AMD’s newest APUs, the Ryzen 3 2200G and Ryzen 5 2400G, might be the greatest gift to budget gaming we’ve had in quite a while. Howdy howdy guys ponchato here, and today we’re taking a look at AMD’s Ryzen 5 2400G. First, a bit of background. It’s what AMD calls an “APU” or “Accelerated Processing Unit”, which just means that it’s a CPU with an integrated graphics processor, similar to most Intel CPUs.
The big difference is the 2200G and 2400G are meant to actually be usable in real-life gaming, rather than just basic web browsing and general computer use, or running League of Legends at 12 fps. That’s the idea, anyway, and we’ll test that out later in the video. The 2400G, part of the Raven Ridge series, was released in February of 2018 at a launch price of $169 USD. It’s a 4 core, 8 thread processor utilizing the AM4 socket and runs at a base frequency of 3.6GHz with boost up to 3.9, and like all Ryzen processors, it is unlocked. That means you can overclock it even on relatively inexpensive B350 chipset motherboards along with the higher end X370 boards. It comes with 2MB of L2 cache, 4MB of L3, and it’s on the 14nm node. The integrated GPU has 11 RX Vega compute units running at 1250MHz, and the processor supports memory speeds up to DDR4-2933, a slight increase from the Ryzen 1000 series. An interesting thing to note on the 2400G is that it only has 8 PCIe lanes compared to, for example, Intel’s i5-7500 with 16 lanes or the Ryzen 3 1200 with 20.
AMD probably figured that people wouldn’t be putting this CPU in a multi-GPU setup, and 8 lanes won’t bottleneck any consumer-level GPUs anyway. Finally, in terms of cooling, the 2400G comes with AMD’s very capable Wraith Stealth cooler, which should easily handle its TDP of 65W. First we’ll take a look at the CPU benchmarks. In Cinebench, the Ryzen 5 2400G scored 157 in the single core benchmark and 817 in the multicore, compared to the i5-7500 at 164 and 603. The 2400G’s SMT, which gives it 8 threads instead of just four, seems to help multicore performance quite a bit. In the CPU-Z benchmark, single core performance hit 4and multicore scored 2291.5; again slightly behind the i5 in single threaded performance but ahead in multi-thread. Next up is 7-Zip’s compression and decompression benchmark, a more real-world test, where the 2400G hit MB/s in compression and 266 MB/s in decompression.
That’s about 6% faster for compression and over 50% faster in decompression vs the i5-7500. Next we’ll look at memory bandwidth with the Sandra benchmark test – GB/s vs the i5’s 24.9, and keep in mind both CPUs were using the same 2x4GB kit of DDR4-2400 memory. Finally for the content creation benchmark, I render a small slice of video with plenty of effects and transitions using Sony Vegas CPU rendering. The 2400G finished in while the i5 finished in 1:04. It looks like the 2400G’s multithreading doesn’t make much of a difference when dealing with video rendering.
Now we’ll look at the 1080p gaming benchmarks. First up, Battlefield 1. Performance on low settings was actually pretty good, at just under 50 FPS average and lows around 30. Medium settings were still playable at 33 FPS average and lows in the mid-20s, but high and ultra were a bit rough; 24 and 22 FPS respectively. I was actually kind of surprised how well the 2400G played on low settings, which was pretty close to the performance of discrete budget GPUs. Next, CSGO. The interesting thing here is how low the lows are compared to the average FPS: 148 vs 54 on low, 64 vs 11 on high. That’s a pretty steep drop. I expect that limiting the frame rate might help make gameplay more consistent, though low settings certainly run well enough for an enjoyable experience. I don’t think I’d push the graphics settings to max though, considering this is a competitive shooter and the frame drops might get you killed.
Third is Deus Ex: Mankind Divided. As you can see, the 2400G can’t handle it at all when running at 1080p. To be honest, I didn’t really expect it to, since Deus Ex is a very graphically intensive game. A discrete GPU would serve you much better for a game like this. Next we’ll look at GTA 5. There’s actually very little difference in average FPS between low, medium, and high settings; 31 vs 29 vs 27. Even the lows don’t change very much between the graphics settings.
GTA 5 is usually very forgiving, but apparently not in this case. Low settings do work the best, and actually aren’t too bad considering how consistent the frame rate is. It never runs much above 30 FPS, but it essentially never stutters, either, which isn’t often the case. Now we’ll look at Just Cause 3. On low settings, average FPS hits 44 with lows around 22 FPS, while medium settings were almost identical at an average of 41 and lows again around 22.
High settings just barely drop it into unplayable territory with an average FPS of 27. Overall in Just Cause 3, it looks like medium settings are the best pairing for the 2400G. Next up is Overwatch. Another usually forgiving, except in this case, e-sports title. Low settings had bizarrely rough lows, but things leveled off at medium settings; 55 FPS average, 47 FPS 1% lows, and 43 for the 0.1%. High settings again had weird frame rate drop offs, but bumping it up to ultra leveled it off again. Like Just Cause 3, the game just barely dips into unplayable territory on max settings with an average FPS of 27. I would stick to medium or high settings, unless you really want prettier graphics in which case Ultra settings are playable in Overwatch. Next is PUBG. Anything above very low settings is unplayable, but to be honest, I was kind of surprised how well very low settings worked. PUBG is (still) far from optimized, so I was imagining performance down in the 20s even on very low. But it really wasn’t that bad, and I didn’t have any trouble with frame drops or lag in game.
I didn’t expect it, but if you can deal with the lowest graphics settings, the 2400G actually can handle PUBG. Last but not least is Rocket League. Low settings will net you 135 FPS average with lows at 95 and 68, medium settings drop that considerably to 69 FPS average with lows at 55 and 47, and finally high settings average 39 FPS with lows around 30. If you’re shooting for 120 or 144Hz gaming, low settings are the way to go, but if 60 FPS is all you’re looking for, the 2400G can handle Rocket League at medium settings just fine. Now for an overview of gaming performance, we’ll take a look at multi-game averages. First, the e-sports titles. Low settings average about 120 FPS with lows at about 60 and 40, medium settings average 84 with lows at about 50 and 40, and maxed out the average FPS dropped to 44 with lows around 20. If your primary games are e-sports titles like CSGO or Rocket League, low settings should be your target for 120 or 144Hz gaming, and performance on medium settings should be more than enough for standard 60Hz monitors. Next, the non-esports average. These are combined results from games like PUBG and GTA 5.
Low settings averaged 36 FPS with lows in the mid-20s, while medium settings and above were mostly below the level of being playable; 29 FPS on medium and 20 FPS when maxed out. It looks like the 2400G will be limited to low settings in regular games if you’re playing at 1080p. Then again, if you’re really concerned about your graphics settings, you probably aren’t looking at APUs for gaming anyway. Now, some of these game results are pretty strange – GTA 5 is typically one of the most forgiving non-esports titles, except with the 2400G, Just Cause 3 is typically much lower in performance, except with the 2400G, and Overwatch is almost always playable when maxed out, except with the 2400G.
I have a feeling that performance will become more consistent with future driver updates, as AMD irons out all the quirks with these APUs. As a last note on gaming performance, we’ll look at the FPS per dollar. At first glance this is really low – an average GPU hits around .6 to .8, but you have to keep in mind that this is for an entire CPU and GPU built in, not just a standalone GPU. If you included the cost of an equivalent CPU (something like an i5-7500) with most GPUs, you’d get results somewhere around .2 to .4, similar to the 2400G.
Finally we’ll look at temperatures and power usage. These tests were performed with the stock cooler, so these temperatures are what you can expect if you’re building a computer with the 2400G for yourself. Using my standard test setup of a 2x4GB kit of DDR4-2400 memory and an RX 550 (so non-CPU power draw is the same for all systems), at idle the 2400G hit a delta of degrees Celsius and had a power draw of just under 50W. For reference, the i5-7500 hit a delta of C but only drew 37W. Under load with Prime95, the 2400G hit a delta of C and drew 117W from the wall, compared to the i5’s 43 degree delta and 88W. To be completely fair, AMD doesn’t really have a great reputation for power efficiency, but for most people power usage is basically a non-issue. As I’ve done with CPU reviews before, I didn’t include the overclocking results in this video because there are plenty of people out there who don’t overclock at all.
If you want to see the OC results as soon as they’re up, be sure to hit subscribe now. The 2400G will run you about as much as an Intel Pentium G5400 and Nvidia GT 1030 and, I expect, give you pretty similar gaming performance. There are a few major benefits to the 2400G though. The first is overclocking, since it’s unlocked whereas the G5400 (and all non-K processors from Intel) isn’t.
Second, the AM4 socket is going to be supported through 2019 or 2020, so you’ll have a much longer usable lifespan of your motherboard and memory since later generation Ryzen CPUs will still be supported. Finally, the 2400G is a quad core with 8 threads; the cheapest current-gen quad core from Intel is the i3-8100, which runs about $120 and that’s before you even get a GPU. Overall I think the 2400G tackles its market well. I think AMD was really targeting couch gamers with this APU – people who just want a small, simple, console-like PC they can have next to their TV in the living room to play games like Rocket League without being locked into one or the other console’s ecosystems.
For non-gamers, the 2400G doesn’t make much sense since you’re wasting a lot of money on gaming performance you don’t need. But, if you don’t play any games at all, you probably aren’t going to be watching this video to begin with. For more serious gamers, I think the value proposition is mainly in the upgradability department; this gives you an unlocked 4 core, 8 thread processor and decent gaming performance for under $200, and maybe most importantly, will let you keep the same platform for the next two to three years while still having new upgrade options for both the CPU and GPU. I think the Ryzen 5 2400G is a pretty great option for gamers on a tight budget, who still want to leave upgrade options open (and easy) for the future. Click the link in the description to pick one up for yourself.
If you want to get notified of new videos as soon as they’re up, hit subscribe then click the bell icon to enable notifications. So guys if you liked this video hit the like button, if you want to see more hit subscribe, and if you have any questions on the 2400G or any of these benchmarks, leave them in the comments below. Thanks for watching, I hope I helped, and I’ll see you in the next video..
As found on Youtube