Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
However if all your use cases require a minimum of multi-threading and will only ever use 1-4 threads then the 3200g should perform just about the same as the 2600. If that's not the case, the extra CPU power in the 26000 (in cores and threads) will start to add up significantly.
And I would say that unless you need the integrated graphics in the 3200g it's just a feature you're paying for instead of higher core count. But if a 3200g is all you can afford and you're hot to trot right now beggars can't be choosers. It will work fine and you can always upgrade later on.
go with a cpu and dedicated gpu instead
1600af is faster than the 3200g
or you can get the 3600 for not much more and destroy it
Best to upgrade later on, because 2200G/3200G and 2400G/3400G are not well suited for dedicated graphics, APUs are pretty cut down and really only designed to run their built-in graphics
Ryzen 3 3100X and 3300X are coming around the same time as Intel's 10th gen comet lake, full CPUs with 4 cores and 8 threads that'll smack the 3200G around for around the same price point
Ryzen 5 2600 or 3600 would be better.