Marrying Vega and Zen: The AMD Ryzen 5 2400G Review

Analysis taken from our AMD Tech Day 2018 article.

AMD vs. Intel

AMD’s main target with these new processors is to offer something Intel cannot: a combined processor and graphics package. Much like a number of AMD’s previous generation of products, the focus is two-fold: offering more performance at the same price, or being cheaper at equal performance.

For the first part of that argument, about having more performance at the same price, AMD suggests the following competition for the Ryzen 5 2400G:

• $169 Ryzen 5 2400G (4C/8T, 3.6 GHz, 704 SPs)
• $182 Core i5-7400 (4C/4T, xxx, 24 EUs)
• $187 Core i5-8400 (6C/6T, xxx, 24 EUs)

AMD cites that in its internal testing, the 2400G scores 20% higher than the i5-8400 on PCMark 10, and can post 1920x1080 gaming results above 49 FPS in titles such as Battlefield One, Overwatch, Rocket League, and Skyrim, having 2x to 3x higher framerates than Intel’s integrated graphics. This is a claim we can confirm in this review.

For the Ryzen 3 2200G, the competing products are less well defined:

• $99 Ryzen 3 2200G (4C/4T, 3.5 GHz, 512 SPs)
• $117 Core i3-8100 (4C/4T, xxx, 23 EUs)
• $84 Pentium G4620 (2C/4T, xxx, 12 EUs)

Again, through its internal testing, AMD is stating that the 2200G scores 13% higher than the Core i3-8100 in PCMark 10, as well as being within a few frames of the Ryzen 3 2400G in titles such as Rocket League, Skyrim, and Battlefield One. We have a similar scenario tested in this review.

The other side of the argument is price for the same performance. For this comparison, AMD suggests to test the new APUs against Intel processors paired with NVIDIA graphics, specifically the GT 1030. AMD’s data suggests that a Core i5-8400 with a GT1030 scores the same as a Ryzen 5 2400G in the 3DMark TimeSpy benchmark, although costing $290 (vs $169 for the APU) and drawing 30W more power. This is a scenario we also test in this review.

AMD vs. AMD: Raven Ridge and Bristol Ridge

These two new APUs have the internal codename of ‘Raven Ridge’ to signify the family of products. AMD also has ‘Bristol Ridge’ already in the market, using the previous generation of CPU cores and previous generation of integrated graphics. AMD has not actively promoted Bristol Ridge to the public in any serious way, with these parts being hold-overs from the previous platform and designed to be a quick fill within AMD’s product line. To that effect, Bristol Ridge processors were only available for OEMs at the beginning for pre-built systems, and AMD only made them available to the public within the last few months. To our knowledge, AMD did not initiate a review sampling program to the press of these processors either.

With the launch of the two new Zen-plus-Vega Raven Ridge APUs, the Bristol Ridge processors will still continue to be sold. AMD’s reasoning revolves around offering choice in the market, particularly to its OEM customers, and has stated that the two products offer different features and is thus not competing on price. It is clear to say that for anyone buying a new system, the newest products offer the better value: a much higher per-core performance, improved thermal budgeting, newer integrated graphics, and ultimately the core design is the future of AMD. The only items that Bristol Ridge brings to the table now are the legacy aspect, to replace like-for-like, and the offer of a number of 35W-rated products. Bristol Ridge PRO processors are also on the market, offered alongside the new Ryzen PRO with Vega.

Squaring up the competing parts shows that:

Given the performance uplift we have seen from previous generation A-series processors to the Ryzen desktop parts already, the new APUs should put the nail in the coffin for older AMD parts.