Marrying Vega and Zen: The AMD Ryzen 5 2400G Review
by Ian Cutress on February 12, 2018 9:00 AM ESTBenchmarking Performance: CPU Web Tests
One of the issues when running web-based tests is the nature of modern browsers to automatically install updates. This means any sustained period of benchmarking will invariably fall foul of the 'it's updated beyond the state of comparison' rule, especially when browsers will update if you give them half a second to think about it. Despite this, we were able to find a series of commands to create an un-updatable version of Chrome 56 for our 2017 test suite. While this means we might not be on the bleeding edge of the latest browser, it makes the scores between CPUs comparable.
All of our benchmark results can also be found in our benchmark engine, Bench.
Mozilla Kraken 1.1: link
Kraken is a Javascript based benchmark, using the same test harness as SunSpider, but focusing on more stringent real-world use cases and libraries, such as audio processing and image filters. Again, the basic test is looped ten times, and we run the basic test four times.
With the newer high-performance cores, AMD gets a fair crack at benchmarks like Mozilla, where it historically lagged behind with its Bulldozer-family architecture.
Google Octane 2.0: link
Along with Mozilla, as Google is a major browser developer, having peak JS performance is typically a critical asset when comparing against the other OS developers. In the same way that SunSpider is a very early JS benchmark, and Kraken is a bit newer, Octane aims to be more relevant to real workloads, especially in power constrained devices such as smartphones and tablets.
In recent years, Intel has made strides on its Octane performance. So even with cores and threads, and the sizable jump up from Kaveri, AMD is still behind on this test.
WebXPRT 2015: link
While the previous three benchmarks do calculations in the background and represent a score, WebXPRT is designed to be a better interpretation of visual workloads that a professional user might have, such as browser based applications, graphing, image editing, sort/analysis, scientific analysis and financial tools.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
177 Comments
View All Comments
jjj - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link
Playable means 30FPS and has been that for.. ever.AndrewJacksonZA - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link
Typo page 1: "Fast forward almost two years, to the start of 2018. Intel did have a second generation eDRAM product"The linked article is from 2 May 2016, not the start of 2018.
richardginn - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link
If only the ram used in the 2400G review kits was not so god damn expensive. It is more expensive than the CPU.Ian Cutress - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link
This is true - technically we were sampled a different DDR4-3200 kit to be used. Normally our policy here is to use the maximum supported DRAM frequency of the processor for these tests - in the past there is a war of words when reviews do not, from readers and companies. When we do our memory scaling piece, it'll be with a wide range of offerings.richardginn - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link
I certainly want to see the memory scaling piece before making a purchase.RBD117 - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link
Hey Ian, thanks for the great review. I think your Cinebench-1T scores should be higher, in the 151-160 range for the 2200G and 2400G respectively. AMD pushed a microcode update through BIOS to testers very very late last week. A lot of the changes significantly boosted single-thread performance in general, even in some games. Did you folks end up getting this?Ian Cutress - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link
I only started testing with the new BIOS: can you confirm the difference is on both the motherboards AMD sampled? Some got MSI, others got GIGABYTE. We had MSI.RBD117 - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link
Ah okay. I believe it should have been updated on both MSI and Gigabyte...at least, I was told it should have landed on both platforms for standardization.jrs77 - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link
I would've loved to see you compare the 2400G against the i7-5775C with regards to 1080p gaming, as I can play games like Borderlands, WoW or Diablo in 1080p with medium settings on my Broadwell Iris graphics just fine.If the 2400G doesn't allow for higher graphics settings than the i7-5775C, than I don't really see them taking the crown for integrated graphics. intel is just too stoopid to use what they have it seems.
nierd - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link
When that i7 cost less than 150 then it will make the chart. At the price point it's at I can buy one of these chips and a $200 graphics card and do laps around the i7 all day.