Is Ryzen 3 2200G a good cpu for GeForce 1650?

[Bluenderd]

So, Ive been thinking of upgrading from my Intel Cpu (2 Ghz) to Ryzen 3 2200G (about 3.5 - 3.7 ghz). I heard It was good, but I still wanted to ask if it was worth the money or if another cpu would be better for gaming?

Current PC Specs:
Cpu: Intel CPU r5-2620 2.00GHz
Ram: 16 GB
Gpu: Geforce GTX 1650

[Cathulhu]

Why an APU? They have so many downsides due to the integrated videochip you aren't using anyway.

You'd need a new mainboard and RAM as well. You can not put a Ryzen APU on a Intel Xeon mainboard.

[ezwip]

It's definitely a better processor than what you are rocking now but for another 50-100 bucks you could slide into a Ryzen 5 or 7. If you're just talking purely gaming it's fine.

[Illusion of Progress]

I presume you meant the Xeon E5-2620? That's a hex core, hyper-threaded Sandy Bridge clocked low (2.0 GHz) for anyone else.

Although it's an older architecture and clocked low, I wouldn't consider an APU like that a worthwhile change. Better in many situations due to the higher clock speed, sure, but why would you go from a 6 core Hyper-threaded CPU so a strict quad core CPU? On top of that, it's not a much faster architecture so the clock speed jump pretty much IS the increase, even if it IS a pretty substantial jump.

Here's a short refresher to the Zen APUs. This may not always apply (or maybe it does, but it's definitely the common norm if it doesn't), but they usually use CPU cores from the prior generation of what the name may suggest. So something in the 2000 series uses Ryzen 1000 CPU cores. Those are original Zen cores, not Zen+, not even Zen 2, or Zen 3. Zen is 1000 series, Zen+ is 2000 series, Zen 2 is 3000 series, and Zen 3 is the new 5000 series.

The original Zen is typically on par with something around Haswell IIRC clock for clock, depending on the task, but many Sandy Bridge to Haswell era CPUs sometimes even outperformed them in real world testing due to typically clocking higher (so needless to say, when overclocked). I know your particular situation is the opposite, using a low clocked CPU, but I want you to have an idea you'd not really be moving to a faster architecture.

So, rough description, you're going to lose 33% of your cores and 66% of your threads to gain maybe 75% to 80% clock speed on an architecture not much faster than your existing one. That's an overall lateral at best IMO (in reality, it'll be worse in some cases, better in others), and while it may be better in more tasks than it's worse in (at least, if you're focusing more on lighter ones), it's still not something I'd recommend spending and doing a platform change over. I'd save slightly more to make it much more worthwhile.

I agree with the above. If you must keep budget more strict, I'd at least go for a Ryzen 3 that isn't an APU, is Zen 2 (Ryzen 3000 series, since Zen 3 has no budget options yet), and has SMT (so it's 4 cores/8 threads and not just 4 cores/4 threads).

Else, an Ryzen 5 3600/X or Intel Core i5 10400/f (or 11400) are typically good budget options.

[Cathulhu]

All what you said, including the limited amount of PCIe lanes for anything else, like a videocard.
Having only 8 lanes is not that much.
Well, technically 12, but 4 are reserved for NVME drives.
8 lanes for videocards and any other card you put into your PC. Not great.

[J Charcole]

If you have a GPU then there's no point of buying an APU but if you don't have a GPU then you could buy an APU.

TLDR: buy a CPU, My recommendations if you could grab one is ryzen 3300x it is better no cap.

Just found this on youtube comment and credits to diablosv36
2 reasons why the 3300x is faster in games, 1: 8 threads are more than enough for games, so clock speed is more important. 2: The 3300x uses one 4 core CCX, so does not have the latency of the 3600 which uses two CCX with 3 cores enabled on each, which means a 3+3 core design, so every time the CCXs need to communicate with each other, it will give a latency penalty, which games are sensitive too.

[J Charcole]

Not to mention, the reason why I grabbed an APU because at the moment I don't have a GPU yet but now I want to upgrade to ryzen 3600 if i could grab one.

[_I_]

amd apus are a good match for their cpu and gpu

the vega 11 is close to a gt1030
1050ti is about double that
1650 is about 2.5x the vega 11


the intel 2620 is an old xeon, many cores low core performance
the ryzen apu is a faster cpu

imho, keep the current gpu you have with the xeon build, and upgrade to the 3600 and board with ddr4
then save up for a better gpu

[Cathulhu]

But if you already have a videocard, you don't need the advantage of an integrated videochip and are left with all the downsides of the APU.
Have to agree with "5 minutes crack" about getting a 3300x or similar. Good bang for the buck if gaming is all you're doing.

[pasa]

Of course not, you avoid all G models if you have a video card.

[tonimark]

Originally posted by Bluenderd:

So, Ive been thinking of upgrading from my Intel Cpu (2 Ghz) to Ryzen 3 2200G (about 3.5 - 3.7 ghz). I heard It was good, but I still wanted to ask if it was worth the money or if another cpu would be better for gaming?

Current PC Specs:
Cpu: Intel CPU r5-2620 2.00GHz
Ram: 16 GB
Gpu: Geforce GTX 1650

not worth it use the APU it has similar performance to this graphics card! old apus (3200g) will sacrifice 2 cores and performance