• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

*** AMD "Zen" thread (inc AM4/APU discussion) ***

Seems AMD can't please all the critics in here.

Many people will never buy a graphics card ever, they will use what they have and adjust settings until it plays ok.

Better onboard graphics benefits them.

Not enthusiasts who insist on quality settings or fps in demanding games.
 
FoxEye said:
People who want to play 3D games will want something more powerful, and people who don't want 3D games don't need the GPU power it does have.

These "better than nothing but not great" APUs are great if they don't cost any more than a regular Intel chip with Intel's basic but functional HD Graphics.

If they do cost more it's hard to see why you'd buy them. Save the money if you don't need 3D - if you do buy something with a better GPU...
Click to expand...

The 4C/4T Ryzen 3 2200G RRP is $99 which is lower than the RRP of the 4C/4T Ryzen 3 1200 which is $109. The street price of the Ryzen 3 1200 seems to be between £95 to £100 which seems in line with the US price if you add VAT. So if the same follows for the Ryzen 3 2200G,that should place it at just under £90. That should make it somewhat cheaper the the £105 to £110 4C/4T Core i3 8100,ie,its in between the price of a Intel 2C/4T CPU and an Intel 4C/4T CPU.

Apparently there is 2C/4T SKU it seems for mobile,so it would be interesting to see if we get a cheaper AMD 2C/4T CPU at some point too on the desktop.

nashathedog said:
I get that but I think it's not doing as well as I'd of hoped but I suppose I should have expected that especially with the power draw.
Click to expand...

The IGP and CPU will be running at lower boostclocks than the £90ish desktop Ryzen 3 2200G,and remember this is all with bog standard 2400MHZ DDR4 too.
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
The 4C/4T Ryzen 3 2200G RRP is $99 which is lower than the RRP of the 4C/4T Ryzen 3 1200 which is $109. The street price of the Ryzen 3 1200 seems to be between £95 to £100 which seems in line with the US price if you add VAT. So if the same follows for the Ryzen 3 2200G,that should place it at just under £90. That should make it somewhat cheaper the the £105 to £110 4C/4T Core i3 8100,ie,its in between the price of a Intel 2C/4T CPU and an Intel 4C/4T CPU.
Click to expand...
In which case the CPU perf vs the Intel i3 would determine whether you're getting an all-round better chip, or trading better GPU perf for less CPU perf.

I still think APUs have a long way to go before we can all ditch low-end GPUs. 30 FPS at 720 on low settings might be an improvement, but it's still not something I could recommend to a gamer. 30-40 FPS at 1080p on medium settings and we'd be talking.
 
FoxEye said:
In which case the CPU perf vs the Intel i3 would determine whether you're getting an all-round better chip, or trading better GPU perf for less CPU perf.

I still think APUs have a long way to go before we can all ditch low-end GPUs. 30 FPS at 720 on low settings might be an improvement, but it's still not something I could recommend to a gamer. 30-40 FPS at 1080p on medium settings and we'd be talking.
Click to expand...

The price difference looks like it will be 15% to 20% more for the Core i3 8100 unless Intel drops the price of the Core i3 8100,and the major issue is Intel still has not released cheaper motherboards. You are stuck with a £100 to £110 Z370 motherboards with the Core i3 8100:

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/pc-components/motherboards/intel/lga-1151-z370-chipset

Intel really needs to get them out TBH!

You are looking at £40 to £50 for basic A320 motherboards,and from £65 to £70 if you want overclocking with the B350 motherboards:

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/pc-components/motherboards/amd/am4-x370-b350-ryzen?sPage=1&sSort=3

Luckily for AMD,the power consumption for Ryzen is not high,hence its less finicky with cheaper motherboards than AM3+ and the later AGESA revisions have apparently helped on the RAM side it appears.
 
Last edited:
FoxEye said:
People who want to play 3D games will want something more powerful, and people who don't want 3D games don't need the GPU power it does have.

These "better than nothing but not great" APUs are great if they don't cost any more than a regular Intel chip with Intel's basic but functional HD Graphics.

If they do cost more it's hard to see why you'd buy them. Save the money if you don't need 3D - if you do buy something with a better GPU...
Click to expand...

David Bisset said:
As one of many people gaming on an intel igpu i disagree with your assumption fox. I have a proper desktop at home but game as often on my work laptop. Increasing igpu power is a big boon to me.
Click to expand...

Hotwired said:
Seems AMD can't please all the critics in here.

Many people will never buy a graphics card ever, they will use what they have and adjust settings until it plays ok.

Better onboard graphics benefits them.

Not enthusiasts who insist on quality settings or fps in demanding games.
Click to expand...

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
The IGP and CPU will be running at lower boostclocks than the £90ish desktop Ryzen 3 2200G,and remember this is all with bog standard 2400MHZ DDR4 too.
Click to expand...

I suppose I'm looking at it all wrong, after all this is a mobile variant so desktop APU's will be better, Yes?
Part of the issue here might also be because of the game,
I'm not sure how Project Cars 2 runs with Vega as I haven't got the game yet but Project Cars 1 didn't run well with AMD gpu's at least not compared to Nvidia's gpu's.


I've been presuming that it'd be possible to build a NUC that can game at 1080p but I may of been expecting too much too soon, I was hoping we'd get Xbox One levels of gpu performance and when I saw this struggling to keep above 30fps with low quality visuals at 720p that blew my lofty expectations out the window but it's not as good as it gets thankfully.
 
nashathedog said:
I've been presuming that it'd be possible to build a NUC that can game at 1080p but I may of been expecting too much too soon, I was hoping we'd get Xbox One levels of gpu performance and when I saw this struggling to keep above 30fps with low quality visuals at 720p that blew my lofty expectations out the window but it's not as good as it gets thankfully.
Click to expand...

So dramatic.

You pick an arbitrary goal and say they failed to meet it.

The next guy, he'll say he's not happy unless it's capable of 60fps.
 
d_brennen said:
Is that not what the video showed? :p
Click to expand...

Good point :D

Hotwired said:
So dramatic.

You pick an arbitrary goal and say they failed to meet it.

The next guy, he'll say he's not happy unless it's capable of 60fps.
Click to expand...

Why do you think gaming at 1080p is an arbritary number? It's one of the 4 main landmark resolutions along with 720p, 1440p & 4K,

It's not a random number picked out of thin air, 1080p gaming is the current goal for integrated graphics.
 
Ah io see the confission ^^^^ thats not what this is, this is just a

nashathedog said:
I get that but I think it's not doing as well as I'd of hoped but I suppose I should have expected that especially with the power draw.
Click to expand...

Its a middling Low power laptop APU with vastly better gaming performance than anything which went before it, its not intended to be a gaming monster, its chip for a £500 thin laptop.
 
Last edited:
gavinh87 said:
I agree with you here. I don't think its anything special.
Especially after the hype and how its going to 1050 level of performance rumours.
Click to expand...

Ah... now i see whats going on, this is not that Intel + Vega thing, this is just a middling little APU for middling thin laptops, its not even AMD's high end mobile APU.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom