Ryzen 5 2400G (£128.99) & Ryzen 3 2200G (£84.98) Amazon
322°Expired

Ryzen 5 2400G (£128.99) & Ryzen 3 2200G (£84.98) Amazon

£128.99Amazon Deals
28
Found 5th Apr
With the first lot of Ryzen chips dropping in price with the next lot of Ryzen coming out this month, two of the new chips that have integrated graphics have dropped slightly in price too.

Ryzen 5 2400G CPU with Wraith Stealth Cooler and RX Vega Graphics
£128.99 (Launched at £149)
amzn.eu/fki…A55

Ryzen 3 2200G CPU with Wraith Stealth Cooler and RX Vega Graphics
£84.98 (Launched at £99)
amzn.eu/dUw…x3L
Community Updates

Groups

28 Comments
Great deal, although personally I would stick with the 2200g, the 2400g isn't worth £44 more IMO.
wow these are falling fast. Probably mediocre demand.
Gormond49 m ago

Great deal, although personally I would stick with the 2200g, the 2400g …Great deal, although personally I would stick with the 2200g, the 2400g isn't worth £44 more IMO.


I guess it depends what you want. Both are great deals imo even at the original price. A friend and I was comparing the 2400G vs his Intel chip and the specs were very similar but the Ryzen was hell of a lot cheaper.
Levjski41 m ago

I guess it depends what you want. Both are great deals imo even at the …I guess it depends what you want. Both are great deals imo even at the original price. A friend and I was comparing the 2400G vs his Intel chip and the specs were very similar but the Ryzen was hell of a lot cheaper.


His Intel chip..? Was it a pentium or a 8700k? An "Intel chip", gives no information at all.
J_o_e_y18 m ago

His Intel chip..? Was it a pentium or a 8700k? An "Intel chip", gives no …His Intel chip..? Was it a pentium or a 8700k? An "Intel chip", gives no information at all.



Agreed, seems like... a comment without any info!
J_o_e_y30 m ago

His Intel chip..? Was it a pentium or a 8700k? An "Intel chip", gives no …His Intel chip..? Was it a pentium or a 8700k? An "Intel chip", gives no information at all.


Sorry. I think it was a i7 6700k which currently sells for £250+. The Intel is a stronger chip however not sure if its over a £100+ stronger for the difference.
Levjski7 h, 25 m ago

Sorry. I think it was a i7 6700k which currently sells for £250+. The …Sorry. I think it was a i7 6700k which currently sells for £250+. The Intel is a stronger chip however not sure if its over a £100+ stronger for the difference.


On what planet does the 6700k sell for 250? Someone is fibbing.
Nate14921 h, 14 m ago

On what planet does the 6700k sell for 250? Someone is fibbing.


Come on Nate I know the search on here is pretty shitty but it been down at £239 on here. It has even been below £250 on Amazon.

33586060-5lQVH.jpg
GAVINLEWISHUKD9 h, 38 m ago

Come on Nate I know the search on here is pretty shitty but it been down …Come on Nate I know the search on here is pretty shitty but it been down at £239 on here. It has even been below £250 on Amazon.[Image]



Who would buy that? Seriously, that is an insanely high price when you can buy the 8700k for 289 quid.

There are like 6 stronger intel chips right now and 4 of them are cheaper than the 6700k.

8400, 8600k, 8700, 8700k, 7700k.and I'm sure I'm missing one...

But, point is, my comment was -- Don't buy the 6700k if you are weighing your options for a new, gaming, cpu!

I don't see how the 2200g is in a discussion against the 6700k... It should really be the 8400 or the 8100, both outperform the 2200g in CPU tasks, obvious neither have an APU though. So if you are gaming, you would be getting a dGPU anyway... So, shrug.

The 2200g is a good value chip for things that don't need to game
Nate14921 h, 35 m ago

Who would buy that? Seriously, that is an insanely high price when you can …Who would buy that? Seriously, that is an insanely high price when you can buy the 8700k for 289 quid.There are like 6 stronger intel chips right now and 4 of them are cheaper than the 6700k.8400, 8600k, 8700, 8700k, 7700k.and I'm sure I'm missing one...But, point is, my comment was -- Don't buy the 6700k if you are weighing your options for a new, gaming, cpu!I don't see how the 2200g is in a discussion against the 6700k... It should really be the 8400 or the 8100, both outperform the 2200g in CPU tasks, obvious neither have an APU though. So if you are gaming, you would be getting a dGPU anyway... So, shrug.The 2200g is a good value chip for things that don't need to game


They were comparing it to a processor they had. Which cost over £250 at the time. Why would they go out and buy an 8000 series CPU just to compare with? There are review sites for that!

