The AMD Ryzen 3 2200G Review: Vega Barrels Into Budget Gaming

Reviews
By Paul Alcorn
last updated

Solid performance for under $100.

Why you can trust Tom's Hardware Our expert reviewers spend hours testing and comparing products and services so you can choose the best for you. Find out more about how we test.

3DMark & Battlefield 1

We added the Ryzen 3 1300X and Pentium G4620 to our previous round of benchmarks. The Intel CPUs and Ryzen 3 1300X are matched up to an Nvidia GeForce GT 1030 add-in card, facilitating a more even comparison with AMD's Raven Ridge-based processors. And again, we're testing the Core i5-8400's UHD Graphics 630 engine, along with AMD's Bristol Ridge-based A10-9700, at 1280x720.

Swipe to scroll horizontally
Platform CostRyzen 5 2400GRyzen 3 2200GPentium G4620Ryzen 3 1300XCore i5-8400Core i3-8100Core i3-7100AMD A10-9700
MSRP$169$99$85$129$187$119$117$99
+GPU--$89$89$89$89$89-
Total Platform Cost$169$99$174$218$276$208$206$99

Pairing the Intel processors with a GeForce GT 1030 makes them more competitive in games, but it also increases platform cost dramatically. A dedicated graphics card is mandatory with the Ryzen 3 1300X, since that's purely a host processor. Keep those price differences in mind as you peruse the test results.
AMD Ryzen 5 2400G
AMD Ryzen 3 2200G
Intel Pentium G4620

3DMark

3DMark's DX11 and DX12 CPU tests provide useful insight into the raw amount of horsepower available to game engines.

Image 1 of 2

We know that Ryzen 3 2200G and 1300X are architecturally dissimilar: the quad-core Ryzen 3 2200G has integrated graphics and 4MB of L3 cache, while the quad-core Ryzen 3 1300X doesn't have integrated graphics and wields 8MB of L3 cache. The 1300X is composed of two four-core CCXes, so the processor sports eight physical cores, even though only four are active. Both 65W processors feature the same 3.5 GHz base and 3.7 GHz Precision Boost frequencies.  

Interestingly, then, Ryzen 3 1300X outperforms the 2200G in the DX12 CPU test by 12%. That advantage jumps to a massive 37% in the DX11 test. There are several possible reasons for such a disparity, one of which includes the synergistic power rail. This single rail is shared between the CPU and GPU, and AMD's logic dynamically increases current to either the CPU or GPU depending on whichever is more active. It's possible that such an interaction robs the execution cores of their peak potential during the DX11 test. We even see Intel's Pentium G4620 pull ahead during this heavily threaded synthetic workload.

We normally run VRMark as part of the standard suite, but none of our contenders passed the minimum threshold of 109 FPS.

Battlefield 1

Image 1 of 10

At 1280x720, AMD's Ryzen 3 2200G shows that it is in a different class compared to other CPUs with integrated graphics engines. The processor easily outpaces AMD's A10-9700 and Intel's UHD Graphics 630.

But it still trails the setups complemented by discrete graphics at stock settings. Then again, consider that GeForce GT 1030 adds more than $100 of platform cost at today's inflated prices. Meanwhile, Ryzen 3 2200G is readily available right at $100. AMD's doing alright in our comparison, we think. The 2200G also responds well to overclocking, which propels it to an average of 74.5 FPS and ahead of those GT 1030-equipped PCs.

Make sure to flip through our 1080p test results. We set the quality preset to Low, yet still ran into a few hitches with both Raven Ridge processors at stock settings. The Ryzen 5 2400G fared better at 1080p after tuning, but Ryzen 3 2200G still suffers from stuttering and hitching. AMD is clear that its 2200G is primarily for 720p gaming, and Battlefield 1 concurs.

MORE: Best Cheap CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Paul Alcorn
Paul Alcorn
Managing Editor: News and Emerging Tech

Paul Alcorn is the Managing Editor: News and Emerging Tech for Tom's Hardware US. He also writes news and reviews on CPUs, storage, and enterprise hardware.

See more CPUs Reviews
26 Comments Comment from the forums
  • wh3resmycar
    add mid/high 30 fps target for FC and witcher 3 and see if it can hold its own against a ps4. that would make more sense instead of playing it at 60 fps - low.
    Reply
  • salgado18
    "In the end, there's no way we'd recommend a Pentium's two physical cores over Ryzen 3 2200G's four. And the dead-end Z270 chipset does little to help Intel's case. Coffee Lake-based Pentium processors can't get here fast enough. Even then, though, it's a safe bet they won't arrive with on-die graphics capable of battling AMD's Radeon Vega."

    There, so you guys stop saying the G4560 is better.
    Reply
  • drinkingcola86
    Did you run these processors with the standard bios or did you change the limit of the video side of it to 2 gig from the 512meg that it is defaulted to?
    Reply
  • Shumok
    I would like to see the APU's tested with 1080ti's to see how they hold up when the user upgrades to discrete eventually.
    Reply
  • nate1492
    20713408 said:
    "In the end, there's no way we'd recommend a Pentium's two physical cores over Ryzen 3 2200G's four. And the dead-end Z270 chipset does little to help Intel's case. Coffee Lake-based Pentium processors can't get here fast enough. Even then, though, it's a safe bet they won't arrive with on-die graphics capable of battling AMD's Radeon Vega."

