Not really sure all three are needed. Part of what I like about AMDs portfolio with the Ryzen launch is the simplicity. Not one SKU every 100 MHz and 1 core increments (exaggerated).
Yeah, they could have left out the 220GE or differentiated more with the GPU, assuming the dies would allow different configs (not sure they use Raven Ridge for this or a smaller one).
Yeah. Only needed the 200GE. 2 Cores/4 threads @ 3.2ghz and Vega 3 graphics.
They could have ditched the other two... And had the 240GE as a 3 Cores/6 Threads @ 3.2ghz with Vega 3 graphics @ 1.25ghz or something.
At the end of the day... There is a pretty sizable performance gap between the 200GE and 2200G... And not a very large price gap, making the 220GE/240GE parts essentially a waste of time.
I somewhat disagree, especially with 240GE. That is basically best 35W TDP CPU for AM4 socket. 2200G is 65W chip, and when you go to that route you limit your self out of the smallest itx cases. 200GE is the chip for those who want absolutely cheapest build on Ryzen platform. I guess 220GE:s existence could be brought into question with less than 5% CPU performance difference to either way (assuming linear performance), but personally I think 220GE and 240GE have their place.
Though you could always underclock/undervolt a Ryzen 3 to those power levels and almost guarantee better performance.
I can bump down my Skylake i5 mobile using Windows power management or Intel Extreme utility and match the 10w power cap of the low end CPUs and outperform them by quite a bit.
Athlon uses the same raven ridge die as the rest of the lineup. Banded Kestrel would somewhat fit the bill for athlon (minus the dual channel support) being the same setup and smaller die, but i haven't seen those just yet.
AMD is trying to increase margin, which means increasing shenanigans.
An overabundance of models is one of those. Nvidia is going to have six different GPUs with the same name. Have an overabundance of models and obscure the differences.
it's a bit disappointing that neither of these new ones has a better GPU than Vega 3. Vega 3 is better than what Intel is offering, but Vega 6 or 8 at a lower price and TDP than the 2200G would be really nice.
as it is, I doubt anyone looking for something cheaper than the 2200G is going to want to pay $10-20 more just for the 3.4-3.5GHz clock speed when they could spend $10 more on the motherboard instead and overclock the 200GE to around 4GHz.
This. What's more, I hear that some Gigabyte and ASUS boards may also be used for overclocking the 200GE, so there's plenty of choice and even less of a reason to get the newer Athlons.
The Vega 3 graphics is probably slower than the bulk (All? - Maybe time for APU comparison benchmarks, Anandtech?) of the Bristol Ridge/Carizzo (AMD FX) APU's.
Even Kaveri from 2014 started out with 3 CU's. Granted, Vega 3 has efficiency gains and higher clocks on it's side, still disappointing to see this as the base offering.
Would like to see a Triple Core/4-6 CU offering at some point to replace the 240GE model.
Not according to benchmarks. The comparible processors for things like NUCs have the Iris Pro 655 in them which seem to out-perform the Vega 3 by a decent margin (Vega 3 being only around 70% the speed of the Iris 655). I was expecting more from the Vega 3 to be honest.
I know it helps fill in the price points and such but it doesn't really seem like a very good value. From a 200GE to a 240GE is going from $55 to $75 and an increase in cost of over 36% but the clock speed goes up by less than 10%. A 2200G is a lot bigger jump but at least it goes to 4 real cores with turbo and over twice the graphics compute for a little under double the cost. A much better return on your additional money spent.
Most likely just binned cpus that get higher frequency while using same amount of electricity. Can be usefull in tablet and other small form platforms. So you can get faster chip and still maintain the battery usage and temperatures in check. To desktop usage the 200GE is the best bang for the buck!
I think you should compare the price increase at system level, where it would be a lot lower than 36%. In the end the question is just "Do you spend 10-20$ more on the system to get additional ~10% performance?". There's no single answer to that, I would say.
Pretty sure that new 2 isn't even needed in current market. Only have different base clock, and it's not even high. It will be a thing if it's also have better Vega iGPU, but unfortunately it's not.
Somehow, they remind me of Intel who releasing few CPU with almost same specifications, just have difference in base clock. For example, G4560 and G4600, smh
These chips are the obvious replacements for the old Kabini Athlons, which were 4 cat cores at ~2.x GHz and 3 CUs. But even the 200GE obviously has much better performance.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
26 Comments
Back to Article
Death666Angel - Friday, December 21, 2018 - link
Not really sure all three are needed. Part of what I like about AMDs portfolio with the Ryzen launch is the simplicity. Not one SKU every 100 MHz and 1 core increments (exaggerated).MrSpadge - Friday, December 21, 2018 - link
Yeah, they could have left out the 220GE or differentiated more with the GPU, assuming the dies would allow different configs (not sure they use Raven Ridge for this or a smaller one).StevoLincolnite - Saturday, December 22, 2018 - link
Yeah. Only needed the 200GE. 2 Cores/4 threads @ 3.2ghz and Vega 3 graphics.They could have ditched the other two... And had the 240GE as a 3 Cores/6 Threads @ 3.2ghz with Vega 3 graphics @ 1.25ghz or something.
At the end of the day... There is a pretty sizable performance gap between the 200GE and 2200G... And not a very large price gap, making the 220GE/240GE parts essentially a waste of time.
compvter - Wednesday, December 26, 2018 - link
I somewhat disagree, especially with 240GE. That is basically best 35W TDP CPU for AM4 socket. 2200G is 65W chip, and when you go to that route you limit your self out of the smallest itx cases. 200GE is the chip for those who want absolutely cheapest build on Ryzen platform. I guess 220GE:s existence could be brought into question with less than 5% CPU performance difference to either way (assuming linear performance), but personally I think 220GE and 240GE have their place.compvter - Wednesday, December 26, 2018 - link
uh meant 200GE and 240GE0ldman79 - Thursday, January 3, 2019 - link
Agreed.Low TDP semi-powerful CPUs still have a place.
