Well as you can tell we are a little late on this article. Last week AMD launched their new CPUs with Vega graphics. Without getting too much into it right now (I’ll explain later) but I spent well over a week fighting with issues when trying to test and I didn’t get things worked out until just before this past weekend. Anyhow, testing is done, now we just need to talk a little about what AMD is doing with these new CPUs and then dive into the results! So let's go see what AMD's new Raven Ridge CPUs are all about!

Product Names: AMD Ryzen 5 2400G and Ryzen 3 2200G

Review Sample Provided by: AMD

Written by: Wes Compton

Pictures by: Wes Compton

Amazon Affiliate Links: Ryzen 5 2400G and Ryzen 3 2200G


Ryzen with Vega Graphics

So the original plan, like our past launch CPU reviews was to dive into every detail of Raven Ridge but honestly, at this point, I think most of you have a decent idea of what it is. So today we are going to keep things a little shorter so we can get into the performance testing that most of you are wanting to see.

Last year with the Ryzen launch it was a huge launch for AMD not just because of the implications at that moment with them in most ways catching up to Intel on the CPU market. Ryzen and the Zen architecture as a whole is a big investment in AMD's future because of their Infinity Fabric design that allowed AMD to be able to shrink and expand the number of cores. Threadripper was a great example of that. Well, the other half of that coin is being able to customize their architecture for APUs and for video game consoles as well. While the Vega launch wasn’t without its issues, hell you still can’t find them. But when you put the two launches together you now have really interesting potential in both the APU and integrated console market.

So a Scalable APU, especially one with Zen and Vega behind it is really interesting because to date most CPUs with onboard graphics leave a lot to be desired when it comes to gaming performance. With Raven Ridge, AMD decided to make some core changes to things to try to realign it to work with both desktop and mobile applications. This meant shrinking the die size down by cutting L3 cache down to 4MB from 8MB and also cutting back on the number of GPU PCI lanes from x16 to x8. To compensate they did bump up clock speeds though. For comparison, the 2400G is similar to the Ryzen 5 1400 but the 2400G has a base clock of 3.6 GHz and a Boost Clock of 3.9 GHz vs 3.2 and 3.45 GHz on the 1400. The PCI lanes change was a cost-saving one as was the move to TIM over soldering under the heat spreader. overclockers and enthusiasts aren’t going to love this change, but officially these are mid-range CPUs and word is AMD isn’t planning on doing this on their higher end CPUs when they get refreshed.

So AMD sent us both the Ryzen 5 2400G and the Ryzen 3 2200G so to take a quick look at the differences. They both have the same 4 core 8 thread configuration and really the base clock speeds aren’t that far apart (3.6 vs 3.5). The 2400G has a little more on the boost clock (.2 GHz) but the main difference is in the onboard graphics. The 2400G has 11 Vega CUs where the 2200G has 8 and the 2400G has a higher clock speed as well. Then from there, they both have the same TDP and Cache and they also now support up to 2933 MHz DDR4 before it is considered overclocking and we learned last year just how much Ryzen likes fast memory. The biggest difference though is in the pricing. The 2200G comes in at $99 where the 2400G is $169, I will have to wait to see the performance before I judge if that is justified or not though.

AMD Ryzen™ 5 2400G

AMD Ryzen™ 3 2200G

CPU Cores

4 Cores, 8 Threads (1 CCX)

4 Cores, 8 Threads (1 CCX)

CPU Base Clock



CPU Max Boost Clock

Up to 3.9GHz

Up to 3.7GHz

GPU Cores

11 Radeon™ Vega CUs

8 Radeon™ Vega CUs

GPU Clock

Up to 1250MHz

Up to 1100MHz

L1 Cache

64K I$, 32K D$ per core

64K I$, 32K D$ per core

L2 Cache

512K per core

512K per core

L3 Cache

4MB Shared

4MB Shared




DRAM Supported

Up to DDR4-2933 (Dual Channel)

Up to DDR4-2933 (Dual Channel)

Transistors and Die Size

209.78mm2 / ~4.94 billion

209.78mm2 / ~4.94 billion

GPU Max Clock

Up to 1250MHz

Up to 1100MHz

“Vega” Graphics Cores

11 Compute Units (704 ALUs)

8 Compute Units (512 ALUs)





16 (32-bit)

16 (32-bit)

FP32 Graphics TFLOPS



FP16 Graphics TFLOPS







What’s in the BOX!

