]

6 hours ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Unless someone misread DDR without realizing 800x2=1600, or never tried to load the kit's profile, that's really strange. Bulldozer-Excavator APUs did 2133-2400MHz easily, depending on the generation. Even AM3+, that never got past Piledriver, would do 2133-2400 on one dim per channel (getting two dims per channel to work was more motherboard-specific).

I was actually doing some cache and memory benchmarks in Aida64 (fun fact-I can run it under Windows XP...and XP runs on  all of my machines back to my ALI Aladdin V and Intel 440LX motherboard). And the RAM was actually DDR3 1333 vs D DR3 800-and it was only significantly faster in reads (and significantly slower than my 4790K with DDR3 800 or 1333 as well):

 

Bench 1 of the 5 used to get an accurate min, max and average for cache and RAM.
Asus U38N with A8 4555M:

Spoiler

HP Touchsmart TM2 with i5 U470:

Spoiler

i7 4790K with DDR3 800 and 1333:

Spoiler

 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

2 hours ago, Dabombinable said:

I was actually doing some cache and memory benchmarks in Aida64 (fun fact-I can run it under Windows XP...and XP runs on  all of my machines back to my ALI Aladdin V and Intel 440LX motherboard). And the RAM was actually DDR3 1333 vs D DR3 800-and it was only significantly faster in reads (and significantly slower than my 4790K with DDR3 800 or 1333 as well):

 

That's an interesting test, I guess, but I don't see how it's related to the memory speeds that desktop APUs can handle. I just see 3 very different processors, with different types of RAM, obtaining 3 different results, and all of them using low speed DDR3.

[Dabombinable]

11 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

That's an interesting test, I guess, but I don't see how it's related to the memory speeds that desktop APUs can handle. I just see 3 very different processors, with different types of RAM, obtaining 3 different results, and all of them using low speed DDR3.

Point was, I hope that the IMC in their Ryzen APU are better (aka match Intel's IMC).

[Agosto]

10 hours ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Sounds reasonable. 2933 It's the lowest Ryzen got at launch, and 3200MHz became standard after the BIOS update frenzy stopped. APUs always supported higher speeds officially, and both AMD and especially Intel tend to officially support much lower speeds than what you can typically use with their chips.

3200 and 2933 are both in OC territory for Ryzen (and Coffee Lake too)

Official specs were, IIRC, 2667 MHz with two single ranked DDR4 modules, going down to 2400 if dual ranked, 2133 for four SR modules and a whopping  DDR4 1866 with four dual ranked DIMMs. 2933 is pretty high for "standard", it means they've probably improved the IMC itself (or, at least, vastly improved the microcode)

[SpaceGhostC2C]

Just now, Agost said:

3200 and 2933 are both in OC territory for Ryzen (and Coffee Lake too)

Yes. Because officially supported speeds tend to be fairly low, typically much lower than what any processor can handle with OC (for example, Intel never went above 1600 in DDR3, even though any of their chips would handle XMP). AMD did go a bit higher (1866), but they only got more realistic with the APUs (rated for 2133 and 2400, considered "OC" for other Intel and AMD CPU). It's the same here: APUs officially supporting speeds that CPUs are already doing, but labeling them "OC".

 

Just now, Agost said:

Official specs were, IIRC, 2667 MHz with two single ranked DDR4 modules, going down to 2400 if dual ranked, 2133 for four SR modules and a whopping  DDR4 1866 with four dual ranked DIMMs. 2933 is pretty high for "standard", it means they've probably improved the IMC itself (or, at least, vastly improved the microcode)

Not really, 2933 is not high at all. The standards are very conservative, as they were for DDR3, but they imply very low RAM. If you were to go by JEDEC standards, the basic DDR4 standard is 2133 CL15, a major setback from DDR3. Not on paper, of course, as JEDEC for DDR3 was 1333 CL9, but actual DDR3 speeds a the time of the switch were 2133-2400 CL9-CL11. Basically, the "standard" DDR4 is a regression from DDR3. Now, of course in practice it's not the case, as DDR4-capable CPUs already handle higher frequencies, better timings that make DDR4 worth it. In the case of Ryzen, 2933 was the ceiling at launch, with all the IMC problems and BIOS updates, so I'm not surprised Ryzen-based APUs can do 2933 as well, even in the absence of any IMC improvement. The fact that they are willing to claim official support is just standard practice by AMD when it comes to their APUs (I guess since RAM speed is more important for APUs they try to emphasize fast RAM support more, while for CPUs they just play it safe to minimize dealing with complaints, RMAs, etc).

So, in a sense, yes, 2933 may seem high relative to harmonized standards, but that's just because the standards are set to snail speeds. In itself, 2933 is nothing impressive even for Ryzen 1.

[Ashtried]

Not to be paranoid but how would it work paired with at nvidia card? I mean, would it benefit if someone had Rx graphics more or would it hurt having a gtx card? 

[Trixanity]

1 hour ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Snip

Yup, official support only means something when dealing with OEMs who prefer not to go out of official spec. AMD has shown performance numbers at 3200 MHz and 3600 MHz on their slides (and ship 3200 in their review kit). Best case scenario of course, so mileage may vary. Perhaps it can do more or perhaps it can only do 3600 when the stars align. We'll see eventually.

 

14 minutes ago, Ashtried said:

Not to be paranoid but how would it work paired with at nvidia card? I mean, would it benefit if someone had Rx graphics more or would it hurt having a gtx card? 

No difference.

[IAmAndre]

Here's a quick unboxing of the review kit (it's in French)

 

[kiska3]

Here is another unboxing(in English):

 

[Humbug]

On 2/8/2018 at 5:20 PM, Taf the Ghost said:

The APUs, with AMD finally having a great core design behind them, is what the Bulldozer era was supposed to be like. These APUs will be really useful parts, let's just hope RAM prices go down finally.

Yep. The problem with previous generation AMD APU is that even though the iGPU waa better than intel you had to sacrifice the CPU performance. Now finally AMD has intel equivalent CPU performance and Intel beating iGPU performance.

[AshleyAshes]

Watching the Bitwit unboxing all I have to ask is: Why is the box for a SINGLE CPU the same size as the box that my ENTIRE PLAYSTATION 4 PRO CAME IN!?

 

Edit: Oh cause it's a big fancy box they used to ship him both CPU boxes and a mobo.

[Humbug]

On 2/8/2018 at 5:07 PM, Master Disaster said:

I can't help but think AMD left the launch a little to late. If they'd launched just 3 weeks ago the cost of GPUS at that time would have made these things so popular I honestly don't think AMD could have made them quickly enough. Unfortunately the mining fad is coming to an end and prices are normalising.

Are they? I just searched Amazon for RX 580 and everything is over $500.

 

Months ago when I helped my friend with his new Ryzen build I recommended to him a Sapphire RX 580 and he snapped it up for 299.

[Taf the Ghost]

2 hours ago, Humbug said:

Are they? I just searched Amazon for RX 580 and everything is over $500.

 

Months ago when I helped my friend with his new Ryzen build I recommended to him a Sapphire RX 580 and he snapped it up for 299.

It'll be a while before they normalize. While Cryptos have fallen off, they're still higher than they were in the summer of 2017, though they're harder to mine now.

[Carclis]

16 hours ago, Juggar said:

No way, Ryzen 3 will sell out instantly. Ive already got some $25 AM4 boards (and some $21 EVGA PSU) from newegg to see what I can get out of them mining wise. Of course i expect some reviewers will release this info on Monday. I expect Ryzen 5 2400G to stay in stock a bit longer as its a worse (cost 70% more for at  best maybe 25% better perf) value in terms of mining performance. 

 

Its true that for some Algos like Ethash it will perform poorly (if it could even allocate 3 GB ram) due to memory bandwidth issues but other algos like  Cryptonight might be much better. Realistically we might see 250 H/s on the Ryzen 2 2200G's CPU and at least the same on the Vega GPU, so at least 500 H/s. With both the CPU and GPU being unlocked I expect at least 550-600 H/s total out of the 2200G. 

 

Remember Vega 64 is good for at least 2000 H/s and the Vega 8 is 1/8th of that power so 250 H/s at least. An easy 500 H/s total for the $99 APU. 

 

If its shown that the $99 2200G does 500-600 H/s cryptonight it WILL sell out overnight. Thats in between RX 560 and 570 speed, closer to the 570. Then you can slap it in an $80 TB350-BTC board to add 6 more GPU's. Absolute no brainer to use as a mining platform CPU. 

 

Mark my words, this CPU isnt for anyone but miners who will use it as the new base CPU in place of celery's that never ROI. $99 for a CPU that will ROI itself in under 3 months is excellent right now. As soon as I confirm this CPU is a decent performer I will buy many of them, believe it. People recently spent a lot more($1000-1200 per server) on servers that do 2000 H/s total but consume a lot more power (500 watts or more)  and have little to no expandability. 

