New Article: AMD Ryzen 5 3400G and Ryzen 3 3200G Processor Review: No Graphics Card Needed!

Do you remember that the Ryzen 3000 series of desktop processors includes not only multi-core representatives with Matisse design and Zen 2 architecture, but also fundamentally different models with the code name Picasso? We have not forgotten about them either, but so far we have avoided them, because they did not seem very interesting to us. Times are different now, however, as rising prices mean that quad-core processors like the Ryzen 5 3400G and Ryzen 3 3200G, built on Zen+ cores and equipped with RX Vega integrated graphics, could become a highly sought-after option for those who want to build an inexpensive platform for both games and for work.

At one time, we tested previous models of AMD hybrid processors, Ryzen 5 2400G and Ryzen 3 2200G, and came to the conclusion that in their price category they represent a unique solution in terms of a combination of qualities, which allows, at rather limited financial costs, to obtain quite acceptable computing and graphics performance “in one bottle”. And the new Ryzen 5 3400G and Ryzen 3 3200G processors are their improved versions, with increased performance and a slightly reduced price. Therefore, we decided that it would not hurt to return to the consideration of AMD chips with integrated graphics and check how more modern proposals of this kind look in today's realities.

Objectively speaking, the Ryzen 5 3400G and Ryzen 3 3200G do not deserve any kind of condescending attitude towards them. These are two completely full-fledged quad-cores, which some three years ago could be perceived as flagship solutions. It is only now, thanks to AMD's active position in promoting the multi-core paradigm to the masses, that they are among the processors of the lower price category, but it should be understood that the software ecosystem has not yet raised the bar for system requirements. Thus, quad-core processors, especially if they support SMT technology, can provide more than enough performance for home or office systems.

At the same time, although formally Ryzen 5 3400G and Ryzen 3 3200G belong to the Ryzen 3000 family, in fact these are lower class processors even compared to Ryzen 5 3500X and 3500. The thing is that they are produced according to the old, 12-nm technology and are based on processor cores with the previous microarchitecture, Zen +. Therefore, the specific performance of the Ryzen 5 3400G and Ryzen 3 3200G cores is slightly lower than current AMD processors without integrated graphics. However, if we talk about desktop processors, then among the 7nm carriers of the Zen 2 architecture there are no options with integrated graphics at all. As there is no information about AMD's plans to release any variants of such processors, oriented to use in desktop systems. And this, in turn, means that the Ryzen 5 3400G and Ryzen 3 3200G, which we will talk about today, continue to be unique and relevant products, despite the fact that their official debut took place eight months ago.

In addition, when comparing the Ryzen 5 3400G and Ryzen 3 3200G with their predecessors of the Raven Ridge family in the form of Ryzen 5 2400G and Ryzen 3 2200G, it is impossible not to notice the progress made in the characteristics. First, AMD changed the process technology used and switched from 14nm to 12nm technology, simultaneously increasing operating frequencies and updating the microarchitecture of processor cores. Secondly, one of the new Picasso processors received a cover soldered to a semiconductor crystal, which simplifies cooling and expands overclocking capabilities. And thirdly, the pricing policy has undergone certain adjustments: the older Ryzen model with integrated graphics has become 5% cheaper with the advent of the Ryzen 3400 12G.

⇡#Ryzen 5 3400G and Ryzen 3 3200G in detail

From an architectural point of view, Picasso desktop processors, which include the Ryzen 5 3400G and Ryzen 3 3200G, are based on the same ideas and principles as Raven Ridge processors. If you do not go into details, then between the first and second generation APUs in the Ryzen lineup, you can put an approximate equal sign. In other words, the differences that the Zen + microarchitecture brought to the Ryzen 5 3400G and Ryzen 3 3200G are quite minor. The difference in specific performance and in IPC (the number of instructions executed per cycle) is about 3%. This gain is mainly due to improvements in the cache and memory controller, which have received slightly lower latencies.

It would be appropriate to recall that the processors that AMD equips with integrated graphics are fundamentally different from the usual Ryzen in terms of internal structure. First, they are based on a monolithic processor chip: no chiplets are used in this case. Secondly, both in Picasso and Raven Ridge, all computing cores are combined into a single CCX complex, which explains the limitation of their maximum number to four, but it guarantees constant delays when all these cores access the third-level cache . And thirdly, the L3 cache in such processors has been reduced to 4 MB.

Like other Ryzen 5 series, the Ryzen 3400 3G and Ryzen 3200 4G are designed to operate within the Socket AM320 ecosystem. Moreover, they are not only fully compatible with modern motherboards based on the A450, B470 and X570/350 chipsets, but can also work with many older motherboards based on the B370 and XXNUMX chipsets. This means that Picassos are great for building low-cost systems - you can choose the most budget platforms for them.

In addition, the thermal package of such processors is limited to 65 W, that is, they do not impose any special requirements on the power supply system on the board. This also allows us to limit ourselves to a simple and inexpensive cooler. For example, bundled with Ryzen 5 3400G, if you buy this processor in the boxed version, there is Wraith Spire, and the younger Ryzen 3 3200G comes with Wraith Stealth. Both coolers use solid aluminum radiators, and this is more than enough for Picasso cooling.

If we talk about the formal characteristics of Picasso for desktop systems, then the Ryzen 5 3400G and Ryzen 3 3200G against the background of the Ryzen 5 2400G and Ryzen 3 2200G are primarily distinguished by the slightly increased frequencies of both the computing cores and the integrated GPU of the RX Vega family.

The 12nm process technology of GlobalFoundries allowed the manufacturer to increase the speed of the processor part by 100-300 MHz and the graphics part by 150 MHz.

	Ryzen 5 3400G	Ryzen 3 3200G	Ryzen 5 2400G	Ryzen 3 2200G
Code Name	Picasso	Picasso	Raven Ridge	Raven Ridge
Production technology, nm	12	12	14	14
Kernels / threads	4/8	4/4	4/8	4/4
Base frequency, GHz	3,7	3,6	3,6	3,5
Frequency in turbo mode, GHz	4,2	4,0	3,9	3,7
Overclocking	There is	There is	There is	There is
L3 cache, MB	4	4	4	4
Memory support	2×DDR4-2933	2×DDR4-2933	2×DDR4-2933	2×DDR4-2933
Integrated graphics	RX Vega 11	RX Vega 8	RX Vega 11	RX Vega 8
Stream Processors	704	512	704	512
Graphics core frequency, GHz	1,4	1,25	1,25	1,1
PCI Express lanes	8	8	8	8
TDP, W	65	65	65	65
Socket	Socket AM4	Socket AM4	Socket AM4	Socket AM4
Official price	$149	$99	$169	$99

Curiously, the Ryzen 5 3400G received a $20 lower starting price than the Ryzen 5 2400G. And in stores, this processor really costs less than its predecessor, which makes the Ryzen 5 2400G a pointless purchase. For the Ryzen 3 3200G, this rule does not apply, and the Ryzen 3 2200G can now be purchased slightly cheaper than the newer version. However, AMD has stopped supplying Raven Ridge series processors, and what is on the shelves is leftovers that will soon disappear.

Despite the fact that the cost of the older processor with integrated graphics has decreased, a noticeable price gap remains between it and the Ryzen 3 3200G. The older processor costs one and a half times more, which can be justified by the presence of SMT technology and support for twice as many threads, as well as the most powerful integrated graphics core RX Vega with 11 computing units. It seems that AMD's idea is that the Ryzen 5 3400G is more of a gaming processor, and the Ryzen 3 3200G is more of an office and multimedia processor, although the boundary between them is rather arbitrary.

While AMD has moved the next generation of APUs to the Zen+ microarchitecture, the graphics of the Ryzen 5 3400G and Ryzen 3 3200G have not changed at all compared to what was in Raven Ridge. This is due to the fact that the performance of integrated graphics rested on the capabilities of the memory subsystem, and without the support of faster memory technologies, it will no longer be possible to achieve a tangible increase in speed.

However, AMD added some new graphics features with the driver. For example, APUs finally have support for secure 4K video streaming, which is necessary for high-definition streaming services like Netflix. In addition, Picasso has added support for Radeon Anti-Lag technology, which reduces latency in gaming environments.

As before, both processors with integrated graphics do not have locked multipliers, that is, they can be overclocked, both the CPU and GPU parts. DDR4 SDRAM can also be overclocked, but you need to understand that the memory controller in the Ryzen 5 3400G and Ryzen 3 3200G is not as omnivorous as in the 7nm Ryzen 3000 series processors, so you can not count on conquering extreme modes. In this regard, everything will be more similar to how memory is overclocked in Ryzen first or second generation.

However, when compared with Raven Ridge, then it is still legitimate to expect better overclocking results from the Ryzen 5 3400G. In this processor, AMD uses a more efficient internal thermal interface under the cover - solder, and not thermal paste, as in its other APUs. In addition, the Ryzen 5 3400G now supports Precision Boost Overdrive (PBO), allowing you to unlock higher operating frequencies while maintaining one-button turbo mode. True, we should not forget that PBO requires good processor cooling for efficient operation.

To the above, it remains only to add that the desktop versions of Picasso, which are discussed in this material, are analogues of AMD mobile processors belonging to the three thousandth series and released at the beginning of 2019. But due to a more liberal approach to heat dissipation and power consumption, the Ryzen 5 3400G and Ryzen 3 3200G obviously outperform their laptop counterparts in both computing and graphics areas. Only new APUs with Renoir design will be able to surpass them, which in the coming days will begin to conquer the mobile computer market.

However, this does not mean that the next generation of AMD processors with integrated graphics for desktop systems will soon appear. Ryzen 5 3400G and Ryzen 3 3200G will stay with us for quite some time, and this has its own logic. The Renoir family includes relatively expensive octa-core and hexa-core processors. In budget configurations of desktop computers, which just need processors with integrated graphics, they obviously do not fit.

⇡#Description of test systems and testing methods

In many ways, the Ryzen 5 3400G and Ryzen 3 3200G are AMD's unique offerings and hard to match with direct competitors. The fact is that Intel does not yet have desktop products with a powerful integrated graphics accelerator. Nevertheless, based on prices, both representatives of the Core i3 series and younger Core i5 models can be considered alternatives to AMD hybrid processors. In situations where we are not talking about the performance of the integrated GPU in games, we compared the Ryzen 5 3400G and Ryzen 3 3200G with them.

To test Picasso's integrated graphics in games, we had to call on completely different opponents. Naturally, for the sake of formality, we tested, in particular, the Core i5-9400 with the UHD Graphics 630 graphics core, but the main alternatives for the Ryzen 5 3400G and Ryzen 3 3200G in such tests were combinations of the Core i3-9100 and budget discrete GeForce GT 1030 graphics cards Two versions of such video cards were used - equipped with DDR4 and GDDR5 graphics memory. The predecessors of the Ryzen 5 3400G and Ryzen 3 3200G, the Raven Ridge processors, also took part in the comparison.

Finally, when we tested the Ryzen 5 3400G and Ryzen 3 3200G processors in regular applications or in games with a discrete graphics card, the Ryzen 5 3500X was also added to the list of rivals - one of the most affordable representatives of the Matisse family, which, by the way, Speaking of which, today it costs even less than the Ryzen 5 3400G.

Ultimately, the test systems were formed from the following set of components:

• Processors:
  • AMD Ryzen 5 3500X (Matisse, 6 cores, 3,6-4,1GHz, 32MB L3);
  • AMD Ryzen 5 3400G (Picasso, 4 cores + SMT, 3,7-4,2 GHz, 4 MB L3);
  • AMD Ryzen 5 2400G (Raven Ridge, 4 cores + SMT, 3,6-3,9 GHz, 4 MB L3, Vega 11);
  • AMD Ryzen 3 3200G (Picasso, 4 cores, 3,6-4,0 GHz, 4MB L3);
  • AMD Ryzen 3 2200G (Raven Ridge, 4 cores, 3,5-3,7GHz, 4MB L3, Vega 8);
  • Intel Core i5-9400 (Coffee Lake Refresh, 6 cores, 2,9-4,1 GHz, 9 MB L3);
  • Intel Core i3-9350K (Coffee Lake Refresh, 4 cores, 4,0-4,6 GHz, 8 MB L3);
  • Intel Core i3-9100 (Coffee Lake Refresh, 4 cores, 3,6-4,2 GHz, 6 MB L3).
• CPU cooler: Noctua NH-U14S.
• Motherboards:
  • ASRock X570 Taichi (Socket AM4, AMD X570);
  • ASRock X470 Taichi (Socket AM4, AMD X470);
  • ASRock Z390 Taichi (LGA1151v2, Intel Z390).
• Memory: 2×8 GB DDR4-3200 SDRAM, 16-18-18-36 (Crucial Ballistix Sport LT White BLS2K8G4D32AESCK).
• Video Cards:
  • MSI GeForce GT 1030 AERO ITX 2G OC (GP108, 1265/6008MHz, 2GB GDDR5 64-bit);
  • MSI GeForce GT 1030 AERO ITX 2GD4 OC (GP108, 1189/2100MHz, 2GB DDR4 64-bit);
  • MSI Radeon RX 570 ARMOR 8G OC (Polaris 20 XL, 1268/7000MHz, 8GB GDDR5 256-bit).
• Disk subsystem: Samsung 970 EVO Plus 2TB (MZ-V7S2T0).
• Power Supply: Thermaltake Toughpower DPS G RGB 1000W Titanium (80 Plus Titanium, 1000W).

In systems with AMD processors, the memory subsystem was configured in DDR4-3200 mode with XMP delays (16-18-18-36). In systems with Intel processors, the memory subsystem worked in DDR4-2666 mode with timings of 16-16-16-34, since in most inexpensive LGA1151v2 motherboards built on any chipsets other than the Z370 or Z390, higher speed modes are not available for use.

Testing was performed on the Microsoft Windows 10 Pro (v1909) Build 18363.476 operating system using the following driver set:

• AMD Chipset Driver 2.03.12.0657;
• AMD Radeon Software Adrenalin 2020 Edition 20.3.1;
• Intel Chipset Driver 10.1.1.45;
• Intel Graphics Driver 26.20.100.7870;
• NVIDIA GeForce 442.74 Driver.

Comprehensive benchmarks:

• Futuremark PCMark 10 Professional Edition 2.1.2177 - testing in Essentials scenarios (typical work of the average user: launching applications, surfing the Internet, video conferencing), Productivity (office work with a text editor and spreadsheets), Digital Content Creation (digital content creation: editing photographs, non-linear video editing, rendering and visualization of 3D models). OpenCL hardware acceleration is disabled.
• 3DMark Professional Edition 2.11.6846 - testing in Time Spy 1.1 and Fire Strike 1.1 scenes.

Applications:

• 7-zip 19.00 - archiving speed testing. The time taken by the archiver to compress a directory with various files with a total volume of 3,1 GB is measured. The LZMA2 algorithm and the maximum compression ratio are used.
• Adobe Photoshop CC 2020 21.0.2 - Graphics performance testing. The average execution time of the Puget Systems Adobe Photoshop CC Benchmark 18.10 test script, which simulates the typical processing of an image taken by a digital camera, is measured.
• Adobe Premiere Pro CC 2020 14.0 - performance testing for non-linear video editing. It measures the rendering time to YouTube 4K format of a project containing HDV 2160p30 footage with various effects applied.
• Blender 2.82a - testing the speed of the final rendering in one of the popular free packages for creating three-dimensional graphics. The duration of building the final bmw27 model from Blender Benchmark is measured.
• Microsoft Edge 44.18362.449.0 - Measures browser speed on typical social network sites, online store, map service, video streaming, and when rendering static web pages. The PCMark 10 script is used to simulate the load.
• Microsoft Excel 2019 16.0.12527.20260 – PCMark 10 performance testing script that simulates typical user actions in the application;
• Microsoft PowerPoint 2019 16.0.12527.20260 – PCMark 10 performance testing script that simulates typical user actions in the application;
• Microsoft Word 2019 16.0.12527.20260 – PCMark 10 benchmark script that simulates typical user actions in the application;
• Stockfish 10 - testing the speed of the popular chess engine. The speed of enumeration of variants in the position "1q6/1r2k1p1/4pp1p/1P1b1P2/3Q4/7P/4B1P1/2R3K1 w" is measured.
• x264 r2969 - testing the speed of video transcoding to the promising H.264/AVC format. To evaluate performance, we use the original 2160p@24FPS AVC video file with a bitrate of about 42 Mbps.

Games for testing processor performance:

• Assassin's Creed Odyssey. Resolution 1920 × 1080: Graphics Quality = Medium.
• Far Cry 5. Resolution 1920 × 1080: Graphics Quality = Ultra, HD Textures = Off, Anti-Aliasing = TAA, Motion Blur = On.
• Shadow of the Tomb Raider. Resolution 1920 × 1080: DirectX12, Preset = High, Anti-Aliasing = Off.
• Total War: Three Kingdoms. Resolution 1920 × 1080: DirectX 12, Quality = Medium, Unit Size = Extreme.
• World War Z. Resolution 1920 × 1080: DirectX11, Visual Quality Preset = Ultra.

Integrated Graphics Performance Testing Games:

• Civilization VI: Gathering Storm. 1920×1080 resolution: DirectX 12, MSAA=Off, Performance Impact=Medium, Memory Impact=Medium.
• Dirt Rally 2.0. Resolution 1920 × 1080: Multisampling = Off, Anisotropic Filtering = 16x, TAA = Off, Quality Preset = Medium.
• Far Cry 5. Resolution 1280 × 720: Graphics Quality = Normal, HD Textures = Off, Anti-Aliasing = Off, Motion Blur = On.
• Metro Exodus. Resolution 1280×720: DirectX 12, Quality=Low, Texture Filtering=AF 4X, Motion Blur=Normal, Tesselation=Off, Advanced PhysX=Off, Hairworks=Off, Ray Trace=Off, DLSS=Off.
• Shadow of the Tomb Raider. Resolution 1920 × 1080: DirectX12, Preset = Medium, Anti-Aliasing = Off.
• World of Tanks en Core RT. Resolution 1920 × 1080: Quality Preset = Medium, Antialiasing = Off, Ray Traced Shadows = Off.
• World War Z. Resolution 1920 × 1080: Vulkan, Visual Quality Preset = High.

In all gaming tests, the results are the average number of frames per second, as well as the 0,01-quantile (first percentile) for FPS values. The use of the 0,01-quantile instead of the minimum FPS is due to the desire to clean up the results from random bursts of performance that were provoked by reasons not directly related to the operation of the main components of the platform.

⇡#Integrated Graphics Performance

We start with the Ryzen 5 3400G and Ryzen 3 3200G with integrated graphics gaming tests, as this is the most interesting aspect of their performance. Picasso series processors boast a unique built-in GPU, which has a very impressive power, almost up to 2 Gflops. It even seems that AMD integrated graphics can be put on the same level as discrete video accelerators of the GeForce GTX 1050 level, but this, of course, is too optimistic an assessment that does not take into account the limitations in memory bandwidth, which greatly constrain the performance of any GPU built into the processor.

In reality, the graphics performance of the Ryzen 5 3400G and Ryzen 3 3200G is about the same as it was when AMD offered the Raven Ridge series processors. The 12% increase in the frequency of the integrated RX Vega accelerators gives only a 7% superiority of the Ryzen 5 3400G results over the Ryzen 5 2400G or Ryzen 3 3200G over the Ryzen 3 2200G.

However, AMD's integrated graphics didn't have any competitors, and still don't. Intel hasn't made any changes to its embedded GPUs in recent years, which has only widened the gigantic performance gap between Picasso and Coffee Lake. Moreover, the RX Vega graphics cores used in the Ryzen 5 3400G and Ryzen 3 3200G successfully compete even with discrete graphics cards of the GeForce GT 1030 level. As tests show, systems built on AMD processors with integrated graphics alone are faster in games than configurations with Core i3 and $80 graphics cards.

In other words, the tests clearly show that the days when a discrete graphics card was a mandatory attribute of any gaming system are over. If your build budget doesn't allow you to spend more than $100 on a graphics card, the Ryzen 5 3400G and Ryzen 3 3200G are more reasonable options, which are quite suitable for budget gaming systems. In a large number of games that are not too demanding on graphics performance, they are able to provide a good level of FPS in Full HD resolution when choosing a medium quality level (without any anti-aliasing), and in graphics-heavy games, to get an acceptable frame rate, it is enough to reduce resolution up to 720p.

⇡#Power consumption (with integrated GPU)

Processors with integrated graphics simply have to be economical. Firstly, such CPUs are often used in compact HTPC class systems, where there can be serious problems with the organization of highly efficient cooling. Secondly, the energy efficiency of such processors allows them to be used with inexpensive motherboards, as well as save on cooling systems and system power supplies.

Formally, the Ryzen 5 3400G and Ryzen 3 3200G meet these criteria. These processors, like their predecessors, are inscribed in a 65-watt thermal package. The increased clock speeds should not be embarrassing, since Picasso, compared to Raven Ridge, is manufactured using a more advanced process technology with 12 nm rather than 14 nm standards.

However, in practice, the consumption of systems with Ryzen 5 3400G and Ryzen 3 3200G turned out to be somewhat higher than similar systems with Ryzen 5 2400G and Ryzen 3 2200G. The difference in total consumption reaches 10 W in pure computing load and reaches 20 W in complex load, falling on the CPU and GPU at the same time, as in games or a special synthetic PowerMax load test.

All this raises concerns that AMD's new APUs may not get very favorable temperatures during operation, especially if they are used with a stock cooler. However, we can dispel such doubts. AMD has thought of this issue and even puts a more efficient Wraith Spire cooler with a copper core in the box with the Ryzen 5 3400G.

In practice, the temperature regime of the Ryzen 5 3400G with the standard Wraith Spire cooler looks quite acceptable. Even at maximum load, the processor heats up only up to 85 degrees, while the fan speed on the cooler reaches about 2700 rpm.

If we talk about the Ryzen 3 3200G, then the complete Wraith Stealth does a good job with its cooling. In the PowerMax load test, the maximum CPU temperature reaches 79 degrees. The fan speed in this case can reach the same 2700 rpm.

These results clearly show that the cooling systems that AMD supplies with its Picasso family processors can be used to cool them without any twinge of conscience. In other words, users can safely buy boxed versions of the Ryzen 5 3400G and Ryzen 3 3200G and install complete cooling systems in their builds, further reducing the overall cost of building a computer. The difference in price between the boxed and OEM versions of such processors is about 500 rubles, and this amount, no doubt, pays off.

⇡#Overclocking

To be honest, we were disappointed in overclocking AMD processors. They have not been chasing for a long time, since the company has learned to use almost the entire available frequency potential in nominal modes. But the Ryzen 5 3400G and Ryzen 3 3200G are special processors, because in addition to the computing cores, they also have a graphics core, which you can also try to overclock. And, looking ahead, it’s worth saying that this is just the kind of overclocking that in this case is really capable of giving a useful effect.

If we talk about the older processor, Ryzen 5 3400G, then overclocking experiments with it were not very inspiring. The computing cores in this APU were able to operate at a maximum frequency of 4,1 GHz with an increase in the supply voltage to 1,375 V. The memory turned out to be switched to DDR4-3466 mode. As for the built-in RX Vega 11 accelerator, it overclocked by 1,2% with an increase in voltage to 15 V - up to 1600 MHz.

But with the Ryzen 3 3200G processor, the overclocking procedure was noticeably more fun, especially when it comes to improving the speed of the RX Vega 8 graphics core. It overclocked from the nominal frequency of 1250 MHz to 1800 MHz, that is, by an impressive 44%. Its stable operation in this mode was achieved by increasing the voltage on the GPU to 1,25 V.

Despite the rather impressive increase in the frequency of the integrated graphics accelerator, the Ryzen 3 3200G computing cores were able to work stably only at a frequency of 4,1 GHz with an increase in their supply voltage to 1,35 V.

However, this is not so important. The main thing is that overclocking allows you to bring the graphics performance of the Ryzen 3 3200G to the level of the Ryzen 5 3400G. At least, this is what the test results in 3DMark say: the overclocked RX Vega 8 accelerator from the younger Picasso is at least as slow as the RX Vega 11 from the Ryzen 5 3400G.

	Ryzen 5 3400G		Ryzen 3 3200G
	Nominal	Overclocking	Nominal	Overclocking
3DMark Time Spy	1413	1526	1157	1436
3DMark Fire Strike	3595	3834	3023	3615

At the same time, the increase in graphics performance of the Ryzen 5 3400G during overclocking is much more restrained: it does not exceed 6-8%. Thus, it is legitimate to conclude that advanced users who are not alien to overclocking, when assembling entry-level gaming systems, may well limit themselves to the cheaper Ryzen 3 3200G. After appropriate tuning, its gaming performance can easily reach the level of its older brother.

⇡#Performance in complex benchmarks

Further testing of the Ryzen 5 3400G and Ryzen 3 3200G was done using an external high performance graphics card. On the one hand, this will put the studied CPUs on an equal footing in those tasks where graphics do not play a primary role. On the other hand, we will get information about how good Picasso is if we abandon their graphics core and switch to a discrete graphics card. Such a scenario is quite real, for example, if the user decides to upgrade an existing system. Or, for example, if he simply buys into the cheapness of the Ryzen 3 3200G, which often costs even less than the Core i3-9100F.

However, Futuremark's PCMark 10 results show that Picasso processors aren't nearly as good in terms of performance in typical common tasks as they are in integrated graphics gaming tests. They can offer decent results against the background of modern quad-core Core i3s only in the Productivity scenario, which evaluates the performance of typical operations in LibreOffice Writer and LibreOffice Calc.

That is, the microarchitecture of the Zen + cores looks rather pale against the background of Zen 2 and Skylake. AMD clearly needs to consider upgrading its integrated graphics processors to a newer microarchitecture.

⇡#Productivity in applications

The transition of AMD's APUs to the Picasso design was marked by some increase in clock speeds and a slight increase in IPC, embedded in the Zen + microarchitecture. In total, this increased the performance of new hybrid processors compared to their predecessors by 5-10%. However, this is not enough for the Ryzen 5 3400G and Ryzen 3 3200G to be able to match the speed in applications with similarly priced Intel processors. So, the six-core Core i5-9400 looks clearly better in tests than the quad-core and eight-thread Ryzen 5 3400G, and the quad-core Core i3-9100 bypasses the Ryzen 3 3200G. In fact, we can say that the older Ryzen 5 3400G provides computing performance at the level of older Core i3, while the Ryzen 3 3200G is forced to play in a lower division.

However, for those cases where computing performance is really important, AMD has other players. The six-core Ryzen 5 3500X and 3500 are two Zen 2 processors that are even cheaper than the Ryzen 5 3400G, but perform much better in terms of pure processor performance.

Office activity:

Archiving:

Video transcoding:

Image processing:

Video editing and video editing:

Chess:

Rendering:

Internet:

⇡#Gaming performance (with discrete GPU)

It should be said right away that Picasso processors are not designed by the manufacturer to work with external graphics accelerators. Yes, such use of them is possible, but you have to put up with some limitations that are visible even at the specification level. So, Ryzen 5 3400G and Ryzen 3 3200G can only interact with a discrete graphics card via eight PCI Express lines, and we are talking about the third, not the fourth version of the protocol.

The fact that Picasso is not very suitable for high-performance gaming systems is also due to the weakness of the Zen + microarchitecture, as well as the truncated L3 cache in these processors. In other words, equipping systems based on the Ryzen 5 3400G and Ryzen 3 3200G with a full-fledged high-end graphics card is not a very rosy scenario. Still, in systems with discrete graphics, other representatives of the Ryzen 3000 series, which are based on the Zen 2 microarchitecture, look much better, for example, the same Ryzen 5 3500X, which, as we have already said, is even cheaper than the Ryzen 5 3400G.

