Rumor: Dual-core AMD Athlon 200GE and Athlon Pro 200GE are on the way

Way back in February, German site ComputerBase spotted some results in SiSoftware's benchmark database for a Ryzen-based AMD Athlon 200GE. Now, Anandtech notes that the same chip (along with a very similar Ryzen Pro variant) just appeared in both a CPU support list for an Asus motherboard and a Geekbench result page. Those mentions could mean that the first dual-core desktop Ryzen parts are on the way soon.

Collating the information, we come up with what appears to be a two-core, four-thread Ryzen APU that includes Vega 3 graphics. The cheapest Ryzen-based chip that AMD currently offers is the Ryzen 3 2200G, priced at an even $100. While the Ryzen 3 2200G is a great value, that amount is still pretty expensive for the bottom of your product stack. AMD does offer A-series APUs at lower price points, but it's very difficult to recommend those even in jest—and all the more so given the potency of Intel's Pentium Gold line.

We haven't talked about it in detail, but the Ryzen 3 2200U mobile APU is very similar to the apparently-upcoming Athlon 200GE. The Ryzen chip offers two cores and four threads running at 2.5 GHz to start and turbo clocks at up to 3.4 GHz. The clock rate on the purported Athlon 200GE is listed simply as 3.2 GHz. It's possible that AMD will take a page from Intel's playbook and disable turbo on the Athlon-branded chips. 

The listed TDP is 35 W, a figure that seems a bit high given that the four-core Ryzen 3 2200GE runs more cores and likely a bigger GPU at higher clocks. If we look once again at the Ryzen 3 2200U, that chip has a 192-shader graphics part (3 GCN CUs). ComputerBase seems convinced that the Athlon 200GE and its Pro cousin will have the same configuration.

It will be interesting to see how such a chip compares to Intel's dual-core Pentium Gold CPUs. Anandtech believes the Athlon chips are set to be announced at Computex. The site credits Computerbase for that claim, but it's nowhere to be found on the German publication at this time. It's a reasonable assumption, though, and we'll keep you posted if we hear more.

Comments closed
    • DarkMikaru
    • 1 year ago

    I’m going to have to disagree with you guys and say that I am looking forward to lower powered APU’s for NAS, Home Server, Media duties. Granted, the 2200G can certainly fill those rolls but at 65w TDP and a killer IGP that would go to waste I def see a market for something a bit more cut down. Say they can get these down to 39 to 59 dollar price range. I’m game.

    I’ve been looking to upgrade my old AMD C50 Dual Core 1.0Ghz server for years now at this point. With it’s 9 watt TDP & motherboards with 6 Sata ports it was the obvious choice! I would of loved a quad core AM1 but I think they topped out at 4 ports and most had just 2.

    At 35w (possibly lower with undervolting) I’d love to put one of these through it’s paces. Dual Core for a server for file storage / streaming will be plenty. Looking forward to learning more about these.

      • Chrispy_
      • 1 year ago

      I can’t believe you haven’t picked up a Silvermont-based Intel in the last five years!

      Bay Trail Pentium J at ~6W has no competition and weirdos like Asrock made a board with a glorious 8 SATA ports, if I’m remembering that right.

    • just brew it!
    • 1 year ago

    Why is dual core even still a thing?

      • dragontamer5788
      • 1 year ago

      If the price is right, then its good.

      AM1 systems were $30 cpus + $30 motherboards. Throw down a $10 USB boot drive, $40 RAM, and $40 PSU+Case combo, and you could seriously build an AM1 system a few years ago for just $150 or less.

      AMD is missing from the low-end. Think “slightly better than Rasp. Pi” level. Super-low end NAS or a simple server sort of build, or maybe a computer you’d give to a 5-year-old (or even to a slightly older child who is showing some interest in learning to build computers).

      You have a slight expectation that the child will mess things up, so you might need to buy a 2nd CPU or 3rd. But when you get down to $30 “disposable” CPUs, the use cases of computers multiply.

      • kuttan
      • 1 year ago

      This CPU coupled with an SSD, one can build a super low cost PC for Internet, Office and Media playback applications. For those applications having a 10 core CPU, 1080Ti SLI and 64GB RAM make little to no difference.

