Is the ryzen 3 2200g a good match with a gtx 1050 ti?

[Sinister80s]

I was first going to get a ryzen 5 2600 to go with a b450 tomahawk board but since my budget is pretty small at the moment i was going to get a 2200g for the time being and upgrade later.

[r.linder]

Yes. It's close to an i3-8100 in performance and will be able to handle a 1050 Ti.

[Monk]

Upgrading later is a bad idea, save a bit more and get the 2600 off the bat, the 2200g is sort of pointless if you have a dedicated gpu and you give up half of its pcie lanes for the igpu, plus you can get r5 2600's for not much more, especially given the time of year and the sales.

[InfinityJosh]

Best buy is Ryzen 1200+RX570/580 4GB.
CPU may be 10% slower but GPU is 40% faster so overall performances would be 30/35% faster while costing the same.

[Sinister80s]

Originally posted by Infinity Josh:

Best buy is Ryzen 1200+RX570/580 4GB.
CPU may be 10% slower but GPU is 40% faster so overall performances would be 30/35% faster while costing the same.

I already have a gtx 1050 ti though

[r.linder]

Originally posted by Infinity Josh:

Best buy is Ryzen 1200+RX570/580 4GB.
CPU may be 10% slower but GPU is 40% faster so overall performances would be 30/35% faster while costing the same.

1st gen isn't really worth it.

[InfinityJosh]

Originally posted by SinisterPiggy:

Originally posted by Infinity Josh:

Best buy is Ryzen 1200+RX570/580 4GB.
CPU may be 10% slower but GPU is 40% faster so overall performances would be 30/35% faster while costing the same.

I already have a gtx 1050 ti though

If you can afford buy a good CPU, you won't have to upgrade for many years.
Go for Ryzen 2600 or i5 8400.
When you'll upgrade GPU the CPU will be enough to support a mid end GPU in the next 5/6 years.

Originally posted by Escorve:

Originally posted by Infinity Josh:

Best buy is Ryzen 1200+RX570/580 4GB.
CPU may be 10% slower but GPU is 40% faster so overall performances would be 30/35% faster while costing the same.

1st gen isn't really worth it.

Totally worth it for people on a budget, like e-sports players.

[Sinister80s]

If i do go for first gen, i would be saving alot of money because a b350 tomahawk is 80 dollars less than a b450 tomahawk here in australia. So i could get like a ryzen 5 1600. Would a 1600 be pretty future proof?

Edit: nvm the price on the b350 tomahawk just increased by quite a bit

[r.linder]

Originally posted by Infinity Josh:

Originally posted by Escorve:

1st gen isn't really worth it.

Totally worth it for people on a budget, like e-sports players.

After researching prices, the 2200G is cheaper. They don't seem to make 1st gen Ryzen CPUs anymore because there's no point as 2nd gen is superior in every way and worth paying a tiny bit more for.
Combine that with the fact that B350 is inferior and you would just be screwing yourself over for future upgrades.

[InfinityJosh]

Originally posted by Escorve:

Originally posted by Infinity Josh:

Totally worth it for people on a budget, like e-sports players.

After research prices, the 2200G is cheaper. Combine that with the fact that B350 is inferior and you would just be screwing yourself over for future upgrades.

In the US is cheaper and also the MBs.
2200G is good for someone who wants an APU, the iGPU is too weak in most games even at low settings.
You pay more for something you won't need.
If he wants something futureproof a R1600 would be a good buy.

[r.linder]

Originally posted by Infinity Josh:

Originally posted by Escorve:

After research prices, the 2200G is cheaper. Combine that with the fact that B350 is inferior and you would just be screwing yourself over for future upgrades.

In the US is cheaper and also the MBs.
2200G is good for someone who wants an APU, the iGPU is too weak in most games even at low settings.
You pay more for something you won't need.
If he wants something futureproof a R1600 would be a good buy.

There is so much wrong with the way you think. I can hardly tell if you're being serious or if you're just trying to annoy people.
Let me break it down for you:

1. In USD, A 2200G is cheaper than the 1200. The 2200G outperforms it in every possible way. There is no reason to get a 1200 as a result. Paying a few extra bucks for a B450 board is also worthwhile as it properly supports 2nd generation Ryzen and issues with 1st gen are non-existant.

2. Some people do use the Vega APU, but most people just get a 1050 or 1050 Ti and that's fine. Just because it's an APU, doesn't mean it's not good.

3. IT'S CHEAPER. Even if it was 10$ more it's still worth the extra performance and superior architecture. He will need it because it's better for a currently lower market price than the inferior 1200.

4. There are two things wrong with your last statement; Futureproofing is a falsehood, a stupid excuse to buy things, and the 1600 is outclassed by its successor, the 2600 in every way for less than 20$ more. To ignore the fact that it's superior based on slightly higher cost is absolute idiocy. If someone is THAT frugal, they shouldn't even get into PC gaming in the first place.