    There, so you guys stop saying the G4560 is better.

    Would you really suggest the Ryzen 3 2200g or the Ryzen 5 2400g to someone over a G4560 and a 1050 (200 quid!)? Heck, take the AMD 1200 and the 1050, doesn't matter, I couldn't suggest gaming at low 720p to anyone, we are talking 90 quid, 140 quid, or 200 quid here. If you can't pony up 200 quid, just wait longer.

    And at this price point, who is even considering upgrading CPUs in short order?
    Reply
  • logainofhades
    20713566 said:
    Would you really suggest the Ryzen 3 2200g or the Ryzen 5 2400g to someone over a G4560 and a 1050 (200 quid!)? Heck, take the AMD 1200 and the 1050, doesn't matter, I couldn't suggest gaming at low 720p to anyone, we are talking 90 quid, 140 quid, or 200 quid here. If you can't pony up 200 quid, just wait longer.

    And at this price point, who is even considering upgrading CPUs in short order?


    US pricing is far different apparently. The cheapest 1050, on pcpartpicker, is $154.98.

    The G4560 is a great chip, but is on a dead platform, and hyperthreading can only do so much.

    @$99, the 2200g gets you in the door, for low budget gaming, and has enough horsepower to handle a midrange graphics card, once GPU prices get back to normal. Ram price difference isn't much different between the slower and higher clocked models, 3200 and lower. Also you have ability to go up to a higher cored Ryzen 5 or 7, if the need arises. Also current AM4 boards are supposed to be compatible with Ryzen II, with a bios update. With the Pentium G, you are stuck with a 7700k at best, and most likely will have a board that cannot even overclock it. A decently priced B350, on the other hand, can overclock.

    AMD has the low end locked in, for now. Once coffee lake Pentiums and we get non Z chipset boards, the tables will probably turn, to some degree. That is the beauty of competition though, and that is a good thing.
    Reply
  • BulkZerker
    "Then again, we don't expect anyone to run a multi-GPU config on an entry-level platform."

    Cryptomining enthusiasts non-withstanding
    Reply
  • ghettogamer
    not an xbox one killer , but you can build a mini itx & get into pc gaming with this cpu for almost the same price albeit at 720p custom medium-low settings. This cpu is probably the power plant of the future ps5/xbox2, great for console fans!
    Reply
  • AlistairAB
    20713566 said:
    20713408 said:
    "In the end, there's no way we'd recommend a Pentium's two physical cores over Ryzen 3 2200G's four. And the dead-end Z270 chipset does little to help Intel's case. Coffee Lake-based Pentium processors can't get here fast enough. Even then, though, it's a safe bet they won't arrive with on-die graphics capable of battling AMD's Radeon Vega."

    There, so you guys stop saying the G4560 is better.

    Would you really suggest the Ryzen 3 2200g or the Ryzen 5 2400g to someone over a G4560 and a 1050 (200 quid!)? Heck, take the AMD 1200 and the 1050, doesn't matter, I couldn't suggest gaming at low 720p to anyone, we are talking 90 quid, 140 quid, or 200 quid here. If you can't pony up 200 quid, just wait longer.

    And at this price point, who is even considering upgrading CPUs in short order?

    Reply
  • AlistairAB
    20713566 said:
    20713408 said:
    "In the end, there's no way we'd recommend a Pentium's two physical cores over Ryzen 3 2200G's four. And the dead-end Z270 chipset does little to help Intel's case. Coffee Lake-based Pentium processors can't get here fast enough. Even then, though, it's a safe bet they won't arrive with on-die graphics capable of battling AMD's Radeon Vega."

    There, so you guys stop saying the G4560 is better.

    Would you really suggest the Ryzen 3 2200g or the Ryzen 5 2400g to someone over a G4560 and a 1050 (200 quid!)? Heck, take the AMD 1200 and the 1050, doesn't matter, I couldn't suggest gaming at low 720p to anyone, we are talking 90 quid, 140 quid, or 200 quid here. If you can't pony up 200 quid, just wait longer.

    And at this price point, who is even considering upgrading CPUs in short order?

    The 2400G is 10 (single core) to 120 (multicore) percent faster as a CPU after a mild OC. It costs $275 for a G4560 and a GTX 1050 in Canada, much more than $210 for the Ryzen 2400G, which almost has GTX 1050 level graphics as it easily outperforms the gt 1030.

    As for the 2200G, an extra $30 gets you a modern motherboard platform, a better cooler, more multi core performance, and easy upgrade-ability. Kind of funny criticizing it's lack of 1080p chops, when everything works perfectly at 900p. (Can't even play Overwatch at 360p properly with Intel integrated graphics).

    Reply