Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

New build, need to find the best pricing for these parts, any help appreciated

  • 19-08-2018 09:13PM
    #1
    hare05
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,041 ✭✭✭


    https://de.pcpartpicker.com/list/ywZNxG


    I'm looking at the Ryzen 5 2400G for basic 1080P gaming. It's a sidegrade from my GTX 660 but an upgrade from my FX8320 which will make Arma 3 run much better. I'm not going to buy a discrete card for another few months when the 20XX range is released and pricing settles.


    I'm looking at a B450 board with onboard wifi in ITX. There are a few different ones out there and they all come in and around the €120. I intend to ensure that whatever I build now can upgrade with a later AM4 socket chip, as AMD are keeping the socket through 2020.


    16GB RAM in 2666 or 3000MHz. It's only about a 4% performance bump so whatever is best price here.


    M.2 SSD with NVMe 1.3 in and around 500GB


    A semi modular PSU at ~500W to account for eventual new GPU.


    And finally the case I've had my eye on for this build, a Phanteks Enthoo Evolv ITX Mini.


    I'm supplying my own larger HDD



    I'd appreciate a quick look over to see if I'm missing anything as I haven't built a pc in quite a while. I know this isn't the best performance I can get for this price right now, but the 2400G seems to fit my upgrade path and I don't expect to pair it with more than a 580 8GB / 1060 6GB or 2060 5GB depending on pricing a year from now, so I don't see it hugely bottlenecking anything.


Comments

  • #2
    K.O.Kiki
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,063 ✭✭✭✭K.O.Kiki


    https://de.pcpartpicker.com/list/6yhhFt

    Drop the CPU to Ryzen 3 1200 & you can get a 2nd-hand HD7850/7870/260X which outperform the integrated 2400G.


  • #3
    hare05
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,041 ✭✭✭hare05


    K.O.Kiki wrote: »
    https://de.pcpartpicker.com/list/6yhhFt

    Drop the CPU to Ryzen 3 1200 & you can get a 2nd-hand HD7850/7870/260X which outperform the integrated 2400G.

    I actually did a complete rebuild overnight and switched to the 2200G on an Asrock B450 Pro4. I'm going to hold off on a discrete card for a few months.

    Also going to take advantage of StoreMI using a Samsung 970 250GB instead of the 480GB Adata M.2.

    Swapped the case out for a Phanteks P400 which was so much easier to source.

    I play a little bit of ArmA but this isn't going to be an entirely gaming focused pc so the Vega 8 will do the job, and ArmA is insanely CPU bound so I expect the 2200G to outperform my old FX in that area.

    How does that sound on balance?


  • #4
    Xenoronin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,307 ✭✭✭Xenoronin


    Since ARMA 3 is CPU bound. Go with the 2400G. The 2200G doesn't have hyper threading, so you only have 4 cores vs the 8 of the 2400G.

    Looking at a youtube video, seems like a steady 50fps with the 2400G on medium settings. Not bad :)


  • #5
    hare05
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,041 ✭✭✭hare05


    Xenoronin wrote: »
    Since ARMA 3 is CPU bound. Go with the 2400G. The 2200G doesn't have hyper threading, so you only have 4 cores vs the 8 of the 2400G.

    Looking at a youtube video, seems like a steady 50fps with the 2400G on medium settings. Not bad :)

    ArmA is also horribly threaded. The ideal would be a 7700k boosted to 5GHz or on the low end i3 8350 with a good OC, but that is either too expensive off the bat or limited in upgrade path, and both need a discrete GPU. Also I don't want to bother with delidding to fix Intel's cheaping out on TIM.

    It runs off two main threads and while it can add another two or three if you go into the settings, CPU utilisation is only in single digits for those.

    Basically, 4 cores do the job just fine. I'll upgrade again in a year or two but the main reason I'm going this way right now is to get AM4 in place and to wait for the 20XX card pricing and whatever AMD releases to compete.


  • #6
    Xenoronin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,307 ✭✭✭Xenoronin


    Sounds like you've done your research. For a stop gap solution, it's pretty good!


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    hare05
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,041 ✭✭✭hare05


    Xenoronin wrote: »
    Sounds like you've done your research. For a stop gap solution, it's pretty good!

    Ok, so you haven't thrown any curve balls at me, so it looks like the post order nerves were for nothing 😀

    Thanks for the feedback either way.


  • #8
    TerrorFirmer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,930 ✭✭✭✭TerrorFirmer


    I still think the 2400G is a way better option for a very small price increase. Not only is the CPU significantly better, the APU is also faster. Get a B350/450 with half-decent overclocking abilities and you're really sorted.