Let's also take a look at what AMD sent over for the review kit and what you will get when you buy one of the APUs. So once again they sent over a large box that is decked out in Ryzen theme. This one was designed to have the same silver strip across the top just like the actual boxes.

image 5

image 6

image 7

Inside the box, AMD's kit came with nearly a whole PC. They sent the Ryzen 5 2400G and the Ryzen 3 2200G in their boxes with coolers. Then they included a Gigabyte AB350N-Gaming WIFI ITX for a motherboard. For memory G-Skill Flare-X AMD compatible memory and they also included an orange AMD branded USB drive as well.

image 8

image 9

So the AMD CPUs they sent look like production models but they are not for resale labeled. I don’t plan on selling them or anything but I do mention that these aren’t randomly picked off the production line or anything.

image 14

image 13

image 12

Inside each box, they both come with Wraith Stealth coolers. This is the lowest end of all three of AMDs stock coolers. I’ve actually spent a lot of time testing and diving into these as well as stacks of other coolers directly on Ryzen at the two links below

Ryzen Stock Coolers

Ryzen ITX Cooler Roundup

Anyhow this does come with thermal paste but isn’t as great at cooling as the other two models.

image 10

image 11

image 17

Also in the box, you get the CPU in a plastic tray, installation instruction, a note about BIOS compatibility for Ryzen 2000 series processors, and you also get two stickers. One is a matching Ryzen 3 or 5 sticker and the other is a Vega sticker. The Vega one isn’t pictured because it is tucked up under the Ryzen one and I didn’t see it until much later.

image 19

image 20

image 21

image 18

Now the Gigabyte AB350N Gaming WiFi might look familiar if you read my articles often. This is because I actually covered it back when it launched. In fact, we were the first English review of the board and I was also the first to damage it. I also did all of our Ryzen ITX testing on it and its been in at least one case review as well. Well, our original now has a twin brother. Check out our review for more information on the board.

image 15

image 16

As for the memory, this is the first time I’ve had a chance to check them out. The Flare-X sticks have Samsung dies on them and that is what has made them great for Ryzen, even back in the early days when most RAM didn’t work with it. The black heatspreaders look good and have just a little styling up on the top edge without being too overdone or making the sticks too tall.

image 1

image 2

image 3

Last but not least is that orange USB drive. There wasn’t anything on it but it should be perfect to have around the office for a windows installer drive or to be able to move drivers between PCs. I can’t complain about the color given how much I love orange and it is covered so it won’t get dirt or funk into the USB connection over time.

image 4


Test Rig and Procedures

Ryzen AM4 w/onboard Test System


Gigabyte GA-AB350N-Gaming WIFI

Live Pricing


Noctua NH-U12S for cooling

Noctua NT-H1 Thermal Paste

Live Pricing

Live Pricing


G.SKILL Flare X Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4 3200 MHz

Live Pricing


Kingston HyperX 240GB SSD

Live Pricing

Video Card

Nvidia GTX 1080 Ti

Live Pricing

Power Supply

Thermaltake 850w

Live Pricing


Dimastech Test Bench

Live Pricing


Windows 10 Pro 64-bit

Live Pricing

CPU Testing Procedures

Team Fortress 2

1080p – high, very high, high, reflect world, high, enabled, 8x msaa, x16, multicore on. Testing is then run with this benchmark

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation

1080p – Standard quality setting, DX12, built in benchmark on the CPU-focused setting

Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Wildlands

Built-in Benchmark, 1080p, High detail setting

Deus Ex: Mankind Divided

1080p – Ultra Setting – DX11 – Vsync Turned off using built-in benchmark

Dolphin 5.0 Benchmark

For information on configuration, view this thread

3DMark Fire Strike

Physics Score – Performance benchmark


Built-in benchmark set to 32MB, run 4 passes





X264 HD Benchmark

Pass 1 and Pass 2

Cinebench R15

CPU and CPU (Single Core results)

Passmark 8

CPU Mark Score

PCMark 10

Normal test ran, not the express or extended


Memory, Cache, and FLOPS testing done with built-in GPGPU and Memory benchmarks

Power Usage

Idle and load testing using a Kill-A-Watt and wPrime to put the CPU under load


Aida64 stability test to load and to record temperature readings

Onboard Testing Procedures

Bioshock Infinite

Adrenaline Action Benchmark Tool on the “Medium” quality setting at 1080p

Tomb Raider

Adrenaline Action Benchmark Tool on the “Medium” quality setting at 1080p

Hitman: Absolution

Adrenaline Action Benchmark Tool on the “Medium” quality setting at 1080p

Sleeping Dogs

Adrenaline Action Benchmark Tool on the “Medium” quality setting at 1080p

GRID Autosport

Ultra and Medium presets at 1080p

F1 2013

Ultra Preset

Team Fortress 2

1080p – high, very high, high, reflect world, high, enabled, 8x msaa, x16, multicore on. Testing is then run with this benchmark

Unigine Valley Benchmark 1.0

Extreme HD Preset

Unigine Superposition

720p Low and 1080p Medium settings

3DMark Fire Strike

Performance setting – GPU Score

3DMark Time Spy

GPU Score

Cinebench R15

OpenGL benchmark


Problems? What happened

Okay before I dive into the good and bad with these CPUs, I figured this is as good of a place as any to talk a little about the issues I ran into during testing that caused our delays. I obviously got everything working but I like to be completely open about anything I run into just in case anyone else has the same issues. I basically had two issues. The first one right out of the hole happened when using onboard and when I was using a GPU and this was where a lot of my time was wasted trying to figure things out. Basically, when I hooked everything up and got up I was missing some resolutions including 1080p. I’ve had this same issue once before on Intel and it was a chipset driver not being installed but I had all of the drivers AMD had provided. This issue was preventing me from doing any of our in game testing and some of the other tests that test at 1080p full screen also wouldn’t run.


I spent days reinstalling and fighting with this one because I thought a bad SSD was causing it and I did seem to be having data loss but after reinstalling windows and redownloading everything on three different SSDs it didn’t fix the issue. From there I tried different CPUs and video cards. I even pulled our matching Gigabyte board out of a build an after having to update the BIOS with another CPU in it I confirmed that wasn’t the issue as well. I tried redownloading and using a different USB drive for our copy of windows and in all, I think I reinstalled 5 or 6 times, that takes up a huge about of time. I even tried a different power supply. I even tried different monitor cables, both type and then multiple of each type. Monitor drivers didn’t do it, mind you our test monitor is a Gsync compatible display so I thought maybe that was the issue as well. In the end, I just forced the resolution down to 1080p by digging out a 1080p monitor and that worked at the time.


Then from there I did some of my testing and then noticed another issue when I wanted to test the onboard. I was getting weird results and eventually some of the games and tests that needed stuff like newer OpenGL didn’t work. As it turns out the GPUs were showing up as errored and that windows has shut them down. They both had "Windows has stopped this device because it has reported problems (Code 43)” as the error. It didn’t matter if I was on onboard or if I installed a GPU. So this slowed me down for days trying to figure it out and eventually, AMD asked if I had tried using the BIOS option to force PCI or onboard graphics. Doing that oddly enough fixed the problem lol.

There seemed to be some sort of compatibility issue between the Nvidia and AMD drivers that was bugging out when they ran at the same time. I don’t think you can expect novice users to use the BIOS setting when swapping between onboard and GPUs so hopefully it was specific to me or they get it figured out in the future.


CPU Performance

So to start off my testing I jumped in with X264 HD Benchmark 4.0. This one is a little dated but is a great way to check out video encoding performance. The test runs through four times encoding a video and then I take all four FPS averages from the entire encode and average them together. So with the 2400G and 2200G, these are Ryzen 5 and 3 CPUs so I didn’t come in expecting the world from them but being four core 8 threads both of them did well here for what they are. The 2400G came in just below the 3770K and 4770K, both were amazing at the time and aren’t that old really.


Next, I jumped into my two favorite benchmarks, both in Cinebench R15. I like these because we can check out single core and overall performance together. Single core is important because it gives us a better look at the architecture and clock speeds as well as shows how performance will be affected with older or less optimized software. So in the multicore test, the 2400G did surprisingly well, up with the 1500X and the 6700K was the next closest CPU. The 2200G was down almost completely on par with the 1300X, decent but closer to the bottom of the charts. For single core performance, the results were similar. The 200G was down closer to the bottom and the 1400G was near the middle of the pack with single core performance in between the 1300X and the 1600X.



Next, I took a look at two math-focused tests in wPrime and 7Zip. wPrime shows how long it took to compute prime to 1024 million digits and 7-zip just shows performance when compressing files. Again here in wPrime the 2200G didn’t do as well and was close with the older i7-2600 and with the 1300X where the 2400G was with the 1500X and with some of Intel’s older high core count CPUs. 7-Zip, on the other hand, the two CPUs were a lot closer together mostly because it likes higher core count CPUs more.