Nate your quote was as follows "On what planet does the 6700k sell for 250? Someone is fibbing"
Nobody is fibbing it sells for that price, and did when the OPs mate bought it. It may have been useful to somebody with an old CPU looking to upgrade their system. It just demonstrates how much CPUs have moved on (both AMD and Intel).

We all know that the APU is the choice if you are on a budget and aren't buying a GPU. If you are spending more and getting a GPU and mainly game then buy a 8400. If you game a bit and use multi threaded often then buy a 1600, and if money is not an option then buy a 8700k and a Titan X!

I have no issue with you posting info and opinion in threads. In fact I quite like it. It makes people think. What we don't like is the pointless rubbish that you initially posted.
GAVINLEWISHUKD26 m ago

They were comparing it to a processor they had. Which cost over £250 at …They were comparing it to a processor they had. Which cost over £250 at the time. Why would they go out and buy an 8000 series CPU just to compare with? There are review sites for that!Nate your quote was as follows "On what planet does the 6700k sell for 250? Someone is fibbing"Nobody is fibbing it sells for that price, and did when the OPs mate bought it. It may have been useful to somebody with an old CPU looking to upgrade their system. It just demonstrates how much CPUs have moved on (both AMD and Intel).We all know that the APU is the choice if you are on a budget and aren't buying a GPU. If you are spending more and getting a GPU and mainly game then buy a 8400. If you game a bit and use multi threaded often then buy a 1600, and if money is not an option then buy a 8700k and a Titan X!I have no issue with you posting info and opinion in threads. In fact I quite like it. It makes people think. What we don't like is the pointless rubbish that you initially posted.



If the person already owns the 6700k, then fine. He should keep the 6700k and never touch the Ryzen 2400G as, at best, it's a downgrade.

techpowerup.com/rev…tml

The 2400g is about 30% worse at stock, and if you OC the 6700k, which OCs well, the OC variance between the two will grow (10% OC on the 2400g, but higher OC rates on the 6700k).

The way OP sounded was that he was comparing purchasing options.

The 6700k should not be bought, full stop. It is no longer a chip that should be considered for purchase at 250£. The point I was weakly trying to make....

On no planet should someone, who is building a new system (again, made an assumption that was what he was doing) buy this chip.

If his friend was simply looking at the 'specs' of this chip, and comparing it to the 2400g... Fine, the 6700k is 3 years old and the 2400g is brand new. It's not a bad chip for it's specific niche.

But if you want to compare price point to price point, the 2400g matches up against the 8400 at sub 150.

If I had to choose between the 2400g and the 6700k, I'd still pick the 6700k though, as it's simply faster (above) but surely is not worth 250£.
GAVINLEWISHUKD39 m ago

They were comparing it to a processor they had. Which cost over £250 at …They were comparing it to a processor they had. Which cost over £250 at the time. Why would they go out and buy an 8000 series CPU just to compare with? There are review sites for that!Nate your quote was as follows "On what planet does the 6700k sell for 250? Someone is fibbing"Nobody is fibbing it sells for that price, and did when the OPs mate bought it. It may have been useful to somebody with an old CPU looking to upgrade their system. It just demonstrates how much CPUs have moved on (both AMD and Intel).We all know that the APU is the choice if you are on a budget and aren't buying a GPU. If you are spending more and getting a GPU and mainly game then buy a 8400. If you game a bit and use multi threaded often then buy a 1600, and if money is not an option then buy a 8700k and a Titan X!I have no issue with you posting info and opinion in threads. In fact I quite like it. It makes people think. What we don't like is the pointless rubbish that you initially posted.


Am I the only one who has the vision of him sitting in a darkened room waiting for an Intel v Ryzen thread. Then the rabid foaming at the mouth starts.
Every single thread about Ryzen and a mention of Intel results in craziness.