    If your primary concern now is IPC then it would make more sense to get something like a H310M board and an i3-8100. This is significantly faster than Ryzen 1200, in games that lean on just a few cores eg Arma 3. It is also generally faster than Ryzen 1600 and 2600 in many games too (obviously that will change in time as more cores/threads come on-line across the board). And yes, while AMD will support the same socket for years, Coffee Lake 1151 will be relevant for the best part of a decade so I think people get a tad over-occupied with this from a gaming POV.

    People who bought S1155 Sandybridge almost 8 years ago are still finding the socket competitive in todays gaming market with the i7-2600/2600K/2700. Something like the hex core/hex thread 8600K will offer the same longevity, so in my opinion people get way too caught up in the whole 'future-proof' aspect of AM4. It's nice but it should be a lot lower on the priority list on what CPU suits you best.

    I say that as someone who has a Ryzen processor as well. They are great processors and they've brought great competition to the market but in your case, Intel seems to make a lot more sense. It did in mine as well but I got a good deal on the 2700X but my framerates are down compared to my 8600K (and I have a 144hz monitor so like you, there's a specific reason why Intel is better)


  • #9
    hare05
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,041 ✭✭✭hare05


    TerrorFirmer wrote: »
    I still think the 2400G is a way better option for a very small price increase. Not only is the CPU significantly better, the APU is also faster. Get a B350/450 with half-decent overclocking abilities and you're really sorted.

    If your primary concern now is IPC then it would make more sense to get something like a H310M board and an i3-8100. This is significantly faster than Ryzen 1200, in games that lean on just a few cores eg Arma 3. It is also generally faster than Ryzen 1600 and 2600 in many games too (obviously that will change in time as more cores/threads come on-line across the board). And yes, while AMD will support the same socket for years, Coffee Lake 1151 will be relevant for the best part of a decade so I think people get a tad over-occupied with this from a gaming POV.

    People who bought S1155 Sandybridge almost 8 years ago are still finding the socket competitive in todays gaming market with the i7-2600/2600K/2700. Something like the hex core/hex thread 8600K will offer the same longevity, so in my opinion people get way too caught up in the whole 'future-proof' aspect of AM4. It's nice but it should be a lot lower on the priority list on what CPU suits you best.

    I say that as someone who has a Ryzen processor as well. They are great processors and they've brought great competition to the market but in your case, Intel seems to make a lot more sense. It did in mine as well but I got a good deal on the 2700X but my framerates are down compared to my 8600K (and I have a 144hz monitor so like you, there's a specific reason why Intel is better)

    The testing I've seen shows only a 7% or so difference between the 2200G and 2400g for about 50% increase in price.

    And yes, while the 8100 is an excellent budget build chip, I've gone for a good value 'dead end' system before when I built my current FX 8320 system. I want something I won't have to buy multiple parts to upgrade in several years.

    While ArmA 3 is my game of choice, I'm not as gaming focused as I was a few years ago. It's just a nice stress test I'm using to make sure my new build doesn't run into the same problems of the last one. My usage otherwise is mainly browsing and Netflix and a few spreadsheets. From what I've seen of Ryzen, it's the way I want to go.

    Maybe when I buy a GPU next year I'll swap out for a 2600 or the next equivalent.


  • #10
    TerrorFirmer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,930 ✭✭✭✭TerrorFirmer


    The FX-8350 was outdated the day it was released, and has aged terribly. No Intel CPU since around 2005 has aged anywhere near as bad comparitavely speaking. A €10 i7 from 2009 is twice as fast as the FX-8350 in most games now.

    Coffee Lake is not a dead-end system from a Gaming POV and never will be over the life cycle of AM4 either.

    The i3-8100 easily beats the Ryzen 1200 in games right now, and has vastly superior IPC (I would say, that in ARMA3, even the top-end Ryzen CPUs would only be around as good as the i3) and there are tons of upgrade options, from 8400, to 8600K, to 8700K - none of these parts will be obsolete for the best part of a decade. In comparison, the FX-8350 was obsolete a year or two after it hit the market.

    The difference between the 2200G and 2400G is hyper-threading. The 2200G is 4/4, the 2400G is 4/8. Trust me, it does make a very huge difference in CPU heavy games that utilise cores/threads (think Fallout, Battlefield online, etc) and obviously in many productivity tasks it makes a big difference too.


  • #11
    hare05
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,041 ✭✭✭hare05


    TerrorFirmer wrote: »
    The FX-8350 was outdated the day it was released, and has aged terribly. No Intel CPU since around 2005 has aged anywhere near as bad comparitavely speaking. A €10 i7 from 2009 is twice as fast as the FX-8350 in most games now.

