Question $169 2400g or Ryzen 5 1600 for three screen set up

[Kristian Henao]

would it be better to run a 1080p monitor off the apu the orher two off my 1050 ti 4k and 1080p
or get a 1600 and run both 1080p and one 4k off of the card?

 

[LordVile]

From what I know the 2600 is cheaper than the 2400g?

What are you using the monitors for?

 

[Kristian Henao]

the 2600 doesnt have an an apu, im hoping to save some frames by running a monitor off the apu and the other two off the card, or all three of the card with a faster more core cpu, and pcpartpicker is showing canadian website both cost the same 169.99 and the 2600 is 184.55
or spen t he extra 15 and be ok running all screens off the 1050ti?

 

[Kristian Henao]

i looked further this
ASRock Fatal1ty B450 GAMING K4 ATX AM4 Motherboard
has two outputs for video off the apu and ill run the 4k off the card

 

[Kristian Henao]

From what I know the 2600 is cheaper than the 2400g?

What are you using the monitors for?

youtube play back or movies mirrored on the 1080p screen while i game a 1080p on the 4k
im hoping to put the 1080p monitors running off the APU to save the gpu from displaying all three alone

 

[Karadjgne]

Games and video are totally different even if both are visual representations. Video takes next to no power at all, you can easily go 4k playback on a gtx750ti. Or the APU. Games are a whole different story altogether. Video is one file. Games are thousands of small files. With video, the cpu is not nearly as important, there's no real pre-rendering, organizing, placement, addressing, etc for thousands of small individual files, so even the APU is more than sufficient to that task, but with games, the cpu sets the fps limits precisely because it has to pre-render every frame, place every item file, organize, change with user input etc. In that the R5 1600 is far superior to the 2400G, has more cores, more threads, greater bandwidth, far greater Lcache, which adds up to far higher fps.

Personally, I'd run a 2600 and run all 3 monitors from the gpu, the impact to the gpu will be minimal, even running 4k video, but I'd game on a 1080p monitor. Trying to run the APU for some and gpu for game screen does nothing but regulate the fps to whatever limits the APU can output on its cpu side.

 

[LordVile]

Games and video are totally different even if both are visual representations. Video takes next to no power at all, you can easily go 4k playback on a gtx750ti. Or the APU. Games are a whole different story altogether. Video is one file. Games are thousands of small files. With video, the cpu is not nearly as important, there's no real pre-rendering, organizing, placement, addressing, etc for thousands of small individual files, so even the APU is more than sufficient to that task, but with games, the cpu sets the fps limits precisely because it has to pre-render every frame, place every item file, organize, change with user input etc. In that the R5 1600 is far superior to the 2400G, has more cores, more threads, greater bandwidth, far greater Lcache, which adds up to far higher fps.

Personally, I'd run a 2600 and run all 3 monitors from the gpu, the impact to the gpu will be minimal, even running 4k video, but I'd game on a 1080p monitor. Trying to run the APU for some and gpu for game screen does nothing but regulate the fps to whatever limits the APU can output on its cpu side.

Yeah you can run a 4K or 8K video on an intel iGPU on a pentium from nearly 5 years ago. The biggest issue was the encoder for 4K which was a physical chip nothing to do with the power of the silicon.

running a video isn’t hard you’d be fine doing it all off the GPU, the biggest issue there Would be RAM. If you only have 8GB your browser will eat into that leaving you not a great about for games. I know with me having 16 the games use more than they can get away with but I can see usage up to 10GB easily.

 

[Wolfshadw]

Neither the Ryzen 1600 nor the 2600 have integrated graphics. Unless the processor name ends with a "G", it does not have integrated graphics. So you cannot run anything from the motherboard outputs using either a 1600 or 2600 (or 3600). Your options are the 2200G or the 2400G (or 3200G). Obviously, you want the best you can afford and I'm not seeing anything about serious GPU power.

If all we're talking about here is viewing videos, then opt for a lower graphics card (GT1030 comes to mind - verify it supports three displays) and the best processor you can afford (Ryzen 5 2600?).

-Wolf sends

 

[Karadjgne]

Op has a 1050ti, that was the question. Run split with apu/gpu with a 2400G, or run sole gpu with a 1600, pushing 2x 1080p and a 4k down scaled to 1080p.

The 1600 will get better overall performance for fps etc during gaming, the 1050ti can easily handle 3x 1080p resolutions under video usage seperately, or even gaming and watching video, with minimal gpu impact. Just can't run 4k gaming, period, not on a 1050ti and expect more than 10-20fps at mimimal detail settings, not run nvidia surround and triple play the monitors.