I love mute.
Nate149249 m ago

If the person already owns the 6700k, then fine. He should keep the 6700k …If the person already owns the 6700k, then fine. He should keep the 6700k and never touch the Ryzen 2400G as, at best, it's a downgrade.https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_5_2400G_Vega_11/20.htmlThe 2400g is about 30% worse at stock, and if you OC the 6700k, which OCs well, the OC variance between the two will grow (10% OC on the 2400g, but higher OC rates on the 6700k).The way OP sounded was that he was comparing purchasing options.The 6700k should not be bought, full stop. It is no longer a chip that should be considered for purchase at 250£. The point I was weakly trying to make....On no planet should someone, who is building a new system (again, made an assumption that was what he was doing) buy this chip.If his friend was simply looking at the 'specs' of this chip, and comparing it to the 2400g... Fine, the 6700k is 3 years old and the 2400g is brand new. It's not a bad chip for it's specific niche.But if you want to compare price point to price point, the 2400g matches up against the 8400 at sub 150.If I had to choose between the 2400g and the 6700k, I'd still pick the 6700k though, as it's simply faster (above) but surely is not worth 250£.


Where has the OP said he has considered buying a 6700k. Nobody else is thinking this, just you!

Quote from the OP.

"A friend and I was comparing the 2400G vs his Intel chip and the specs were very similar but the Ryzen was hell of a lot cheaper."

Both 4 core 8 thread parts, the 6700k clocks a bit higher but uses a bit more power (3.6ghz Vs 4ghz, 65w Vs 91w) and both on 14nm. The Ryzen is cheaper.

This is all he claimed. Which is all very true.

The rest is in your head.
GAVINLEWISHUKD1 h, 31 m ago

Where has the OP said he has considered buying a 6700k. Nobody else is …Where has the OP said he has considered buying a 6700k. Nobody else is thinking this, just you!Quote from the OP."A friend and I was comparing the 2400G vs his Intel chip and the specs were very similar but the Ryzen was hell of a lot cheaper."Both 4 core 8 thread parts, the 6700k clocks a bit higher but uses a bit more power (3.6ghz Vs 4ghz, 65w Vs 91w) and both on 14nm. The Ryzen is cheaper.This is all he claimed. Which is all very true.The rest is in your head.



Eh, maybe, or the snippet of half type half thought was difficult to understand.

I simply took umbrage with comparing the cost of a 3 year old CPU that has long since stopped going 'on sale' to the price of intel chips.

That's like going: Well I was comparing my old CPU, amazon.co.uk/Int…7LK to the 2400g and I was shocked that it cost 460£ versus just 85£! It's either deliberately misleading, or uninformed.

Amazon do a terrible job of maintaining old CPUs on their website as they simply don't sell.

Anyway, rambling on something that doesn't matter.
The i7-920 is a shocking example. It has the same amount of core and threads but that's it. It clocked lower is using 45nm and uses twice the power.

All he was doing was highlighting how things have moved on in the 2.5 years from a price point of view for a comparative product. Nobody is disputing that intel got there first.

Amazon's chart above is very relevant. It goes back to its 2015 launch when Intel obviously told every retailer they should sell it for £300.
Pass. The necessary mini-ITX motherboards for these apus are on same price as full ATX Z370 ones.
pidgin5th Apr

wow these are falling fast. Probably mediocre demand.



They are dropping because Intel has released B360 motherboards. Intel i3-8100 or i5-8400 are a much better choice now.
CosminD8323 m ago

Pass. The necessary mini-ITX motherboards for these apus are on same price …Pass. The necessary mini-ITX motherboards for these apus are on same price as full ATX Z370 ones.


Necessary!? For you maybe. Most budget builders are happy with mATX. Why are you not comparing like for like. A ITX for this APU can be had for £100. A Z370 one will cost at least £20 more.
CosminD8324 m ago

They are dropping because Intel has released B360 motherboards. Intel …They are dropping because Intel has released B360 motherboards. Intel i3-8100 or i5-8400 are a much better choice now.


