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

175 Comments

View All Comments

  • Gideon - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link

    BTW Octane 2.0 is retired for Google (just check their github), and even they endorse using Mozillas Speedometer 2.0 (darn can't find the relevant blog post). Reply
  • Ian Cutress - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link

    I know; in the same way we have legacy benchmarks up, some people like to look at the data.

    Not directed to you in general, but don't worry if 100% of the benchmarks aren't important to you: If there's 40 you care about, and we have 80 that include those 40, don't worry that the other 40 aren't relevant for what you want. I find it surprising how many people want 100% of the tests to be relevant to them, even if it means fewer tests. Optane was easy to script up and a minor addition, just like CB11.5 is. As time marches on, we add more.
    Reply
  • kmmatney - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link

    In this case, a few 720p gaming benchmarks would have been useful, or even 1080p at medium or low settings. Reply
  • III-V - Tuesday, February 13, 2018 - link

    Who uses 720p and is in the market for this? Reply
  • PeachNCream - Tuesday, February 13, 2018 - link

    I'm happy with 1366x768 and I'm seriously considering the 2400G because it looks like it can handle max detail settings at that resolution. I'm not interested in playing at high resolutions, but I do like having all the other non-AA eye candy turned on. Reply
  • atatassault - Tuesday, February 13, 2018 - link

    People who buy sub $100 monitors. Reply
  • WorldWithoutMadness - Tuesday, February 13, 2018 - link

    Just google GDP per capita and you'll find huge market for 720p budget gaming pc. Reply
  • Sarah Terra - Wednesday, February 14, 2018 - link

    Wow, i just came here after not visiting in ages, really sad to see how far this site has fallen.

    Ian Cutress was the worst thing that ever happened to Anandtech.

    At one point AT was the defacto standard for tech news on the web, but now it has simply become irrelevant.

    Unless things change i see AT slowly but surely dying
    Reply
  • mikato - Thursday, February 15, 2018 - link

    Me. My TV is 720p and still kicking after many years. These CPUs would make for a perfect high end HTPC with some solid gaming ability. Awesome. Reply
  • nevcairiel - Tuesday, February 13, 2018 - link

    Some more realistic gaming settings might be nice. Noone is going to play on settings that result in ~20 fps, and the GPU/CPU scaling can tilt quite a bit if you reduce the settings.

    I can see why you might not like it, because it takes the focus away from the GPU a bit and makes comparisons against a dGPU harder (unless you run it on the exact same hardware, which might mean you have to re-run it every time), but this is a combined product, so testing both against other iGPU products would be useful info.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now