      • Chrispy_
      • 1 year ago

      Because it’s [i<]enough[/i<] performance for the vast majority of people, but at a more appealing price point? The old argument of "why buy a fancy car that can cruise at 160mph when you confine it to a city and it never exceeds 40mph" springs to mind. People might *want* a Corvette, but they know that a Camry will do everything they need for a quarter the cost; For most people, cost is an important (if not the primary) factor in their decision-making process.

      • maxxcool
      • 1 year ago

      Because Signage and 4k output don’t need 4 cores. Or even fast cores at that..

    • Chrispy_
    • 1 year ago

    AMD should retire the Athlon name; They sullied it with Bulldozer-based products and now it implies low performance in the same way that Netburst ruined the Pentium name for several years until the stigma of the Pentium IV had faded.

      • dragontamer5788
      • 1 year ago

      On a dual-core chip?

      AMD is offering an [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inferior_good<]inferior good[/url<] here. We're talking about a 2c/4t Zen core + 3 Vega shaders. Specifications that are truly in the gutter. The bottom of the barrel. The only people buying these are people who have a need for an "inferior" computer. Maybe cost-constraints of the consumer, or maybe low-expectations for the end result. If anything, the poor name behind Athlon is ideal. AMD doesn't want to "soil" their Ryzen name, not after its finally become a good brand. Athlon is still recognized as AMD, and is ideal for "low-quality, but very low-cost" branding.

        • just brew it!
        • 1 year ago

        Wouldn’t it make more sense to bring back the Sempron or Duron name? Those parts had the reputation for being decent bang-for-the-buck in the budget space, and that’s the niche these parts are being aimed at.

        Edit: Or there’s this gem, from a decade and a half back: [url<]http://www.bbspot.com/news/2000/5/amd_moron.html[/url<]

          • Zizy
          • 1 year ago

          Sempron? That single core piece of crap that managed to sell stock only because of mining craze and was unsuitable even for a grandma?
          Duron is a worse Athlon, for those few that even remember it.

          Athlon is recognizable and known as “Celeron to Pentium level of performance”, despite BD. You do get this level of performance here.
          If anything, the BD’s inflicted problem here is that Athlons were known to come without GPU, but these have one.

            • Goty
            • 1 year ago

            I love posts like these that allow me to put vague limits on the amount of time someone has been involved in the hobby.

        • HERETIC
        • 1 year ago

        Think your going overboard-“inferior-bottom of the barrel”

        These would probably be fine for a granny box/basic office box.

        And nowhere near the “bottom”
        That belongs to most of the $400 lappies out there with celeron’s and pentium’s,
        probably add Intel’s dual core 15 watt race to sleep jobs as well…………

        • Chrispy_
        • 1 year ago

        I get where you’re coming from, but this isn’t some low-cost product lacking in features – it’s AMD’s latest architecture stripped back to meet a power envelope and price point.

        Intel still sells 2c/4t CPUs with pretty terrible IGPs as an i7, just not for the mainstream desktop sockets. They’ll find their way into AIOs, NUCs, laptops and a few other niche applications where outright performance isn’t the main goal.

        People have been simulating dual-core Ryzens for a while now by underclocking Ryzen 7 chips, disabling cores and halving the bandwidth by running in single-channel mode. Even in these situations Ryzen scales down really well, and what people always forget when comparing Ryzen to Covfefe Lake is that although Ryzen can’t quite match Intel’s IPC or peak clock speeds, they are generally more power-efficient under load. Find me an intel 8-core that runs in 65W envelope outside of the ridiculously-expensive Xeon v3 LP line, and I’ll change my opinion, but for now AMD offer 90% of the IPC at roughly 90% the load power draw as Intel’s finest. Once you step back from the max-TDP, max-clockspeed flagships you realise that AMD have the middle of the range sewn up pretty well.

      • ronch
      • 1 year ago

      AMD will retire the Athlon™ brand only when Intel retires the Pentium® moniker.

    • willmore
    • 1 year ago

    I misread the headline to begine with “Humor:”, sorry.

    • willmore
    • 1 year ago

    Does ‘pro’ here still mean business focused?

      • Ninjitsu
      • 1 year ago

      probably

        • ronch
        • 1 year ago

        Athlon Pro Bably.

      • Zizy
      • 1 year ago

      It implies ECC and some management crap you are likely wishing to disable.

    • ronch
    • 1 year ago

    Very exciting news.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This