Monday, January 22nd 2018

AMD Reveals Specs of Ryzen 2000G "Raven Ridge" APUs

AMD today revealed specifications of its first desktop socket AM4 APUs based on the "Zen" CPU micro-architecture, the Ryzen 2000G "Raven Ridge" series. The chips combine a quad-core "Zen" CPU with an integrated graphics core based on the "Vega" graphics architecture, with up to 11 NGCUs, amounting to 704 stream processors. The company is initially launching two SKUs, the Ryzen 3 2200G, and the Ryzen 5 2400G. Besides clock speeds, the two are differentiated with the Ryzen 5 featuring CPU SMT, and more iGPU stream processsors. The Ryzen 5 2400G is priced at USD $169, while the Ryzen 3 2200G goes for $99. Both parts will be available on the 12th of February, 2018.

The Ryzen 5 2400 features an 4-core/8-thread CPU clocked at 3.60 GHz, with a boost frequency of 3.90 GHz; 2 MB of L2 cache (512 KB per core), and 4 MB of shared L3 cache; and Radeon Vega 11 graphics (with the 11 denoting NGCU count), featuring 704 stream processors. The iGPU engine clock is set at 1250 MHz. The dual-channel DDR4 integrated memory controller supports up to 64 GB of dual-channel DDR4-2933 MHz memory. The Ryzen 3 2200G is a slightly cut down part. Lacking SMT, its 4-core/4-thread CPU ticks at 3.50 GHz, with 3.70 GHz boost. Its CPU cache hierarchy is unchanged; the iGPU features only 8 out of 11 NGCUs, which translate to 512 stream processors. The iGPU engine clock is set at 1100 MHz. Both parts feature unlocked CPU base-clock multipliers; and have their TDP rated at 65W, and include AMD Wraith Stealth cooling solutions.
Add your own comment

97 Comments on AMD Reveals Specs of Ryzen 2000G "Raven Ridge" APUs

#1
Mussels
Moderprator
I wonder what kind of performance these would give if tweaked into a console design
Posted on Reply
#2
iO
Too bad current memory prices ruin a cheap build with these chip a bit.
Mussels said:
I wonder what kind of performance these would give if tweaked into a console design
Not that much if you consider the PS4 pro and XBoneX have 36 and 40 CUs compared to this chips 11...
Posted on Reply
#3
plåtburken
krusha03 said:
It's impressive because the GPU + CPU is 15W. Show me another GPU with 15W that can do better?
You're totally missing my point. How is this impressive, it's well known that AMD can woop Intels iGPU solutions anyday. Regarding the CPU part is good, not impressive. This has been a long time for AMD.
So short sum, good CPU, underwhelming iGPU.
Posted on Reply
#4
TheinsanegamerN
plåtburken said:
You're totally missing my point. How is this impressive, it's well known that AMD can woop Intels iGPU solutions anyday. Regarding the CPU part is good, not impressive. This has been a long time for AMD.
So short sum, good CPU, underwhelming iGPU.
How is it unimpressive when this chip performs significantly faster then AMD's last 15 watt part, setting a new bar for iGPU performance?

If you let yourself believe you were getting a RX480 in a 15 watt part, of course it will be unimpressive, but that is because your expectations are completely unrealistic. For those of us with realistic expectations, this part looks like quite the upgrade from the current 28nm excavator chips.

EDIT: these are desktop parts, but the point still stands. These are a major step up from AMD's last 65 watt parts, especially for any games that are CPU demanding. Thanks to @RejZoR
Posted on Reply
#5
RejZoR
@TheinsanegamerN
These are actually 65W desktop parts, not 15W mobile... Still impressive considering this is CPU+GPU combo.
Posted on Reply
#6
plåtburken
TheinsanegamerN said:
How is it unimpressive when this chip performs significantly faster then AMD's last 15 watt part, setting a new bar for iGPU performance?

If you let yourself believe you were getting a RX480 in a 15 watt part, of course it will be unimpressive, but that is because your expectations are completely unrealistic. For those of us with realistic expectations, this part looks like quite the upgrade from the current 28nm excavator chips.

