AMD Ryzen 5 2400G Tests: How Much Does Memory Impact Gaming?

[Guest]

Eager to coax more performance from AMD's Raven Ridge-based processors, we reinstalled our Ryzen 5 2400G to see how it reacts to different memory frequencies, timings, and DIMM configurations.

AMD Ryzen 5 2400G Tests: How Much Does Memory Impact Gaming? : Read more

 

[larkspur]

Thanks for this info - essential for anyone building with Raven Ridge. I would have liked to see a 2 x 4gb kit tested to illustrate any differences in 8gb vs 16gb configurations. 8gb kits are likely to be very popular for low-budget Raven Ridge builds.

In the description you say you used a FlareX kit. In the Test Configuration section it says Gskill Ripjaws V. Which kit did you actually use?

 

[PaulAlcorn]

Thanks for this info - essential for anyone building with Raven Ridge. I would have liked to see a 2 x 4gb kit tested to illustrate any differences in 8gb vs 16gb configurations. 8gb kits are likely to be very popular for low-budget Raven Ridge builds.

In the description you say you used a FlareX kit. In the Test Configuration section it says Gskill Ripjaws V. Which kit did you actually use?

We used two FlareX kits. We are correcting the table now, thanks for catching it!

 

[salgado18]

Oh, how I would like to see it run a DDR4-4000 kit, while OCing Vega

Though I believe it wouldn't be stable enough, since 3000 wasn't with 4 modules

 

[King_V]

I've got to echo larkspur's thanks - given the various thoughts that had come up in the previous review's comments, regarding speed vs CL, it was great to see the comparisons that actually put it to the test.

 

[drinkingcola86]

I couldn't see in this one or the last review of these processors to see if you set the chips to use more than the 512 mb of video ram?

 

[King_V]

Inside the BIOS, you have options for specifically dedicating memory to the graphics subsystem. AMD says this just allows for higher detail settings in some cases, though, and won't boost your frame rates. Windows already allocates up to half of the system memory to graphics dynamically, so dialing in more isn't always beneficial. In some cases, it'll even penalize application performance. Really, there's no need to mess with these settings.

That seems to indicate that Paul didn't touch it, if I were to guess.

 

[PaulAlcorn]

We experimented with changing the value, but it had no impact on performance. We tested with the default 512MB.

 

[psiboy]

Why the hell would you run 1866 at CL14 ??!!! You should be able to do waaayy better than that! Then post some benchmarks! Sheesh Paul!

 

[alextheblue]

Stepping up to DDR4-2933 adds another $25 to $30.

I don't know, I've seen plenty of 3000/3200 kits in the ~$170-180 ballpark. I don't think the typical difference in cost is quite that great, unless you really limit your search to 2933 kits.

Why the hell would you run 1866 at CL14 ??!!! You should be able to do waaayy better than that! Then post some benchmarks! Sheesh Paul!

Probably to cut down on the number of data points. Anyway it doesn't really matter much. If your RAM is good enough to run 1866 at much more aggressive timings, it's good enough to run at a higher frequency... which will yield better results with the integrated 11 CU Vega.

 

[ccoonansr]

I wonder if it's possible for a motherboard company to slap 2-4 GB of GDDR5x/6 specifically for the iGPU ?

 

[mitch074]

I wonder if it's possible for a motherboard company to slap 2-4 GB of GDDR5x/6 specifically for the iGPU ?

No can do, as the memory controller is on the CPU itself and the RAM channels are clocked at the RAM's frequency; at best you could reduce latency, but this test shows that it has much less impact than pure throughput.
The only way to improve bandwidth without increasing frequency would be to add extra memory channels, but there would be little sense in putting a $100 CPU on a $400 motherboard (4-channel Threadripper, which doesn't handle video output anyway).

Looking at the current performance curve, my guess is that Vega 11 wouldn't be noticeably starved for bandwidth at dual channel 3600 speed, and might make use of DDR4-4000 only when overclocked.

 

[King_V]

(replying to nate1492, not sure why my reply is showing up BEFORE his post)

Tanking performance?

For example, Witcher 3, min/avg

2dimm
2933 CL 14 - 42/48.6
2933 CL 16 - 39/47.9
2667 CL 14 - 39/46.1
2667 CL 16 - 41/45.6

4dimm
2933 CL 14 - 44/49.1
2933 CL 16 - 44/49.1
2667 CL 14 - 43/47.1
2667 CL 16 - 41/46.8

That a very slight increase.


