8400 vs 2400G

[mdjobair.6500]

Hi!
I'm about to build a budget system for Workstation (photoshop, Illustrator, AutoCAD etc) & light Gaming in around $500-550. Specs will be- 2x4GB RAM, 128GB SATA SSD, 1TB HDD. I have a few question on some choices on processor.

They are:-
1) Should I get the I3-8100? So I can look over more accessories. Or just buy an I5-8400. It'll be hard for me to get a GPU soon or maybe never. For that, should I get the AMD R5-2400G?

2) How much gaming is possible without GPU in 2400G compared to Intel's lineup?

3) Differences in power consumption between 8400 & 2400G.

4) Can I use stock PSU that comes with the casing? What worst can be happen if I use it? Or it'll be fine with just extra cost on electricity bill.

(I have bought the casing. It's Golden Field 6021B with 450w PSU.)

 

[vapour]

if ram is 2400, dump ryzen since they only shines with faster ram... ram speed has little impact on Intel

this can be automatically overclocked upto 3200mhz.

good luck with that....
XMP does not guarantee working and Ryzen is picky with ram, a bunch of 3200 ram may not run 3200 with Ryzen.

 

[mdd1963]

The 2400G is 'ok' at 720P gaming, with it's integrated graphics roughly matching a GTX1030....

You'd be far better off with an 8400 and at least a GTX1050Ti, if at all possible, despite the additional expense, unless happy with 720P gaming at 40-50 fps.......and content knowing it will undoubtedly be worse with newer games.

how much fps difference will be there between 8400 & 2400g if i add a 1050ti?

The 1050Ti might be close to being saturated with a 2400G, but, the 8400 is far superior, and would allow better gains with a GPU-upgrade in the future, vice being cpu-handicapped with a mere 2400G

 

[King_V]

The 2400G is 'ok' at 720P gaming, with it's integrated graphics roughly matching a GTX1030....

You'd be far better off with an 8400 and at least a GTX1050Ti, if at all possible, despite the additional expense, unless happy with 720P gaming at 40-50 fps.......and content knowing it will undoubtedly be worse with newer games.

how much fps difference will be there between 8400 & 2400g if i add a 1050ti?

The 1050Ti might be close to being saturated with a 2400G, but, the 8400 is far superior, and would allow better gains with a GPU-upgrade in the future, vice being cpu-handicapped with a mere 2400G

Gaming, yes. But would the 2400G with the greater thread count (albeit lesser core count) have the advantage in Photoshop, Illustrator, and the other software OP stated that will be in use? I get the impression that it's primarily productivity with light gaming on the side.

 

[InvalidError]

I get the impression that it's primarily productivity with light gaming on the side.

Well, as far as 'light gaming' is concerned, Intel's current IGPs are still only barely adequate for low detail 720p in semi-modern games. Sure, it can do it, but gaming performance will rarely be pleasant beyond the lowest resolution and details available. I wouldn't use Intel's IGPs for anything beyond pushing desktop pixels to the screen.

 

[King_V]

I get the impression that it's primarily productivity with light gaming on the side.

Well, as far as 'light gaming' is concerned, Intel's current IGPs are still only barely adequate for low detail 720p in semi-modern games. Sure, it can do it, but gaming performance will rarely be pleasant beyond the lowest resolution and details available. I wouldn't use Intel's IGPs for anything beyond pushing desktop pixels to the screen.

Oh, agreed. I meant in terms of if it would be preferable to use the Ryzen's with its extra threads, and light-gaming oriented IGP, as opposed to going with an i5 setup.

 

[larrycumming]

I get the impression that it's primarily productivity with light gaming on the side.

Well, as far as 'light gaming' is concerned, Intel's current IGPs are still only barely adequate for low detail 720p in semi-modern games. Sure, it can do it, but gaming performance will rarely be pleasant beyond the lowest resolution and details available. I wouldn't use Intel's IGPs for anything beyond pushing desktop pixels to the screen.

Well, G4600 with HD 630 IGP gets about 10fps in PUBG (low settings), but games like LoL are silky smooth

and I think Ryzen 2200G gets about 30fps in PUBG (low settings), equally unplayable

1050ti on the other hand, gets about 60fps in PUBG (medium)

 

[King_V]

I get the impression that it's primarily productivity with light gaming on the side.

Well, as far as 'light gaming' is concerned, Intel's current IGPs are still only barely adequate for low detail 720p in semi-modern games. Sure, it can do it, but gaming performance will rarely be pleasant beyond the lowest resolution and details available. I wouldn't use Intel's IGPs for anything beyond pushing desktop pixels to the screen.

Well, G4600 with HD 630 IGP gets about 10fps in PUBG (low settings), but games like LoL are silky smooth

and I think Ryzen 2200G gets about 30fps in PUBG (low settings), equally unplayable

1050ti on the other hand, gets about 60fps in PUBG (medium)

I would definitely NOT call 30fps equally unplayable compared to 10fps.

A steady 30fps would be pretty smooth. And, if that's the 2200G, then the 2400G is definitely faster.

 

[larrycumming]

I get the impression that it's primarily productivity with light gaming on the side.

Well, as far as 'light gaming' is concerned, Intel's current IGPs are still only barely adequate for low detail 720p in semi-modern games. Sure, it can do it, but gaming performance will rarely be pleasant beyond the lowest resolution and details available. I wouldn't use Intel's IGPs for anything beyond pushing desktop pixels to the screen.

Well, G4600 with HD 630 IGP gets about 10fps in PUBG (low settings), but games like LoL are silky smooth

and I think Ryzen 2200G gets about 30fps in PUBG (low settings), equally unplayable

1050ti on the other hand, gets about 60fps in PUBG (medium)

I would definitely NOT call 30fps equally unplayable compared to 10fps.

A steady 30fps would be pretty smooth. And, if that's the 2200G, then the 2400G is definitely faster.

well, 2400G is still no where close to 1050ti in terms of performance but if you would run pubg at 720p you should be able to get 40-60fps out of the 2400G.


still I would rather get a discrete graphics to do the job just for the shear silicons/capacitors/pcb/cooling fans/vrm and power delivery.

 

[larrycumming]

oh and not to mention the 4gb of gddr5 (4gb would run some $40 in ddr4 money)

gtx 1050 memory bandwidth is @ 112GB/s, even the latest ddr4 quad channel memory can barely compete with that.

 

[King_V]

True, but OP's talking about light gaming, and the primary use doesn't appear to be gaming.

 

[InvalidError]

True, but OP's talking about light gaming, and the primary use doesn't appear to be gaming.

Doesn't change the fact that if gaming is on the radar at all, Intel's IGP is marginally adequate at best.

Gaming isn't my PC's primary purpose either, still put a GTX1050 in it after AMD discontinued driver support for the HD5770 I had been using until then.

 

[King_V]

True, but OP's talking about light gaming, and the primary use doesn't appear to be gaming.

Doesn't change the fact that if gaming is on the radar at all, Intel's IGP is marginally adequate at best.

Gaming isn't my PC's primary purpose either, still put a GTX1050 in it after AMD discontinued driver support for the HD5770 I had been using until then.

I'd been assuming this part of the conversation was based on the premise of going with a 2400G, and not Intel.