I like to check out what you can expect from browser-based stuff using the browser-based JetStream benchmark. It uses a whole list of benchmarks, runs them three times, then gives you an average score. Ironically even with the multiple tests, this test is always a little weird on the results for me. The 2200G did a little better here but they were both close together and right in line with the 1300X. This was lower down the charts but without the older CPUs included in the previous tests, they look lower than they would be.


With Passmark Performance Test 9 I just use the CPU score that does a list of CPU compute tasks. I prefer this over including results that focus on the SSD and GPU. Anyhow here the 2400G was just below the i5-7640K and the 2200G was right between the 1300X and 1200, I think this shows the lower L3 cache the most that it is missing over the 1300X.


With PCMark 10, I like to run this test because they have integrated a lot of the regular everyday programs like web browsing, video chatting, writing, spreadsheets, photo editing, consuming media, and gaming. Basically everything I use my own PC for. So here the 2400G and the 2200G are both near each other. But the gap is a little farther apart in the essentials and content creation tests. Overall though they are both about comparable to the 1300X.


Before getting into in-game benchmarks I also like to take a quick look at 3DMark and Dolphin 5.0. 3DMark most people will know is a synthetic gaming benchmark, I focus on the physics score as it shows the CPU performances while mostly ignoring the graphics card. So here the 2400G and 2200G are much farther apart. The 2200G is down on par with the R3 1200 where the 2400G is up with the i7-4770K and well above the 1300X. Dolphin, on the other hand, is actually a Wii emulator that is known for being very CPU intensive. Here higher numbers are worse and the 200G and 2400G are both up closer to the top and together.



The last few CPU specific tests were all actual in-game performance tests. These are done with the GTX 1080 Ti to prevent a GPU bottleneck. Jump to the next section if you are looking to see how well the onboard GPU performed in game. In the first test, Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation I used the CPU focused test so the gaps between the results are a lot wider than in the GPU focused test. Here the 200G was on par with the 1300X and the 2400G had almost 7 more FPS to be just above the i5-7640K. In ghost recon I found it interesting that the 2400G came in actually at the top for the Ryzen CPUs, I suspect there was some optimization between this test and our original tests but the 14 FPS gap between the 2400G and 2200G is important to note here. Then in TF2, an older CPU limited game, the 2400G was in line with the higher clock speed Ryzen CPUs and the slightly lower clock speeds of the 2200G made a 10 FPS difference. Lastly in Deus Ex: Mankind Divided the 2400G and 200G were a little over 2 FPS apart but near the middle of the Ryzen CPUs, sadly though Intel still dominates in this test.





For my last bit of CPU testing, I ran through a few tests in AIDA64 just to get a look at memory and cache performance. Memory performance with the Flare-X kit was good, not up into the same level as Intel's quad channel CPUs, but on par with the rest of Ryzen. The memory latency was a little high on the 2200G when I tested it though there isn’t any reason that should have happened. Cache performance was good and in line with what is expected and having less L3 cache may also have translated into a little lower latency there as well, or new micro-code updates have improved things.


