[SOLVED] Is Ryzen 5 2600 worth it over Ryzen 3 2200 for future proofing?

ms5555

Distinguished
Aug 17, 2010
143
0
18,690
Ryzen 5 2600 I can find for $160 and I can get a Ryzen 3 2200g for $80 so exactly half the price. Socket of course is the same so are the extra 2 cores worth it for $80? In gaming benchmarks they perform almost identical, they are almost the same base clock speeds with similar single thread performance it seems. This PC is just for gaming and web browsing and I have a budget GPU so I'll likely always be GPU bound, I just wondering if extra 2 cores will be necessary any time soon for games.
 
Solution


Whilst your statement is true (to an extent) it's not totally accurate. 'Maybe ' on max FPS, they are close in some games, but gaming is no longer about max FPS alone.

In some games the R2200g will get similar max FPS as an R2600 (mostly to do with clockspeed). But that aside, that's where the similarities end. Max FPS is not a great way to gauge performance. Often max fps can't be sustained with lower end CPU's v those with more cores/threads/L3 cache. A better way to gauge it is by average FPS, 99th percentile, and frame time variance. These are the things that count for...
Totally agree with SR-71. Its not just 2 extra cores. it's the 8 extra threads too, that really count for any AAA game, and specifically games like BF 1/V. Playing those games with both CPU's (and even with a low-mid level card with the R2600) will be like night and day. Although your games maybe GPU bound, for the games I mentioned and anything else coming down the line, you will be CPU limited. 4c/4t doesn't cut it anymore for AAA gaming.

Defo get a 2600, even if you matched with a GT1030 it would be a much nicer gaming experience, with ample host processing (CPU) for demanding games, and you could even throw in some streaming. You won't get that with the 2200g.

OC the R2600 and stick in a GTX1060/RX580 and you would have a solid 1080p 60hz/fps high setting gaming machine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DMAN999


Whilst your statement is true (to an extent) it's not totally accurate. 'Maybe ' on max FPS, they are close in some games, but gaming is no longer about max FPS alone.

In some games the R2200g will get similar max FPS as an R2600 (mostly to do with clockspeed). But that aside, that's where the similarities end. Max FPS is not a great way to gauge performance. Often max fps can't be sustained with lower end CPU's v those with more cores/threads/L3 cache. A better way to gauge it is by average FPS, 99th percentile, and frame time variance. These are the things that count for game smoothness and sustained FPS measurements.

It's all well and good that a R2200g can hit 100fps in whatever game, but if there are frame drops (from the CPU maxing out) or stuttering in game because of the frame time lag, because the CPU can't feed the GPU quickly enough, then the gaming experience can really suffer. The OP won't have that issue with a R2600.
 
Solution


Well, it's your choice. You decide. IMO the extra $80 dollars is totally worth it for all the reasons I and others have eluded to.

If you want tp upgrade in a year or so, when the 2200g will not get you what you are looking for, then you will know why. The 2600 is a much better CPU. There is a reason it's twice the cost. It all really depends on what that's worth to you. Good luck with your choice, and happy gaming :)
 


What is that 'budget GPU'? because the answer kind of depends on whether the GPU in the 2200G would out-perform it. If it does the 2600 would be the better choice if it's a viable option.

But either way you go, getting into a decent B450 or X470 motherboard is going to be the best way to 'future-proof' your system as you'll be able to upgrade to a Ryzen 3000 processor without a new mobo or re-installing your OS.