As part of the launch of the large Zen 2 Ryzen processor, AMD released two Ryzen 3000 parts that contain a graphics component. The new Ryzen 3 3200G and Ryzen 5 3400G APUs are simple upgrades compared to the models they replace, starting at $ 99 and $ 149, respectively.
AMD uses the Zen + architecture, which means that these APUs are manufactured using the 12nm process, which offers improved clock speeds and thermal. The R5 3400G gets a cooler upgrade with the Wraith Spire, while the 3200G keeps the base Wraith Stealth. The 3400G also dispenses with the thermal paste interface material and is soldered just like the Big Boy chips.
The 3400G CPU cores were overclocked 8% from 3.9 GHz to 4.2 GHz, while the Vega 11 graphics engine is clocked at 1.4 GHz, an increase of 12% over the 2400G. The price sticker also got a slight discount, as the R5 3400G is $ 149 or $ 20 lower than the 2400G at launch, starting at $ 149.
|Ryzen 3 2200G||Ryzen 5 2400G||Ryzen 3 3200G||Ryzen 5 3400G|
|Starting price||$ 99||$ 169||$ 99||$ 149|
|Cores / threads||4/4||4/8||4/4||4/8|
|Basic clock||3.5 GHz||3.6 GHz||3.6 GHz||3.7 GHz|
|Boost clock||3.7 GHz||3.9 GHz||4.0 GHz||4.2 GHz|
|Cache||4 MB||4 MB||6 MB||6 MB|
|GPU||Vega 8 at 1100 MHz||Vega 11 at 1250 MHz||Vega 8 at 1250 MHz||Vega 11 at 1400 MHz|
We use the MSI B450 Carbon Gaming with 16 GB DDR4-3200 memory to test this new APU. We're not going to cover the APU from every angle, like we did with the 2200G and 2400G, since most information like memory scaling is still relevant.
At the moment we want to see how different the 3400G is from the 2400G and what kind of value proposition is on the table, considering that the Ryzen R5 3600 starts at just $ 200 and it also includes the parts of the previous generation 1600 and 2600 there for which you can find them Of course less without graphics.
The Cinebench R20 multi-core test shows that the 3400G offers a performance increase of 9% compared to the 2400G model, which is mainly due to the 8% increase in the clock rate and partly due to the improved IPC from Zen +. It is worth noting that the R5 3600 is 81% faster in this test and only costs 33% more, even though it lacks integrated graphics. We'll discuss more about that later.
We see a ~ 10% improvement in single core performance thanks to the frequency boost and upgrade to Zen +. This made the 3400G equal to the R5 2600X, and this time the R5 3600 was only 15% faster because it couldn't get these extra cores to work in this test.
Memory bandwidth performance is similar, Zen + improves memory latency, but as you can see in terms of bandwidth, both have maintained 36GB / s transfer speed.
The 3400G was 10% faster than the 2400G in the 7-Zip compression test, and while this is a decent little bump in a world where 6-core processors are now commonplace, it doesn't look that impressive.
The SMT implementation of AMD is very efficient when it comes to decompression work in 7-zip. As a result, the 3400G beats the Core i7-7700K and was not much slower than the 6-core / 6-thread 9600K.
We tested Premiere with two configurations: one with the GeForce RTX 2080 Ti, the standard graphics card for testing CPUs, and one with the integrated Vega 11 graphics for GPU acceleration.
With a high-performance discrete graphics card, the 3400G is actually very impressive in this test and finishes rendering in just 629 seconds. However, without a graphics card, it took 1762 seconds, and that's not great. If you were to use this processor for video editing and coding, buying an entry-level graphics card would be the way to go, or better yet, just buy the R5 3600 and pair it with an entry-level graphics card.
The 3400G was only 4% faster than the 2400G in the Corona benchmark, and although both made it much faster than the Core i5-7600K, they were slower than anything else.
Similar margins can be seen in the Blender Open Data benchmark. This time the 3400G offered a 6% performance increase over the 2400G and both followed the 7700K.
When it comes to power consumption, the 3400G still consumes power, making the overall consumption 10% higher than that of the 2400G, meaning that system usage was 10% lower than the 7600K.
If we move on to operating temperatures, we see that the 3400G with the Wraith Spire box cooler reached a maximum of 58 degrees when performing the Blender test. By default, an operating frequency of 3950 MHz was maintained, and this was not changed when PBO + AutoOC was activated in the Ryzen Master software.
