Realistic entry-level results between Intel and AMD are achievable.
Realistic entry-level results between Intel and AMD are achievable.
So I'm thinking about getting a Ryzen APU around July, possibly when AMD releases their Ryzen 3000 lineup. But I'm still puzzled by the fact that I don't see anyone comparing a fully upgraded AMD setup (like a 2200g B350m GTX 1050 Ti with 2933MHz RAM) to a standard Intel machine (I3 8100 H310m GTX 1050 Ti and 2400MHz RAM). This is what someone familiar with performance expectations would know. Anyway, I'm asking what kind of performance I should aim for in a realistic build, rather than chasing z370s and x470 chips, along with super-fast RAM and stock clock speeds on Ryzen.
There are numerous gaming benchmarks available that feature both the 2200g and 8100 with powerful GPUs that significantly impact performance...
Using a 1050ti for testing doesn't make much sense since you can simply use the higher GPU to get the numbers, then check GPU benchmarks to see where the 1050ti would limit you. You might also lower resolution and quality on the 1050ti until you reach the highest FPS.
The 2200g for gaming performance matches the g4560.
https://www.hardware.fr/articles/965-3/p...ux-3d.html
Intel Core i9-9900K Review
Intel has just unveiled their latest flagship chip for the LGA 1151 socket. The Core i9-9900K now offers eight cores and 16 threads, matching AMD's Ryzen options. The Maximum Boost Clock has also been boosted to an impressive 5 GHz.
www.techpowerup.com
APU models represent a unique type of CPU. They're built for basic applications where the integrated graphics handle everything, and with the 2200G/2400G, the Vega graphics perform quite well, offering solid results. However, since the integrated graphics consume nearly half the chip area, features like Lcache are significantly reduced compared to a regular CPU. This doesn't mean adding a dedicated GPU isn't possible, but it's uncommon among buyers of APUs. It's essentially a waste of money—you pay for the CPU and graphics, yet only receive half the processing power.
To properly evaluate the CPU side, developers often remove the graphics component, so most tests use the strongest available GPU. Even then, the PSU is typically high-end (1000W or more), and other factors like RAM are maximized. Running a 1050ti at 1080p raises doubts about whether performance is truly affected by the GPU's strength.
On budget builds, you'll mostly find comparisons in YouTube videos, which focus on side-by-side gameplay rather than genuine APU/CPU testing.
For a 2200g build without the GPU and with doubled cache, consider a Ryzen 3 1200 and 1300x.
Performance drops are observed, especially with the initial generation chips.
Amd didn't produce a similar 1200/1300x in the second generation line for clear reasons. Choosing a budget CPU with poor performance relative to cost isn't the goal, so adding Vega graphics becomes a better fit, boosting sales and offering decent graphics and CPU performance for those not focused on gaming. A 2200G/2400G can meet the needs of YouTubers or web surfers, while Vega graphics are comparable to a GT 750/GT 1030, making low-end card requirements less critical. This also benefits third-party OEMs such as HP or Dell and compact systems like Nodes.
Most entry-level gaming computers from OEM manufacturers include a 2200g or 2400g for a specific purpose. These models provide strong CPU and GPU performance at a price comparable to Intel options, which would necessitate a separate GPU, increasing overall cost, requiring a larger power supply unit and more cooling solutions. Higher-end variants typically feature a GTX 1050, RX 560, or 1050Ti along with Ryzen APU, as AMD Ryzen APUs deliver superior gaming performance without needing a dedicated GPU, justifying a bit more investment. The 2200g model was an excellent choice. Seeing so many budget gaming PCs on forums with this spec clearly shows its value. I believe if AMD had adopted the Intel branding, most budget gaming systems would have chosen it. Before I became serious about computers, I considered AMD a lesser option, but at the time (the FX era) they were strong contenders. AMD has definitely improved and now stands as a solid alternative to Intel, with its budget products matching Intel’s raw CPU power quite closely. Now I own a Ryzen 3 1200 and see just how competitive AMD has become. The 2200g also delivers better graphics and overclocking potential compared to similar CPUs in higher-priced models.
At the lower end or 'entry-level', I don't believe it's wise to just compare the 'bottom of the market' based solely on performance. It's clear that if someone can afford more, they have the choice to opt for higher performance. Therefore, the most relevant comparison should be 'value,' as this is what truly matters when starting at the bottom.
In short, for the same investment in CPU, memory, motherboard, and GPU, which offers better performance at the time of purchase, it's important to consider how well it supports future upgrades—especially overclocking and compatibility with newer technologies with minimal component changes.