AMD resurrects the Athlon with the $55 200GE

AMD is bringing Athlons back. This morning, the company announced the Athlon 200GE, a two-core, four-thread Zen CPU with three Radeon Vega compute units. The 200GE is designed to light up low-cost PCs with reasonable performance and capable integrated graphics for basic desktop tasks.

This Socket AM4 chip runs at a maximum frequency of 3.2 GHz. It does without any of the Precision Boost logic we've come to expect from higher-end Ryzen CPUs and APUs. The Athlon 200GE's core multipliers are locked down for overclocking, although memory multipliers will remain open for tuning. AMD maintained all 4 MB of the L3 cache that higher-end Raven Ridge APUs get, at least.

The 200GE has a 35-W TDP, and it'll retail for $55. This chip should well and truly put the stake in the heart of AMD's construction-core-derived Bristol Ridge APUs for the most entry-level systems.

The Athlon 200GE's most natural competitor will be the Celeron G4920, a two-core, two-thread Coffee Lake CPU that has 2 MB of L3 cache and a $52 suggested price. The problem for AMD (and, ironically, Intel) is that the Pentium Gold G5400 offers 500 MHz more clock speed than either the Celeron or Athlon, Hyper-Threading support, 4 MB of L3, and a suggested price of $64 (although retail prices are closer to $70).

For DIY builders, every dollar buys more performance at this end of the market, and single-threaded performance matters above all. Given those facts, it's not surprising that the company will be filling out the Athlon lineup with a 220GE and a 240GE in the fourth quarter of this year. Although it didn't disclose any details of those parts, we'd expect that higher clock speeds will be a focus.

For systems that just need the basics, though, the Athlon 200GE could prove a worthy alternative in a market that Intel previously enjoyed uncontested control over, and it completes the Zen renaissance for AMD's product stack. The 200GE will be available at retail and in OEM systems starting September 18.

Comments closed
    • Xenolith
    • 1 year ago

    Any chance it will fit in an FM2 slot?

      • NoOne ButMe
      • 1 year ago

      none.

    • chµck
    • 1 year ago

    Think someone could put this into a box with 4GB DDR4 + 64GB storage for ~$200?
    It would make a compelling alternative to intel gemini lake mini PCs if it supports 4k/60hz.

    • ronch
    • 1 year ago

    AMD had better start thinking about what to do to celebrate the Athlon brand’s 20th anniv next year. Ah I remember the feeling when the original Athlon came out in 1999. It was the first time AMD made a CPU that was faster than what Intel had in both integer and floating point. The K7’s FPU was especially interesting because FPU performance has been the bane of non-Intel x86 processors. Remember? It was like a revolution. And now it’s crazy how Ryzen is so far ahead of K7. AMD has a real opportunity here because it just so happened that their lineup is based on Zen on the Athlon’s 20th year. Thank the stars it didn’t happen to come along during the Bulldozer days.

      • Anonymous Coward
      • 1 year ago

      They should make an adapter to put this thing on a slot-A mobo.

        • freebird
        • 1 year ago

        If you can find an AM4 to AM2 adapter I have a motherboard for you…
        [url<]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3-4J_HiUO8[/url<] it comes with the 939 to AM2 CPU card. [url<]https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Asrock_am2cpu_board.jpg[/url<]

    • Froz
    • 1 year ago

    About the Pentium Gold being only slightly more expensive: this is something I notice very often. Journalists and pro users tend to underestimate the price difference of lower end of hardware. This is not “only $18” difference. For people in the market for this, it’s “about 1/3 higher price” for about 20% higher frequency. It’s really not that small difference if you look at it that way. Besides, $18 here, $20 there and it quickly adds up.

    To sum up, I think this will sell quite well.

      • ronch
      • 1 year ago

      Really depends on how much $18 is worth to the customer.

        • MOSFET
        • 1 year ago

        This is just an IF, but if that customer bought 1000 systems, or more, that’s a big savings.

      • DPete27
      • 1 year ago

      You’re missing the fact that the CPU goes into the same cost amount of system. So, say a system of the caliber is $350. Suddenly, you’re only paying 5% more for 20% more CPU performance.

        • Anonymous Coward
        • 1 year ago

        Of course saving that tiny amount of money seems overall harmful to someone who has the money and cares about the performance, but if you’re not both of those, then spending anything extra is a waste. A huge amount of the world goes around because of small savings accumulated over many layers.

        • Froz
        • 1 year ago

        Well, yes. But then you can’t make the same argument for any other part of that PC. And I hear the same arguments about GPUs, RAM (“memory is so cheap, it’s better to just buy 2 times more”), SSD or pretty much any other part. It really adds up. As you probably can tell, I’m speaking from (fortunately past) experience of painstakingly checking and comparing what will be better value (now and over some time) for a very limited budget.

        • Zizy
        • 1 year ago

        If this is 20% more CPU performance you don’t need, well, why would you pay extra? And if you are giving this PC to your grandma that sometimes wants to play a game or two, AMD’s 200GE might be even a better choice. Sure, 2200G isn’t much more expensive and is much faster, but hey, she doesn’t play the newest FPS anyway 😀

    • MileageMayVary
    • 1 year ago

    Should make for a great basic-office-work machine.

    • ronch
    • 1 year ago

    The Athlon brand will stay for as long as the Pentium and Celeron brands live on.

      • Star Brood
      • 1 year ago

      It’s smart. Athlon is a cool word to say. “FX” as a brand is associated with hot trash.

      Ryzen sounds like something a Phoenix would do, which is analogous to AMD CPUs right now. Phenom could make a comeback using the phoenix analogy rather than simple association with the word “phenomenal”.

      Radeon could use some serious spin. And not in the sense of their fans spinning quickly. Radians are important measurement units in graphics, and there is potential to make it a “calculated choice” (as in, best value per dollar rather than best overall performance).

        • MOSFET
        • 1 year ago

        Phenom III Phoenix

          • DoomGuy64
          • 1 year ago

          Isn’t that the edition that required new motherboards, but still uses the same socket? Oh wait, that was the P III Tualatin, and 3rd parties made adapters proving the changes were just to sell more boards.

            • Concupiscence
            • 1 year ago

            Yeah, that’s the one. I seem to remember it being a change in voltage delivery like what happened with Socket 5 and Socket 7 years earlier, but sticking in a modulator-as-shim fixed the issue.

            • DoomGuy64
            • 1 year ago

            You can pin mod the Tualatin directly too. Some ebay sellers make good money doing it. Intel likely did this to discourage people from using the Tualatin instead of the p4, and sell more boards. One of their official consumer boards limited ram to 512mb, which didn’t exist in older boards, so the platform was DOA outside of workstation, via, and socket mods.

        • jihadjoe
        • 1 year ago

        And Pentium was pretty cool until it hit IV.

          • ronch
          • 1 year ago

          Not really. Netbust was a pretty good architecture. It was Prescott that cooked rice for me.

            • Anonymous Coward
            • 1 year ago

            I’ll give you “decent” for Northwood, the other flavors were clearly substandard.

      • MileageMayVary
      • 1 year ago

      Any chance for a single core/dual thread chip bearing the Duron name? 😛

    • synthtel2
    • 1 year ago

    This chip’s killer feature IMO is AVX support. Given what people will generally be using this for, a Pentium Gold should still easily be better for present-day performance, but given what people will generally be using this for and the (lack of) progression of CPU performance, this level of performance should remain viable for a long time. At some point, though, developers are going to get tired of a specific handful of crippled old Intel chips mandating that they keep an SSE4 path around, and the Pentium Gold is going to start being actually unable to run things.

    The longer Intel keeps selling AVX-less chips, the worse the mess is going to be after they finally add it.

    • jarder
    • 1 year ago

    Bit disappointed with the 3 Vega compute units, I’m not sure how that’s going to compete with HD610 graphics (reviews please), but it’s probably not going to be enough for any kind of non-trivial gaming. I’m assuming that 220GE and 240GE will up the CU’s to a reasonable level and boost the clock speed for prices that will be competitive with the G5400 and G5600.

      • DPete27
      • 1 year ago

      I highly doubt they’ll increase the CUs when the 2200G is sitting on the $100 slot. For a pricing swath that narrow, I think the only thing we’ll see is higher clockspeeds.

        • jarder
        • 1 year ago

        I disagee. There is plenty of room between the 55$ 200GE with its 3CUs and the 99$ 2200G with it’s 8 CUs. I’m thinking the 240GE could have 2 faster multi-threaded cores and 5 or 6 CU’s at around the $80 mark and still leave plenty of room for the 2200G.

      • mczak
      • 1 year ago

      Based on the numbers from the mobile Ryzen 3 2200U, those 3 Vega units should be quite competitive with the UHD 630 from the Pentium G5500/G5600. It will certainly beat the UHD 610 from Pentium G5400 rather easily (but yes, 50% or so faster might not mean much if things are still simply too slow, but for causal gaming it will make a difference).
      But of course on the cpu side even the G5400 is going to be faster.

      • NoOne ButMe
      • 1 year ago

      Raven Ridge wouldn’t be profitable at $55 retail (35-45 from AMD to retailer)

      I think this is likely Banded Kestral. probably around 80-100mm^2

      Banded Kestral die:
      2 Zen Cores
      3 Vega CUs
      1 64b or two 32b DDR4 memory channels

      Actually, seems like the 200GE does have dual channel memory. Odd. Or maybe this is just talking about the dual 32b channels?

      I figured that the Ryzen 3 2200u would be replaced by Banded Kestal .

      If this is actually Raven Ridge, well. AMD’s making their 213mm^2 CPUs for under $35 dollars packaged and shipped to retail… nice!

        • Fursdon
        • 1 year ago

        If it is Banded Kestral, I’d have to imagine these are still the dud/marginal dies. 35W seems like a bunch of power for the given specs.

          • NoOne ButMe
          • 1 year ago

          AMD’s lowest desktop spec is probably just 35W…

          Ryzen 3 CPUs for example rated 65W… well.

          [url<]https://techreport.com/review/32301/amd-ryzen-3-1300x-and-ryzen-3-1200-cpus-reviewed/13[/url<] Delta of 26/33W for the 1200/1300x. [url<]https://www.anandtech.com/show/11658/the-amd-ryzen-3-1300x-ryzen-3-1200-cpu-review/16[/url<] Here the 1300x under full load can reach about 65W. But the 1200 fully loaded is only about 40W.

        • mczak
        • 1 year ago

        This is indeed still Raven Ridge.
        Banded Kestrel (regardless if it’s embedded only or find its way into PC-like devices) will near certainly only be available soldered on. This should be similar to Carrizo-L and Stoney Ridge.
        Probably it would be too confusing to have a socketed cpu when half the ram slots won’t work due to it having only a 64bit SI…
        And you’re quite right that it’s probably not terribly profitable for such a huge die, however OTOH it should allow AMD to sell defective dies (my guess is AMD doesn’t really want to sell those in huge amounts…).

          • NoOne ButMe
          • 1 year ago

          Hm. Yeah, you’re right. At least for the launch.

          Wonder if AMD has pushed back Banded to give it a 2nd memory controller to be able to drop in for Raven Ridge. I can’t imagine AMD wants to sell 500K+ (200K initial launch, 20K/month for 15 months) Raven Ridge parts at this price.

          The 2C 3CU SKUs just seem like they’re made to be replaced by Banded Kestrel parts…

      • Eversor
      • 1 year ago

      The Celerons and cheaper Pentiums are paired with low-end HD graphics. At least for official prices, there is a $25-30 bump to get double the GPU performance (24 vs 12 EUs).

      edit: In compute terms, Vega 3 is on par with Intel HD graphics with 24 EUs (Pentium G5500+).

    • Chrispy_
    • 1 year ago

    The lack of XFR is a step too far.

    AMD can’t afford to throw away performance like that when Intel are still higher-clocked and higher-IPC. Product segmentation be damned – this thing is plenty crippled enough in other ways.

      • blastdoor
      • 1 year ago

      Agreed — a bizarre decision to adopt such aggressive segmentation. Only Intel can get away with that kind of stuff — AMD needs to actually compete.

    • fyo
    • 1 year ago

    Where does this “single-threaded performance matters above all” trope come from?

    I use both slow and fast computers on a daily basis and when my system is bogged down, it’s ALWAYS more than one thread. I’ve tried talking to my less techie friends / family and it turns out the same applies to them.

    I’m not saying there isn’t some group out there for whom it matters, but the use case is going to be pretty darn narrow.

      • Srsly_Bro
      • 1 year ago

      You really can’t think of why that’s a saying?

      • DPete27
      • 1 year ago

      [url=https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-athlon-200ge-vega-ryzen-pro,37756.html<]Tom's has a nice comparsion table[/url<] The $65 Intel G5400 is a 2C/4T @ 3.7GHz [b<]AND[/b<] Intel has a better perf/clock than AMD still (albeit by a smaller margin with Ryzen) The $55 AMD 200GE is also 2C/4T but @ 3.2GHz. It's also down from 8CUs in the 2200G to 3CUs, so I'd bet the IGP performance is going to be similar to the G5400. Aka, you ain't gaming on it. Both CPUs are multiplier locked. Both platforms have mobos in the $50-$60 range. That's not a hard decision for me. I'll spend the extra $10 for the Intel G5400.

        • Mr Bill
        • 1 year ago

        But OEM’s that quake at the cost of an extra capacitor will queue up to save $10.

        • dragontamer5788
        • 1 year ago

        I know this sounds silly, but… G5400 is SSE4.2 only, missing the AVX / AVX2 and later instruction sets. In particular, AES instructions, which do matter in a NAS / VPN setting (the primary “low-end box” ideas that I have all would have a web-interface and probably use AES at some point).

        I guess not all budget-buyers may not need that stuff. But… its a thing that bothered me about everything lower than an i3.

          • BobbinThreadbare
          • 1 year ago

          One of those things where it really matters what you’re doing. Just building a desktop box? Probably doesn’t matter.

        • jarder
        • 1 year ago

        Any I’d pay the extra $35 for the Ryzen 3 2200G with it’s 4 real cores and a iGPU you can actually play games on.

          • DPete27
          • 1 year ago

          I absolutely agree, as I stated in my response to DragonDaddyBear.

        • Ninjitsu
        • 1 year ago

        To be fair to AMD, their thing is plenty for basic office work.

      • blastdoor
      • 1 year ago

      I’m assuming the answer is “games”

        • Jeff Kampman
        • 1 year ago

        No, the answer is Facebook (as a metonym for every web-browsing task), Word, Gmail, <insert_commonly_used_app_here>—even CAD apps and some parts of pro apps like Photoshop and Premiere. Not everything is multi-threaded these days—far from it. I/O operations rarely scale past one or two threads for client workloads, either.

        Contrary to the argument above, per-core performance plays a large part in defining the “snappiness” or responsiveness of a system and has positive knock-on effects for pretty much everything a user does when interacting with a PC.

        The common point of confusion is that multi-tasking does not equal multi-threading and even if your operating system can effectively schedule multiple applications across multiple cores it doesn’t mean that any one of those apps is going to use every core and thread available to it when you bring it to the foreground.

        We repeatedly had this argument back in the days where Bulldozer and friends were putting lots of relatively low-performance cores onto a chip. The FX series put up nice numbers in Cinebench but felt pretty leisurely in anything regular people were doing with a PC, to say nothing of falling behind in games where performance ultimately relied on a single main thread. That case is less common than it used to be, but a single thread is usually the way stuff gets CPU-bound.

        You can also see the consequences of this problem in phone SoC design, where Apple has until recently focused on putting a couple of big and really powerful CPU cores on its chips where others would stamp out clusters of lower-performance cores and tout their SoCs’ overall core counts.

        Apple does this because single-core performance is paramount for a good user experience, yet it’s hard to develop a better-performing individual CPU core year after year. People predictably laud Apple devices for their performance and responsiveness, while few would argue that the latter approach results in a device that “feels” faster, even though it sounds impressive to have eight CPU cores on your smartphone.

        To touch on it briefly, “bogging down” a system isn’t usually a function of available CPU resources being maxed out, in my experience; it’s more a consequence of filling up your available RAM and paging out to disk or being I/O bound or hitting some other part of the system that’s many orders of magnitude slower than the CPU itself. If you make a practice of trying to work while running a Blender render or something, that’s a different story.

        The long and short of it is that if you can choose between a couple really fast cores or a bunch of weaker ones, you should take the fast cores, all else being equal. If you have equal core counts and can get a higher-clocked pair of better-performing cores for not a lot more money (as in the case of the 200GE vs Pentium Gold G5400), you should take that upgrade if you can. This has been true forever and it’s not a controversial position to take when evaluating PC performance.

          • blastdoor
          • 1 year ago

          Everything you wrote makes sense.

          But I think the tricky bit is where do you hit diminishing returns (in terms of user experience) for single thread performance among contemporary CPU competitors running contemporary software?

          Yes, ‘dozer missed the mark. And yes, Android SOC makers missed the mark for many years.

          But if the comparison is a 3.2 GHz Ryzen core to a 3.8 GHz Ryzen core (or even Core core), is the user experience difference noticeable? Or is it better to add another 3.2 GHz core than it is to add 600 MHz? Or is it better to switch from a SATA SSD to an NVMe SSD?

            • auxy
            • 1 year ago

            For regular desktop usage including all of the things Jeff mentioned above I can attest that a 3.7 GHz dual-core Core i3-6100 CPU is tangibly and demonstrably faster than a 2.2/2.8 GHz Core i5-6400T. I’ve tested it over and over; you just don’t get anything from the extra two cores in the most demanding tasks of a regular desktop workload including heavy and advanced Excel use and dozens of browser tabs. (Going from 8GB to 16GB of RAM was also a better upgrade!)

            I do a fair bit of computer consulting for small businesses and local government in my area and I’ve built a ton of machines. Because the performance is, for the most part, not that important, I’ve done some experimenting with various builds. In the end, a Socket AM1 Athlon 5150 is plenty fast enough for most users doing most things. (I really wish AMD wouldn’t have discontinued this platform!) For more demanding systems I move up to a Core i3, now the 7100 because I can get them really cheap. I’ve also built systems with Ryzen 2200Gs but the dual-core i3s at 3.9 GHz are actually better than the 2200G for desktop stuff.

            So the point is, is 600 MHz noticeable? Probably! But even more than that, is adding 600 MHz + superior Core architecture preferable vs. adding 2 more slow cores? Absolutely, every time. RE: the SSD question, in my testing (and in TR’s, see [url=https://techreport.com/review/33950/samsung-860-evo-1-tb-ssd-reviewed/5<]here[/url<]) there is absolutely no point in an NVMe SSD for basically any desktop user.

            • blastdoor
            • 1 year ago

            Interesting and informative— thanks!

            • Jeff Kampman
            • 1 year ago

            I don’t think you can have a single CPU core that’s “too fast” or a PC that’s “too responsive.” Your PC (or phone, or tablet, or whatever) is your mode of transport on the information superhighway and there are no speed limits there. It’s not like buying a Ferrari and being constantly frustrated with it because you can’t reach its top speed on the way to the grocery. Every bit of single-core speed you can buy, you can use.

            • Martin the Kiteboy
            • 1 year ago

            My ISP is doing an excellent job of frustrating me on my journey across the information superhighway. Not only do they have speed limits, but they even tell me how much I can use my virtual Ferrari in any given month before charging me for the privledge.

            But do agree on single core performance.

            • synthtel2
            • 1 year ago

            Sufficiently big clock boosts will probably be nice to have for just about any use case, but we’ve still got to think about what else that money could be buying.

            Including peripherals, my rig would probably cost ~$2200 to build from scratch at current prices, the most expensive component being the $400~450 monitor. I’m clearly not averse to paying for small gains (I spend enough time using this system, after all), but my R7 1700 that will no longer boost above 3.2 just doesn’t feel like a problem. When web browsing is actually slow my 10~30 Mbit internet connection (40~60 ms to 1.1.1.1) tends to be at fault, the non-network side of WU is more limited by the cheesy SSD Windows is installed on, other general desktop stuff happens fast enough that it just doesn’t matter, actual heavy / long-running jobs are on average multithreaded enough that this feels like the right choice of CPU for them, and that pretty much just leaves gaming.

            Maybe if I used Windows more I’d find single-threaded performance more important. MS is a lot more serious about wanting the user to wait for whatever they just did to finish before giving more input than the environment I spend most of my computing time in (in things like Windows search diverting to Bing if you type too fast).

          • dragontamer5788
          • 1 year ago

          [quote<]Contrary to the argument above, per-core performance plays a large part in defining the "snappiness" or responsiveness of a system and has positive knock-on effects for pretty much everything a user does when interacting with a PC. [/quote<] Well, beyond going to a 2c/4t system is a big benefit to latency numbers / snappiness. I mean, its why even Apple and Samsung pushes 4-cores on their phones, because there is a huge benefit to having "idle cores" immediately ready to start working on a new task. But once you reach 2c/4t, then single-core performance begins to matter more in terms of latency. And virtually everything these days (phones included), reach 4 hardware threads or more. Pentium Silver is 4core / 4-threads, this Athlon 200GE is 2c/4t, etc. etc. So single-core is the benchmark for typical use cases here on out. ---------- In short, I think your argument mostly makes sense in today's market, because even the lowest-end processors support 4-hardware threads. Which is the "critical point" for good user experiences, with respect to multitasking benefits. Improving user experiences beyond the 4-thread point, for typical web-apps, requires single-core improvements moreso than moving from 4t to 8t or beyond.

            • tipoo
            • 1 year ago

            A10 can have two cores active on the fly, A11 can have 6, so you’re right by way of average 😉

          • Pancake
          • 1 year ago

          Fella by the name of Gene Amdahl had some theories about that. A bit before I was born, even.

            • psuedonymous
            • 1 year ago

            [quote<] A bit before I was born, even.[/quote<] And on that note, one of my favourite quotes on parallellism: "Bringing a child to term will take approximately 9 months, regardless of how many women are assigned to the task".

          • Wirko
          • 1 year ago

          This is already halfway to becoming a 1000-word article, Jeff!

          • ermo
          • 1 year ago

          Do you Linux at all Jeff?

          • Ninjitsu
          • 1 year ago

          To be fair, I find ARM A53 in a 4+4 plenty responsive for my needs.

            • joselillo_25
            • 1 year ago

            those so called pc “entusiast” have been appling the rationale that few faster cores are better than multicore from a decade. the fact is this rationale is wrong, but they still apply for it because they cannot admit they were terribly wrong. Intel even launch for them a special CPU few years ago that no one use.

            the only task that few faster cores are better than multicores are when you need a “clocked output”, and the calculations need to be released in sync at the same time, for example in a game, or in a music software, (DAW).

            but for the other tasks every multicore machine will beat this low high clocked cores in a regular use, specially with windows runing a lot of crap tasks and software taking cpu cycles, internet , video capture, browser tabs etc… etc…

            thats why I still can play games, make music, 3d, photoshop. vegas video, internet, netflix etc… with my Q6600 at 2.6 ghz with windows 10 and my Pentium 4 dual core at 3.4ghz is outdated.

            • EndlessWaves
            • 1 year ago

            A 2.6Ghz Core 2 core is much faster than a 3.4Ghz Northbridge/Prescott core

            • K-L-Waster
            • 1 year ago

            Exactly. Clock speed != core performance. Otherwise Bulldozer woulda been a monster….

            • joselillo_25
            • 1 year ago

            No doubt about that, is just an example how a multi core CPU can last for more than a decade making a lot of hard stuff and still be usable.

            So buying today 2 core machines for me is a bit difficult to recommend because is the same argument the people used these days.

            • K-L-Waster
            • 1 year ago

            Put it another way: would you rather have one of these, or an FX 8300? The FX has more cores, so must be better, right?

            • tipoo
            • 1 year ago

            I thought a Core 2 Duo was plenty responsive before I moved to Haswell, assuming any delays were network bound and not processor.

            Hoo boy was I wrong!

          • tipoo
          • 1 year ago

          This is much of what I say when people try to devalue Apples march of single threaded performance dominance in mobile. They wonder why we really need that power, it’s just a phone, but I use it every. single. webpage. And scroll, and system animation, particularly as those are bound to a single core.

          People asked for years why Android wasn’t up there in simple scrolling performance, overlooking the massively multicore approach with half the single threaded performance.

            • synthtel2
            • 1 year ago

            If scrolling is slow/janky, more single-threaded performance will probably help, but the real problem is that the software is garbage. Given decent software, a single A53 core should be able to handle scrolling at idle frequencies with half its EUs behind its back.

          • DoomGuy64
          • 1 year ago

          Bulldozer is a false analogy. It wasn’t a real multitasker because the cores were modular and shared resources. A quad core performed like a dual core, for example. It was possible to optimize for this, but overall most software didn’t, and it was a really bad design. Loading up one core of a module would lag the second core of the module, and that’s how software operated on bulldozer for the most part, aside from paying for Bitsum Process Lasso to force module management.

          As far as ARM CPU’s go, they have a similar issue when switching between high performance cores to low power cores. Performance is much better to never have a low power core, and instead modulate frequency.

          All of these scenarios are improper analogies of increased core counts. A proper example would be Phenom II vs Bulldozer. The Phenom II performed better than Bulldozer in real world applications, because it had individual cores, while synthetic scores performed better with bulldozer.

          Claiming that increased cores don’t increase performance is laughable. Doesn’t anyone remember the Athlon 64 x 2? How about i3 vs i5 vs i7? Increased cores ABSOLUTELY increase performance, because it allows smoother multitasking.

          The problem with bulldozer and ARM cores is that those designs are not capable of smoother multitasking, so they are improper examples, and bringing them up is a fallacy. The reality is, modern operating systems run a LOT of background tasks, like windows services and gaming clients, not to mention Internet tabs, and increased core counts absolutely increase performance.

    • Waco
    • 1 year ago

    I’m surprised they aren’t allowing overclocking. AMD traditionally hasn’t locked that down on anything, has it?

      • derFunkenstein
      • 1 year ago

      For Bulldozer-derived APUs, it was FSB only unless you got a K SKU like the 7850K. Going back farther, overclocking Athlon on Socket A was an accident. That pencil trick was never intended to work.

      But overall it’s pretty rare that they lock something down.

        • Waco
        • 1 year ago

        Ah, I haven’t paid close attention to the other APUs, I guess I just assumed they were overclockable by multiplier.

        I miss the pencil trick, cutting bridges, socket pin mods for higher vcore. The good old days. 🙂

      • DPete27
      • 1 year ago

      Derp.

    • chuckula
    • 1 year ago

    My Athlon’s back and you’re gonna be in trouble
    Hey now Hey now my Athlon’s back.

    • Krogoth
    • 1 year ago

    Intel needs to get rid of some more defective stock. They need to “Release the Pentium Pro!”

      • shank15217
      • 1 year ago

      Pentium III son, i don’t go below III

    • SoundFX09
    • 1 year ago

    I’m mixed on this CPU’s inability to Overclock.

    On one hand, This is a very low-cost CPU, similar to the AM1 chips that we rarely see anymore. So why do you need to Overclock?

    On the other, with the Overclock, this could have potential to put to shame the Intel Pentium and Celeron chips at a reasonable price. So why not try to OC it to say, 3.9 – 4.0Ghz.?

    Hoping to see a review of this CPU soon. Maybe if we make enough noise to AMD, they’ll pull back on the Locked Clockspeed and allow Overclocking, even if it’s only a $55 chip.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 1 year ago

      I’m kind of surprised they didn’t try to push single-core performance a little more. Without an abundance of cores, that’s a big detriment to this thing. Even if it required a 40 or 45-watt TDP, it’d make it an easier sell if it at least came close to matching a Pentium Gold 5400, which clocks at 3.7 GHz for roughly the same price.

        • jihadjoe
        • 1 year ago

        I’m guessing the 220GE and 240GE models will be aiming at the Pentium. This chip is pretty slow, but with 4T it should be better than the Celeron.

          • derFunkenstein
          • 1 year ago

          Yeah, I guess you’re right. I made a mistake in my quick Googling before I replied. I could have sworn I saw that Pentium Gold 5400 was priced around $55 but that’s the Celeron 4920. Maybe there will be an Athlon at closer to 4GHz.

          edit: reading comprehension fail on my part. I was googling but the prices are in the freakin’ post.

          • SoundFX09
          • 1 year ago

          Okay, I thought this was going to be the only Athlon chip. Me being stupid there.
          I wouldn’t be surprised if the 220 and 240GE are priced evenly out. Maybe $65 for the 220GE and $75 for the 240GE.

    • unclesharkey
    • 1 year ago

    So can you unlock them to a quad core 😉
    Remember the old Athlon and Phenom cpu’s that could be unlocked?

      • Srsly_Bro
      • 1 year ago

      My brother got a cheap athlon x3 build for like $50 last year. I unlocked the fourth core and I could get it stable with 1.5v so it’s only using three cores currently.

    • Sahrin
    • 1 year ago

    Finally got enough defective Raven Ridge dice to make a produce line.

      • shank15217
      • 1 year ago

      Woohoo!

      • derFunkenstein
      • 1 year ago

      Not sure I’d want to buy an AMD tomato.

    • derFunkenstein
    • 1 year ago

    [quote<]construction-core-derived[/quote<] I read that as Constructicon-core-derived. But since Threadripper and EPYC are derived from multiple cores, it seems like they're the CPUs that should have been given names for different Transformer combiners. Threadripper = Superion, EPYC = Devastator, etc.

      • NTMBK
      • 1 year ago

      I could go for an Ultramagnus CPU.

        • Krogoth
        • 1 year ago

        It doesn’t beat a Rodimus CPU though. 😉

          • Mr Bill
          • 1 year ago

          Nothing beats the Rodimus cloaking device.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 1 year ago

        And under the heat spreader is the Autobot Matrix of Leadership.

          • NTMBK
          • 1 year ago

          Has it got… The Touch?

            • derFunkenstein
            • 1 year ago

            Wow there’s a deep cut of a reference if I’ve ever seen one

    • Usacomp2k3
    • 1 year ago

    NAS? Does it still have hardware h.264/h.265?

      • Concupiscence
      • 1 year ago

      Yes, it should still have video playback support and do all the basics with AES-NI and AVX2, and a 35W TDP is pretty nice. It’s honestly like buying a Core i3 from a few years back, and the price point’s pretty appealing for what it is.

        • Questar
        • 1 year ago

        4K Netflix?

          • Concupiscence
          • 1 year ago

          On paper, yes, so long as the IGP supports 10-bit color.

          edit: Hadn’t thought about new DRM. It’d stink if Netflix 4K doesn’t work, because otherwise the IGP should be able to handle it.

            • DragonDaddyBear
            • 1 year ago

            Microsoft PlayReady DRM 3.0 support is what holds it back. The latest AMD drivers I think just put this in as a beta feature. NVidia required a 10-series GPU with 3+ GB of RAM. I’m not sure if integrated GPU’s on AMD support this. Intel iGPU’s from 7th Core gen on up should support.

            • Questar
            • 1 year ago

            It’s more about Playready support.

    • DragonDaddyBear
    • 1 year ago

    Any chance for a review? This might make a decent HTPC chip.

      • DPete27
      • 1 year ago

      Too bad mITX boards are all north of $100 and RAM is crazy expensive.
      To me, HTPC = mITX. And when you’re spending $100 on a board instead of $40 for a mATX, I start to think that the extra $45 move to a 2200G would be worthwhile. You may not need that much HP right now, but it could get you >50% useful life of the system for only a 20% system cost increase.

      [Add] Not to mention, going from 8CUs in the 2200G to 3CUs in the 200GE pretty well puts you in the [url=https://techreport.com/review/33235/amd-ryzen-3-2200g-and-ryzen-5-2400g-processors-reviewed/6<]Intel HD610/620 IGP range.[/url<] That takes away most of the gaming capability on the IGP that the 2200G was good for.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 1 year ago

        It’s insane to me that mITX boards based on a budget chipset like the A320 chipset are still $95 on Newegg.

          • bhtooefr
          • 1 year ago

          I still wish X/B/A300 actually shipped outside of 1 liter business desktops…

            • derFunkenstein
            • 1 year ago

            I can’t find any evidence that a replacement for A320 exists. No A420 (magic smoke ’em if you’ve got ’em) that I can find. So for mITX, this is as cheap as it gets: [url<]https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157838[/url<]

        • dragontamer5788
        • 1 year ago

        mITX would be nice, but uATX is still sufficient for a lot of HTPC cases. Ex: Silverstone MILO series: [url<]https://www.silverstonetek.com/product.php?pid=283&area=en[/url<] Not a lot of room, so it definitely prefers mITX. But I've built a uATX HTPC out of one of these cases.

        • Oem
        • 1 year ago

        Personally I think larger boards and cases actually make more sense for an HTPC. I’ve been building HTPCs for myself for 15 years; started out with a WinTV 350 DVR card plugged into an Althon Slot A mid-tower box. I still have a newish full-height Hauppage card that can capture full HD local broadcasts for free. In general my capture cards last many years longer than the systems they are in, migrating from box to box.

        Small is expensive, and smaller is expensiver. And the smaller you go, the less upgradeable you get. Really small systems have totally custom motherboards and / or power supplies, so the first step in upgrading them or replacing broken parts is to carefully place the system in the trash.

        The smallest I’ll go is microATX cases and motherboards, at least when building for a friend / relative. Personally I have stuck with mid-tower cases capable of handling full-height cards, standard ATX PSUs, cheap full-size motherboards with lots of slots, and external drive bays for Blu-ray players / burners.

        As far as fitting such a case in the living room, I have a custom entertainment center I built with plenty of space, including a slot for a mid-tower case, still fitting under a large flat panel screen with room to spare for a game console, STB, speakers and whatever else you can think of. Aesthetics are nonexistent, but so is my concern for them. 🙂 But if you care a black uATX or even ATX case can be hardly noticeable with the right setup.

      • Vhalidictes
      • 1 year ago

      It would, but for the cost of custom-building a system a cheap CPU is a drop in the bucket. Getting all the parts together for a HTPC (decent motherboard, case, RAM, possibly drive) and you’re well over $500 excepting a lot of sales.

      This is really better suited to a Netbook. In fact, a decent laptop is a good choice for an HTPC since it’s small, low power, and you don’t need to buy anything else (possibly more RAM?).

        • dragontamer5788
        • 1 year ago

        Custom-built can strike low-end even better than most parts.

        $300 build looks like:

        * $55 Athlon 200GE
        * $50 [url=https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157766<]$50 A320 uATX Motherboard[/url<] * $80 for 2x4GB of RAM ([url=https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231870<]2666MT/s 15-15-15 @ 1.2V[/url<]) * $50 for [url=https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820177036<]240GB SSD[/url<] * $40 [url=http://www.microcenter.com/product/357902/tc102-atx-mid-tower-computer-case-w--500w-power-supply---black<]Case+500W PSU Combo[/url<] * $30 for fans / misc parts. Total: $305 for a decent Linux machine somewhere around the house, for OpenVPN, NAS, or other such work.

          • NTMBK
          • 1 year ago

          That is an insanely ugly and large case for a HTPC.

            • dragontamer5788
            • 1 year ago

            Heh, budget options are budget. Silverstone Milo + PSU would increase the cost to $350.

            But I’m thinking about a NAS which I’ll shove into a closet somewhere. I don’t really care what it looks like if I’m not looking at it.

            • NTMBK
            • 1 year ago

            To be honest if someone wants a HTPC for $350, I’d recommend a games console instead! Streaming apps, Bluray player, plays loads of games really well.

            • DPete27
            • 1 year ago

            [url=https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811119348<]CM E300L[/url<] = $30 after MIR [url=https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139201<]Corsair CX450[/url<] = $18 after MIR and promo code EMCPYPV25 It's $10 more, but you've now got a nice looking case and a decent PSU.

      • Laykun
      • 1 year ago

      I assume you do computing on your HTPC? Otherwise why not just get an nvidia shield. I used to have an HTPC but use it primarily to play media on off my plex server. Switched to an nvidia shield and couldn’t be happier, it’s quick and snappy, integrates with a whole bunch of different remotes, allows me to have couch coop parties. I’m not sure what exactly it is you need out of an HTPC that a shield wouldn’t be able to do, you can even hook up USB DACs to it. I have this setup for my late night watching, running to an amp and a pair of Sennheiser HD650s. It supports H264, H265 4k HDR 60fps natively so no transcoding required for plex, it can even output Dolby Atmos over HDMI directly to the amp. It all just works really well, and you can commonly find them on sale for $150.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This