Skip to main content

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

Solid performance for under $100.

Overclocking

Overclocking with AMD's Ryzen Master utility is simple. Using its various dials, the Zen cores in our Ryzen 3 readily jumped up to 3.9 GHz with a 1.3725V Vcore setting. We also adjusted the VDDCR SoC voltage, a single rail that feeds the uncore and graphics domains, to 1.25V. This allowed us to dial in an easy 1400 MHz graphics clock rate (though we've already heard of Tom's Hardware readers hitting 1475 MHz). We briefly pushed a bit higher to 1450 MHz, but that put us over AMD's recommended 1.25V SoC voltage, so we pulled back to preserve our sample for future testing.

We tested our stock configuration with the supported DDR4-2933 (single-rank, dual-DIMM), and then overclocked to DDR4-3200 with 14-14-14-34 timings.

Our test platform employs a Noctua NH-U12S SE-AM4 cooler to cope with the thermal challenges presented by Raven Ridge's unique design (we measured 72°C using AIDA64's CPU/GPU stress test). In the past, we've overclocked Summit Ridge-based samples using AMD's bundled Wraith Spire heat sink and fan. But the Radeon Vega graphics engine adds a bit more thermal stress to the equation, so plan on buying a better cooler for overclocking.

We tested gaming at 1280x720 and 1920x1080. As you can see in the screenshot above, the graphics subsystem consumes 1GB of system memory at stock settings, but you can allocate more through the BIOS' UMA frame buffer setting. Of course, this does eat into available system RAM. The operating system also dynamically shares unused system memory with the GPU ("Shared GPU Memory" in the task manager screenshot above is RAM that Windows provisions based on workload). By default, the operating system limits this shared pool to half of the system memory's total capacity.

AMD says the benefit of a larger UMA frame buffer is evident in the ability to specify higher levels of detail. Just don't expect faster frame rates at 1080p. This should be an interesting setting to experiment with. Right out of the gate, AMD says that a user with 16GB of DDR4 would benefit from assigning 4GB to the graphics engine.

A Quick Look At Memory Latency

We ran some benchmarks on Raven Ridge's cache hierarchy in our Ryzen 5 2400G review and noticed latency improvements attributable to AMD's architectural tweaks. Of course, those improvements were made possible by paring back capacity, so trade-offs had to be made.

Our tests include several types of data access to measure latency, which we explained in AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X Game Mode, Benchmarked.

L1L2L3Main Memory
Range2KB - 32KB32KB - 512KB512KB - 8MB8MB - 1GB
Image 1 of 8

Image 2 of 8

Image 3 of 8

Image 4 of 8

Image 5 of 8

Image 6 of 8

Image 7 of 8

Image 8 of 8

As a result of the new single-CCX design (and other tweaks), Ryzen 5 2400G achieves the lowest L2 and L3 cache latency seen from a Ryzen CPU. AMD's Ryzen 3 2200G trails its counterpart, but also beats the other Ryzen models handily in most access patterns.

Test Methodology & Systems

AMD's Raven Ridge performs best with Windows 10 Build 1709, so we fully updated our test systems before benchmarking.

The latest Windows build adds Multi-Plane Overlay, providing a more efficient way of rendering video and compositing 2D surfaces. It also saves power by alpha-blending accelerated surfaces and culling the ones you cannot see. That major change means you can only compare these test results to our previous Raven Ridge review. 

AMD sent along the mini-ITX Gigabyte AB350N Gaming WiFi motherboard and a 2x 8GB G.Skill FlareX DDR4-3200 memory kit. We used the bundled Wraith Stealth cooler for testing applications and games at stock settings, then switched over to the aforementioned Noctua cooler for overclocking.

Test Systems

MORE: Best Cheap CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

  • 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