The cheapest Zen • HWzone
ComputersProcessorsFeatured articles

The cheapest Zen

AMD brings the processors Of the new generation - with its latest processing cores and graphical accelerators in a minimalist configuration and at a very competitive price

Get updates from everyone in TelgramGet updates from us all at TelgramJoin the channel now


Modern microprocessor Offer a winning cost-benefit ratio at almost every price level in the market, and now it seems the company's goal is to surprise us with even the most basic costs - with a model 200GE double the fresh cores.

We have already met Ryzen 3 2200G and Ryzen 5 2400G, Which were essentially the first APU-integrated graphical-core graphics models in the era of Zen architecture, and now comes an even more basic model model that is largely reminiscent of the Ryzen 3 2200U mobile - with a pair of physical processing cores (functioning as 4 cores Logics using SMT technology) that are combined with the Vega 3 graphics core with 192 execution units and 4MB's L3 level cache.

The third APU of Designed for stationary computers comes

The Athlon 200GE will run at a base frequency of 3.2GHz, without the support of turbo frequencies at all, and should offer capabilities similar to those of Celeron processors and cost-effective Pentium processors Holders of the same power casing - 35 watts. The most basic level suitable for home or office computers for browsing or word processing and not much more. The processor will not support the speed of its cores, but will include support for operation with Dynamic, at least.

Will suffice for Modern at the lowest price? We hold our fingers

The consumer price of the first Athlon in the Zen era is 55 dollars, although not yet very simple Find it in practice in this cost - but when it finally comes, Should once again be a relative advantage over Which offers the Gold G5400T and Gold G5500T at recommended prices of 64 USD and 75 USD respectively. It should be noted, however, that Intel also has the Celeron G4900T at a recommended price of only $ 42, for which the Red camp still has no direct answer.

Declares Similar or preferable to its rival - but conveniently compares something to the Sooner rather than the Coffee Lake generation

AMD, for its part, plans to introduce another pair of models Modern under the 220GE and 240GE model names in the coming months - which will be slightly more expensive than the 200GE naturally, and will probably offer very similar features except for their practical work. Is there a chance to see a Sempron comeback for products for less than 50 dollars as well? We will continue to monitor and update on this matter.


Tags

15 תגובות

  1. The problem is not the processor on such weak computers,
    Because the board with those ups and downs and everything and everything around it,
    Bottom line, a few dozen dollars in profit versus a stronger system.

  2. Processor a bit strange in terms of its location in the market. The fact that it can't be rushed (as of this writing time) seems like a miss for AMD because the value of the processor was significantly increased. After all, the market segment to which a single core performance is intended is practical throughout the story. Alternatively, they could download the series of processors from their core quadrants (without SMT) to verify a reasonable price category and establish themselves from a different angle. Right now this processor is neither here nor there and so a bit strange.
    However, it should be borne in mind that this launch is probably not intended to place direct competition with Intel from day one, but rather to establish AMD's position in the market segment, which until now has reached an outdated and inefficient bulldozer processors at unprofitable prices. It will be interesting to see where they take this line of processors later, or is it just a gimmick for exploiting silicon residues to mark the supply of Ryzen architecture in all market segments.

  3. Havras,

    You probably missed the picture a bit. This processor is the direct competitor of the super-cheap and efficient G4560 which was opposite to AMD

    Competition so far. A basic processor designed for a generic office computer, designed to be HTPC, for a pensionable couple, for a preschooler,

    And that can also give entry-level touch to gaming, just as the G4560 processor does when required.

    There is a huge market for computers in this segment, perhaps the biggest market of all. And that so far AMD has been absent from the segment it has been in its octopus, here it is finally

    First brought out the xenum xenum processor ryzen processor and we even mentioned and mentioned it in our forum this past year, because this is one

    From AMD's plans for the current year 2018 through second generation Risen.

    So here's AMD put out a processor at only $ 55 floor price, cut competition by 20-30 percent compared to Intel's G5000 series, and no doubt

    At such price levels, the gap will play an important role in the purchaser's eyes a basic total computer system of 250 dollar size, where each tenth

    Dollars are a consideration. It's 10-20 $ per processor, it's another 10 $ for memories, it's a few tens of dollars more savings because you don't need a video card separately,

    And so on and so forth.