Memory Read

Memory Write

Memory Latency

Ryzen 5 2400G

45967 MB/s

47850 MB/s

66.6 ns

Ryzen 3 2200G

35567 MB/s

36240 MB/s

118.4 ns

Intel i7-8700K

38421 MB/s

40175 MB/s

57.9 ns

Intel i5-8400

38096 MB/s

40549 MB/s

59.8 ns

Intel Core i9-7980XE

77004 MB/s

68888 MB/s

73.4 ns

Intel Core i9-7960X

79416 MB/s

71554 MB/s

74.9 ns

Intel Core i7-7820X

76049 MB/s

73759 MB/s

71.6 ns

Intel Core i5-7640X

30786 MB/s

31888 MB/s

68.5 ns

Intel Core i9-7900X

76856 MB/s

72856 MB/s

72.8 ns

Intel Core i7-7740X

38455 MB/s

40596 MB/s

53.2 ns

Intel i7-6900K

66786 MB/s

68130 MB/s

61.9 ns

Intel i7-7700K

38498 MB/s

40448 MB/s

52.7 ns

Intel i7-5960X

66108 MB/s

49545 MB/s

62.8 ns

AMD Ryzen R7 1800X

44031 MB/s

43425 MB/s

81.8 ns

AMD Ryzen R7 1700X

44493 MB/s

43749 MB/s

78.3 ns

AMD Ryzen R7 1700

45343 MB/s

43777 MB/s

82.6 ns

AMD Ryzen R5 1600X

44452 MB/s

43918 MB/s

83.7 ns

AMD Ryzen R5 1500X

44289 MB/s

43746 MB/s

83.1 ns

L1 Cache Read

L1 Cache Write

L1 Cache Latency

Ryzen 5 2400G

485.01 GB/s

238.29 GB/s

1.0 ns

Ryzen 3 2200G

460.55 GB/s

227.41 GB/s

1.1 ns

Intel i7-8700K

1595.6 GB/s

803.65 GB/s

0.9 ns

Intel i5-8400

1417.2 GB/s

710.79 GB/s

1.0  ns

Intel Core i9-7980XE

3758.3 GB/s

1896.7 GB/s

1.1 ns

Intel Core i9-7960X

3532.3 GB/s

1785.2 GB/s

1.0 ns

Intel Core i7-7820X

1969.9 GB/s

995.02 GB/s

1.0 ns

Intel Core i5-7640X

1044.8 GB/s

31888 GB/s

1.0 ns

Intel Core i9-7900X

2418.5 GB/s

709.16 GB/s

1.0 ns

Intel Core i7-7740X

1102.7 GB/s

561.25 GB/s

0.9 ns

Intel i7-6900K

1963.9 GB/s

999.59 GB/s

1.0 ns

Intel i7-7700K

1114.6 GB/s

560.82 GB/s

0.9 ns

Intel i7-5960X

1748.5 GB/s

874.60 GB/s

1.2 ns

AMD Ryzen R7 1800X

917.46 GB/s

460.16 GB/s

1.1 ns

AMD Ryzen R7 1700X

867.89 GB/s

435.33 GB/s

1.2 ns

AMD Ryzen R7 1700

793.90 GB/s

398.12 GB/s

1.3 ns

AMD Ryzen R5 1600X

689.47 GB/s

345.95 GB/s

1.1 ns

AMD Ryzen R5 1500X

446.84 GB/s

224.01 GB/s

1.1 ns

L2 Cache Read

L2 Cache Write

L2 Cache Latency

Ryzen 5 2400G

459.80 GB/s

232.20 GB/s

3.1 ns

Ryzen 3 2200G

352.84 GB/s

177.56 GB/s

3.3 ns

Intel i7-8700K

640.37 GB/s

397.14 GB/s

2.6 ns

Intel i5-8400

543.81 GB/s

352.90 GB/s

3.1 ns

Intel Core i9-7980XE

1671.7 GB/s

1069.9 GB/s

5.6 ns

Intel Core i9-7960X

1571.6 GB/s

1003.5 GB/s

5.1 ns

Intel Core i7-7820X

884.63 GB/s

574.74 GB/s

5.6 ns

Intel Core i5-7640X

397.26 GB/s

247.00 GB/s

2.9 ns

Intel Core i9-7900X

1037.3 GB/s

521.94 GB/s

5.2 ns

Intel Core i7-7740X

424.55 GB/s

304.30 GB/s

2.7 ns

Intel i7-6900K

710.28 GB/s

310.34 GB/s

4.1 ns

Intel i7-7700K

415.45 GB/s

285.97 GB/s

2.7 ns

Intel i7-5960X

623.08 GB/s

272.77 GB/s

3.5 ns

AMD Ryzen R7 1800X

831.95 GB/s

446.37 GB/s

4.7 ns

AMD Ryzen R7 1700X

809.29 GB/s

419.38 GB/s

5.0 ns

AMD Ryzen R7 1700

742.92 GB/s

389.73 GB/s

5.4 ns

AMD Ryzen R5 1600X

630.99 GB/s

334.93 GB/s

4.7 ns

AMD Ryzen R5 1500X

306.82 GB/s

211.58 GB/s

11.8 ns

L3 Cache Read

L3 Cache Write

L3 Cache Latency

Ryzen 5 2400G

222.96 GB/s

181.60 GB/s


Ryzen 3 2200G

137.30 GB/s

171.20 GB/s


Intel i7-8700K

337.00 GB/s

213.67 GB/s

11.0 ns

Intel i5-8400

270.89 GB/s

186.82 GB/s

13.0 ns

Intel Core i9-7980XE

229.61 GB/s

118.40 GB/s

21.0 ns

Intel Core i9-7960X

220.22 GB/s

121.04 GB/s

19.8 ns

Intel Core i7-7820X

114.40 GB/s

103.57 GB/s

19.2 ns

Intel Core i5-7640X

228.31 GB/s

163.86 GB/s

11.1 ns

Intel Core i9-7900X

124.16 GB/s

106.78 GB/s

21.2 ns

Intel Core i7-7740X

287.01 GB/s

186.67 GB/s

21.2 ns

Intel i7-6900K

243.96 GB/s

195.41 GB/s

14.6 ns

Intel i7-7700K

234.50 GB/s

188.70 GB/s

10.4 ns

Intel i7-5960X

260.72 GB/s

184.92 GB/s

15.3 ns

AMD Ryzen R7 1800X

388.18 GB/s

386.01 GB/s

12.4 ns

AMD Ryzen R7 1700X

369.75 GB/s

350.31 GB/s

12.9 ns

AMD Ryzen R7 1700

334.36 GB/s

332.12 GB/s