EDIT: these are desktop parts, but the point still stands. These are a major step up from AMD's last 65 watt parts, especially for any games that are CPU demanding. Thanks to @RejZoR
Because it's underwhelming for what most have waited for plus I never stated nor believe we will get RX480 power in a such factor. However I will state as mentioned before. The iGPU is underwhelming and it's not something to debate about it, it's pure facts. The CPU is good and will make the market a bit more competitive.
Also last thing, I don't expect these laptops to perform anything godly, that's not their purpose.
As for the desktop APU, I can't say anything but I hope it won't be as bad as the laptop APUs since they didn't show anything special.
Posted on Reply
#7
lexluthermiester
This is another win for AMD. They are delivering very well in budget gaming arena with these APU's.
Posted on Reply
#8
Caqde
plåtburken said:
Because it's underwhelming for what most have waited for plus I never stated nor believe we will get RX480 power in a such factor. However I will state as mentioned before. The iGPU is underwhelming and it's not something to debate about it, it's pure facts. The CPU is good and will make the market a bit more competitive.
Also last thing, I don't expect these laptops to perform anything godly, that's not their purpose.
As for the desktop APU, I can't say anything but I hope it won't be as bad as the laptop APUs since they didn't show anything special.
If you are saying they are bad based on the Ryzen 5 2500U then things to understand the 2500U is a VEGA 8 part using DDR4 2400. So the GPU is similar to the 2500U but is using memory slower than what is possible on the desktop chips. AMD showed a slide about the 2400G GPU being overclocked along with the memory and it's performance in firestrike. At stock DDR4-2400 the 2400G is capable of a score of 2911 using DDR4-3200 (Stock clocks) it is capable of a score of 3322 which is a 14% performance boost on memory alone. It should be noted that the A12-9800 scores 1954 in firestrike. The Ryzen 5 2500U is around 2042.

Slide -> https://www.pcper.com/news/Processors/CES-2018-AMD-Ryzen-Desktop-CPU-Ryzen-Graphics-Coming-Feb-12
Posted on Reply
#9
plåtburken
Caqde said:
If you are saying they are bad based on the Ryzen 5 2500U then things to understand the 2500U is a VEGA 8 part using DDR4 2400. So the GPU is similar to the 2500U but is using memory slower than what is possible on the desktop chips. AMD showed a slide about the 2400G GPU being overclocked along with the memory and it's performance in firestrike. At stock DDR4-2400 the 2400G is capable of a score of 2911 using DDR4-3200 (Stock clocks) it is capable of a score of 3322 which is a 14% performance boost on memory alone. It should be noted that the A12-9800 scores 1954 in firestrike. The Ryzen 5 2500U is around 2042.

Slide -> https://www.pcper.com/news/Processors/CES-2018-AMD-Ryzen-Desktop-CPU-Ryzen-Graphics-Coming-Feb-12
Synthetic benchmarks aren't comparable in real life usage, it reflects differently overall, plus is thermal limit an issue. Again, I am not mainly interested in the mobile APU and more concern about the desktop APU
Posted on Reply
#10
damric
$99. Can it mine? I could see these selling like hot cakes.
Posted on Reply
#11
Caqde
plåtburken said:
Synthetic benchmarks aren't comparable in real life usage, it reflects differently overall, plus is thermal limit an issue. Again, I am not mainly interested in the mobile APU and more concern about the desktop APU
Considering I talked mostly about the desktop APU I'm not sure why you mentioned concern about the mobile APU in your response to me. Considering the only information we have is Synthetic benchmarks what do you expect? I know I compared the performance of the desktop APU's Firestrike score to the mobile APU's firestrike score and the current top desktop APU the A12-9800's. This was to give a baseline performance comparison in a similar situation. From this we can draw that the Vega 11 APU in the desktop chip is a bit more than 50% faster than the Ryzen 5 2500U mobile APU and the current fastest Desktop APU the A12-9800 (AM4) in purely graphical situations. This GPU can also be boosted up about 33% (Again in firestrike) via GPU clock and memory clocks. Comparable AMD desktop chips with these numbers are the 7770 Ghz edition (scores around 3000) and the RX 550 (scores around 4000).

Yeah it would be nice to have numbers in games that can be used for comparison. Although we do have some we don't have comparable numbers. The numbers do show that the 2400G should allow someone to play any game off the shelf without needing to buy an off the shelf GPU to even play the game (which right now would be a task in itself thankyou Crypto Miners)
Posted on Reply
#12
Jizzler
Cool, I have an A8-5500 (Trinity) box to upgrade. All I need from the R5-2400G is to be > than that.
Posted on Reply
#13
Valantar
Hasn't this been up on AMD's site since their pre-CES event? At least base/boost frequencies, GPU CU count and TDP has been freely available for a while.