    And even we amateurs who need a new PC for HTPC needs for the living room for example, or a computer for a couple of old parents of 70 plus who do what they already do

    With him, surfing the web and word processor? Or a computer for a little kid in the age of 3-10 and the like, it gives us the possibility of something else

    Non-Intel from the G. series and thanks to AMD who still leaves some competition in the market, and this time on the basic segment below.

    I have no doubt that if we take a look at reviews about the new processor and what it is capable of doing, we will be surprised at how powerful it is with just a few things

    Useful every day, and then we will understand its greatness. ** Every review about G4560 will be essentially the same in terms of what it gives and teaches us

    In this context.

  4. According to preliminary performance tests, the 200GE falls out of the G4560 in single-core performance. The price difference from the G5000 series is not that big either. About 10 dollars from the G5400 that works at a high clock frequency at 500Hz.

    Exactly here is my comment on AMD's miss that the new Athlon series is locked to OC. They do this, of course, so that they can get more processors in a series that will work out of the box at a higher clock frequency without fear of cannibalization, but in the process sacrifice the possibility of offering a value that is completely absent from this market segment. The 2 cores and 4 processors with OC option can be a definite relative advantage that bridges two worlds, especially when trying to close a years-long gap in this particular market segment. Maybe this will come later in the higher end processors in the series.

    Although this is only a few early days and so to make statements now will be irresponsible, but as of this writing I am still of the opinion that the 220GE is pretty much falling between the chairs and therefore its launch is mostly shoddy.

  5. I believe that you are analyzing the new processor on the one hand with a lot of healthy ambition and quite a bit of willingness, but on the other hand miss the whole point,

    You have an explanation so pay attention:

    On a computer that I make for my 70 Plus mother, the considerations of the core work frequency that you raised are irrelevant ...

    And for my son 5, as a new computer component for him to accompany in the coming years and up to the age of 8-10, the considerations are equally irrelevant.

    Oh, and for the new PC on the TV corner, all you need to do is deploy video, where core2duo will suffice.

    And a computer for my new secretary and fresh (sorry for not uploading her pictures but believe me you lose), irrelevant IPC or frequency

    Running, she is all working in outlook and word.

    AMD motherboards are usually (not always) cheaper than Intel's.

    The graphic accelerator that Breeze is discussing in this thread is more powerful than the Intel G series.

    And so when I put the following picture before my eyes:

    A. Save about $ X per processor

    B. Probably another $ 10 for a motherboard

    third. And probably a savings from the lack of the need to purchase an external graphics accelerator (in the case of a gaming lite for an 5 boy who needs something reasonable)

    Whatever it is that Brizan is discussing and succeeding in giving the job (at a reasonable basic level) when Intel is unable to do so,

    So we've been born to save another $ 60-80 for a graphics accelerator that is spared from us like GT1030.

    This means that the solution of the Rizan in question brings no small money at all to Intel's G5000 solution, which is a lot on the computer

    All of which cost $ 250 total price. This can be a saving of 30-40% quietly from the total transaction.

    And this is the right analysis you missed because you didn't look at the uses for which this platform was intended (well, maybe my new secretary

    The 24 confused you so you can understand).

    What you are talking about is different:

    Is how to get a proper gaming machine but at a very cheap price, so you have treated IPC with such great emphasis - which means mostly working frequency.

    But whoever makes a cheap and efficient gaming machine as you asked to produce, say for a child aged 10-16, does not go for the G5000 solution in the first place,

    And therefore not for solving the Reisen 2 cores in question.

    He goes straight for a minimum G2200 money that costs him another 40 $ (for the processor himself) and closes the talking corner straight with 4 cores and not just 2

    Already too weak in 2018 for serious modern gaming.

    As well as buying a video card while in $ 120-180 $, such as AMD or Noida (1050GTX bottom cards) anyone….

    Compared to such a gaming PC you wanted to make, the savings that the 2 cores yield are dwindling and not interesting at all, since one doesn't sacrifice all

    Lots of capability for $ 40 low-cost equipments on the 2 core processor.

    This saving of $ 40 in a processor is relevant and worth considering at all, only if the machine does not have to work under a substantial load. Kerry is a non-machine

    Gaming youtube. And we've seen some examples of this (computer for old age, computer for the little boy, computer for the living room, and computer for my secretary - oh how good it looks ...)

    Hope the order I tried to create here in the segmentation of domains, makes sense and presents more clearly in the subject.

