Tuesday, 14 August 2018

AMD’s Ryzen 3 2200G and Ryzen 5 2400G processors reviewed

Morning, folks. Today is the day when we can finally share performance details for the desktop versions of AMD’s Ryzen processors with Radeon Vega graphics, or Ryzen APUs for short. AMD isn’t using the term “accelerated processing unit” to refer to these chips any longer, but it’s a whole lot easier to call them APUs than it is to type out “Ryzen processor with Radeon Vega graphics” every time we want to refer to the family of chips. Naming conventions aside, what matters most is that AMD finally has a competitive CPU core that it can fuse with its muscular graphics processors, and it’s used those resources to form a most exciting pair of chips for entry-level gaming builds, small-form-factor game boxes, and HTPCs.

I could regale you with a wealth of background information on the silicon marriage of a single Zen core complex and Vega graphics here, but I am out of time as of this very moment. Thing is, we pretty much know the deal with Raven Ridge. Check out my post about AMD’s pre-CES event for the ground rules of AMD’s desktop APUs, along with our review of the mobile Ryzen 5 2500U and my initial write-up of the Raven Ridge silicon from a while back for ample general information on the red team’s blend of its core competencies. At this stage, I felt it was most important to get our performance results out in the open rather than rehashing a great deal of already-public information. For the moment, enjoy our full test results and slightly-less-full analysis for these chips, and feel free to debate amongst yourselves in the comments.

Our testing methods

As always, we did our best to deliver clean benchmarking numbers. We ran each test at least three times and published the median of those results.

Our test systems were configured as follows:


Ryzen 3 2200GRyzen 5 2400GRyzen 3 1300XRyzen 5 1500X
CPU coolerAMD Wraith (95W)
MotherboardMSI B350I Pro AC
ChipsetAMD B350
Memory size16 GB
Memory typeG.Skill Flare X 16 GB (2x 8GB) DDR4-3200
Memory speed3200 MT/s (actual)
Memory timings14-14-14-34 1T
System driveIntel 750 Series 400GB



AMD Athlon X4 845AMD A10-7850K
CPU coolerAMD Wraith (95W)
MotherboardAsus Crossblade Ranger
ChipsetAMD A88X
Memory size16 GB
Memory typeCorsair Vengeance Pro Series 16 GB (2x 8 GB) DDR3-1866
Memory speed1866 MT/s (actual)
Memory timings9-10-9-27
System driveSamsung 850 Pro 512 GB



Core i3-8100

(simulated via Core i5-6600K

at 3.6 GHz and 65 W)
Core i5-8400
CPU coolerCooler Master MasterAir Pro 3
MotherboardGigabyte Aorus Z270X-Gaming 8Gigabyte Z370 Aorus Gaming 7
ChipsetIntel Z270Intel Z370
Memory size16 GB
Memory typeG.Skill Trident Z 16 GB (2x 8 GB) DDR4-3200
Memory speedDDR4-3200 (actual)
Memory timings14-14-14-34 2T
System driveSamsung 960 Pro 512 GB

We used the following system to host our discrete GPUs for testing:


Intel Core i7-8700K
CPU coolerCorsair H110i 280-mm liquid cooler
MotherboardGigabyte Z370 Aorus Gaming 7
ChipsetIntel Z370
Memory size16 GB
Memory typeG.Skill Trident Z DDR4-3200 (rated) SDRAM
Memory speed3200 MT/s (actual)
Memory timings14-14-14-34 2T
System driveSamsung 960 Pro 512 GB

Some other notes regarding our testing methods:

  • Each motherboard was updated to the most recent firmware version available prior to testing, including pre-release firmware versions available through processor manufacturers.
  • Our Intel test systems were both updated with Meltdown mitigations through Windows Update and Spectre mitigations through firmware updates. These patches were confirmed to be in use through the InSpectre utility.
  • Each software utility or program used in our benchmarking was the most recent version publicly available prior to our testing period. Where necessary, we used beta versions of certain utilities as recommended by CPU manufacturers for the best compatibility with the systems under review.
  • Each system used Windows 10’s Balanced power plan. Our Ryzen systems were set up with AMD’s Ryzen Balanced power plan.
  • Unless otherwise noted, our gaming tests were conducted at 1600×900 in exclusive fullscreen mode. Vsync was disabled both in-game and in the graphics driver control panel where possible.
  • “Multi-core enhancement” or “multi-core turbo” settings were disabled in our motherboards’ firmware.

Our testing methods are generally publicly available and reproducible. If you have questions regarding our testing methods, you can email me, leave a comment on this article, or join us in our forums. We take the integrity of our test results seriously and will go to reasonable lengths to clear up any apparent anomalies.

Source link

Post Comment