The 2200g has gone up in price. The 2400g has come down in price probably due to lower demand as it offers not a huge performance increase over the 2200g. The cheaper Intel motherboard offering probably also affected this decision. The 8100 and 8400 only offer a choice. If you have the money and want more CPU performance then they are the better option. If you require a lower price and some graphics performance then the APU is better. Neither are exclusively better.
GAVINLEWISHUKD21 m ago

Necessary!? For you maybe. Most budget builders are happy with mATX. Why …Necessary!? For you maybe. Most budget builders are happy with mATX. Why are you not comparing like for like. A ITX for this APU can be had for £100. A Z370 one will cost at least £20 more.


Buying APU means you don't want to use a gpu. Why would you not want to use a gpu, unless you build a super small mini-ITX pc?
CosminD8319 m ago

Buying APU means you don't want to use a gpu. Why would you not want to …Buying APU means you don't want to use a gpu. Why would you not want to use a gpu, unless you build a super small mini-ITX pc?


Because you don't want to spend nearly as much on a GPU as you did the whole APU? If you could buy a quad core CPU and a GPU for £85 then that would likely be the best choice. But they don't exist.

Also ITX cases tend to be expensive. mATX cases can be bought cheaper.
Oneday779 h, 45 m ago

Am I the only one who has the vision of him sitting in a darkened room …Am I the only one who has the vision of him sitting in a darkened room waiting for an Intel v Ryzen thread. Then the rabid foaming at the mouth starts. Every single thread about Ryzen and a mention of Intel results in craziness. I love mute.


Like clockwork, where there are CPUs to be discussed he'll be there, ready to fight to the last keystroke with the power of double standards, ignoring valid arguments and special logic - you can't mute this, its great entertainment!
GAVINLEWISHUKD6 h, 32 m ago

Because you don't want to spend nearly as much on a GPU as you did the …Because you don't want to spend nearly as much on a GPU as you did the whole APU? If you could buy a quad core CPU and a GPU for £85 then that would likely be the best choice. But they don't exist.


Nearly as much on a GPU? I think the strength of these chips is that they offer you a low cost entry level to gaming but will scale up well to a dedicated GPU later. An RX580 is a mid-range card which would partner either of these two CPUs and they are going for £360 upwards (depending on where you go, a lot more)! Until GPUs come down, the APUs are a great place to start and if that is all the power you need, even better.

These seem solid deals to me, especially the 2200G overclocked.
GAVINLEWISHUKD16 h, 7 m ago

Because you don't want to spend nearly as much on a GPU as you did the …Because you don't want to spend nearly as much on a GPU as you did the whole APU? If you could buy a quad core CPU and a GPU for £85 then that would likely be the best choice. But they don't exist.Also ITX cases tend to be expensive. mATX cases can be bought cheaper.


Sorry, but if you cannot afford to pay £100 on a gaming card, you should buy a console. APUs are not for gaming. 720p @ 30-40fps cannot be called gaming. Not in 2018. Maybe in 2003. APUs are great choices for HTPC with occasional playing casual or old games. Building a ATX tower around an APU is non sense.
Edited by: "Kosmonaut" 7th Apr
CosminD8349 m ago

Sorry, but if you cannot afford to pay £100 on a gaming card, you should …Sorry, but if you cannot afford to pay £100 on a gaming card, you should buy a console. APUs are not for gaming. 720p @ 30-40fps cannot be called gaming. Not in 2018. Maybe in 2003. APUs are great choices for HTPC with occasional playing casual or old games. Building a ATX tower around an APU is non sense.


Buying a console does not replace a PC. General things like using Excel, email, video editing, online banking, even opening a PDF are not for consoles. If you could boot into windows on an Xbox then yes that would be a choice.
Why if you are building a PC does it have to be about gaming? Its not what I can afford (I'm sure both you and I could afford a Titan if we wanted?) but we don't. I might have an hour or two on a rainy Sunday and want to play a retro game or maybe an hour on dota2. Yes I might have to play it at 720p or 900p. But it's smooth and enjoyable. As are many older games. This is not the case with HD630 graphics.