  6. It's nice that you explain to me what I'm actually saying and thinking, but here are some points in response to your words:

    1. If the frequency, meaning performance to our core is significant, then the argument also overcomes the relative advantage of the Vega core.
    2. If it is a Gaming Light computer, then the lack of the possibility of speeding or at least a reasonable turbo frequency is significant. This is of course because of this segment of the market segmentation is done precisely on the work differentials of several hundred mega runners and turbo or speed capability would have redundant the next two models in the series. It would also jeopardize the Ryzen 3 series by a certain degree of risk, since it could offer higher value for price for stitching. I understand who the market segment is and what those limitations are. If anything, this indicates that unlike Robin Hood's image of technology trying to pin AMD, this is a company operating from purely commercial considerations just like any other business.
    3. Zen architecture earns something from faster memories (nowadays paying a premium). It is true that in the new Athlon series the memories can be rushed, but if the argument is that the target audience in the market segment does not need OC ability and will not use it even if it exists (which is largely true), then he also will not deal with the memory rush.
    4. I haven't talked about gaming systems at all. A dual-core dual-processor processor and the fast or turbo-frequency capability can be the foundation for a compact and unparalleled office system. Not all office gunmen are writing a two-page letter in Word. Opening relatively large pop-up databases, complex Excel files with a fair amount of VBA, Web programming, occasional statistical data analysis and more are uses that do not gain from multicore but yes from the frequency in a few seconds or minutes during which the files are opened or data processing is performed.

    And regardless of all that. Specifically the 220GE processor falls between the chairs. Not really direct competition with the Pentiums and on the other hand does not bring any line in the cost-performance ratio. Maybe this will change as the series matures, I didn't claim not to, but in my first post I referred to things right as of the 220GE launch date which looks a bit like a miss.

  7. I have made some additional claims, some of which I agree with, but not the one in Section 1 and which you have, of course, I will explain:

    Raising the frequency from 3.2ghz to a processor that is already fast enough and I know, because it works with dual-core devices like G3220 or G3260 in some

    Home corners, definitely satisfying.

    but,

    If you want strong 720P capability - or 1080p light, what AMD's APU holds is water, while what's in Intel's G

    Definitely not. What's in Intel is bare minimum for desktop work and nothing else. When what is in AMD does allow for a waiver

    On a very basic graphical accelerator, from there you can run games on low.

    On the days when the basic booster costs us $ 60-80 $, the built-in AMD APU brings us the beauty of financial savings, and here's the benefit

    The clear face of Intel's G-series competitors.

    For your further comments in places where performance fitness is desirable, even in an office, so anyone who works with such heavy-duty tools will simply do their best

    Upgrade to G2200 and a compatible Motherboard to speed up the processor to 4ghz and close that corner behind it.

    Your comments about AMD commercials are certainly true, but do not contradict our consumer usability and viability, even in the $ 55 processor

    Who ran on "only" 3.2ghz, because there are so many practical uses from everyday and diverse consumers, for which he answers super

    Effective and practical also at this modest 3.2 speed. Another one I just mentioned, a mining computer base processor and these were sold in masses a year

    The most recent and put in a lot of money for Intel (none of the enthusiasts like us talked about it then mention here).

    Also, all of the things mentioned above do not contradict AMD's ability to market as you say, the same processor only at frequency

    Of 3.5ghz, while 10 $ extra price over it, ie 65 $.

    And those who need the extra 10% of these IPC performance, which would be good to add, just like that. Really not out of the question.

    In the sum of things in light of all the rationale given here for this new processor at 55 $, and the variety of uses to which it fits

    As a glove, this line writer does not see his way of launching as a fur that falls between the chairs, but rather a super accurate answer that hurts

    Intel's eyesight, as far as its corresponding G series is concerned, and in my opinion even wins it - in almost every aspect that examines it

    And uses as defined above.

  8. You seem to treat me like I'm saying this series is unnecessary or this market segment is unnecessary. no and no.

    There is no dispute that AMD has not been in this market segment for years and that any competition is better than no competition. What I was claiming was that I was personally a little disappointed that AMD chose to align Intel with a line rather than break the paradigm and not only create a presence but also added value in the form of processors that bridge the gap between the budget market and the next (core quadrants) segment by bringing performance to a single core instead Segment the market into 300 – 500 high-speed slices like the competition.

