Marrying Vega and Zen: The AMD Ryzen 5 2400G Review
by Ian Cutress on February 12, 2018 9:00 AM ESTBenchmark Overview
For our review, we are implementing our latest CPU testing benchmark suite, using automated scripts developed specifically for our CPU reviews. This means that with a fresh OS install, we can configure the OS to be more consistent, install the new benchmarks, maintain version consistency without random updates and start running the tests in under 5 minutes. After that it's a one button press to start an 8-10hr test (with a high-performance core) with nearly 100 relevant data points in the benchmarks given below. The tests cover a wide range of segments, some of which will be familiar but some of the tests are new to benchmarking in general, but still highly relevant for the markets they come from.
Our new CPU tests go through six main areas. We cover the Web (we've got an un-updateable version of Chrome 56), general system tests (opening tricky PDFs, emulation, brain simulation, AI, 2D image to 3D model conversion), rendering (ray tracing, modeling), encoding (compression, AES, h264 and HEVC), office based tests (PCMark and others), and our legacy tests, throwbacks from another generation of bad code but interesting to compare.
All of our benchmark results can also be found in our benchmark engine, Bench.
A side note on OS preparation. As we're using Windows 10, there's a large opportunity for something to come in and disrupt our testing. So our default strategy is multiple: disable the ability to update as much as possible, disable Windows Defender, uninstall OneDrive, disable Cortana as much as possible, implement the high performance mode in the power options, and disable the internal platform clock which can drift away from being accurate if the base frequency drifts (and thus the timing ends up inaccurate).
*Please note that due to time constraints, the data in this review does not take into account any effect from the Meltdown and Spectre patches.
Web Tests on Chrome 56
Mozilla Kraken 1.1
Google Octane 2.0
WebXPRT15
System Tests
PDF Opening
FCAT
3DPM v2.1
Dolphin v5.0
DigiCortex v1.20
Agisoft PhotoScan v1.0
Rendering Tests
Corona 1.3
Blender 2.78
LuxMark v3.1 CPU C++
LuxMark v3.1 CPU OpenCL
POV-Ray 3.7.1b4
Cinebench R15 ST
Cinebench R15 MT
Encoding Tests
7-Zip 9.2
WinRAR 5.40
AES Encoding (TrueCrypt 7.2)
HandBrake v1.0.2 x264 LQ
HandBrake v1.0.2 x264-HQ
HandBrake v1.0.2 HEVC-4K
Office / Professional
PCMark8
Chromium Compile (v56)
Legacy Tests
3DPM v1 ST / MT
x264 HD 3 Pass 1, Pass 2
Cinebench R11.5 ST / MT
Cinebench R10 ST / MT
Gaming CPU Tests
For this review, we have taken two angles with our testing: integrated vs integrated, and integrated vs low-end discrete. To this end, we purchased an MSI GT 1030 2GB graphics card to compare against the integrated offerings, as well as testing AMD and Intel's integrated options. For our gaming tests, we ran the 1080p version of all of our benchmarks:
- Civilization 6 (1080p Ultra)
- Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation*
- Shadow of Mordor (1080p Ultra)
- Rise of the Tomb Raider #1 - GeoValley (1080p High)
- Rise of the Tomb Raider #2 - Prophets (1080p High)
- Rise of the Tomb Raider #3 - Mountain (1080p High)
- Rocket League (1080p Ultra)
- Grand Theft Auto V (1080p Very High)
*Ashes recently had an update which broke our script, and it is not an easy fix, so we have removed this game from our testing
These games are a cross of mix of eSports and high-end titles, and to be honest, we have pushed the quality settings up higher than most people would expect for this level of integrated graphics: most benchmarks hit around 25-30 FPS average with the best IGP solutions, down to 1/3 this with the worst solutions. The best results show that integrated graphics are certainly capable with the right settings, but also shows that there is a long way between integrated graphics and a mid-range discrete graphics option.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
177 Comments
View All Comments
Hurr Durr - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link
I don`t care about these. I want to see how AMD is holding up in notebooks, 15W range specifically.Hul8 - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link
For a low-end graphics part like this, it would be really interesting to have a section in the review exploring the "comfortable" settings in various games.It could be really useful information for potential buyers to know what kind of settings they'd need to run in a game to reach their preferred performance level (99th percentile), whether it's 30, 45 or 60 fps, and also to know if a product simply can't reach certain performance no matter how low you turn the settings.
