AMD Versus Intel Integrated Graphics w/ Ivy Bridge
Since Legit Reviews first came online nearly a decade ago the one phrase that we have heard consistently over the years is that “integrated graphics suck” and that you should never use them. Is that true? We gathered up 11 AMD and Intel motherboards to check out integrated graphics performance from 2006 to 2012 to see how they perform on four game titles and Futuremark 3Dmark06. Read on to see how far we have come in recent years and we do have Ivy Bridge numbers!
As you can see from out test results today, Intel has managed to come really close to catching AMD in terms of integrated graphics performance. Intel Ivy Bridge processors with Intel HD 4000 graphics are able to compete with AMD's Llano APU featuring the Radeon HD 6550D graphics engine. Intel was able to do this thanks to numerous architecture improvements, faster clock speeds and updates to their supported API's.
Please bear in mind that, with the exception of the dual core i3 3225, only the most expensive models feature HD 4000 graphics (i5 3570K, and i7 3770/K/S/T). The rest all use HD 2500 which is still, well, crap.
And do you really think enthusiasts buy the K or i7 versions for their iGPU? Or that "regular" folk will buy those expensive processors?
No matter, even HD 4000 doesn't actually beat Llano, and Trinity is just around the corner.
rpsgc wrote:Please bear in mind that, with the exception of the dual core i3 3225, only the most expensive models feature HD 4000 graphics (i5 3570K, and i7 3770/K/S/T). The rest all use HD 2500 which is still, well, crap.
And do you really think enthusiasts buy the K or i7 versions for their iGPU? Or that "regular" folk will buy those expensive processors?
No matter, even HD 4000 doesn't actually beat Llano, and Trinity is just around the corner.
Which is why I used the Core i5-3550k for the article. I didn't use the Core i7-3770K, 3770. I used the regular Core i5-3570K, which is $212. The AMD A8-3850 is $130, so you are right there is a big price delta there.
I imagine Trinity is going to make Intel "bite the curb". If the current crop of Llano chips is hanging with the new HD 4000 then I don't see Trinity losing a round of benchmarks.
The full retail version of the game Crysis was used with patch 1.21 for benchmarking. FRAPS was used over the internal benchmark utility to help avoid driver enhancements.
Funny/strange. This review tediously went through updating the latest BIOS of the motherboards as well as the drivers, making sure that all systems are up to date, while neglecting the driver enhancements of the Gaphics chips?
What good is a hardware if you would limit it to use its full potential? Iam not a fanboy, just mentioning the facts here. But if the driver enhancements were allowed, AMD might have trashed Intel's graphics even more.
Kudos to Intel for their graphics improvement with the Ivy Bridge. But still, AMD reigns supreme as far as graphics is concerned, and mind you, Trinity is just around the corner.
My point exactly. But driver enhancement is not a cheat, but rather, they are meant to increase performance by fine tuning the language of a hardware (Graphics chip) so it can better communicate with the software (games). It's like saying better not install the latest driver of a graphics card because they would enhance performance on certain games, making it a cheat? If that is the case, what good is a driver update then? Be it real world performance, or benchmark, does not matter. If one really seeks to measure performance, then let the hardware being tested flex its muscle, and show its full potential.
And don't forget Intel skimps on pixel quality. If they had quality matching the AMD GPUs, i would be certain it will perform alot worse
I read on somehwere that somebody said Intel will catch up with AMD in 3 years in GPU front and that is HIGHLY IMPOSSIBLE.(which i call bull****!)
Why? AMD has done this for several years (Doesn't matter that they bought ATi, i know that) ever since they bought out ATi
And how will they lose? Never. Trinity doesn't have GCN but let's face it, Intel will get beaten horribly if trinity was using GCN
With the shift to VLIW4, we saw a massive improvement on the GPU front (While the piledriver lacks on shared resources, it quickly makes up for the lack in other areas)
Well that said, how many times do we actually push a CPU to it's max on a laptop? Not really alot. That's why AMD is more balanced, great graphics for less cost and decent CPU power
Fact is : Your software is lagging you down, we do not actually need i7 IB laptops to do stuff, a AMD is more useful as they seem to be using less power during idle and laptops are what? 90% idle!
Even in a presentation they are very much idle, so why do you want a i7? That costs a HELL lot more, a i5 laptop from ACER and the same line with the A10-4600M costs 100-200$ more money
100-200$ is a lot of money delta especially when the speed difference isn't really alot more (A local newspaper review'd them both in GOLD... but they brought the wrong ones. 14" Intel vs 15.6" AMD at the same price! That's utterly wrong because 15.6 inchers are usually 100-200$ more than their counterpart)
This might make some people cringe but i have a A8-3400M 15.6" Acer purchased last year that came with DiRT3 (yeah ... i sort of enjoyed that game) i could play high settings on 1366x768
Contrast that to my HD5430 laptop (that is bloody weak but what do i expect! it's 2009 hardware after all) that does 1024x768 on low at 22FPS with a 1680x1050 monitor ... That's a big difference between the two laptops, just 1 year increased the performance of AMD laptops severely (And i do have idiots i call friends that think all AMD hardware is crap!)
While i most certainly am not thinking of a laptop anymore i have been interested in building a AMD platform,
This time : A10-5800K + HD7870? OR FX-8350 + HD7870? I am intending to play Battlefield 3 or the upcoming successor on the rig and right now i don't really know if the A10-5800K would really cause issues (I'm a idiot sometimes, just nice to hear other people's feedback)
Indeed though. Trying to cool that FX-8350 can be a bitch. But i know a way to get killer cooling performance (1053grams! Cools a i7-920 @ 4.2GHz(which is a pretty expensive room heater in my books) to 62.2 at full load with a 60CFM fan... Luckily for me it is very cheap, less than 30 bucks and that's the actual price of it) without resorting to the water kit bundle or massive heatsinks that have a fan in the middle and the outside(How much are they going to bundle it for the FX-8350?)
As well as alot of 120mm 80-90CFM 20dB fans, all controlled by a 6-8 channel LCD PWM fan controller (Oh god ....) or maybe one with just pots on the front would do