    This is similar to an imaginary situation where Ryzen processors would adopt the hardware configuration of Intel's corresponding 3, 5 and 7 series. Would that make them unnecessary? No. Would that make them a particular miss? In my opinion, yes.

    That's my opinion, and of course you can disagree with it.

    And only a clarification to finish. At the 1 point in my previous message, I did not refer to the gaming system but to the same uses that do not adopt the processor at all (simple desktop applications, HTPC) so as long as it is a modern processor at reasonable frequency there will be no noticeable difference in performance. In this case, the relative advantage of the graphic core also has no meaning.

  9. Yes, there is meaning,

    If you need the power of graphics, for example, for your son who is an 5 toddler (like mine)

    And it plays the first step games in its 3D, so it's enough for a basic accelerator,

    Like AMD's APU - but there's no such thing in Intel's parallel processor,

    Then the graphic accelerator is meaningful and contrary to its claim. Think about it for a moment again :)

    Graphic processor and accelerator both together in 200 Chess… hmm… 🤔

  10. In the meantime, let's look together at the launch of the product in question from our well-known Steve, surely he'll have some interesting insights on the subject (I haven't watched yet):

  11. Also Steve's performance tests (thanks to the link, I didn't know his channel) show that the 200GE is a bit falling from the Pentiums of the last two generations. From here, just started my comment that it pretty much falls between the chairs at this point. His older brothers are expected to close the gap due to higher work frequency and superior graphical performance (to some extent performance. Graphics are relevant to processor performance in segment. This market is already another question) but also to cost more so they will not revolutionize the market. Max will line up with Intel's offering that is a blessing in its own right, but I personally still think there is a taste of some missed opportunity here.

    I disagree so much with the i5-2400 comparison. First of all, he is not his direct competitor and so the same can be said of the corresponding Pentiums who are his competitors. Second, I believe that applications that truly utilize multi-core have the advantage of real quad core from relatively modern architecture over a processor capable of scheduling four processes even in synthetic or current performance tests (which often gain more frequency than third and fourth cores). That's exactly the point. The current segment that earns high frequency current but much less than the existence of more than two cores does not really have a complete solution today. Either buy Athlon (Zen) or Pentium at the highest frequency available, or take a quad-core processor that allows it to run fast and run it over the 4.5GHz region (or better, but then it's really real OC and it's not always lucrative / possible in these cases). In both cases, compromise on something - performance or budget. I think this was an opportunity for AMD to bridge this gap.

    So I find this reaction that you referred to somewhat demagogic.

  12. Quote of nec_000

    If you need the power of graphics, for example, for your son who is an 5 toddler (like mine)

    And it plays the first step games in its 3D, so it's enough for a basic accelerator,

    Which is the same in APU's AMD - But there is none in the corresponding processor of Intel.

    Think about it for a moment and repeat iteration :)

    Graphic processor and accelerator both together in 200 Chess… hmm… 🤔

    We didn't talk about that. You have argued that the common uses of this market segment (basic office work, HTP) as long as it is a reasonably priced modern processor, does not make any difference to several hundred runners. This is true, but in the pattern of these uses, too, the graphical core's relative advantage is of no significance.

    Gaming is a little different story already. I can share from experience that the G4560 deals with no particular problem with everything that two 5 and 7 kids throw at it. Mostly minecraft. Recently also some FIFA and recently even run a Fortnite session with an older cousin. So much so that this system, which was supposed to be just a temporary system that was built as a solution to existing parts, was currently planned to stay until more demanding games began. Was the Athlon (Zen) a better solution here because of the graphic core? Probably so. Is it up to a level that allows you to save a graphics card / processor when switching to more modern and demanding titles, or at least postpone buying for a significant period of time (say, a year)? I'm not sure. Running a game on low settings in terms of kids who are just beginning to understand this matter is not much different from running at all.

    Or in other words: I believe that once a more serious gaming system is needed, both platforms will lose more or less relevance. The advantage of AMD is that it is possible to start with Athlon (Zen) and later upgrade without replacing a board that the AM4 resident is expected to be with us up to 2020, while on the Intel side such an upgrade path cannot be built. But if you link it to the A320 board, it is a bit of a downgrade of the program and in any case it is an upgrade route that needs to be planned and budgeted in advance. It doesn't exactly fall into the category of a budget ad hoc system.