14.2 ns

AMD Ryzen R5 1600X

386.48 GB/s

326.86 GB/s

12.3 ns

AMD Ryzen R5 1500X

306.82 GB/s

211.58 GB/s

11.8 ns

Single-Precision FLOPS

Double Precision FLOPS


Ryzen 5 2400G

235.9 GFLOPS

117.8 GFLOPS

32388 MB/s

Ryzen 3 2200G

225.8 GFLOPS

112.6 GFLOPS

27603 MB/s

Intel i7-8700K

825.0 GFLOPS

412.5 GFLOPS

29406 MB/s

Intel i5-8400

728.8 GFLOPS

364.5 GFLOPS

25192 MB/s

Intel Core i9-7980XE


915.5 GFLOPS

69377 MB/s

Intel Core i9-7960X


840.6 GFLOPS

65409 MB/s

Intel Core i7-7820X

944.9 GFLOPS

472.5 GFLOPS

36420 MB/s

Intel Core i5-7640X

536.5 GFLOPS

268.2 GFLOPS

18547 MB/s

Intel Core i9-7900X


574.5 GFLOPS

45506 MB/s

Intel Core i7-7740X

575.4 GFLOPS

287.8 GFLOPS

20503 MB/s

Intel i7-6900K


511.7 GFLOPS

36340 MB/s

Intel i7-7700K

575.7 GFLOPS

287.9 GFLOPS

20519 MB/s

Intel i7-5960X

895.5 GFLOPS

447.7 GFLOPS

31783 MB/s

AMD Ryzen R7 1800X

472.4 GFLOPS

236.2 GFLOPS

64016 MB/s

AMD Ryzen R7 1700X

446.8 GFLOPS

223.4 GFLOPS

61730 MB/s

AMD Ryzen R7 1700

408.5 GFLOPS

204.3 GFLOPS

56811 MB/s

AMD Ryzen R5 1600X

354.9 GFLOPS

177.5 GFLOPS

49340 MB/s

AMD Ryzen R5 1500X

229.8 GFLOPS

114.8 GFLOPS

31983 MB/s

24-bit Integer IOPS

32-bit Integer IOPS

64-bit Integer IOPS

Ryzen 5 2400G

58.94 GIOPS

58.98 GIOPS

29.67 GIOPS

Ryzen 3 2200G

56.32 GIOPS

56.32 GIOPS

28.30 GIOPS

Intel i7-8700K

370.0 GIOPS

370.0 GIOPS

51.55 GIOPS

Intel i5-8400

323.5 GIOPS

323.5 GIOPS

45.55 GIOPS

Intel Core i9-7980XE

821.2 GIOPS

821.3 GIOPS

121.6 GIOPS

Intel Core i9-7960X

754.0 GIOPS

753.9 GIOPS

114.7 GIOPS

Intel Core i7-7820X

423.7 GIOPS

423.7 GIOPS

63.85 GIOPS

Intel Core i5-7640X

238.1 GIOPS

138.1 GIOPS

33.53 GIOPS

Intel Core i9-7900X

515.1 GIOPS

515.0 GIOPS

79.76 GIOPS

Intel Core i7-7740X

258.1 GIOPS

258.0 GIOPS

35.97 GIOPS

Intel i7-6900K

255.9 GIOPS

255.9 GIOPS

63.96 GIOPS

Intel i7-7700K

258.0 GIOPS

258.0 GIOPS

35.98 GIOPS

Intel i7-5960X

223.9 GIOPS

223.9 GIOPS

55.97 GIOPS

AMD Ryzen R7 1800X

118.1 GIOPS

118.1 GIOPS

59.03 GIOPS

AMD Ryzen R7 1700X

111.7 GIOPS

111.7 GIOPS

55.84 GIOPS

AMD Ryzen R7 1700

102.1 GIOPS

102.1 GIOPS

51.05 GIOPS

AMD Ryzen R5 1600X

88.74 GIOPS

88.73 GIOPS

44.34 GIOPS

AMD Ryzen R5 1500X

57.43 GIOPS

57.45 GIOPS

28.72 GIOPS


Onboard Performance

So the CPU performance was interesting because I know people might upgrade later to use dedicated GPUs on their new APUs but the most important thing right now is just how good the onboard performance is. The Vega graphics is what sets these apart from the rest of the Ryzen lineup and the potential of having passable onboard performance that can actually be used for gaming is exciting. To start things off I ran the OpenGL test in Cinebench R15 and the results were promising. The 2400G topped the charts by a good margin and even the 2200G was right there on par with the i7-5775C that Intel brought out a few years ago that had great onboard performance.


From there I wanted to check out the synthetic benchmark 3DMark using both the Fire Strike and Time Spy tests. These test DX11 and DX12 performance. In Fire Strike, I think the results speak for themselves. Both APUs dwarfed all of the other CPUs with onboard and while the 2400G has a big lead over the 2200G it is had to tell with how far they are both ahead of the 5775C and everything else. Time Spy wasn’t really any different as well, with the 2200G doubling performance and the 2400G doing even more than that.



For Unigine based tests I used the old Valley Benchmark as well as the new Superposition test. With Valley, I tested using the ExtremeHD setting and the FPS results were once again well above everything else though not at an FPS that I would consider smooth at all. In Superposition, I tested using the 1080p Medium setting as it is a more realistic benchmark as well as the 720p low setting. Who would have ever thought you would see a low-end Ryzen 3 product with twice the performance of the much more expensive i7’s that launched months ago.



