Marrying Vega and Zen: The AMD Ryzen 5 2400G Review
by Ian Cutress on February 12, 2018 9:00 AM ESTAnalysis taken from our AMD Tech Day 2018 article.
AMD vs. Intel
AMD’s main target with these new processors is to offer something Intel cannot: a combined processor and graphics package. Much like a number of AMD’s previous generation of products, the focus is two-fold: offering more performance at the same price, or being cheaper at equal performance.
For the first part of that argument, about having more performance at the same price, AMD suggests the following competition for the Ryzen 5 2400G:
- $169 Ryzen 5 2400G (4C/8T, 3.6 GHz, 704 SPs)
- $182 Core i5-7400 (4C/4T, xxx, 24 EUs)
- $187 Core i5-8400 (6C/6T, xxx, 24 EUs)
AMD cites that in its internal testing, the 2400G scores 20% higher than the i5-8400 on PCMark 10, and can post 1920x1080 gaming results above 49 FPS in titles such as Battlefield One, Overwatch, Rocket League, and Skyrim, having 2x to 3x higher framerates than Intel’s integrated graphics. This is a claim we can confirm in this review.
For the Ryzen 3 2200G, the competing products are less well defined:
- $99 Ryzen 3 2200G (4C/4T, 3.5 GHz, 512 SPs)
- $117 Core i3-8100 (4C/4T, xxx, 23 EUs)
- $84 Pentium G4620 (2C/4T, xxx, 12 EUs)
Again, through its internal testing, AMD is stating that the 2200G scores 13% higher than the Core i3-8100 in PCMark 10, as well as being within a few frames of the Ryzen 3 2400G in titles such as Rocket League, Skyrim, and Battlefield One. We have a similar scenario tested in this review.
The other side of the argument is price for the same performance. For this comparison, AMD suggests to test the new APUs against Intel processors paired with NVIDIA graphics, specifically the GT 1030. AMD’s data suggests that a Core i5-8400 with a GT1030 scores the same as a Ryzen 5 2400G in the 3DMark TimeSpy benchmark, although costing $290 (vs $169 for the APU) and drawing 30W more power. This is a scenario we also test in this review.
AMD vs. AMD: Raven Ridge and Bristol Ridge
These two new APUs have the internal codename of ‘Raven Ridge’ to signify the family of products. AMD also has ‘Bristol Ridge’ already in the market, using the previous generation of CPU cores and previous generation of integrated graphics. AMD has not actively promoted Bristol Ridge to the public in any serious way, with these parts being hold-overs from the previous platform and designed to be a quick fill within AMD’s product line. To that effect, Bristol Ridge processors were only available for OEMs at the beginning for pre-built systems, and AMD only made them available to the public within the last few months. To our knowledge, AMD did not initiate a review sampling program to the press of these processors either.
With the launch of the two new Zen-plus-Vega Raven Ridge APUs, the Bristol Ridge processors will still continue to be sold. AMD’s reasoning revolves around offering choice in the market, particularly to its OEM customers, and has stated that the two products offer different features and is thus not competing on price. It is clear to say that for anyone buying a new system, the newest products offer the better value: a much higher per-core performance, improved thermal budgeting, newer integrated graphics, and ultimately the core design is the future of AMD. The only items that Bristol Ridge brings to the table now are the legacy aspect, to replace like-for-like, and the offer of a number of 35W-rated products. Bristol Ridge PRO processors are also on the market, offered alongside the new Ryzen PRO with Vega.
Squaring up the competing parts shows that:
| Raven Ridge vs. Bristol Ridge | |||||
| Ryzen 5 2400G |
A12-9800 | Ryzen 3 2200G |
A10-9700 | ||
| Core uArch | Zen | Excavator | Zen | Excavator | |
| Cores/Threads | 4 / 8 | 2 / 4 | 4 / 4 | 2 / 4 | |
| Base CPU Frequency | 3.6 GHz | 3.8 GHz | 3.5 GHz | 3.5 GHz | |
| Turbo CPU Frequency | 3.9 GHz | 4.2 GHz | 3.7 GHz | 3.8 GHz | |
| TDP | 65 W | 65 W | 65 W | 65 W | |
| cTDP | 46-65 W | 45-65W | 46-65 W | 45-65W | |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB/core | 1 MB/core | 512 KB/core | 1 MB/core | |
| L3 Cache | 4 MB | - | 4 MB | - | |
| Graphics | Vega 11 | GCN 3 Gen | Vega 8 | GCN 3 Gen | |
| Compute Units | 11 CUs | 8 CUs | 8 CUs | 6 CUs | |
| Streaming Processors | 704 SPs | 512 SPs | 512 SPs | 384 SPs | |
| Base GPU Frequency | 1250 MHz | 1108 MHz | 1100 MHz | 1029 MHz | |
| DRAM Support | DDR4-2933 | DDR4-2400 | DDR4-2933 | DDR4-2400 | |
| Price | $169 | $99 | $99 | $79 | |
Given the performance uplift we have seen from previous generation A-series processors to the Ryzen desktop parts already, the new APUs should put the nail in the coffin for older AMD parts.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
177 Comments
View All Comments
speely - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link
"Where is the i5-8400 that has the same price as the 2400G?Oh, yeah, they totally left it out from the benchmarks since it would have proved an absolute supremacy of the Intel offering.
Ops."
In which benchmarks do you expect to see the i5-8400 prove its "absolute supremacy" where the i5-7400 didn't? Seriously, I'd like to know.
Because what I see is either the i5-7400 beating the 2400G or going punch to punch with it, or being thoroughly decimated by it.
If the i5-7400 beats or competes with the 2400G, the i5-8400 refresh chip will do the same. If the i5-7400 gets trounced by the 2400G, the i5-8400 refresh chip isn't suddenly and magically going to beat it.
I fail to see anything in the article to indicate a pro-AMD bias on AT's part, either intentional or unintentional.
What I do see is a fanboy who's upset to see his team losing some benchmarks.
Kamgusta - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link
Ehm sir, 7400 is 4 core and 8400 is 6 core.Other reviews shows a 30% performance dominance of i5-8400 over the 2400G.
speely - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link
Fair point, and my apologies. I keep forgetting that they upped the i5's to 6 cores after a decade of 4c4t i5's (including the 4690K I currently use).That being said, the i5-8400 itself is the same price as the 2400G, but getting the i5-8400 running is not the same price as getting the 2400G running. The 2400G was tested on an MSI B350I Pro AC (https://www.anandtech.com/show/12227/msi-releases-... which is new and doesn't yet have a publicly-known MSRP, but is built and featured like other $70-80 B350 motherboards. What motherboards are on the market today for $70-80 that support the i5-8400?
So we've taken into account the additional 2 cores and the subsequent boost to the CPU-focused benchmarks, which the 7400 sometimes lost and sometimes won against the 2400G, and put a couple small notches into the 8400's belt. For another 50 bucks or so on the motherboard just to use the 8400, that's not too bad I suppose. It's what I would expect pitting a 6c6t CPU against a 4c8t CPU in CPU benchmarks. It's certainly not "absolute supremacy" but it's something, right?
Were you expecting that "absolute supremacy" to show up in iGPU gaming? I'll just laugh about that and move on.
Sure, the 8400 could probably step past the 2400G in gaming and graphics if you paired it with a $120-or-so graphics card (assuming you can find one at $120 or so), but then you're comparing a dGPU to an iGPU and you're still only barely stepping past.
So the only real way to make the 8400 show "absolute supremacy" over the 2400G is to cherry-pick just the benchmarks you like, and bolster the 8400 with another $200 of additional hardware.
"Absolute supremacy".
Manch - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link
No it's not.In regards to vs the 8400, its a mixed bag. For programs that favor Intel CPU's there is a clear advantage. For programs that favor AMD the advantage swings the other way. For everything else that's generally proc agnostic they tie, pull ahead slightly or gets beat relatively evenly in regards to CPU performance.Now GPU wise, it gets crushed. That's obvious that is gonna happen.
If you plan on getting a DGPU with some beef, either is good, If you looking to game on the cheap, which is the target of the AMD proc in this review, its the hands down winner. Comparable perf, but with a beefier iGPU that can hang with a 1030. Also it gives you the option of adding a DGPU later when you need more grunt. It's clearly the better buy this go around. No other site that Ive seen has argued against this.
dromoxen - Tuesday, February 13, 2018 - link
Are these going to get a 12nm refresh , as all the other ryzen cpus? I am thinking of upgrade either i58400 or r5 1600/1700 or possibly 2400g.. decision decisions ...Manch - Wednesday, February 14, 2018 - link
Originally it was labeled as 12nm, now referred to 14nm+.Probably will be updated.cheshirster - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link
You need Z370 for the "supremacy" to work.Ops.
bug77 - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link
That will be fixed when lower tier 300-series chipsets launch. However, it's a significant problem for those wanting to build a cheap setup until then.Ian Cutress - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link
I used the chips I have on hand for the tests, forgot to add already tested chips - we haven't tested the i5-8400 IGP, but the CPU results are on hand in Bench. I can add those results to the graphs when I get a chance.Manch - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link
Ian, I dont know if fhis is just when browing from a phone but the bench when listing CPUs while alphabetic, bc of the chips names ~lake, etc. The listing jumps all over the place. 8 series before 4 seriez then 7 series. Can yall fix this? Thanks