    Quote of nec_000

  13. This time, too, most of the above are true, and we agree.

    I think that's what we got here, and I'm currently focusing on the points to win:

    A. Increasing supply and improving customer diversity, we had Intel's G processor at 64 $, so it now has something more parallel and even 55 $

    B. A product from AMD's platform - if it's better than Intel's for any of the reasons listed above, then another small bonus

    third. A more powerful built-in graphic accelerator that somehow runs something in the domain and can buy us quiet for a limited time

    By the way, this is exactly why I would buy it for the Zattot for his computer stand, which is currently dual and also used as HTPC in the room

    Television - The built-in May wave that saved me needed a graphic director for the near future.

    now:

    Was our situation before the launch of the new processor better?

    of course not

    Does our post-launch situation (which is better agreed) constitute a sensation?

    Here, too, we all agree not to, and appreciate the launch as nice to have more options with a little bit better pricing than before.

    I'm pretty convinced that AMD was worried that if their new processor was unlocked, it would go out into the market with a fanfare from the entire community of amateurs

    As a real new gem, to the point of gnawing on G2200 sales, because the friends would show the enthusiast what he does at 4 Giga Hz

    That it is a worthwhile job for nothing. And that's why AMD feared that G2200 would be cannibalized. Legitimate of their test and I would act that way too.

    And so the launch from AMD's business angle should be understood:

    At the moment, this processor is designed primarily for generic and office computers, which buy weight companies for office workers who staff the building floors,

    And for this arm he fits a stamp. The fact that it is also suitable for many home consumers who are not heavy computer enthusiasts is a by-product of this

    And so it will be sold to millions around the world by fathers who just put a basic computer on their kids in the corner of the room.

    now,

    AMD may release another such processor this time unlocked, and will be priced close enough to G2200 to refrain from cannibalizing it.

    Let's say instead of 55 $, you'll sell at 75 $….

    That the $ 99 $ where the G2200 is sold will not be a simple dilemma for the hobbyist, is it worth saving 25 $ and giving up two cores or not.

    ** I even watch such a move with high probability from AMD.

  14. Competition is always welcome, provided it is real and not just apparent.

    AMD's entry into this market segment with up-to-date and relevant architecture is surely harmless. However, and without repeating all the technical reasons again, the launch of the Athlon 200GE is specifically not very successful. Even if it's just the first swallow / balloon experiment (so let's say AMD hasn't released the specs of the next two models in the series that want to see how the market will respond and leave room for adjustment), the launch has been identified as more than just a shrug and a slight yawn. Putting it, at least on the market, in front of the Pentium G4650, the downfall of 5 is a kindness to it. Regardless of that, the 220GE is a little behind a processor of more than a year and a half when it comes to processor performance. I suppose this comparison is meant to mark the boundaries of the sector and declare which market segment and performance envelope AMD is targeting here, but the choice of Athlon 220GE has created a situation where, apparently, AMD is more promising than it can sustain. If they compared the 220GE to the Celeron G4920 priced 52 $ and ran at the same frequency, so in my opinion the more correct and requested comparison, then the launch looks quite different. At that price, you get a few more transistors on the slice to schedule two more processors and a significantly stronger graphical core. But I suppose the comparison to Celeron might have been interpreted as positioning the new series at the low end of the budget market anyway, and that might be a hard-to-reach pit of consciousness.

    In my opinion, it was just a bit wrong to choose 220GE as the face of the new series, but we'll see what their two older brothers bring.

  15. By the way, contrary to the initial information disseminated and according to which the memory controller is open to speed according to reports from the field this is our matzah and it is not possible to rush the memory and the highest memory frequency you can work with is 2666MHz.

    If we ignore for a moment the fact that most users of this market segment would not deal with memory speed (or processor. Therefore turbo frequency is probably even better than speed capability) even if possible, to get the performance shown on performance tests on users would be to buy DDR4 at 2666MHz frequency And nowadays this has a non-negligible financial significance, probably for a budget-friendly system.

    I haven't tested it, but I allow myself to assume that due to the number of cores, the working frequency and the graphed core compared to the Ryzen 2400G, the memory frequency will not have as significant an impact on performance as it does on the Ryzen models, so it is not a significant loss of potential performance Considerable performance loss in buying slower and cheaper memory. However, it again adds to the (at least mine) feeling that there is a certain lack of space here.

Leave a Reply

Back to top button
Close
Close