For the rest of my testing, I focused on actual game benchmarks. In TF2 it is an older game that as we saw in the CPU testing is a lot more CU limited so the gap between the two APUs and the rest of the CPUs tested wasn’t as large but they did still do much better. Imagine how well these would perform with a Ryzen 7 CPU attached. Then in the rest of my tests, each game showed over and over that the 2400G and 2200G are worlds above anything else on the DIY market for onboard performance. The biggest thing to take away from these results though was that almost all of the results actually have an FPS up to or above 60 FPS so you can expect smooth gameplay. This is something that every new APU has promised in the past but didn’t really give. Now all of those in that range are at 1080p on medium settings, Grid Autosport, for example, showed that turning things up to Ultra did drop the performance down into the 30 FPS range, but even then they were still both twice as fast as everything else. Now I did try to test using a new game as well with Ghost Recon Wildlands and both APUs played the benchmark but I had trouble with the game locking up at the end of the test every time. I didn’t have any issues with this when testing with a dedicated GPU so I’m curious as to the reason for this, but I did want to warn everyone in case there are other compatibility issues with the game with the current drivers.









Power Usage and Temperatures

For my last bit of testing, I couldn’t let the Ryzen 5 2400G and Ryzen 3 2200G get through the office without taking a look at their power usage and temperatures. Especially given all of the Ryzen testing I did with ITX coolers a while back, I wanted to see how these compared to see if they will be great as a tiny decent LAN rig.

So the first thing I wanted to take a look at was overall power usage. To do this I test our idle and load wattage for the entire system using a Kill-A-Watt. Idle is done without running anything obviously and the 2200G came in at 54.5 watts and the 2400G pulled a little more at 64.1 watts. Then for load wattage, I tested just the CPU, not the onboard to compare it with the other CPUs tested using wPrime to make sure each core was maxed and saw 114 on the 2400G and 85.9 on the 2200G. This put the 2200G in just under the 1200X and the 2400G with the 1500X as expected.


Then for temperature testing, I jumped into AIDA64 and ran their stress test using the FPU only setting because it heats things up the most. I did this using our Noctua NH-U12S cooler but I was a little surprised by my results. In fact, I did them a few times, reseating the heatsink on the 2400G. The 57 degrees of the 2200G was about what I expected but I thought the 2400G would be able the same. They have the same TDP and the 2400G doesn’t run that much higher in clock speed and this test was only checking with CPU power, not any onboard video adding heat. Swapping to the stock cooler I did the same tests. The Wraith Stealth didn’t perform the best in my Ryzen cooler testing so I wanted to confirm that it would be okay with these CPUs. What I found was that it was fine for the 2200G but the 2400G was actually running into some thermal throttling for me. I suspect that our 2400G heat issues are related to AMD's change to thermal paste under the heatspreader. Maybe ours doesn’t have the best application, but I do know that I would look at using an aftermarket cooler for both CPUs if given the chance. The included cooler is fine for a while but something more efficient including one of the other Wraith coolers would be much better suited to keep things cool.