For Civ 6

2dimm
2933 CL 14 - 46/55.4
2933 CL 16 - 45/55.3
2667 CL 14 - 44/53.2
2667 CL 16 - 43/52.5

4dimm
2933 CL 14 - 47/57.1
2933 CL 16 - 46/56.5
2667 CL 14 - 45/54.6
2667 CL 16 - 45/54.0

Again, a very slight increase. How does this constitute "tanking" with 4 DIMMs vs 2 DIMMs?

 

[DbD2]

Given the stupid cost of memory and the fact you need such good memory for these it does somewhat ruin the value proposition. Then there's the driver problems (unplayable stuttering in some games). You'd be better just saving up a few extra $$$ and getting a proper cpu and cheap discrete graphics.

That said I don't think there will be many home builds, what infact will happen is ill-informed people will buy cheap desktop systems on the promise of quad core + radeon graphics, only they will have rubbish memory in it and never get anything like the fps you see in the reviews.

 

[King_V]

Given the stupid cost of memory and the fact you need such good memory for these it does somewhat ruin the value proposition. Then there's the driver problems (unplayable stuttering in some games). You'd be better just saving up a few extra $$$ and getting a proper cpu and cheap discrete graphics.

What the heck are you talking about?

For example, filtering by 2x8 matched pairs for 16GB, G.Skill Ripjaws V, new only, seller Newegg:

2133Mhz, CL 15, $160.99
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231884&ignorebbr=1

3000Mhz, CL 15, $169.99
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231937&ignorebbr=1

You could conceivable make an argument that the former is 15-15-15-35 and the latter 15-16-16-35, but as has been demonstrated, CL matters FAR less than memory speed.


That's not even close to being a big enough difference to make it worth going to a discrete graphics card, presumably a GT 1030, which is kind of rare to find at MSRP of $79.99 (though it does admittedly come up)

EDIT: Also, that video you posted to is . . 1 - a single video, and 2 - using the 2200G. If there are driver issues, and unplayable stuttering, why didn't they run into it in their testing here?

 

[Nintendork]

Please just stop testing with just 3200, everyone and their mother already tested with that kit.

How about going to the limits of Ryzen APU's memory support and the lowest latency/highest frequency you can get? Those DDR4 4600 kits

Also make a VS of a 1700Mhz Vega11 with best settings from above vs RX560 with the GDDR5 underclocked to match whatever you get on the DDR4 memory test?

 

[Nintendork]

@DBD2
CPU alone already worths it's price, you get an i7 7700 for $169 (if you don't count the igpu)

NO MATTER how CHEAP you want to go with memory, you're gonna be screwed anyways.

MANY modern games are already eating 8GB of system ram even if the game is at low. No matter if you go dgpu or igpu, always get 2x8GB UNLESS:

-You only play mobas
-And or play pre 2016 games

 

[Nintendork]

As I said before, games are chewing 8GB+ of system ram, then if you add virtual vram for the igpu and you get less ram for game system use? You will go to pagefile on HDD/SSD/Optane and that will result in stuttering.

2x8GB or nothing, no matter what you build.

 

[Nintendork]

As I said before, games are chewing 8GB+ of system ram, then if you add virtual vram for the igpu and you get less ram for game system use? You will go to pagefile on HDD/SSD/Optane and that will result in stuttering.

2x8GB or nothing, no matter what you build.

 

[RebootEDC]

Actual RAM prices are a big concern. Damned cryptos.

 

[envy14tpe]

I feel like these APUs are better designed for nongaming purposes, such as office PCs or HTPCs. 2x4gb seems enough for the 2200g.

 

[larkspur]

MANY modern games are already eating 8GB of system ram even if the game is at low. No matter if you go dgpu or igpu, always get 2x8GB UNLESS:

-You only play mobas
-And or play pre 2016 games

I agree that 16gb is better for these new APUs and more forward-looking for regular CPUs. But the problem with new games that have 8gb RAM minimums is that many of them have GPU minimums that far exceed a GT 1030 or RX 550. This makes those games very difficult to play on the 2200g or 2400g regardless of having 16gb of RAM to work with. These are budget processors plain and simple. Many of the budgets for these systems that I see don't have enough money to include 2x8gb of RAM at current inflated prices. The difference in price is ~$70. That's basically half the price of a Nvidia 1050. So instead of a 2400g with 16gb of RAM, you could have a 2200g (or R3 1200) with 8gb of RAM + a GTX 1050 for the same price. That's why it'd be nice to see some 2x4gb benchmarks.

I don't see the point of trying to clock one of these @DDR4 4600 and compare it to a memory-underclocked RX 560. I just don't see the IMC being able to handle such high frequencies and why underclock the memory of the RX 560? Obviously it would perform worse. It uses GDDR5 at that clock for a reason.