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

AMD's Raven Ridge design combines Zen-based execution cores and the Vega graphics architecture into a highly integrated die complete with DDR4 memory control, PCI Express connectivity, north bridge functionality, and fixed-function accelerators. In our AMD Ryzen 5 2400G Review: Zen, Meet Vega, our expectations of integrated graphics were redefined, as Intel's UHD Graphics 630 succumbed without much of a fight. AMD's on-die graphics even did battle with certain sub-$100 discrete cards.

We do have to temper our excitement, though. These processors are mostly fit for playing games at entry-level detail settings using lower resolutions than a typical Tom's Hardware GPU review includes. Still, they boast impressive specifications. The flagship Ryzen 5 2400G earned our affections for its ability to play every game we tested at 1280x720. Some titles were even playable at higher-quality settings than we expected. Did we mention it overclocks well, too?

But we don't want to overlook the less expensive Ryzen 3 2200G, which includes four cores (without thread-doubling SMT technology) and eight Radeon Vega Compute Units (CUs). AMD aims this processor at an eSports crowd accepting of 720p gaming. Budget-oriented gamers will delight at its $100 price point, easily in striking range of Intel's Pentium processors. Even though Pentiums now include Hyper-Threading, AMD justifies its premium with four physical cores and a much more capable graphics engine.

The Ryzen 3 2200G With Radeon Vega Graphics

Whereas the Ryzen 5 2400G comes with four SMT-enabled Zen cores and 11 Radeon Vega CUs, the Ryzen 3 2200G includes four cores without simultaneous multi-threading and eight CUs, enabling 512 Stream processors. Although Ryzen 3's resource allocation isn't far off from the flagship, it costs $70 less than Ryzen 5 2400G.

To further differentiate the two models, AMD lowers Ryzen 3's base clock rate to 3.5 GHz (though Precision Boost 2 allows frequencies as high as 3.7 GHz when headroom allows). Again, though, that's not particularly debilitating compared to Ryzen 5 2400G's 3.6 GHz base and 3.9 GHz Precision Boost frequency. Both processors also feature the same 4MB L3 cache. If you're interested in learning more about the Raven Ridge design, check out AMD Ryzen 5 2400G Review: Zen, Meet Vega

Specifications

Ryzen 5 2400G and Ryzen 3 2200G both populate standard Socket AM4 interfaces on 300-series motherboards. All existing platforms include display outputs; just be sure your board of choice has the connectors you need. Existing motherboards need a firmware update to recognize the new models, while newer models include a "Ryzen Desktop 2000 Ready" badge indicating drop-in compatibility. Unfortunately, most online retailers fail to distinguish between them, so you might need a compatible processor to upgrade your motherboard until old inventory is sold off.

If you find yourself stranded, AMD does offer a "Boot Kit Solution" it says it'll ship to those in need. We don't have any information about what that kit includes, though. 

Memory Support
Speed
2 DIMMs - Single Rank
up to DDR4-2933
4 DIMMs - Single Rank
up to DDR4-2133
2 DIMMs - Dual Rank
up to DDR4-2667
4 DIMMs - Dual Rank
up to DDR4-1866

Ryzen 3 2200G, like Ryzen 5 2400G, includes unlocked ratio multipliers for overclocking. The graphics engine can naturally be tuned as well. A refined memory controller officially supports DDR4-2933 (up from DDR4-2666) for single-rank, dual-channel kits. It's purportedly more overclockable, too. Of course, memory support varies based on the type of memory and configuration you use, as outlined in the chart above. Shoot for the fastest setup possible; lower data rates hurt the bandwidth-hungry graphics engine.

As we discussed in our Ryzen 5 2400G review, the new Raven Ridge processors replace AMD's previous Ryzen 5 1400 and Ryzen 3 1200 models. These new chips support PCIe 3.0 connectivity, with four lanes dedicated to the chipset and four more that accommodate PCIe-based storage. An additional eight lanes are available for attaching discrete graphics. Unfortunately, that's a step backward from the outgoing Summit Ridge-based Ryzens that gave you 16 lanes for graphics. Then again, we don't expect anyone to run a multi-GPU config on an entry-level platform.

AMD also used Indium solder between the die and heat spreader of its Summit Ridge-based Ryzen CPUs. However, the company went with non-metallic thermal interface material for Ryzen 5 2400G and Ryzen 3 2200G. AMD bundles its 65W Wraith Stealth cooler with both models, and while the aluminum-core sink was designed for 65W processors, we recommend a beefier aftermarket cooler for overclocking. We covered Raven Ridge's thermal and power characteristics earlier this week. So now, let's see how Ryzen 3 2200G stacks up next to Intel's Pentium G4620.

MORE: Best CPUs

MORE: Intel & AMD Processor Hierarchy

MORE: All CPUs Content

Create a new thread in the Reviews comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
26 comments
Comment from the forums
    Your comment
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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?
  • 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.
  • nate1492
    Anonymous 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?
  • logainofhades
    Anonymous 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.
  • BulkZerker
    "Then again, we don't expect anyone to run a multi-GPU config on an entry-level platform."

    Cryptomining enthusiasts non-withstanding
  • 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!
  • AlistairAB
    Anonymous said:
    Anonymous 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?
  • AlistairAB
    Anonymous said:
    Anonymous 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).
  • salgado18
    Anonymous said:
    Anonymous 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?


    You are comparing $100 to $240. Maybe that's pocket change for you, but for many of us $100 is all we can get for CPU+GPU. Instead of buying a stupid i3 for the house computer, and try to run any game in it (and fail), we can get that same "i3" (also overclockable)(also has cheap mobos) with a 1030, without paying for the 1030.

    Unless you believe nothing exists below the 1050. In that case, you definitely are in the wrong review.
  • nate1492
    Anonymous said:
    Anonymous 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.


    Just stop with the 'dead platform' garbage.

    If we are talking EXTREME budget rigs, you don't consider 'buying a new CPU in 1 years time'.

    Heck, even if you did, what's stopping you from picking up a cheap 7600k in 'a few years time'.

    This garbage about 'AM4 working till 2020' is just that, They released Raven Ridge and it already requires a bios update, but who's going to go from 'extreme budget' to 'top of line next generation'?

    720p gaming is horendous and I wouldn't suggest it to anyone. I'd tell them if they are looking for a gaming PC, they are better off saving up $100 more and getting as described.

    If your point is 'This will run games from 15 years ago fine' then totally nailed it. You can play them, at low graphical settings, at 720p, easily.

    Yes, there may be a selling point to someone, but I just don't see it. And enough with the 'oh but some poor person blah blah'. If you want a cheap gaming kit, get a raspberry pi for $20 and stick some games on it while you save a few more dollars and get an entry level budget rig for $400.
  • gwardion74
    Hey Nate, some people are smart enough to plan for an upgrade path instead of a plan of yearly obsolescence. Some people realize prices change quite a bit and new things get released regularly. Some people even plan paths to hand down gear to other users and this is a very effective way to do so. You might love consoles, emachines and dells because all you can do is pay for a lump sum premade machine, but we aren't all so woefully ignorant and willing to throw away our cash.
  • megamanxtreme
    Far Cry 3 is very good looking, and seeing online videos of the GT 1030, it was able to 1080p max out, but high 20s - 40s. 2012 game, but it looks so good, and to pass that kind of power to a RY Zen 5 2400G is just breath-taking. Sure, 2012 is 6 years ago, but compare that to a an Intel integrated graphics solution... Even then, despite being anti-Intel, Intel has really improved over the years. Okay, people just want an Accelerated Processing Unit to come and just max out every single game out there 1080p at 60 frames per second, and I understand that that is expected, but it is too much wishful thinking at current moments, unless you think about the G series from Intel but that very expensive. Then again, the Iris Pro graphics were decent and powerful, but again the price(and don't get me started with the drivers, artifacts in games, etc).


    I agree on people laying off the "Dead Platform," since users still praise the Sandy Bridge architecture for its performance. If I were to even consider Intel, it would be the i5-8400 for my next 4 - 5 years for gaming, then upgrade to something else.

    And right about handing down my computer to my brother when I get a new one, so that his old computer(that I gave him 5 years ago) is handed down to the youngest brother.
  • RebootEDC
    This ryzen is still a whoopy 50% faster than my good'n'old HD5750. And it's only 99 bucks.
  • themadorange
    @NateDawg,

    "This garbage about 'AM4 working till 2020' is just that, They released Raven Ridge and it already requires a bios update, but who's going to go from 'extreme budget' to 'top of line next generation'?"

    Seriously, a BIOS update is considering a flaw???? LOL!!! Good one!

    Yeah, a BIOS update that takes 30 seconds to download on broadband Internet so that you can use a CPU in a motherboard that's over a year old is a joke, right?

    "If your point is 'This will run games from 15 years ago fine' then totally nailed it. You can play them, at low graphical settings, at 720p, easily."

    None of the games tested in the article were 15 years old. So, no, that wasn't the point. The point is that this processor is the 'best bang for the buck' for the market that it targets. It crushes the stock Core i3-8100 with UHD 630 Graphics. That's the point.

    "Yes, there may be a selling point to someone, but I just don't see it. And enough with the 'oh but some poor person blah blah'. If you want a cheap gaming kit, get a raspberry pi for $20 and stick some games on it while you save a few more dollars and get an entry level budget rig for $400."

    Please list all the parts with new prices that show you can build an Intel based system that beats the new Ryzen processors for $400.00.
  • Martell1977
    It's a shame they didn't include a RX 550 in the test mix. See how it stacks up.
  • tonyvstraten
    A bit unfair to test it with a ram kit that cost $220 at least. You need to buy a 2x8gb 3200mhz CL14 kit (samsung b-die) to reliably get 3200mhz.

    How realistic is that with a $99 cpu?

    all the cheaper ram kits have hynix/micron/samsung D/E-dies that don't guarantee to be able to run at 3200mhz, let alone are impossible to run with those timings at those speeds.

    Please test with cheap 2x4gb (2400/3200) for compatibility and performance
  • Nintendork
    Ram is expensive no matter how cheap you want to get.Many games struggle with 8GB of ram (and the igpu will take 1-2GB of it). 16GB will keep you company till 2020 and to any other Ryzen 1000 /Ryzen+ 2000 /Ryzen 3000 / Ryzen 4000 CPU/APU's someone wants to upgrade to.
  • Co BIY
    But can it mine ?

    If it is as good as an RX 550 which is selling at around $160 then maybe the miners will chase these around too.