Overall and Final Verdict

Well after a normal few day testing project turned into a few week-long disaster lol, I can finally sit down and reflect on my experience with AMD's new Raven Ridge APUs. First let me say that this might be the first time I’ve had to include a section talking about the issues I had, but at the end of the day (well more like the end of the week) it looks like the issues might be mostly localized to me and at most some weird driver compatibility issues between Nvidia and AMD. I don’t want to focus on those too much here because once I got them figured out most things ran really smoothly. More importantly, once I finished testing and really had a chance to check out the numbers. What AMD is doing here on the onboard graphics side of things is impressive. Onboard has for a while basically been relegated to being just enough to make you want to upgrade to some sort of dedicated video card and for most people, myself included I wouldn’t have it any other way. But there are a lot of situations where more power would be helpful in a package that can’t fit a video card. Not to mention the additional cost.

Both the Ryzen 5 2400G and the Ryzen3 2200G actually have enough gaming performance where you could build a rig without a dedicated GPU and be fine to play most games at medium settings and most of the “e-sports” titles like LoL, CS:GO, and DOTA 2 should run great. You would only need to upgrade later when you get the urge to get into new blockbuster titles or less optimized games (cough PUBG).

Now the 2200G and 2400G aren’t really high-end CPUs, they were designed to be mid-range so keep that in mind if you plan on upgrading later. The CPU performance is in line with where they are in the market, but it did become a bottleneck in a few of my tests. That said the performance, like any of the CPUs launched in the past year, is still a big improvement over what we were stuck with before Ryzen came in and rocked the market. These are both 4 core 8 thread CPUs where before at these prices you were getting scraps at best.

The onboard performance was the biggest difference between the two APUs. The 2400G has 11 Vega CUs compared to 8 on the 2200G so it did show a big difference in testing. It also had a little more clock speed on both the GPU and CPU as well. This translated to more heat as well though. So much so that our sample seemed to have throttling issues when using the stock cooler. I love that they included them, especially with the 2200G’s price point. But if you plan on pushing the 2400G you might need to look at an upgrade later.

Now the lower L3 cache on both of these do mean that if you plan on adding a dedicated GPU right away you would be better off going with a regular Ryzen CPU. But hey remember AM4 allows you to be able to upgrade all the way up to the higher end CPUs later if needed. Raven Ridge also has lower limits on PCI Lanes so you only get 8 PCIe 3.0 lanes so upgrading to a GPU is still possible but could be limiting later, especially if you are running a full ATX board that would basically have a useless slot because of it.

The other downside with these APUs was that they are dependent on high-speed memory. This isn’t a surprise to anyone who has been following Ryzen. The infinity fabric that ties everything together is clocked with the memory, so faster memory is going to benefit you. Doing so will cost a little more as well, not enough to turn me away from either of them but it is something to keep in mind.

Speaking of pricing, the Ryzen 5 2400G has an MSRP of $169 right now and the Ryzen 3 2200G comes in just under $100 at $99. For starters, the 2200G is a steal! Think about how much more it would have cost you to build a 4 core 8 thread PC with at least some gaming competence a year ago. Pair that with a cheap motherboard and you are going to end up spending more on memory to get 16 gigs than you would the CPU and motherboard! Now the 2400G is a lot more expensive and the value does drop a little, but it was also noticeably faster in all of my tests so you do get something for that investment. I don’t know if it is worth $70 more, but it is still a good deal.

More importantly being able to get by with some basic gaming performance is a huge deal with now with GPUs being hard to find and expensive when you do. Because of that, I can see Raven Ridge being an interim solution for a lot of people trying to wait out the crazy prices. They both also look promising for budget builds and HTPC builds.


Live Pricing: HERE



Live Pricing: HERE

Author Bio
Author: garfi3ldWebsite: https://lanoc.org
You might call him obsessed or just a hardcore geek. Wes's obsession with gaming hardware and gadgets isn't anything new, he could be found taking things apart even as a child. When not poking around in PC's he can be found playing League of Legends, Awesomenauts, or Civilization 5 or watching a wide variety of TV shows and Movies. A car guy at heart, the same things that draw him into tweaking cars apply when building good looking fast computers. If you are interested in writing for Wes here at LanOC you can reach out to him directly using our contact form.

Log in to comment

We have 801 guests and one member online