Revisiting the value proposition of AMD’s Ryzen 5 2400G

The mornings before tight deadlines in the world of PC hardware reviews often follow a week or less of nonstop testing, retesting, and more testing. Sleep and nutrition tend to fall by the wayside in the days leading up to an article in favor of just one more test or looking at just one more hardware combination. None of these conditions are ideal for producing the best thinking possible, and as a human under stress, I sometimes err in the minutes before a big review needs to go live after running that gauntlet.

So it went when I considered the bang-for-the-buck of the Ryzen 5 2400G, where my thinking fell victim to the availability heuristic. I had just finished the productivity value scatter chart and overall 99th-percentile frame time chart on the last page of the review before putting together my conclusion, and having those charts at the top of my mind blinded me to the need for the simple gut check of, y'know, actually putting together a parts list using some of the CPUs we tested. Had I done that, I would have come away with a significantly different view of the 2400G's value proposition.

While the $170 Ryzen 5 2400G would seem to trade blows with the $190 Core i5-8400 on a dollar-for-dollar basis for a productivity system, even that forgiving bar favors the Ryzen 5 once we start putting together parts lists. Intel doesn't offer H- or B-series motherboards compatible with Coffee Lake CPUs yet, so even budget builders have to select a Z370 motherboard to host those CPUs. That alone adds $30 or more to the Ryzen 5 2400G's value bank.

The Multi-Tool    
CPU AMD Ryzen 5 2400G $169.99    
CPU cooler AMD Wraith Spire    
Memory G.Skill Ripjaws V 8 GB (2x 4 GB)

DDR4-3200 CL16

$103.99    
Motherboard ASRock AB350 Pro4 $69.99 (MIR)    
Graphics card Radeon Vega 11 IGP    
Storage WD Blue 1TB $49.00    
Power Corsair VS400 $34.99    
Case Cooler Master MB600L $46.99    
Total $474.95    

To demonstrate as much, here's a sample Ryzen 5 2400G build using what I would consider a balance between budget- and enthusiast-friendliness. One could select a cheaper A320 motherboard to save a few more bucks, but I don't think the typical gamer will want to lose the ability to overclock the CPU and graphics processor of a budget system. The ASRock AB350 Pro4 has a fully-heatsinked VRM and a solid-enough feature set to serve our needs, and the rest of the components in this build come from reputable companies. Spend less, and you might not be able to say as much.

The Caffeinator    
CPU Intel Core i5-8400 $189.99    
CPU cooler Intel boxed heatsink    
Memory G.Skill Ripjaws V 8 GB (2x 4 GB)

DDR4-2666 CL15

$103.99    
Motherboard Gigabyte Z370 HD3 $99.99 (MIR)    
Graphics card Intel UHD Graphics 630    
Storage WD Blue 1TB $49.00    
Power Corsair VS400 $34.99    
Case Cooler Master MB600L $46.99    
Total $524.95    
Price difference versus Ryzen 5 2400G PC $50.00    

For our Core i5-8400 productivity build, the $20 extra for the CPU might not seem like a big deal, but it's quickly compounded by the $30 extra one will pay for the Z370 motherboard we selected—and that's after one chances a mail-in rebate to get that price. Intel desperately needs to get B- and H-series motherboards for Coffee Lake CPUs into the marketplace if it wants non-gamers to have a chance of building competitive or better-than-competitive systems with AMD's latest.

The Core i5-8400 can still outpace the Ryzen 5 2400G in many of our productivity tasks, though, and on the whole, the $50 extra one will pay for this system is still more than worth it for folks who don't game. If time is money for your heavier computing workloads, the i5-8400 could quickly pay for the difference itself. Ryzen 5 2400G builders can probably make up some of the performance difference through overclocking, but we don't recommend OCing for productivity-focused builds that need 100% stability.

The Instant Coffee    
CPU Intel Core i3-8100 $119.99    
CPU cooler Intel boxed heatsink    
Memory G.Skill Ripjaws V 8 GB (2x 4 GB)

DDR4-2400 CL16

$103.99    
Motherboard Gigabyte Z370 HD3 $99.99 (MIR)    
Graphics card Asus GT 1030 $89.99    
Storage WD Blue 1TB $49.00    
Power Corsair VS400 $34.99    
Case Cooler Master MB600L $46.99    
Total $544.94    
Price difference versus Ryzen 5 2400G PC $69.98    

Those building entry-level PCs might not have the luxury of choosing between productivity chops and gaming power, though. To make a gaming build with capabilities similar to those of the Ryzen 5 2400G, building a system around the Core i5-8400 quickly leads to a bottom line that's too expensive to really be considered budget-friendly. That's thanks to the need for an Nvidia GT 1030 like the one we employed with our test system. Those cards were $70 or $80 until just recently, but a mysterious shortage of them at e-tail has suddenly led to a jump in price.

