You'll have to make do with Low graphics quality here to get anything remotely playable at 1080p, but whereas the 2200G was definitely on the wrong side of 30fps at this resolution, the 2400G put in a far more convincing performance, often settling around the 30-35fps mark and only occasionally dipping to 28/29fps when tearing through griffin carcasses. It was just on the playable edge of 30fps, mind, but that's pretty damn impressive for an integrated GPU. Wolfenstein II was by far the best-performing game on the 2200G, for example, but here I was able to comfortably blitz through its Nazi hordes on High at 1920x1080 rather than settling for Medium. Said edge wasn't enormous, all told, but sometimes it's the tiny improvements that can be the most significant. After all, what I'm really concerned about here is its integrated Vega graphics, which definitely give it a noticeable edge over its cheaper sibling. Numbers aside, I certainly didn't have any complaints about the 2400G's speed and responsiveness in daily use. On the whole, however, I've seen plenty of Geekbench scores in the mid-4000s and 13000s for the 2400G, which would suggest it may actually be closer to, if not slightly better than the Ryzen 5 1600X, making it a better rival for Intel's similarly-priced Core i5-7500, or £100 Core i3-8100. Generally, AMD say the Ryzen 5 2400G is designed to replace their current R圜PU, which my benchmark scores would certainly back up. This doesn't look great compared to the respective numbers of 408 I got with the 2200G yesterday, but a quick look at the rest of Geekbench 4's charts show this may be a bit of an anomaly (despite me running each test multiple times to check if something was amiss). In Geekbench's single core test, the 2400G returned a score of just 3509, while the multicore test saw it finish with a score of 10889. On paper, at least, as putting the 2400G through Geekbench 4's CPU benchmark suite with the same test system I used with the 2200G (16GB of G.Skill Flare X DDR4 RAM and a Gigabyte GA-AB350N Gaming Wi-Fi motherboard) actually saw it perform slightly worse than its cheaper sibling. The 2400G also has a total of 11 GPU cores over the 2200G's eight, making it the better-performing chip overall. While both chips come with four CPU cores, the Ryzen 5 2400G has a slightly higher base clock speed of 3.6GHz, with a max boost clock speed of 3.9GHz, compared to the 2200G's 3.5GHz base and 3.7GHz boost. Is the Ryzen 5 2400G worth considering over the even cheaper Ryzen 3 2200G, though? Let's take a look at their respective specs first. The Ryzen 5 2400G also works with all existing AM4 motherboards, too, so existing Ryzen owners won't need to fork out for a new board in order to get it working, and it also comes with its own cooler, the AMD Wraith Stealth, in the box along with a layer of pre-applied thermal paste, allowing you to get up and running practically straight away.
Amd ryzen 5 2400g 1080p#
That's a helluva lot cheaper than buying a separate CPU and accompanying graphics card, even if you're only looking at the comparatively inexpensive Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050Ti, which is currently our best graphics card recommendation for near-perfect 1080p gaming and can be found for as little as £155 / $210. It doesn't even cost that much, either, as you're looking at spending just £130 / $160.
The Ryzen 5 2400G isn't anywhere near capable of playing games in 4K, mind, but with the right amount of settings fiddling, it's both a highly capable CPU and a 1080p gaming machine all in one neat, tiny package. If you've heard that name before, it's because it's the same name given to AMD's top-end, dedicated 4K-busting graphics cards, the Radeon RX Vega 64 and Radeon RX Vega 56. Much like its sibling, the AMD Ryzen 3 2200G, the quad-core Ryzen 5 2400G comes with built-in Radeon Vega graphics. Do you really need a fancy new graphics card? Because if money's tight and you're willing to put up with a few compromises, the AMD Ryzen 5 2400G could be just what you're looking for. They will, of course, come down at some point, but that's of little comfort to us in the here and now, especially if you're in need of a new PC.īut let me ask you a question. Graphics card prices have been up in the clouds so long that the idea of them ever falling back down to something that doesn't make us weep with despair seems almost as fanciful as the idea of earning more than six pence from the dreaded ongoing crypto-mining craze.
0 kommentar(er)