Though you could always underclock/undervolt a Ryzen 3 to those power levels and almost guarantee better performance.
I can bump down my Skylake i5 mobile using Windows power management or Intel Extreme utility and match the 10w power cap of the low end CPUs and outperform them by quite a bit.
hojnikb - Saturday, December 22, 2018 - link
Athlon uses the same raven ridge die as the rest of the lineup. Banded Kestrel would somewhat fit the bill for athlon (minus the dual channel support) being the same setup and smaller die, but i haven't seen those just yet.hojnikb - Saturday, December 22, 2018 - link
They are price fillers. Something has to sit between 55$ 200GE and 99$ 2200G.Oxford Guy - Friday, December 28, 2018 - link
AMD is trying to increase margin, which means increasing shenanigans.An overabundance of models is one of those. Nvidia is going to have six different GPUs with the same name. Have an overabundance of models and obscure the differences.
yeeeeman - Friday, December 21, 2018 - link
They need to leave only one CPU and that is the 240GE at 70$ unlocked.peevee - Wednesday, December 26, 2018 - link
And just throw out all the dies which cannot do 3.5GHz on 2 cores/4threads?hotaru - Friday, December 21, 2018 - link
it's a bit disappointing that neither of these new ones has a better GPU than Vega 3. Vega 3 is better than what Intel is offering, but Vega 6 or 8 at a lower price and TDP than the 2200G would be really nice.as it is, I doubt anyone looking for something cheaper than the 2200G is going to want to pay $10-20 more just for the 3.4-3.5GHz clock speed when they could spend $10 more on the motherboard instead and overclock the 200GE to around 4GHz.
silverblue - Friday, December 21, 2018 - link
This. What's more, I hear that some Gigabyte and ASUS boards may also be used for overclocking the 200GE, so there's plenty of choice and even less of a reason to get the newer Athlons.StevoLincolnite - Saturday, December 22, 2018 - link
The Vega 3 graphics is probably slower than the bulk (All? - Maybe time for APU comparison benchmarks, Anandtech?) of the Bristol Ridge/Carizzo (AMD FX) APU's.Even Kaveri from 2014 started out with 3 CU's.
Granted, Vega 3 has efficiency gains and higher clocks on it's side, still disappointing to see this as the base offering.
Would like to see a Triple Core/4-6 CU offering at some point to replace the 240GE model.
Enverex - Saturday, December 22, 2018 - link
"Vega 3 is better than what Intel is offering"Not according to benchmarks. The comparible processors for things like NUCs have the Iris Pro 655 in them which seem to out-perform the Vega 3 by a decent margin (Vega 3 being only around 70% the speed of the Iris 655). I was expecting more from the Vega 3 to be honest.
Fritzkier - Saturday, December 22, 2018 - link
RX Vega 11 is still way better than Iris Plus 655...Not sure why are you comparing a quad core premium notebook Intel CPU + upgraded iGPU with dual core sub $100 desktop CPU + cut down iGPU...
Lolimaster - Monday, December 24, 2018 - link
Tell me how much a intel igpu iris pro costs. Probably more than the 2400Gkpb321 - Friday, December 21, 2018 - link
I know it helps fill in the price points and such but it doesn't really seem like a very good value. From a 200GE to a 240GE is going from $55 to $75 and an increase in cost of over 36% but the clock speed goes up by less than 10%. A 2200G is a lot bigger jump but at least it goes to 4 real cores with turbo and over twice the graphics compute for a little under double the cost. A much better return on your additional money spent.haukionkannel - Friday, December 21, 2018 - link
Most likely just binned cpus that get higher frequency while using same amount of electricity. Can be usefull in tablet and other small form platforms. So you can get faster chip and still maintain the battery usage and temperatures in check.To desktop usage the 200GE is the best bang for the buck!
MrSpadge - Friday, December 21, 2018 - link
I think you should compare the price increase at system level, where it would be a lot lower than 36%. In the end the question is just "Do you spend 10-20$ more on the system to get additional ~10% performance?". There's no single answer to that, I would say.Samus - Saturday, December 22, 2018 - link
This is good and all but not entirely competitive with the Pentium Gold. VEGA with 3 EU's can't be any better than UHD 610 graphics...Marlin1975 - Saturday, December 22, 2018 - link
Actually it beats the i3 8100 in most game test...https://www.techspot.com/review/1698-amd-athlon-20...
Samus - Sunday, December 23, 2018 - link
Yeah, but both are unplayable :)DianR - Saturday, December 22, 2018 - link
Pretty sure that new 2 isn't even needed in current market. Only have different base clock, and it's not even high. It will be a thing if it's also have better Vega iGPU, but unfortunately it's not.Somehow, they remind me of Intel who releasing few CPU with almost same specifications, just have difference in base clock. For example, G4560 and G4600, smh
Haawser - Monday, December 24, 2018 - link
These chips are the obvious replacements for the old Kabini Athlons, which were 4 cat cores at ~2.x GHz and 3 CUs. But even the 200GE obviously has much better performance.Oxford Guy - Friday, December 28, 2018 - link
That doesn't mean they're needed in the marketplace.An overabundance of parts is a strategy companies use to increase margin. Profiteering via confusion.