When testing with F1 2019, the 3400G ran much cooler despite the Vega 11 graphics now used. Here the CPU reached a maximum of only 45 degrees and ran at 4025 MHz. Activating PBO + AutoOC raised the operating temperature to 48 degrees, and this time increased the operating frequency by 100 MHz.
Gaming benchmarks (with additional GeForce GPU)
Before we test the integrated GPU, let's take a quick look at how the 3400G performs with other CPUs when you compare gaming performance without a GPU limitation.
At 1080p, it is faster than the Core i5-7600K and not much slower than the 6-core / 12-thread R5 1600, and it also offers an 11% boost over the 2400G. The 3400G is even more competitive at 1440p and is between the R5 1600 and 1600X, which is not bad for the budget processor.
The performance in Battlefield V was respectable. For example, the 3400G mimicked the 1% low performance of the Core i7-7700K, while the average for the R5 1600 was only slightly below the value. This time the 3400G was up to 10% faster than the 2400G.
We got a similar result when testing with The Division 2. Here the 3400G offers a performance increase of 7% compared to the 2400G, while it lags behind the R5 1600 by 10%. The 3400G is still 8% faster than the 2400G at 1440p, but now it can achieve the 1% low performance of the R5 1600 and 1600X.
We see a pretty impressive result in Far Cry. At first, you may think that the 17% increase in performance over the 2400G is a mistake, but we assure you that it is not. The improved cache and memory latency of the Zen + architecture gives the 3400G in Far Cry New Dawn a huge advantage that corresponds to the R5 1600X.
The margin drops a bit at 1440p, but the 3400G was still 12% faster than the 2400G and matched the R5 1600X again.
Play with the integrated Vega 11 graphics
Our first test shows a performance improvement of only 5% compared to the 2400G. The good news is that the game was very playable at 1080p and always went well over 60 fps.
Next up is Rainbow Six Siege and here the 3400G was up to 8% faster, although both APUs performed very well and even rendered over 60 fps at 1080p. Of course, we use the lowest possible graphics quality preset, but that's still impressive for integrated graphics.
Fortnite also plays well at 1080p, but unfortunately the 3400G didn't really offer any performance gain over the older 2400G in this title.
We see something similar in Far Cry New Dawn, although the CPU side of the 3400G is much more punchy in this title, the Vega 11 overclocking doesn't help here.
There's almost no difference in Strange Brigade, the 3400G came with a few extra frames, but that's about it.
The same applies to F1 2019. The 3400G is only suitable for a few additional frames, but the game was even playable at 1080p.
World of Tanks saw a 14% performance improvement when upgrading to the 3400G. This is a title that benefits from the Zen + improvements, but is not heavily tied to the GPU when using the integrated graphics. Therefore, it is a rare situation where the improved CPU performance can be used in the game with the Vega 11 graphics.
For whom is that?
When AMD released the first Zen-based APUs in February last year, it was an exciting time for these products to hit the shelves. At the time when graphics card prices were skyrocketing due to mining demand, the shelves were empty to get a new GPU, even if you were willing to spend three or four times more than you should.
The 2400G and 2200G offered an alternative for players on a budget. The APUs allow you to play games, albeit with poor graphics, but you have the option to play later and upgrade to a discrete graphics card later. However, today we have no such problem. The used graphics card market is booming, and you can buy a new Radeon RX 570 for just $ 130. This enables a superior gaming experience. It's like a comparison between chalk and cheese.
The Ryzen 5 3400G will bring you back $ 149, which means the APU option remains relatively cheap for those who buy new hardware. However, we believe that it will descend as a niche product in today's market.
If your main interest is in gaming, a Ryzen 3 1200 for $ 65 new with a RX 570 for $ 130 or a used model for $ 60 is a much better gaming combination. Compared to "new" prices, you see over 200% more performance for just 30% more. However, if you're ready to buy used graphics card, the combination is cheaper than just buying the 3400G.
For work with high productivity, the 3400G is also not an inexpensive option. Instead, you're better off with the Ryzen 5 1600 for $ 105 and combine it with a dirt cheap, discrete graphics card. You can get something with the remaining $ 45.
If you only need a basic PC for office work, the 3400G is suitable. If you're building a compact home theater PC and gaming isn't the focus, the 3400G is also a really good option. In addition, as we just mentioned, you are better off with other alternatives. The previous generation 2400G is currently also available for $ 100. Since the 3400G was never 50% faster, we would probably only buy the 2400G and pocket the extra cash, except for a better graphics card in the future if you are playing at all in your plans.