Yeah these are only a decent buy if you're looking for something with a strong iGPU. Even then, these are stopgaps until the Zen 2 powered APUs hit - although that might be a while, since they're wisely targeting mobile first. They've also been around for a while now, so it's not like a hot new release.i3-9350K on top in pretty much all of the gaming tests with a discrete gpu? From what I have seen, it is considered a terrible purchase at its MSRP. Didn't expect to see it perform this well in this review.
Which is exactly what makes it surprising that we're seeing a review of it at this late date. But I guess ANY review of actual hardware is a good thing. Better than another "this is on sale" or "check out these deals" piece of clutter.Yeah these are only a decent buy if you're looking for something with a strong iGPU. Even then, these are stopgaps until the Zen 2 powered APUs hit - although that might be a while, since they're wisely targeting mobile first. They've also been around for a while now, so it's not like a hot new release.
Planting a "refreshed AMD APUs aren't that much better than the older version" message in the readers' consciousness might me seen as an attempt to detract a little from the upcoming release of the 4000 series APUs - which are expected to be rather good....I don't get it - the 3400G has been released to market over a year ago - why review it now?
Exactly. Seeing this review, with no apparent acknowledgement of its lateness, sent my head spinning.Which is exactly what makes it surprising that we're seeing a review of it at this late date.
This is a bad idea, since none of these CPUs supports ECC memory. Running any sort of file or database server without ECC memory is a recipe for data corruption.I happen to have i5 9600K, R5 3400g, R3 3200g as generic Linux servers.
Yeah, I assumed this review just got put on the "back-burner", at the time, and it basically took them until now to get around to finishing it off.why would tom's detract from the 4000 APUs? that's quite the accusation
nor have they done a review of the budget Ryzen 3 3200G either, which would show that when overclocked, it performs as well as an overclocked Ryzen 5 3400G.So, it seems they really never did post a proper review, until now.
I'm sure it will depend on the game - whether it's more compute or memory bottlenecked. But, it's true that the APUs are a lot more memory-bottlenecked than dGPUs. So, anything to help that will tend to have an out-sized effect on APU performance.that might sound counter-intuitive, because it is. but the truth will expose the issue with all these APUs; that there is alot more going on when you don't have a dedicated card with it's own highspeed memory. there will be all sorts of bottlenecks that will let the ryzen 3 catch up to the ryzen 5.
Yeah, it is a bit after launch, but you'll notice a lot of sites did not test these, and this was obviously a lower priority, as we have published reviews of all the other 3000-series models and Intel chips in the interim (a dozen or so). The samples for these came amidst the rush of the 3000-series chips, which we obviously prioritized. A string of other NDAs, coupled with the normal travel and other things (five articles on AMD boost investigation that were definitely much more important at the time), led to this one being late. Which would you rather have, the 3400G review, or the exclusive article (and work that went into discovering and proving it) that exposed that AMD had changed binning tactics (without telling anyone) and that, by design, not all cores are capable of reaching the maximum rated boost frequencies? I know which one I, and all the people who couldn't figure out why they weren't hitting clocks, would rather have. Or how about choosing between the world's first look inside Intel's overclocking lab or the 3400G review? That's why we prioritize.Exactly. Seeing this review, with no apparent acknowledgement of its lateness, sent my head spinning.
As I thought, it seems the Ryzen 5 3400 G has been available since July, 2019. Retail boxed, no less.
In my experience, this is inaccurate. 3200G doesn't overclock as high, at least our sample doesn't. We can only hit 4.0 on the CPU, 3200 on the RAM, and 1550 MHz on the graphics. Still having stability issues with the chip at these much lower settings (well, lower than 3400G). Not to mention it has 8 CU as opposed to 11. Serious performance delta there. I'm still trying to nail down some of the issues we're having with our sample, which could be either BIOS or silicon. The 3200G also comes with thermal paste and not solder TIM, which might be part of the reason for much lower OC capability. The reason you haven't seen reviews of that one is simply time: These chips were released during a mudslide of other consecutive releases, and many sites didnt even bother hitting them at all.is it true that due to the quirks of on chip memory bandwith, an overclocked R3 3200G pretty much matches an overclocked R5 3400G in integrated gaming performance? is that why AMD WON'T LET BIG REVIEWERS PIT OVERCLOCKED R3 APUs AGAINST R5 APUs?
please, for us budget gamers out here, will you PLEASE TEST AN OVERCLOCKED RYZEN 3 APU!!!!
ould be nice
That's silly. We're just calling it how it is. Ryzen 3000-series chips dominate our recommendations in almost all categories and have received multiple awards. Remember, the first round of APUs came during the GPU shortage due to mining, so they were clear-cut winners then. The market is different now. This is a good chip, just not an uncontested leader in its price class due to the reasons cited in the article. Also, pricing on AMD's previous-gen chips.Planting a "refreshed AMD APUs aren't that much better than the older version" message in the readers' consciousness might me seen as an attempt to detract a little from the upcoming release of the 4000 series APUs - which are expected to be rather good....
All good reasons. My only real complaint was that the article didn't acknowledge that the chips launched ~6 months ago. So, I spent a couple minutes scanning the article, trying to see if this was a different 3400G than we had before (since the article talked about it being a refresh, which I get was a reference to the 2400G, but I wasn't initially sure) or if some update got added that popped the article back onto the front page.Yeah, it is a bit after launch, but you'll notice ...
Paul, I'd never accuse you of being lazy!If only you knew how many times we've had to retest entire test pools over the last six months ...