DrizztVD - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link
Why do you only report total power consumption? I'd like to see power efficiency!!! Since I don't know what the performance per CPU is, these power measurements mean almost nothing. Also, the efficiency will change with the workload, so Prime95 is a very one-dimensional test of efficiency. Look at your power measurement graphs: they tell you what we already know - single core speeds are lower for Ryzen, and lower TDP CPUs use less power. That's kinda duh...JHBoricua - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link
I'm confused. The AMD vs. AMD section led me to believe there was going to be a comparison of Raven Ridge against Bristol Ridge APUs, which makes sense as it would have allow the use of the same motherboard for both APUs, even if the Bristol Ridge DDR4 memory was clocked slower. But then actual benchmarks is showing Kaveri parts?prtskg - Tuesday, February 13, 2018 - link
Kaveri was better at gaming/performance than Bristol. The latter had the advantage of efficiency.nwarawa - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link
Comparing with a competitive Intel platform with dGPU is kinda tricky right now. It's not just the dGPUs that are ridiculously priced right now. RAM is too. And to maximize performance on the R7 2400G, you WILL need to spend more than the basic $90 8GB 2400 kit. The cheapest 16GB Samsung b-die 3200 kit I found was $220. And you will want to go with a 16GB kit, because already some newer games use more than 8GB, and they use MORE when using graphics cards with less than 4GB. The iGPU takes some of that 8GB for itself...if runs out of system RAM, it has to use your system disk... enjoy the single digit frame rates...Here is what I found on newegg:
INTEL
$130 - i3-8100
$90 - 8GB 2400 RAM (or 170 for 16GB)
$120 - Z370 motherboard (no mainsteam chipset YET)
===
$340
AMD
$170 - R5 2400g
$220 - 16GB 3200C14 RAM
$80 - Motherboard(cheapest decently reviewed AM4)
===
$470
The intel system is a full $130 cheaper (or $50 if you spring for the 16GB), and that gap will only increase with the upcoming cheaper chipsets and/or upcoming coffee lake models. Now, I haven't included the dGPU yet, but the GTX1050 2GB currently goes for $150 - making the Intel system total only $20 more than than AMD system, and running rings around it in most games (although neither would be ideal for the latest games... the 2GB-GPU/8GB-SYSRAM Intel system would run out of memory and the Vega 11 just doesn't have the horsepower).
What would put things in favor of AMD would be if they made clear that the iGPU would still be of use when using a dGPU (such as with the new "ThueAudioNext") in the future.
What I would REALLY like to see, though, is AMD use the beefier Vega iGPUs Intel is using with their own 12nm Zen+ chips and slap on some HBM memory. THAT I could go for.
oleyska - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link
Jeez,1.\ HBM on budget chips pushes them into 250$ range by just adding HBM.
2.\ IGP solutions are not a GTX1060 replacement, it's not magic.
System comparison:
I3 8100 is inferior in cpu tasks.
it has half the memory (intel IGP still uses memory you know?, it's configurable on both systems.
The benchmarked system runs at 2933, not 3200 so o.0
it has inferior gpu 3X~
even at same memory speeds it would still be 2X as slow, slower cpu.
So what is the point of the argument ?
It not needed to have the extra memory frequency but if you want to replace a 80$ dedicated gpu you need to and definitely add 8gb extra memory and that's where the cost comes into place as a valid comparison if you subtract 20$ from AMD for 2933 ~
add 80-100$ for GT1030 you still end up with an intel rig with higher system power consumption, equal gaming performance, inferior cpu and you will have to buy a G-sync monitor if you want tearing free monitor while freesync is thrown at ya at any price range as an added bonus.
systems are comparable and Intel's I3 line is destroyed along amd's old R3 line too.
I5,I7 and R5 stands tall still and the R7 has it's place at times too.
nwarawa - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link
Did you not even read my post? Or the review for that matter? Did you think AT ALL about the real life application of anything said before posting? "I3 8100 is inferior in cpu tasks" WHAT tasks? I'll answer that for you. Rendering. If you are trying to get the cheapest CPU possible for rendering with as little RAM as possible to shave as much money off as possible... you are doing it wrong. Since we (or at least I am... not sure what you are going on about) are talking about GPUs, you can safely assume we are concerned about GAMES."it has half the memory" no s--t, sherlock, read the post again (or for the first time, apparently)
I could go on, but apparently you were just scouring the posts for someone to disagree with with a pre-defined little rant, so I won't bother.
Fritzkier - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link
Why you need 16GB? if you bought Ryzen APU, you probably only plays e-sport title anyway and some older games... E-sport titles doesn't need a huge RAM. And it already crush the intel counterparts, both in performance and price.You guys from first world countries are always complaining. Jeez. Try to live at poorer countries like South East Asia.
serendip - Tuesday, February 13, 2018 - link
An APU at $100 would still be expensive, especially when people in the developing world build machines with Pentium G chips. The speedy APU graphics would negate the need for a low-end discrete GPU though.