Analysis 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.

Ryzen 5 2400G and Ryzen 3 2200G: The Ryzen 2000 Series Test Bed and Setup
POST A COMMENT

179 Comments

View All Comments

  • AndrewJacksonZA - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link

    Hi Ian. I'm still on page one but I'm so excited! Can a 4xx Polaris card be Crossfired with this APU? Reply
  • prtskg - Tuesday, February 13, 2018 - link

    No crossfire supported by these apus, according to AMD. You can check it out on AMD's product page. Reply
  • dgingeri - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link

    How many PCIe lanes are available on them? I didn't see that info anywhere in the article. Reply
  • iter - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link

    Only 8 Reply
  • dgingeri - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link

    Well, not great, but it can still run a RAID controller off the CPU lanes and a single port of 10Gbe from the chipset, or run a dual port 10Gbe from the CPU and a lower end SATA HBA from PCIex4 from the chipset with software RAID. The 2200G could make a decent storage server with a decent B350 board. I could do more with 16 lanes, but 8 is still workable. It's far cheaper than running a Ryzen 1200 with a X370 board and a graphics card with the same amount of lanes available for IO use and a faster CPU. Reply
  • Geranium - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link

    8 PCIe Gen3 for gpu+4 Gen3 for SSD+4 Gen3 for Chipset. Reply
  • andrewaggb - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link

    What's with the gaming benchmarks... Is there a valid reason that no games were benchmarked at playable settings? I'm going to have to go to another site to find out if these can get 60ish fps on medium or low settings.... And I thought these were being pitched at esports... so some overwatch and dota numbers might have been appropriate. Reply
  • AndrewJacksonZA - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link

    "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."

    "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."

    I would love to see which settings BF1 would have 49FPS please. Is it with everything on low, medium?
    Reply
  • Ian Cutress - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link

    I've added some sentences to the IGP page while I'm on the road. We used our 1080 high/ultra CPU Gaming suite for two reasons. Reply
  • Manch - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link

    Which are? Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now