Nevertheless, all this does not mean at all that using the Ryzen 5 3400G and Ryzen 3 3200G with discrete graphics is strictly contraindicated. To demonstrate this with a concrete example, we tested gaming performance with the Radeon RX 570 8 GB graphics card, a common budget upgrade option that owners of this class of processors often resort to. And as the results show, the power of the Ryzen 5 3400G and Ryzen 3 3200G in most cases is enough to ensure that the lag of the gaming system with them from configurations based on Core i3 or Ryzen 5 was not too fundamental.

In other words, buying one of the Picassos first, using a system based on it using an integrated GPU, and then adding some kind of mid-range video card to this assembly is a completely normal plan. But in systems that are designed to work with a discrete GPU initially, the Ryzen 5 3400G and Ryzen 3 3200G processors are not practical to use.

⇡#Conclusions

AMD's desktop processors with integrated graphics, whether they're from the past Raven Ridge series or the newer Picasso series, aren't a one-size-fits-all product. The manufacturer has developed such solutions with a specific goal - to provide users with a highly integrated chip, on the basis of which they can assemble budget gaming computers and multimedia centers with relatively low financial costs. With these tasks, the Ryzen 5 3400G and Ryzen 3 3200G do an excellent job: in the corresponding market niche, they look not only confident, but head and shoulders above all other options.

AMD promises that the graphics performance of the Ryzen 5 3400G and Ryzen 3 3200G will be enough to get acceptable frame rates in games at Full HD resolution with basic image quality. And this is partly true: if you do not take into account the most demanding games, then Picasso really show an amazingly high level of FPS for integrated graphics. However, in "heavy" modern shooters, you still have to reduce the resolution to the level of 1280 × 720, which, however, does not negate the "professional suitability" of the integrated RX Vega graphics for use in entry-level gaming systems.

And what's more, the existence of the Ryzen 5 3400G and Ryzen 3 3200G effectively makes low-end discrete graphics cards pointless. Even the RX Vega 8 variant from the younger Picasso turns out to be generally more productive than the $ 80 NVIDIA discrete graphics card with GDDR5 memory. That is, if we talk about entry-level gaming configurations, then AMD, using hybrid processors, not only managed to knock out Intel, but also hurt NVIDIA by offering an inexpensive integrated solution that works at least as well as a combination of a Core i3 processor and GeForce graphics GT 1030.

And even though the previous generation of “red” APUs in the face of the Ryzen 5 2400G and Ryzen 3 2200G could solve all these problems, the updated models of the Picasso series have improved in many ways. The latest Ryzen 5 3400G and Ryzen 3 3200G get better performance thanks to higher clock speeds and Zen+ microarchitecture, while the older model is also cheaper and has a more advanced packaged cooling system and solder instead of paste under the cover.

However, in fairness, it must be recalled that all these improvements are not of a qualitative nature, and therefore Picasso inherits many of the shortcomings of its predecessors. Their main disadvantage is processor cores with not the highest computing performance by modern standards. For this reason, for configurations where a discrete graphics card is planned from the very beginning, it is more logical to choose other processors, for example, the six-core Ryzen 2 5X belonging to the Zen 3500 generation.

But at the same time, upgrading systems based on the Ryzen 5 3400G and Ryzen 3 3200G by adding a mid-range graphics card to them is also a perfectly acceptable scenario. Tests show that with Radeon RX 570 (or GeForce GT 1060/1650) graphics, they generally make up a fairly balanced configuration, which is inferior to similar assemblies based on Ryzen 5 with Zen 2 or Core i3 architecture only in certain games.

And finally, I would like to say that of the Ryzen 5 3400G and Ryzen 3 3200G reviewed today, it is the younger model that seems more attractive to the mass user. This processor is one and a half times cheaper than its older brother, but if the integrated graphics core is used, its performance in games is only 10-15% lower, which can be fully won back through overclocking. The more expensive Ryzen 5 3400G is mainly interested in SMT support and better computing performance, which is important for work tasks, but is unlikely to be in demand in gaming applications.

Source: 3dnews.ru