 

https://www.cryptunit.com/

 

500 H/s is good for $1.3 a day right now. 

Don't most mining algorithms designed to be run on GPU's require a lot of memory bandwidth though? Otherwise they would be more like Bitcoin where asics are worlds ahead of any GPU for mining it. If this is the case then the on board Vega graphics will only have at best around 45GB/s to work with (3333Mhz RAM), not even 10% of Vega and additionally you would need a new set of memory, motherboard, PSU etc for each setup. Despite the low cost it still doesn't seem like it could be economical in comparison to GPU's which are far more scalable with multiple being usable per system.

[mariushm]

45 minutes ago, Carclis said:

Don't most mining algorithms designed to be run on GPU's require a lot of memory bandwidth though? Otherwise they would be more like Bitcoin where asics are worlds ahead of any GPU for mining it. If this is the case then the on board Vega graphics will only have at best around 45GB/s to work with (3333Mhz RAM), not even 10% of Vega and additionally you would need a new set of memory, motherboard, PSU etc for each setup. Despite the low cost it still doesn't seem like it could be economical in comparison to GPU's which are far more scalable with multiple being usable per system.

Coins work against asics through two methods: either

1. requiring a lot of memory and a lot of memory bandwidth like ethash (ethereum), so making adding memory controller inside asic expensive and topping that up with cost of gddr5, making asic almost as expensive as video card.

2. making the algorithm really complex, lots of math, which means you need little memory but each hash takes a lot of computations so you would have to add a lot of transistors and other things in an ASIC, which increases the silicon area used by each chip (and you pay, like $10-20k for a manufactured 30cm disc of silicon from which chips are cut

 

monero and cryptonight coins can be mines with only 2 mb of memory but they only do something like 150-500 hashes a second on a regular cpu (my fx 8320 does ~180-220 using 4 threads, because cpu has only 8MB l2 cache) and my rx570 does maybe 600-1000 hashes per second (i has 1100-ish but i don't remember if it was one or two cards installed in pc when i tested). In contrast, you get around 25 million hash with rx 570 or rx580.

 

so if you make an asic for monero, yes, you're probably gonna make an asic that's a third or half as big physically than a cpu, but most likely it's gonna do only 50-100 hashes per second, less than a regular cpu. they could put lots of them in parallel like they do on bitcoin stuff where they have over 150 chips working in parallel, but like i said, it would cost them a lot of money to make the chips due to silicon size.

 

[Silentprototipe]

All I know is that im going to buy one of these. Then again I already have a perfectly capable R5 2500U laptop but meh. Tribute to the A6 3650  

[Juggar]

6 hours ago, Carclis said:

Don't most mining algorithms designed to be run on GPU's require a lot of memory bandwidth though? Otherwise they would be more like Bitcoin where asics are worlds ahead of any GPU for mining it. If this is the case then the on board Vega graphics will only have at best around 45GB/s to work with (3333Mhz RAM), not even 10% of Vega and additionally you would need a new set of memory, motherboard, PSU etc for each setup. Despite the low cost it still doesn't seem like it could be economical in comparison to GPU's which are far more scalable with multiple being usable per system.

Obviously mining Ethereum would be out of the question but coins based on the cryptonight algo are not memory intensive. I dont think you understand how lucrative this really is, people build mining rigs generally use a $50 celeron CPU. That CPU will never ROI itself and will never do anything for you beyond run your rig. 

 

With these, and the readily available mining motherboards for only $80, it would make an excellent base CPU for a mining rig if it were actually able to pull some weight. A much better alternative to the classic celeron people use, and much more powerful as well. Basically the chip would be like have an extra GPU in your system, and would pay itself off and then be all profit after about 3 months. 

[cj09beira]

15 minutes ago, Juggar said:

Obviously mining Ethereum would be out of the question but coins based on the cryptonight algo are not memory intensive. I dont think you understand how lucrative this really is, people build mining rigs generally use a $50 celeron CPU. That CPU will never ROI itself and will never do anything for you beyond run your rig. 

 

With these, and the readily available mining motherboards for only $80, it would make an excellent base CPU for a mining rig if it were actually able to pull some weight. A much better alternative to the classic celeron people use, and much more powerful as well. Basically the chip would be like have an extra GPU in your system, and would pay itself off and then be all profit after about 3 months. 

there is one problem though, these cpus seem to only have 8 pcie for gpu meaning you can only have up to 8 gpus and i dont think there are mining motherboards for ryzen 

 

[Juggar]

22 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

there is one problem though, these cpus seem to only have 8 pcie for gpu meaning you can only have up to 8 gpus and i dont think there are mining motherboards for ryzen 

 

8? Thats more than enough LOL 

And indeed there are mining motherboards. If the 2200G does at least 500 h/s it would be an excellent CPU for this board: 

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813138456&ignorebbr=1