    Coffee Lake is not a dead-end system from a Gaming POV and never will be over the life cycle of AM4 either.

    The i3-8100 easily beats the Ryzen 1200 in games right now, and has vastly superior IPC (I would say, that in ARMA3, even the top-end Ryzen CPUs would only be around as good as the i3) and there are tons of upgrade options, from 8400, to 8600K, to 8700K - none of these parts will be obsolete for the best part of a decade. In comparison, the FX-8350 was obsolete a year or two after it hit the market.

    The difference between the 2200G and 2400G is hyper-threading. The 2200G is 4/4, the 2400G is 4/8. Trust me, it does make a very huge difference in CPU heavy games that utilise cores/threads (think Fallout, Battlefield online, etc) and obviously in many productivity tasks it makes a big difference too.

    You've given me something to think about here.

    The testing I've seen showed minimal differences between the 2400g and 2200g in gaming in newer games, and showed the 2400g outperform the i5 8400 when paired with a 1070.

    Others showed about a 5% to 10% difference, between the ryzens for APU gaming. Cpuboss shows a 5% difference between the i3 8100 and the 2200g.

    Can you recommend a good i3 / mobo combo for comparison?


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    TerrorFirmer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,930 ✭✭✭✭TerrorFirmer


    There is no way the 2400G beats the 8400 in games unless the reviewer is cherry picking some random games/results, the 8400 is superior (though more expensive and if 1080p/1440p 60fps is the aim, you won't notice any difference).

    That or perhaps you are focusing on average frames without taking into account 1% low and 0.1% low figures which paint a much more accurate figure, I tend to avoid any reviews that just focus on average framerate for this reason (FX-8350 perfect example - some games will be 60fps average but have 1% low of 25-30fps).

    Again, no way the 2200G and 2400G are that close in CPU heavy games with a dedicated card. Certain games of course they will be very close depending on how cores/threads are being used but the gap between them is the same as the gap between older gen i5's and i7's (or current gen i3 and i5).

    For instance, one of the most gruelling games at the moment is Battlefield online 64p multiplayer, and that very quickly seperates the 4/4 CPU's from the 4/8 and above, but is rarely ever benchmarked given the inability to accurately reproduce scenarios - every BF1 benchmark you see is single player which is CPU light. But if you put the 2200G up against the 2400G in that scenario, you'd fast see a big difference.

    All that said, a quick look at YouTube shows the 2200G is actually not that bad at Arma 3 at all and you are right, only about 10% slower than the i3, so fares better in that game than I would've expected given ARMA's heavily reliance on IPC so perhaps your original idea was actually the best option for you.

    Still think a 2400G is the right way forward as it means you will not have to upgrade it for quite a long time, certainly much longer than the 2200G, and it will make a big difference to a) many CPU heavy games and b) not sure if this applies to you but it's a lot better in productivity, look at reviews and you will see the extra threads make a big difference in benchmarking - this will start to apply to games more and more as time goes on (already does to some games).


  • #13
    TerrorFirmer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,930 ✭✭✭✭TerrorFirmer


    The other thing is that obviously depending on how important ARMA3 is, the Intel K CPU's overclock very well, so something like an i3-8350K at close to 5Ghz is going to be an absolute monster and probably be 50%+ faster in ARMA 3 then the 2200G. But then it comes down to balance of per-core dominance vs multi-core future proofing and all the rest (when compared to something like i5-8400 or 2400G etc, CPU's with more than 4 core/thread.)


  • #14
    hare05
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,041 ✭✭✭hare05


    TerrorFirmer wrote: »
    The other thing is that obviously depending on how important ARMA3 is, the Intel K CPU's overclock very well, so something like an i3-8350K at close to 5Ghz is going to be an absolute monster and probably be 50%+ faster in ARMA 3 then the 2200G. But then it comes down to balance of per-core dominance vs multi-core future proofing and all the rest (when compared to something like i5-8400 or 2400G etc, CPU's with more than 4 core/thread.)


    Yeah. When it comes down to it, A3 is the main thing I play but I'm not really an avid gamer any more. I'm just looking for something to replace my ageing set up and having a project is nice.


    I went for the 2200G in the end. It does the job for now, lets me faff about with StoreMI and a few other bits and pieces, and I can replace it with something more significant in a year or two to prep for Cyberpunk 2077, etc.


    Thanks all for the input. Even if it hasn't changed my decision, you've brought up a few things I didn't consider at first and it's always good to double check your work :)


Advertisement
Advertisement