I'm not sure on why you deem it necessary that because it's an APU you must have an ITX board and case. But if I built a non gaming pc with say a i3-8100 (the main competitor) it can go in a normal PC case?
If we called the APU just an AMD CPU with better onboard graphics than Intel offers can we then put it in a normal PC case?
GAVINLEWISHUKD48 m ago

Buying a console does not replace a PC. General things like using Excel, …Buying a console does not replace a PC. General things like using Excel, email, video editing, online banking, even opening a PDF are not for consoles. If you could boot into windows on an Xbox then yes that would be a choice.Why if you are building a PC does it have to be about gaming? Its not what I can afford (I'm sure both you and I could afford a Titan if we wanted?) but we don't. I might have an hour or two on a rainy Sunday and want to play a retro game or maybe an hour on dota2. Yes I might have to play it at 720p or 900p. But it's smooth and enjoyable. As are many older games. This is not the case with HD630 graphics.I'm not sure on why you deem it necessary that because it's an APU you must have an ITX board and case. But if I built a non gaming pc with say a i3-8100 (the main competitor) it can go in a normal PC case?If we called the APU just an AMD CPU with better onboard graphics than Intel offers can we then put it in a normal PC case?


I agree with all you said, don't get me wrong. But the Ryzen 2200G is poor in both cpu and gpu. That is why I do not see it in a ATX build. If on a low budget, I would suggest USED i5-4690k + GTX 770 or NEW i3-8100 + GTX 1050ti, or a mix of them. Both combos are way better fit for all purposes, rather than building upon Ryzen 2200G imo.

Many people say 'buy now 2200G now, and upgrade gpu later'. While this is ok, you will end up with an expensive and mediocre PC in the end. Just a buy a decent cpu + gpu from the beginning, and save money later. Because anything higher than 1050ti on a Ryzen 2200G will be bottlenecked by this cpu. Not to mention you need expensive RAM to pair with the 2200G to be able to play games.
CosminD833 h, 11 m ago

I agree with all you said, don't get me wrong. But the Ryzen 2200G is poor …I agree with all you said, don't get me wrong. But the Ryzen 2200G is poor in both cpu and gpu. That is why I do not see it in a ATX build. If on a low budget, I would suggest USED i5-4690k + GTX 770 or NEW i3-8100 + GTX 1050ti, or a mix of them. Both combos are way better fit for all purposes, rather than building upon Ryzen 2200G imo.Many people say 'buy now 2200G now, and upgrade gpu later'. While this is ok, you will end up with an expensive and mediocre PC in the end. Just a buy a decent cpu + gpu from the beginning, and save money later. Because anything higher than 1050ti on a Ryzen 2200G will be bottlenecked by this cpu. Not to mention you need expensive RAM to pair with the 2200G to be able to play games.


The 2200G is equivalent in performance to a 6600K at stock speeds. The 6600K at launch did fine with GPUs like the GTX 980 and R9 390X, there's no way a 2200G would bottleneck a 1050Ti which is not even at GTX 970 performance.

You will have to get to a GTX 1070/Vega 56 or GTX 1080/Vega 64 territory for this to become a bottleneck. Also the term bottleneck is subjective, if you are gaming on a 60Hz monitor or TV, this won't be a bottleneck. If you game on a 144Hz monitor then of course this will not cut it and neither will any other CPU available around this price.
Tim12927th Apr

The 2200G is equivalent in performance to a 6600K at stock speeds. The …The 2200G is equivalent in performance to a 6600K at stock speeds. The 6600K at launch did fine with GPUs like the GTX 980 and R9 390X, there's no way a 2200G would bottleneck a 1050Ti which is not even at GTX 970 performance. You will have to get to a GTX 1070/Vega 56 or GTX 1080/Vega 64 territory for this to become a bottleneck. Also the term bottleneck is subjective, if you are gaming on a 60Hz monitor or TV, this won't be a bottleneck. If you game on a 144Hz monitor then of course this will not cut it and neither will any other CPU available around this price.


There's some rampant fanboysm on this community. I can't understand why people like the custodians of the absolute truths "X activity can only be done the way I say", "this product is useless [just because it wasn't made by a brand i like]", "you should spend your money the way I would, the only way, otherwise you're a fool!", or the ones that preach the value of a 20% saving for a 5% performance deficit in one thread, only to argue with everybody that the same performance is totally not worth the saving if a brand they don't like is involved, would spend their time on a DEALS website of all places.
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text