Question True realistic entry level performance: Intel vs AMD

rejoininghottako

Prominent
Feb 4, 2018
9
0
510
0
So, I'm planing to get a Ryzen APU system around July, when, possibly, AMD will launch their Ryzen 3000 series. But I'm still confused with the fact that I see no one comparing a fully oced AMD system (something like a 2200g B350m gtx 1050ti and 2933mhz ram) with a normal, locked Intel rig (I3 8100 H310m gtx 1050ti and 2400mhz ram), as this is what a person with decent knowledge about what will give you more oomph and what won't would get. Anyway, what I am asking for is how much perfomance should I get with a realistic build, instead of getting z370s and x470, as well stupidly fast ram and stock clocks on ryzen.

EDIT: I'm sry for not doing a good explanation on my doubt, what I am trying to say is that generally, not just with apus and 1050TIs (also, sry for the example, it was a bad one), reviewers dont show realistic benchmarks. For instance if I want to compare a 2600 and a 8400, I'd probably buy a b350,or a b450, and a b360, respectively. And while the intel system would definately outperform the AMD one, non oc surely, overclocking cpu, ram and gpu could even possibly flip the cards, and yes, you would still be able to perform a marginal overclock with the gpu on the Intel system, but due to no possible changes in voltage, it wouldnt be as a big oc as on AMD's.
 
Last edited:
There are tons of gaming benchmarks out there that include both the 2200g and the 8100 with huge GPUs that take graphics out of the equation...
Testing them with a 1050ti doesn't make sense because you can just take the numbers with the better GPU and then look at GPU benchmarks to see where the 1050ti would cut you off.You can also decrease resolution and quality on the 1050ti until you hit max FPS.

The 2200g for gaming is on the same level as the g4560.
https://www.hardware.fr/articles/965-3/performances-jeux-3d.html
 

Karadjgne

Titan
Herald
APU's are a different breed of cpu. They are designed for simplistic use where the igpu is the sole source of graphics and with the 2200G/2400G, the Vega graphics are by a good distance, the best there is. Unfortunately because the igpu takes up literally half the die area of the cpu, things like Lcache get severely shortchanged vrs a standard cpu. That's not to say you can't add a dedicated gpu, just that most ppl who buy those APU's don't. It's a waste, you spend all that money for the cpu+graphics and then don't use the graphics and only get ½ the cpu output.

To really test the cpu portion, the graphics have to be taken out of the equation, so most testing is done with the largest available gpu, even the psu is usually 1000w and up to take power requirements out, overkill motherboard, maximum ram etc. Using a 1050ti at something like 1080p leaves questions as to validity, how much of the fps is due to gpu not being strong enough.

So the only testing you'll find on budget builds is the odd YouTube video, and those usually are more interested in side by side comparison for a particular game, not a test of the apu/cpu itself.
 
Umm, the 2200g has the same clocks, simmilar 14nm process, same amount of cores, same number of threads, and same cooler as a 1300x. The 1300x has more cache and a higher price, but they both perform nearly identically.
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-3-2200G-vs-AMD-Ryzen-3-1300X/m441832vs3930
The 1st generation has a worse memory controller, and thats really the only difference. The cheaper 1200 can be overclocked to be a 1300x.
 
Last edited:

Karadjgne

Titan
Herald
Amd didn't make a comparable 1200/1300x in the second gen series for obvious reasons. Anyone going for a budget cpu that low in relative performance and price isn't looking at pairing it with an expensive gpu, so the addition of Vega graphics fills the slot instead, filling a void in sales and allowing moderately decent performance in graphics and cpu to those not all that interested in gaming. A 2200G/2400G can handle anything a YouTuber or web surfer will require and then some. The Vega graphics are pretty much equitable to a gtx750/GT 1030, making low end card sales and requirements unnecessary. A serious bonus for 3rd party OEMs like HP or Dell and tiny box pc's like Nodes.
 
The majority of entry level gaming computers from OEM manfacturers come with a 2200g or 2400g for a reason. The 2200g and 2400g offer solid cpu and gpu performance for the same price as an Intel alternatives, which would require a descrete gpu, making the whole system more expensive, with a bigger psu and more cooling needed. The step up versions usually come with a GTX 1050, rx 560, or 1050ti and ryzen apu, since AMD Ryzen APU'S offer even better gaming performance with a descrete GPU for a little more money. The 2200g was a great idea. With as many budget gaming pc's i see floating around the forum with a 2200g, it clearly paid off. I think if AMD had the intel brand name, most budget performance (gaming or otherwise) pc would be using one. Before i really was in computers i thought of AMD as a lesser brand, and at that time (the FX era) they were. AMD has certainly evolved and now is a very good alternative to intel, with their budget offerings are really are about equal to intels budget offerings in raw cpu power. Now i own a Ryzen 3 1200 and realize just how competitive AMD is. The 2200g also offers better graphics and overclocking with the simmilar cpu performance to the similarly or slightly higher priced I3s. The 2200g is good with the integrated gpu, but its great with a dedicated GPU.
 
Last edited:
I3 8100 is faster than the 2200g, however with a 1050ti they will perform = even at 1080p since the gpu is a limit. The 2200g is a little faster than 8100 when overclocked. 2200g does also have a better upgrade path.
At the low end or 'entry-level' I don't think you should simply look at the 'bottom of the market' and compare on performance alone. It's obvious that if someone could (or wanted to) afford more they have the option to just go ahead and buy greater performance. So the better comparison factor is 'value' since that is, or should be, what matters most at the bottom of the market.

So, simply put, for the same amount of money spent on CPU, memory, motherboard, GPU which performs better at time of purchase. And, an important component of the value proposition, which better 'future-proofs' your purchase by allowing overclocking and easy upgrades to next technology parts with a minimum of component replacements.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
D Overclocking 0

Similar threads


ASK THE COMMUNITY