I used both a 1700X and 2700X, and while benchmarks showed that the 2700X pulled ahead by 10%, the overall system performance gains I saw exceeded 30%. Zen 2 is superior in every single way and is worth paying a little bit more for. A simple concept.

[Sinister80s]

Originally posted by Escorve:

Originally posted by Infinity Josh:

In the US is cheaper and also the MBs.
2200G is good for someone who wants an APU, the iGPU is too weak in most games even at low settings.
You pay more for something you won't need.
If he wants something futureproof a R1600 would be a good buy.

There is so much wrong with the way you think. I can hardly tell if you're being serious or if you're just trying to annoy people.
Let me break it down for you:

1. In USD, A 2200G is cheaper than the 1200. The 2200G outperforms it in every possible way. There is no reason to get a 1200 as a result. Paying a few extra bucks for a B450 board is also worthwhile as it properly supports 2nd generation Ryzen and issues with 1st gen are non-existant.

2. Some people do use the Vega APU, but most people just get a 1050 or 1050 Ti and that's fine. Just because it's an APU, doesn't mean it's not good.

3. IT'S CHEAPER. Even if it was 10$ more it's still worth the extra performance and superior architecture. He will need it because it's better for a currently lower market price than the inferior 1200.

4. There are two things wrong with your last statement; Futureproofing is a falsehood, a stupid excuse to buy things, and the 1600 is outclassed by its successor, the 2600 in every way for less than 20$ more. To ignore the fact that it's superior based on slightly higher cost is absolute idiocy. If someone is THAT frugal, they shouldn't even get into PC gaming in the first place.

I agree with escorve on this. From what iv seen 2nd gen is a big improvment over last gen with little or no price difference.

[r.linder]

Originally posted by SinisterPiggy:

Originally posted by Escorve:

There is so much wrong with the way you think. I can hardly tell if you're being serious or if you're just trying to annoy people.
Let me break it down for you:

1. In USD, A 2200G is cheaper than the 1200. The 2200G outperforms it in every possible way. There is no reason to get a 1200 as a result. Paying a few extra bucks for a B450 board is also worthwhile as it properly supports 2nd generation Ryzen and issues with 1st gen are non-existant.

2. Some people do use the Vega APU, but most people just get a 1050 or 1050 Ti and that's fine. Just because it's an APU, doesn't mean it's not good.

3. IT'S CHEAPER. Even if it was 10$ more it's still worth the extra performance and superior architecture. He will need it because it's better for a currently lower market price than the inferior 1200.

4. There are two things wrong with your last statement; Futureproofing is a falsehood, a stupid excuse to buy things, and the 1600 is outclassed by its successor, the 2600 in every way for less than 20$ more. To ignore the fact that it's superior based on slightly higher cost is absolute idiocy. If someone is THAT frugal, they shouldn't even get into PC gaming in the first place.

I agree with escorve on this. From what iv seen 2nd gen is a big improvment over last gen with little or no price difference.

Originally posted by Escorve:

I used both a 1700X and 2700X, and while benchmarks showed that the 2700X pulled ahead by 10%, the overall system performance gains I saw exceeded 30%. Zen 2 is superior in every single way and is worth paying a little bit more for. A simple concept.

A little bit of proof there. 1st gen is not worth the price when you compare it to 2nd.

[Monk]

A note, we don't have zen 2 yet.

Honestly, save the extra for a 2600 off the bat, it's much cheaper in the long run.

The 2200g only having 8 pcie lanes (most chips will have 16 or more) will prevent any extra addin cards you may want / need to run if you have a dedicated gpu already, plus, you are paying for the igpu, it's not free and you don't need it.

[r.linder]

Originally posted by pasa:

No it is not. You buy APU only when you want to use its integrated gfx and have no discrete GPU. Get a 2600 as best bang/buck, or if can't afford a lower ryzen CPU.

The iGPU is an option. People pair 1050 Tis with the 2200G all of the time.

[pasa]

2200g is a waste if you have a GPU. save up for the 2600 up front. Borrow the extra bucks, you lose less even paying substantial interest compared to swpping processor.

Or get lower non-APU ryzen as a last resort.

Originally posted by Escorve:

Originally posted by pasa:

No it is not. You buy APU only when you want to use its integrated gfx and have no discrete GPU. Get a 2600 as best bang/buck, or if can't afford a lower ryzen CPU.

The iGPU is an option. People pair 1050 Tis with the 2200G all of the time.

Yeah, people do plenty os dumb or suboptimal things. The igp in that package takes up lot of silicon, that in other processors is used for L3 cache and other goodies. With intel you can;t avoid wasting the igp, with amd you hav the option. so what is the rationale to waste?