When AMD launched their first generation Ryzen-based APUs with a Zen cores and Vega graphics, both of the new parts entered the market at two very different budget-focused price points. The Ryzen 3 2200G, sitting at $99 for a quad-core CPU with Vega graphics was an amazing feat, and Ryzen 5 2400G coming in at $169 became the new integrated graphics champion. In our run of performance analysis articles, the question being asked today are relatively simple ones: 'how well do the new AMD Ryzen 2000 series APUs scale with core frequency'? We tested our APUs for standard benchmark performance, discrete gaming performance, and integrated graphics performance.

Core Frequency Scaling on The Ryzen 2000 Series

The perception when overclocking a CPU, or any other component for that matter, is that the increase in clock speed will directly correlate into better performance. The theory is pretty simple on paper, but the translation between the increase of clock rate and increase in performance can be a somewhat different story depending on the rest of the system or how the program is computed.

As a result, a 25% increase in clock speed only really correlates to a 25% jump in performance for the most simple programs, as there are many other limiting factors to consider such as bottlenecks on graphics, memory performance, or stalls in the compute pipeline.

In our testing for this article, we aim to go through and evaluate the differences and performance scaling at different frequencies on our APUs.

AMD Ryzen 2000-Series APUs
  Ryzen 5 2400G
with Vega 11
Ryzen 3 2200G
with Vega 8
CPU Cores/Threads 4 / 8 4 / 4
Base CPU Frequency 3.6 GHz 3.5 GHz
Turbo CPU Frequency 3.9 GHz 3.7 GHz
TDP @ Base Frequency 65 W 65 W
Configurable TDP 46-65 W 46-65 W
L2 Cache 512 KB/core 512 KB/core
L3 Cache 4 MB 4 MB
Graphics Vega 11 Vega 8
Compute Units 11 CUs 8 CUs
Streaming Processors 704 SPs 512 SPs
Base GPU Frequency 1250 MHz 1100 MHz
DRAM Support DDR4-2933
Dual Channel
Dual Channel
OPN Tray YD2400C5M4MFB YD2200C4M4MFB
Price $169 $99
Bundled Cooler AMD Wraith Stealth AMD Wraith Stealth

Our previous articles covering the APU performance include a pure overclock analysis, as well as a detailed guide in delidding the processor for extra performance. We have a future article planned on memory performance.

After delidding the processor, for better thermal performance

For the testing, we took each of our APUs from 3.5 GHz to 4.0 GHz on the core frequency in 100 MHz jumps and performed our testing suite throughout. This correlates to a 14.3% performance jump overall, and matches the frequencies we saw in our overclocking articles. At each point we will compare to see if the performance uplift is even loosely correlated to CPU speed.

Test Bed Setup

As per our testing policy, we take a premium category motherboard suitable for the socket, and equip the system with a suitable amount of memory. With this test setup, we are using the BIOS to set the CPU core frequency using the provided straps on the MSI B350I Pro AC motherboard. The memory is set to the maximum supported frequency of DDR4-2933 with CAS latency timings of 18-18-18 within the BIOS to provide consistency throughout the different frequencies tested.

Test Setup
Processors AMD Ryzen 3 2200G AMD Ryzen 5 2400G
Motherboard MSI B350I Pro AC
Cooling Thermaltake Floe Riing RGB 360
Power Supply Thermaltake Toughpower Grand 1200 W Gold PSU
Memory G.Skill Ripjaws V
DDR4-3600 17-18-18
2x8 GB
1.35 V
Integrated GPU Vega 8
1100 MHz
Vega 11
1250 MHz
Discrete GPU ASUS GTX 1060 Strix
1620 MHz Base, 1847 MHz Boost
Hard Drive Crucial MX300 1 TB
Case Open Test Bed
Operating System Windows 10 Pro

We must thank the following companies for kindly providing hardware for our multiple test beds.

Thank you to Crucial for providing us with MX300 SSDs. Crucial stepped up to the plate as our benchmark list grows larger with newer benchmarks and titles, and the 1TB MX300 units are strong performers. Based on Marvell's 88SS1074 controller and using Micron's 384Gbit 32-layer 3D TLC NAND, these are 7mm high, 2.5-inch drives rated for 92K random read IOPS and 530/510 MB/s sequential read and write speeds.

The 1TB models we are using here support TCG Opal 2.0 and IEEE-1667 (eDrive) encryption and have a 360TB rated endurance with a three-year warranty.

Further Reading: AnandTech's Crucial MX300 (750 GB) Review

Recommended Reading

CPU Performance
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • koekkoe - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link

    Improvements beyond 15% are probably anomalies.
  • msroadkill612 - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link

    I kinda wish APU reviewers were less focused on comparisons with the nearest price dgpu PC (garbage no one would actually buy if they went the dgpu route - they would spend hundreds more), and accepted there are many who, having decided on the apu route, sensibly want to do it properly and spend the small premium that takes.

    For your forthcoming APU memory OC review, IMO, stock cooling on the majority of 2400 ApuS is not real world. Stock is a false economy.

    You are getting a ~free (minimalist, but cutting edge vega ecosystem) GPU, and luckily, can better cool both processors with a single improved cooler. $30- $50 doesn't seem too much to budget for decent air cooling. Nor does $220-240 for decent 16GB ram.

    The game changing dynamic automatic overclocking that comes with APUs (also on a new process to zen1, which AMD call 14nm+) and Zen+ CPUs, is wonderful, but only as good as the thermal envelope your cooling allows it.

    Further, what seems to get overlooked in the fuss about latency trumping clock speed for memory perf, is that mem clock also sets Fabric bus clock speed.

    The effects of improving this vital and fundamental zen metric may well go un-noticed by benchmarks for some time, but as the zen/fabric/vega APU ecosystem beds down, Fabric bus speed ~will matter a lot. ~everything must pass through this control point, so its inevitably a bottle neck.
  • Ratman6161 - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link

    "I kinda wish APU reviewers were less focused on comparisons with the nearest price dgpu PC (garbage no one would actually buy if they went the dgpu route - they would spend hundreds more),"

    A GTX 1060 is "garbage no one would actually buy"? I'm not into games any more, but back in my younger days I was...and didn't have a lot of money to spend. The graphics aren't really important for my work so I would choose a CPU based on my work requirements and then indulge myself a little on a graphics card that was affordable to me. I used to set a $150 to $200 limit on how much I would spend on graphics and get whatever seemed to be the most bang for the buck in that range. At $230 (cheapest GTX 1060 on New Egg) the 1060 would actually be a bit above my range. Anyway integrated graphics weren't an option then, at least in my situation.

    so what if I was a gamer today but didn't have much cash and wanted the best I could get with a small amount of money? Well, Looking at Microcenter which is my go to place for CPU's and motherboards, The 2200G is the cheapest Ryzen CPU available at $80 while the 2400g is $150. In the test results, the 2200g + GTX 1060 performs better than the 2400g with integrated graphics. So in order of price/performance you get (from highest performing to lowest performing):

    2400g + 1060 $380
    2200G + 1060 $310
    2400G + Integrated $150
    2200g + integrated $80

    If you want the ultimate in cheap, the 2200G is the way to go. If you want something better than the 2400G you could move up to the 2200G + 1060. The 2400 + 1060 combo doesn't make any sense because for the same price I can get an R51600 and add the 1060 to that. Now if it were me (which it isn't :) ), for cheap gaming, i'd probably consider something like a 2200G over clocked as high as I could get it combined with a GTX1050 or similar for $80+$140 = $220. I'd be using the 2200G not for its integrated graphics but because its the cheapest Ryzen I can get right now and its over clockable.
  • Spunjji - Friday, June 22, 2018 - link

    Yeah, I currently have a 1050Ti because it's all I could afford. I game quite a lot. If I had a little more flexibility I'd have pushed to a 1060 and been very happy.

    Not everyone's highest financial priority is a GPU, even when games are their main source of leisure.
  • V900 - Friday, September 28, 2018 - link

    Nothing wrong with a 1050 or 1060.

    PC Gamers have just been spoiled by massive performance jumps every generation, and been taught that new=doubleplusgood and old=slowgarbage.

    In reality we reached "good enough" a few generations ago.

    Heck, look at consoles: I don't see any PS4 gamers complain that their 5 year old GPUs are slow and "garbage".
  • V900 - Friday, September 28, 2018 - link

    Absolutely right! Its been a few years since you could reasonably describe a low end GPU as 'garbage'.

    If you play games that arent very demanding in terms of graphics (or if youre fine with 30 fps) you can get an Nvidia 1030 for 80-100$

    Nothing garbage about that card.

    Spend an extra 50$ and you can buy the Nvidia 1050 (130$-150$) and run pretty much any game at 1080p with high settings.

    And of course, 100$-200$ can also get you really far if you dont mind a used GPU. Ive seen GTX 970s and 980s in that price range.
  • boozed - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link

    I just wish an article entitled "An Analysis" included some analysis.
  • V900 - Friday, September 28, 2018 - link

    Or if you REALLY want to increase your performance and run 60 fps games at maxed out settings, you could take the 300$ you want to spend on a cooler and "decent" 16GB RAM, and instead get an Nvidia 1050 and 8 GB RAM.

    And you'll have cash left over for a good game or two.

    Nvidia 1030 (or a 750TI) costs less than 100$ on Newegg.
    Nvidia 1050 costs around 150$
  • AntonErtl - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link

    I find the big differences in the CPU results between both APUs at the same clock speed quite surprising. It seems that for some benchmarks SMT (aka Hyperthreading) gives substantial benefits after all. So thanks for the good work and I wish you a speedy recovery.

    Concerning iGPU overclocking, Computerbase (German) recently had a piece https://www.computerbase.de/2018-06/raven-ridge-ap... on that. One thing worthy of not is that 1350-1450MHz did not work on their iGPUs, but higher overclocks (1500MHz, and, with more voltage, more) worked. Their explanation was that voltage was set too low for the middle frequencies.
  • dromoxen - Thursday, June 21, 2018 - link

    Come what may , these are still budget solutions , adding 16gb of expensive fast ram and best quality Coolers defeats the purpose ... and remember Dgpu are available on the 2nd hand market , esp things like gtx960,970 so adding one doesn't need to break the bank. that's where your upgrade money should go .

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now