Regardless, back-ordering one of those cards will run you $90 at Amazon right now, and even though we're rolling with that figure for the sake of argument, $90 is honestly too much to pay for a discrete card with the GT 1030's performance. If you had to buy one, we'd wait for prices to drop once stock levels return to normal.

To restore our system to something approaching budget-friendliness, we have to tap a Core i3-8100 for our Coffee Lake gaming system instead of the Core i5-8400, and that suddenly puts the CPU performance of our build behind that of the Ryzen 5 2400G in most applications. Oof.

AMD Ryzen 5 2400G

February 2018

With new information gleaned from retesting the GeForce GT 1030 in Hitman, the Ryzen 5 2400G no longer beats out that card in our final reckoning. On the whole, though, it clears the 30-FPS threshold for 99th-percentile frame rates that we want to see from an entry-level gaming system. Before this week, that's not something we could say of any integrated graphics processor on any CPU this affordable. As part of a complete PC, it does so for $70 less than our GT 1030 build. Gamers don't have to tolerate 1280×720 and low settings on the 2400G, either; we used resolutions of 1600×900 and 1920×1080 with medium settings for the most part.

So there you have it: the Ryzen 5 2400G is a spectacularly balanced value for folks who want an entry-level system without compromising much on CPU or graphics performance, just like its Ryzen 3 sibling is at $100. Both CPUs were equally deserving of a TR Editor's Choice award for their blends of value and performance, and I'll be updating our review post-haste to reflect AMD's dominance in that department. Sorry for the goof, and I'll make a better effort to look before I leap in the future.

Comments closed
    • Thbbft
    • 1 year ago

    WHERE IS THE SCATTER PLOT LABELED ‘GAMING’?

    That IS the primary point of these APUs vs. the competition.

    Customers needing serious productivity performance aren’t buying CPUs at this price point. Very few buyers in this market segment actually NEED that productivity differential, saving fractions of a second here and there. They DO however need that graphics differential to play games.

    A gaming scatterplot would be at least as useful to readers, if not more so, than the performance scatterplot.

    Where’s the beef?

    • MileageMayVary
    • 2 years ago

    Any chance of testing these APUs with various graphics cards?

    Use case: getting someone into PC gaming with an APU and then they can upgrade graphics later when they have more money/really get into it.

    so…
    2400G/2200G + iGPU
    2400G/2200G + 1030
    2400G/2200G + 1060
    2400G/2200G + 1070

    • SoundFX09
    • 2 years ago

    Great work on this Revisit, Jeff.

    Honestly, I still would argue for stepping up to the R5 2400G. 3 Extra CUs do make some difference in Games. It pretty much renders the GT 1030 obsolete, and only usable for a Smaller market (Older SFF PCs, specifically.) Not to mention, I do believe the 2400G Could be used for a 720p Budget Streaming System. You can stream with 4 Cores and 8 Threads, though expectations will have to be realistic to achieve a playable and watchable experience.

    As for Overclocking, pushing your GPU Clocks and RAM Speed will do much more than pushing the CPU. I’m still unsure about AMD’s decision to use TIM over Solder, but hopefully this isn’t a massive compromise to the CPUs overall price to performance.

    • Chrispy_
    • 2 years ago

    Articles like this are why I subscribe.

    • ermo
    • 2 years ago

    Possibly a (really!) stoopid kwestion, but:

    Do you happen to know if AMD is planning to do an APU with dedicated HBM2 and the associated HBCC goodness?

    If not, are you in a position to guesstimate what the benefits (if any) would be?

      • mdkathon
      • 2 years ago

      Though I have not seen anything on sites that I follow. One would assume that AMD has at least entertained designs with HBM2/interpostor. Though the partnership design with Intel uses some team-blue magic I would assume AMD is looking at options like this down the road.

