Ryzen 2200G + Vega 64?

[sputnik13]

I have a Vega 64 that I want to pair with a Ryzen but I don't want to spend too much.  Ryzen 2200G seems like it should give good enough performance for a Vega 64 but the only things I can find on google are general comments about "why would you pair a low end CPU with a high end GPU?", no real data.  Does anyone have any relevant information on how good or bad of an idea this would be?  Looking to do 1440p 21:9 gaming.

 

Wanting an all AMD build for no logical reason so no intel...  goal is a mini-itx build (have a dan-case a4 v3 on order) for 1440p gaming.  My hesitation with 2600 is it's 2x cost of 2200g, and unless I focus on keeping cost down it becomes a slippery slope real quick.  If 2200G will give me playable frame rates on Tom Clancy Division, that's probably good enough for me.  If not, then 1600 sounds like the next best thing.

[FloRolf]

For 4k it would be mostly fine but anything lower I'd get at least a 2600 and OC it. 

[Guest]

You will lose like 10-20 fps at 1440p so instead of 80fps you will get 60, which is still playable.

[Princess Luna]

It makes no sense to buy an APU when you have a high end GPU...

 

If you want to buy something while saving money but keeping it balanced the Ryzen 5 2600 is probably the best alternative... that is if you want AMD so bad, I'd still get the i5 8400 instead.

[Nocte]

I would get at least a Ryzen 5 1600/2600 to pair with the Vega 64 to balance out the two components.

The reason for this is that the quad-core is going to be fine for now, but it is going to bottleneck the Vega 64 in a relatively short period.

 

For $50 extra you get a 6 core / 12 threads CPU (1600), which seems like a reasonable deal to me.

[App4that]

Your best bet unless you want to see your 64 held back is a 8400. 

[Santo22]

It was said already, but I'll add in to. It makes no sense at all to get an APU. If you want to keep it cheap and stay AMD, I would be looking at the Ryzen 5 1600 or 1600x. If you can spend a few more dollars then the 2600. For a motherboard I would be looking at the Asus B350-I, which is an amazing board for not to bad of a price. 

[TVwazhere]

It depends on how CPU aggressive the game is, even at 1440p 

( couldn't find any up to date r3's and vega 64 in 2018 running 1440 benchmarks, but the 1080 is comparable)

[App4that]

3 minutes ago, TVwazhere said:

It depends on how CPU aggressive the game is, even at 1440p 

( couldn't find any up to date r3's and vega 64 in 2018 running 1440 benchmarks, but the 1080 is comparable)

"bottlenecking" has become a subjective term. My 1080ti sits at 100% utilization using a 8700k, where it would sit at 80% or lower utilization using my 1700X. But try saying the 1700X is a bottleneck here. IMO if your card isn't being fully utilized, and you're losing fps because of it. Dats a bottleneck. 

[Sergifq]

Honestly OP I would recommend selling the Vega 64 as they are retailing for about 800 ish and getting a r7 2600x and rx 500 series gpu since you want to go all amd. You will NEVER achieve playable frame rates at 1440p on high/medium settings on the 2200g. If you want to go with the 2200g you will definitely regret it op.

[ZcanKal]

15 minutes ago, Sergifq said:

rx 500

the highest the RX series gets up to rn is 1060 6gb, though.

[Sergifq]

32 minutes ago, ZcanKal said:

the highest the RX series gets up to rn is 1060 6gb, though.

?? Can you rephrase that please

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, Sergifq said:

?? Can you rephrase that please

The highest tier Rx is the 580, which is only a little better than a 1060. The Op has a 1080 tier card.

 

At least that is what I extracted from that phrase.

[App4that]

Just now, Some Random Member said:

The highest tier Rx is the 580, which is only a little better than a 1060. The Op has a 1080 tier card.

 

At least that is what I extracted from that phrase.

The 580 isn't better than a 1060, at best they trade blows. lately the 1060 has pulled ahead. 

[sputnik13]

@FloRolf I'm confused by what you're saying, 4k is fine but for lower go for higher cpu and overclock it?  Your 2400G + 1080 is kind of close to what I'm going for, how does that system scale for 1440p gaming?

 

@Santo22 why that board in particular?  How does gigabyte GA-AB350N compare?  Something about $50 USD difference.

[FloRolf]

11 minutes ago, sputnik13 said:

@FloRolf I'm confused by what you're saying, 4k is fine but for lower go for higher cpu and overclock it?  Your 2400G + 1080 is kind of close to what I'm going for, how does that system scale for 1440p gaming?