Now, gief reviews plz.
Posted on Reply
#14
GoldenX
The IGP performance looks pretty good, it's a good upgrade from the 8 CUs of previous APUs (plus GPU and RAM frequency are higher), but I would have expected the 2200 to have 8 instead of 6 CUs.
Posted on Reply
#15
trparky
Parn said:
Just need the 400 series chipset with all the latest connectivities and this platform is going to be the best budget gaming desktop.
lexluthermiester said:
This is another win for AMD. They are delivering very well in budget gaming arena with these APU's.
Yes, to the both of you. I figure that (that is, as long as GPU prices remain in the stratosphere) eventually APUs will be the only way some of us will be able to afford gaming-strength graphics power.
damric said:
$99. Can it mine? I could see these selling like hot cakes.
Doubt it, there's a reason why discrete graphics cards are the miner's choice; you can stack a whole hell of a lot of them in a confined space. With these APUs, not so much; you need a motherboard and RAM for each APU whereas with GPUs you can shove a lot of cards into one motherboard.
Posted on Reply
#16
bug
GoldenX said:
The IGP performance looks pretty good, it's a good upgrade from the 8 CUs of previous APUs (plus GPU and RAM frequency are higher), but I would have expected the 2200 to have 8 instead of 6 CUs.
trparky said:
Yes, to the both of you. I figure that (that is, as long as GPU prices remain in the stratosphere) eventually APUs will be the only way some of us will be able to afford gaming-strength graphics power.
Has this thing (the IGP) been benchmarked and I missed it?
Posted on Reply
#17
Captain_Tom
plåtburken said:
This doesn't look impressive at all, it looks very underwhelming.
It's all relative buddy. It's a 15w part running games just 1 tier below the 100w XBOX One, and it's not even the full die. Those video's tested the weaker Ryzen Mobile APU.

Add 20% (at least) to their results, and that's the true potential of a tiny 15w cpu. Now scale that up to a 100w desktop APU, and you should have something comparable to a console in a $170 APU!
Posted on Reply
#18
Patriot
Captain_Tom said:
It's all relative buddy. It's a 15w part running games just 1 tier below the 100w XBOX One, and it's not even the full die. Those video's tested the weaker Ryzen Mobile APU.

Add 20% (at least) to their results, and that's the true potential of a tiny 15w cpu. Now scale that up to a 100w desktop APU, and you should have something comparable to a console in a $170 APU!
Shared gddr5 and many many more 2560sp vs 704... This will be below the original xbox one and get stomped by the xbox one x
Posted on Reply
#19
lexluthermiester
Patriot said:
This will be below the original xbox one and get stomped by the xbox one x
That seems like an assumption. The proof is in the pudding and there have been few, if any, mainstream benchmarking tests run yet. But even when there are, how do you benchmark an Xbox? Show a verifiable benchmark score on ANY Xbox game and make the comparison to the same game for PC and your comment may have some creditably. Til then, it's all just subjective, perspective posturing.
Posted on Reply
#20
Captain_Tom
Patriot said:
Shared gddr5 and many many more 2560sp vs 704... This will be below the original xbox one and get stomped by the xbox one x
XBOX One has a paltry 768-sp's buddy, and this APU is clocked 50% faster. Furthermore XB1 still uses GCN 1.0 with at least 20-30% lower IPC.
Posted on Reply
#21
Valantar
Patriot said:
Shared gddr5 and many many more 2560sp vs 704... This will be below the original xbox one and get stomped by the xbox one x
The original Xbox One had 768 shader cores at ~850 MHz. This has 704 cores at ~1250 MHz. The original Xbox One had shared (dual channel) DDR3, plus a small amount of ESRAM. While the ESRAM does somewhat make up for the DDR3's low bandwidth, given its tiny size these APUs will no doubt beat it overall (especially with >3000MT/s DDR4). The One X, on the other hand, with GDDR5, 3x the cores and similar clock speeds, will be another story. But I don't think anyone here is expecting a cheap socketed APU to come close to that. Kaby Lake-G might come close, though.
Posted on Reply
#22
Patriot
lexluthermiester said:
That seems like an assumption. The proof is in the pudding and there have been few, if any, mainstream benchmarking tests run yet. But even when there are, how do you benchmark an Xbox? Show a verifiable benchmark score on ANY Xbox game and make the comparison to the same game for PC and your comment may have some creditably. Til then, it's all just subjective, perspective posturing.
Seriously you have never seen the xbox vs ps4 benchmarks and just assume its impossible to benchmark them? I don't think I am the one needing credibility here lol.