      It would be awesome to see some decent rumors on this subject. 🙂

      • Beelzebubba9
      • 2 years ago

      AMD does have a high-end APU codenamed “fenghuang” in testing with 28CUs and 2GB of RAM of an unknown type:

      [url<]https://techreport.com/news/32962/rumor-ryzen-2-set-for-q1-2018-and-a-fenghuang-apu-breaks-cover[/url<]

    • Usacomp2k3
    • 2 years ago

    The small performance differential but big price differential between the 2400 & 2200 makes the 2400 hard to recommend. The 2200 just makes more sense.

    • wesley5904
    • 2 years ago

    You know, ………………..

    I’d love to see these new APUs show up in desktops you see on the shelves like at Best Buy.

    Most of those cheap desktops on the shelves have onboard video. These machines cater to the unknowing ignorant user who think they are getting a REALLY good deal for a PC costing $350-$450 or so. These poor unknowing people until now were being sold a PC with HORRIBLE onboard graphics.

    At least now hopefully these cheap PCs can start to show up at say best buy with a kinda decent onboard video…. having somewhat decent graphics capability. Instead of being sold a rotten lemon.

    I am happy to see these APUs, even if it isn’t for me.

      • JustAnEngineer
      • 2 years ago

      For most non-gaming tasks, Intel (U)HD Graphics 630 are more than sufficient. It’s really only the gaming case where these Raven Ridge APUs enjoy an overwhelming performance advantage.

      The niche for Raven Ridge is much larger than for previous APUs because…
      – The underlying Zen CPU cores are much more competitive with Intel’s than Excavator was.
      – Integrated Vega graphics performance has improved to mostly match the performance level of entry-level graphics cards like the GeForce GT1030.
      – Crazed crypto-miners have driven up the price of better 4 GiB gaming graphics cards like GeForce GTX 1050Ti and Radeon RX560.

      For those of us spending a whole lot more money on our gaming PCs, we’re still likely to choose an Intel CPU with a discrete graphics card, but It looks to me as if Raven Ridge has rightfully taken over the entry-level gaming tier.

        • Concupiscence
        • 2 years ago

        I don’t think that last point can be emphasized enough. Prices for reliably good 1080p-capable graphics cards are so high that I’ve told friends to stick to their existing builds and buy a Switch if they’re dying for video games. Memory’s unreasonable and GPUs are obscene; in the 23 years I’ve been building and using PCs, it’s never been quite like this.

      • JustAnEngineer
      • 2 years ago

      Best Buy has stocked pre-built Ryzen systems from CyberPower PC for some time. Look for something like this to show up in your local store:
      [url<]https://www.cyberpowerpc.com/system/Syber-C-Core-100[/url<] P.S.: I had hoped that an experienced assembler would have known better than to use DDR4-2400 for this system. Doh!

    • DragonDaddyBear
    • 2 years ago

    I admire your willingness to review your own review based on feedback of others. Your honesty and humility are highly respected by myself and others.

    • msroadkill612
    • 2 years ago

    Speaking of value, taxed lesser gpuS really benefit from adaptive sync monitors, and at this price point, that means cheaper Freesync, and that means amd gpuS.

    • bhtooefr
    • 2 years ago

    …and then, you reviewed the discrete GPUs on an i7-8700K, so the gaming value proposition likely looks even better for 2400G vs. i3-8100+GT 1030, no?

      • Jeff Kampman
      • 2 years ago

      I’m in the midst of better characterizing the advantage, if any, that the i7-8700K afforded the discrete cards and I would confidently say that the GT 1030 did not benefit substantially from the CPU switch.

      [i<]Grand Theft Auto V[/i<] is the only game in the test suite that is demonstrably and consistently CPU-bound with the GTX 1050 ([i<]Dota 2[/i<] has some transient peaks but isn't pegging cores). If [i<]GTA V[/i<] is the worst case for being CPU-bound among our test games (and perhaps the only case), and the GTX 1050 is the most powerful GPU in the test (a little less than twice as fast as the GT 1030 if we omit [i<]Hitman[/i<] from the results), then [i<]GTA V[/i<] drops from 112 FPS and a 10.4-ms 99th-percentile frame time to 101 FPS and a 12.5 ms 99th-percentile on the i3-8100. That's about a 10% improvement in performance potential; the big improvement is the 17% decrease in 99th-percentile frame time. You can see [url=https://twitter.com/jkampman_tr/status/963581022947430402<]a video on my Twitter feed[/url<] demonstrating that the GT 1030 isn't pushing the i3-8100 to its limits with [i<]GTA V[/i<] even at 1600x900 and our test settings. I'm still gonna recharacterize it, but people really need to get over this idea that the i7-8700K is some kind of deus ex machina for the GT 1030.

        • bhtooefr
        • 2 years ago

        Thanks for the explanation, and the work you’re doing to recharacterize things.

    • psuedonymous
    • 2 years ago

    RAM pricing seems to have been a bit ignored here. While Ryzen benefits vastly from faster ram (due to tying the Infinity Fabric bus speeds to RAM speeds), you can switch to slower and cheaper ram for Intel platforms for a minimal (if any) performance impact. The RAM chosen here is slower for the Intel platforms, but [i<]costs the same[/i<] and is just throwing money away. I'm more familiar with UK pricing, but a quick look at Newegg US easily finds [url=https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820232607<]8GB (2x4GB0 of DDR4 2400 for $88[/url<]. That brings the Intel platform costs down by $15 each, clawing the majority of the cost difference between the 2400G and i5-8400 (down to [b<]$5[/b<]). It makes the price difference between "The Multi-Tool" and "The Caffeinator" [b<]$35[/b<], and between "The Multi-Tool" and "The Instant Coffee" [b<]$55[/b<]. Close enough that it could bring either option within budget for some, and definitely close enough that the value proposition could swing entirely the other way with the launch of B3xx and H3xx boards in the coming weeks.

      • raaj13
      • 1 year ago

      the i5 8400 build doesn’t even include a GPU like 1030 that would cost you 90$ alone and that alone defeats the point of budget gaming .

    • Shobai
    • 2 years ago

    I can’t check the links myself, could someone please confirm the pricing far those RAM kits? It seems …odd… that CL16 3200 would cost an identical amount as both CL16 2400 and CL15 2666

      • JustAnEngineer
      • 2 years ago

      Newegg adjusts their prices multiple times per day. Here is a current sampling:
      [url=https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820232247<]$90[/url<] 2x4 GiB DDR4-2133 15-15-15-35 [url=https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820232256<]$90[/url<] 2x4 GiB DDR4-2400 15-15-15-35 [url=https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231870<]$93[/url<] 2x4 GiB DDR4-2666 15-15-15-35 [url=https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231931<]$93[/url<] 2x4 GiB DDR4-2800 15-16-16-35 [url=https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231935<]$102[/url<] 2x4 GiB DDR4-3000 15-16-16-35 [url=https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231900<]$104[/url<] 2x4 GiB DDR4-3200 16-16-16-36 [url=https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231904<]$111[/url<] 2x4 GiB DDR4-3466 16-18-18-38 [url=https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231906<]$114[/url<] 2x4 GiB DDR4-3600 17-18-18-38 [url=https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820232191<]$119[/url<] 2x4 GiB DDR4-3733 17-19-19-39 [url=https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820232192<]$129[/url<] 2x4 GiB DDR4-3866 18-22-22-42 [url=https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820232193<]$135[/url<] 2x4 GiB DDR4-4000 19-21-21-41 [url=https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231955<]$183[/url<] 2x4 GiB DDR4-4133 19-25-25-45 @ 1.4 V [url=https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231956<]$212[/url<] 2x4 GiB DDR4-4266 19-26-26-46 @ 1.4 V Note that I went with some of the older DIMM models to get the lowest price rather than selecting all G.Skill Ripjaws V kits as TR did in this article. The purely decorative heatsinks on the Ripjaws 4 modules stuck up far enough at the end to interfere with mounting a radiator in one of my builds. The less-extravagant beveled heatsinks on the Ripjaws V modules fit under the radiator.

        • Shobai
        • 2 years ago

        Aha, fair enough. That kind of volatility isn’t something I’ve had to deal with . Thanks for the detailed response!

        • jihadjoe
        • 2 years ago

        Then shouldn’t the i3 and i5 system builds reflect those lower RAM prices for the 2400 and 2666 they ran with? Either that or every system should have used DDR4-3200 because the same $104 RAM price was applied to each one.

          • JustAnEngineer
          • 2 years ago

          Intel’s market segmentation cripples their mainstream CPUs so that they can’t run their memory bus any faster than DDR4-2400. The Coffee Lake Core i5 goes up to DDR4-2666. There’s no benefit to installing faster memory on those systems.

          The G.Skill Ripjaws V memory that TR selected for all three builds is priced very similarly for DDR4-2400 to DDR4-3200 with moderate timings.

    • HERETIC
    • 2 years ago

    As much as this chip is a really wonderful achievement,I’m not seeing the value perspective-
    Especially for gaming.
    For around 15% more(system cost) a Pentium and 1050 could be thrown together.
    And looking at Jeff’s excellent 99th Percentile there-that’s nearly double the performance
    for an extra outlay of 15%-Now that’s what I call value,and as a side bonus-you’ll be able
    to play just about everything…….

    Pretty please Jeff-I know it’s only there to make up the no’s-please stop listing low quality
    power supplies-It gives the wrong impression-TR is one of the best if not the best tech
    site-lets keep it that way.

      • Intel999
      • 2 years ago

      Either you are not good at math, or you are unaware of what a 1050 costs.

      GTX 1050 is $189 at best currently. That combined with the extra $30 mono cost puts your theoretical build at $299.

      Math tells us that is a 76% premium that gives you a 50% gaming performance advantage.

      Then there is the issue of future upgrade costs related to another new mobo should you want to move up from that Pentium in the future vs. no cost on the AMD side.

        • HERETIC
        • 2 years ago

        My math is perfectly fine-thank you.
        Did a quick browse and saw 1050’s available for $150 and Pentiums around $70-$90.
        [url<]https://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=-1&IsNodeId=1&Description=gtx1050&bop=And&Order=PRICE&PageSize=36[/url<] so approx $230 take away $170=$60 Look at Jeff's system-$475--15%=$71.25--so my guesswork was a little generous. 13% would have been more accurate. What is this $30 mono you speak of?

      • ptsant
      • 2 years ago

      I agree that if you are buying a whole system (including all the peripherals), the cost of a GPU can be comparably small ($200 in a $1200 system, for example). However, consider the fact that many people already have monitors, keyboards, HDDs, SDDs, cases and PSUs. Therefore, what you are saying is absolutely not true when you are comparing system upgrades, which is what many TR readers often do.

        • HERETIC
        • 2 years ago

        I wasn’t including peripherals.
        Jeff had sample builds,so off the top of my head worked out extra $60-guessed 15%
        which should have been 13%.
        Now I would never build a system like that-I consider a SSD a must for a boot drive,
        add $20 to get a acceptable PSU and that percentage is plummeting, before you even
        think of a OS…………………………………………..

        Yes we all tend to upgrade-but when you look at the level of graphics-I dread to
        think what one might be upgrading from…..
        Pure upgrade-$170/$60=approx 35%-well worth the extra I think.

      • Shobai
      • 2 years ago

      In addition to the other great responses above mine, here’s a place where Jeff might interject with details on why it was necessary to benchmark the RX 460 and GTX 1050 with the i7 8700k rather than lower performance CPUs – if similar issues to what he noticed were present in your hypothetical Pentium system, that’d throw the foundation of your argument out the windows for yet another reason.

        • JustAnEngineer
        • 2 years ago

        I’d be very interested to see an [url=https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117739<]$85[/url<] Intel [url=https://ark.intel.com/compare/97453,126688,126687<]Pentium G4600[/url<] tested, if such a hypothetical system were actually assembled.

          • HERETIC
          • 2 years ago

          Not a 4600 but even a 4560 is good enough
          [url<]https://www.techspot.com/review/1325-intel-pentium-g4560/page4.html[/url<]

          • Shobai
          • 2 years ago

          For sure – assuming that there’s nothing wonky going on with the RAM pricing, that’d just about halve the price difference , right?

          [Edit – whoops! I was looking at the pricing for the i3 version, and didn’t account for the added expense of the GTX 1050]

        • HERETIC
        • 2 years ago

        So your argument is-Let’s put a $400 CPU with every GPU above$150???????????????

          • Shobai
          • 2 years ago

          No, not at all. I’m simply pointing out that the numbers you’re seeing in the review were not given by a Pentium – my argument is that it’s ridiculous to assume the performance you assume without more data.

            • HERETIC
            • 2 years ago

            As long as the CPU isn’t the bottleneck-
            [url<]https://www.techspot.com/review/1325-intel-pentium-g4560/page4.html[/url<]

            • Shobai
            • 2 years ago

            Right, exactly. That’s exactly what I’m saying. Go and look at Jeff’s comments on the other article, because that’s all the information we have at the moment, but my understanding is that he felt the CPU was a bottleneck for the GTX 1050.

            Also, for whatever it’s worth, the article you posted is over a year old. It may or may not be pertinent, but a lot has changed in the last few months in relation to COU performance, and it’s not necessarily well documented.

            [Edit: of course, there’s also the issue of the article you linked only reporting FPS values]

            • JustAnEngineer
            • 2 years ago

            “In God we trust. All others: bring data.”

            • Shobai
            • 2 years ago

            Heh, I like that!

      • jarder
      • 2 years ago

      For a gaming-only system that you never intend to upgrade you have a point. For a general purpose system with some gaming that pentium is going to suck. To get similar CPU performance you’ll need something like a i3-8100 and there goes your budget. Then there’s the upgradability, i.e. the main reason for using a PC over getting a console for gaming. That pentium is going to bottleneck anything over a gt1050 whereas better CPUs will be able to drive a mid-range card like a 1060 without a big penalty.
      For my money, it’s get the 2400G now and add in a mid-range card in the future when prices (hopefully) come back down to earth.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 2 years ago

        That’s exactly how I look at it, too. AMD has a real winner in the sub-$200 CPU market here.

        • HERETIC
        • 2 years ago

        I agree the Pentium is a 1050 and forget.But neither of those CPU’s are a good option for
        upgrades.
        There’s something I havn’t figured out yet-I’m seeing the 2400 as comparable with a i57500
        but when it comes to games using a graphics card it,s falling behind further than it should
        be.My only guess at the moment is that this CPU is based on a mobile design,that is optomised
        for power not performance………………

      • Chrispy_
      • 2 years ago

      Good luck finding a 1050 at MSRP.

      It sounds like you’re living under a rock, because even the 1050 and RX560 are priced sky-high. If it’s not the miners, it might be the DRAM shortage or it might just be massively increased demand for these budget cards caused by the black hole of mid-range, mining-capable hardware.

        • HERETIC
        • 2 years ago

        Is this close enough-
        [url<]https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814125919&cm_re=gtx1050-_-14-125-919-_-Product[/url<]

          • DPete27
          • 2 years ago

          The GTX 1050 MSRP is $110.

    • mizkitty64
    • 2 years ago

    Looks like a good solution if you’re looking to avoid the GPU mess right now.

    The last system I built for my parents was actually an AMD A8 APU…so I could see something like this fitting nicely…

      • drwho
      • 2 years ago

      isnt fast memory the real downer for the apus? supposedly they need 3200mhz to really shine, whereas that isnt required for the gt1030 . I already have a gpu so will wait out for ryzen+ to see if that compares … either 8400/8600k vs 1600/1600x , and mobo selection in itx , generally lots for intel, very few for AMD. Maybe becoz they have been power mad in previous years ?

        • waldojim42
        • 2 years ago

        Depends on how you look at that. You are right, it does need faster memory to fully open up. But the price difference for faster memory tends to be on the order of… about $10-15.

    • NTMBK
    • 2 years ago

    Thanks for the follow up Jeff. It’s attention to detail like this that makes the Tech Report the best hardware review site around.

    • meerkt
    • 2 years ago

    The The Caffeinator cost numbers don’t add up.Should be exactly $50 more than the 2400G, so $524.95. The text is also inconsistent, first saying +$20 for the CPU plus +$30 for the mobo, but in the next paragraph +$43 in total.

    PS: The Multi-Tool’s cent total should be .95, not .96. 🙂

      • Jeff Kampman
      • 2 years ago

      I lost $7 on an error in the case prices.

        • Mr Bill
        • 2 years ago
    • Mr Bill
    • 2 years ago

    Nicely done, and good to have some numbers to kick around if I were to upgrade my A10-7850K office system.

    • dodozoid
    • 2 years ago

    Hi Jeff, could you do whole build value scatter plot for gaming, productivity and some fusion of both?

    • enixenigma
    • 2 years ago

    Much respect for doing this follow-up. It would’ve been easy to just not say anything, but you owned up to the fact that you may have misstated the value proposition with the 2400G. Thanks for that.

    …it still would’ve been a no-brainer budget build choice if it were maybe $20 cheaper, though…

    • cmburns
    • 2 years ago

    No need to be sorry. I was actually considering doing a build using this processor, but decided it was not beefy enough. I will wait later in the year after the 2600 is released. Maybe by then the GPU prices will settle down.

    • Welch
    • 2 years ago

    I was wondering how the 2400g didn’t get the same recommendations as the 2200g and felt something was off. Thanks for the follow up, you are only human (I think?) So thanks for pointing out the mistake and correcting it.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This