Like I said, it's for 4k. The higher the resolution, the less the cpu matters. 

The 2400G has SMT so that matters aswell. It holds up nicely but my only comparison is a 2600k which is also 4c/8t. 

[ZcanKal]

44 minutes ago, FloRolf said:

The higher the resolution, the less the cpu matters. 

No, it's the lower the resolution, the less the GPU matters, but the higher the resolution, the more they both matter, the GPU is still getting instructions directly from the CPU, and if the CPU is comparatively bad, then it will make the entire experience bad, no matter the GPU.

[App4that]

22 minutes ago, ZcanKal said:

No, it's the lower the resolution, the less the GPU matters, but the higher the resolution, the more they both matter, the GPU is still getting instructions directly from the CPU, and if the CPU is comparatively bad, then it will make the entire experience bad, no matter the GPU.

Correct, but more specifically the higher the fps, the more the CPU matters. People say the CPU doesn't matter as much at 4k, because in triple A titles at 4k the fps doesn't go much above 60. Play CSGO at 4k, the CPU will matter.

 

This is a listen to us now, or hear us later OP. You need a better CPU, like the 8400. 

[ZcanKal]

1 hour ago, App4that said:

8400

Or R5 1600/2600 if you absolutely want/need Ryzen.

[App4that]

18 minutes ago, ZcanKal said:

Or R5 1600/2600 if you absolutely want/need Ryzen.

both a 1600 and 2600 will hold a 64 back, even at 1440. Not all the time, depends on the game, but a 8400 and up never will. 

[KarathKasun]

3 hours ago, App4that said:

both a 1600 and 2600 will hold a 64 back, even at 1440. Not all the time, depends on the game, but a 8400 and up never will. 

8400 definitely can hold back anything over a 1030.  There are plenty of games where any current CPU can cause significant performance loss, they are called strategy games.

[sputnik13]

4 hours ago, App4that said:

both a 1600 and 2600 will hold a 64 back, even at 1440. Not all the time, depends on the game, but a 8400 and up never will. 

While I appreciate the feedback, I'm not looking to get an intel CPU, I already have a system with an intel CPU, I want this to be an all AMD build for absolutely no logical reason than I just want it to be that way.

[epsilon84]

You already own a $800 GPU, why would you gimp it with a $100 CPU? It doesn't really make sense.

 

Yes, it is true, at 1440P the CPUs matter less, but when you are comparing a 4C/4T CPU to a 6C/12T CPU like a 2600, there is still a very noticeable difference in performance. Have a look at the following graph, its done on a GTX 1080 which is a rough match for a Vega 64. Granted, its the 2600X reviewed here, not the 2600, but there is only a small difference between the two for gaming, so these numbers are close enough to get a good idea of the performance you will be giving up. 

 

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_5_2600X/14.html

 

 

[App4that]

12 hours ago, KarathKasun said:

8400 definitely can hold back anything over a 1030.  There are plenty of games where any current CPU can cause significant performance loss, they are called strategy games.

No, sorry. No Intel CPU at or over a i5 is holds back a graphics card in any game, even strategy. Look at games where a 8400 beats a 2700x by 40fps+, that's a graphics card being held back. 

 

12 hours ago, sputnik13 said:

While I appreciate the feedback, I'm not looking to get an intel CPU, I already have a system with an intel CPU, I want this to be an all AMD build for absolutely no logical reason than I just want it to be that way.

Cheers, it's your system you need to do what makes you happy. Not us. 

[Jon Jon]

3 hours ago, App4that said:

No, sorry. No Intel CPU at or over a i5 is holds back a graphics card in any game, even strategy. Look at games where a 8400 beats a 2700x by 40fps+, that's a graphics card being held back. 

 

Cheers, it's your system you need to do what makes you happy. Not us. 

@KarathKasun makes a really good point, but it's not really that relevant for this thread. CIV players know that CPU > GPU, but that's besides the point. It's all about actions being calculated per minute, and this is very core heavy. I would love to see people compare their benchmark scores in CIV for this, and I would gladly offer up screenshots I've taken of mine.

 

As for the thread, i don't really think this makes that much sense. It sounds like the Vega 64 fell off a truck, since honestly, why would anyone be looking to pair that super expensive component with a low end CPU?

 

With that being said, the 2200G paired with 3200mhz RAM should do the job. I would consider getting a first gen Ryzen 3 for similar money just for lower heat since that Vega 64 isn't exactly going to run cold in that tiny case.