Captain_Tom said:
XBOX One has a paltry 768-sp's buddy, and this APU is clocked 50% faster. Furthermore XB1 still uses GCN 1.0 with at least 20-30% lower IPC.
that is the sp count on the xbox one x not xbox one...but even the paltry 768 sp is more than this new apu...
An Up-to clock means little till we see if it can hold that 1250mhz clock or not, vega is not exactly known for running at advertised clocks.

GCN1.0 based not GCN1.0 ... they fattened the caches and heavily tuned it... so you can throw that wild ipc number out... along with the clock.
Besides the point the xbox one x isn't GCN 1.0 based at all... and the shared gddr5 will make this poor apu a smear on the wall.

Valantar said:
The original Xbox One had 768 shader cores at ~850 MHz. This has 704 cores at ~1250 MHz. The original Xbox One had shared (dual channel) DDR3, plus a small amount of ESRAM. While the ESRAM does somewhat make up for the DDR3's low bandwidth, given its tiny size these APUs will no doubt beat it overall (especially with >3000MT/s DDR4). The One X, on the other hand, with GDDR5, 3x the cores and similar clock speeds, will be another story. But I don't think anyone here is expecting a cheap socketed APU to come close to that. Kaby Lake-G might come close, though.
No shit... I clearly quoted the specs for the xbox one x. You should also use the S specs not the original anyways.... That said history tells us (and we have console benchmarks now) due to console optimizations you can't just equal a console on paper to beat it. I will be surprised if the apu has a solid 1250 clock and that isn't the up-to number. That along with optimizations is the main reason why I don't think this will outperform the original, let alone the ps4/pro which have proper memory bandwidth from the start.
Posted on Reply
#23
lexluthermiester
Patriot said:
Seriously you have never seen the xbox vs ps4 benchmarks and just assume its impossible to benchmark them? I don't think I am the one needing credibility here lol.


that is the sp count on the xbox one x not xbox one...but even the paltry 768 sp is more than this new apu...
An Up-to clock means little till we see if it can hold that 1250mhz clock or not, vega is not exactly known for running at advertised clocks.

GCN1.0 based not GCN1.0 ... they fattened the caches and heavily tuned it... so you can throw that wild ipc number out... along with the clock.
Besides the point the xbox one x isn't GCN 1.0 based at all... and the shared gddr5 will make this poor apu a smear on the wall.



No shit... I clearly quoted the specs for the xbox one x. You should also use the S specs not the original anyways.... That said history tells us (and we have console benchmarks now) due to console optimizations you can't just equal a console on paper to beat it. I will be surprised if the apu has a solid 1250 clock and that isn't the up-to number. That along with optimizations is the main reason why I don't think this will outperform the original, let alone the ps4/pro which have proper memory bandwidth from the start.
Citation please. Being a PS4Pro owner, I'd LOVE to see some actual utility based benchmarks. Sure there's a ton of spec comparison charts, but that does NOT equate to actual benchmark testing. Without such, you are making assumptions and blowing wind..
Posted on Reply
#24
Patriot
lexluthermiester said:
Citation please. Being a PS4Pro owner, I'd LOVE to see some actual utility based benchmarks. Sure there's a ton of spec comparison charts, but that does NOT equate to actual benchmark testing. Without such, you are making assumptions and blowing wind..
There is no utility it requires hardware.

It's a pain in the ass because you have to use an external capture card to do the frame pacing... and most games are frame capped anyways...
It pretty much is just measuring how often they drop below the cap.

xbox orig vs ps4 (surprise ps4 wins)


Now you can apologize since you couldn't even see fit to use a damn search engine before attacking the first time.:kookoo:
Posted on Reply
#25
GoldenX
bug said:
Has this thing (the IGP) been benchmarked and I missed it?
Same old GCN of previous APUs plus Vega's improvements and additional DDR4 bandwidth, do the math.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment