Introduction In the development of all computer technology in recent years, the course towards integration and the accompanying miniaturization is well traced. And here we are talking not so much about the usual desktop personal computers, but about a huge park of "user-level" devices - smartphones, laptops, players, tablets, etc. - which are reborn in new form factors, absorbing more and more new functions. As for the desktops, it is this trend that affects them in the last turn. Of course, in recent years, the vector of user interest has slightly deviated towards small-sized computing devices, but it's hard to call this a global trend. The basic architecture of x86 systems, which assumes the presence of separate processor, memory, video card, motherboard and disk subsystem, remains unchanged, and this is precisely what limits the possibilities for miniaturization. It is possible to reduce each of the listed components, but a qualitative change in the dimensions of the resulting system in total will not work.
However, in the course of the last year, it seems, there has been a certain turning point in the environment of personal computers. With the introduction of modern semiconductor technological processes with "finer" standards, developers of x86 processors are able to gradually transfer the functions of some devices that were previously separate components to the CPU. So, no one is surprised that the memory controller and, in some cases, the PCI Express bus controller have long become a part of the central processor, and the motherboard chipset has degenerated into a single microcircuit - the south bridge. But in 2011, a much more significant event happened - a graphics controller began to be built into processors for productive desktops. And we are not talking about some frail video cores that are only capable of ensuring the operation of the operating system interface, but about completely full-fledged solutions that in their performance can be opposed to discrete entry-level graphics accelerators and probably surpass all those integrated video cores that were built into systems logic sets earlier.
The pioneer was Intel, which released Sandy Bridge processors with integrated Intel HD Graphics for desktop computers at the beginning of the year. True, she thought that good integrated graphics would be of interest primarily to users of mobile computers, and for desktop CPUs, only a stripped-down version of the video core was offered. The incorrectness of this approach was later demonstrated by AMD, which released Fusion processors with full-fledged graphics cores of the Radeon HD series on the market of desktop systems. Such proposals immediately gained popularity not only as solutions for the office, but also as a basis for inexpensive home computers, which forced Intel to reconsider its attitude towards the prospects of CPUs with integrated graphics. The company has updated its Sandy Bridge line of desktop processors by adding faster Intel HD Graphics to its desktop offerings. As a result, now users who want to build a compact integrated system are faced with the question: which manufacturer's platform is more rational to prefer? After conducting comprehensive testing, we will try to give recommendations on choosing one or another processor with an integrated graphics accelerator.
Terminology question: CPU or APU?
If you are already familiar with the integrated graphics processors that AMD and Intel offer for desktop users, then you know that these manufacturers are trying to distance their products as much as possible from each other, trying to instill the idea that their direct comparison is incorrect. The main "confusion" is brought by AMD, which refers its solutions to a new class of APUs, and not to conventional CPUs. What's the difference?APU stands for Accelerated Processing Unit. If we turn to detailed explanations, it turns out that from a hardware point of view, this is a hybrid device that combines traditional computing cores on a single semiconductor crystal. general purpose with a graphics core. In other words, the same CPU with integrated graphics. However, there is still a difference, and it lies at the program level. The graphics core included in the APU must have a universal architecture in the form of an array of stream processors capable of working not only on the synthesis of a three-dimensional image, but also on solving computational problems.
That is, the APU offers a more flexible design than simply combining graphics and computing resources within a single semiconductor chip. The idea is to create a symbiosis of these disparate parts, when some of the calculations can be performed by means of the graphics core. True, as always in such cases, to tap into this promising opportunity requires support from the outside. software.
AMD Fusion processors with a video core, known under the codename Llano, fully meet this definition, they are precisely the APU. They integrate the graphics cores of the Radeon HD family, which, among other things, support the ATI Stream technology and the OpenCL 1.1 programming interface, through which calculations on the graphics core are really possible. In theory, a number of applications can get practical benefits from running on an array of Radeon HD stream processors, including cryptographic algorithms, rendering of three-dimensional images, or tasks of post-processing of photos, sound and video. In practice, however, everything is much more complicated. Implementation difficulties and dubious real performance gains have held back widespread support for the concept so far. Therefore, in most cases, an APU can be viewed as nothing more than a simple CPU with an integrated graphics core.
Intel, by contrast, has a more conservative terminology. It continues to refer to its Sandy Bridge processors containing the integrated HD Graphics core by the traditional term CPU. Which, however, has some ground, because the OpenCL 1.1 programming interface is not supported by Intel graphics (compatibility with it will be provided in the next generation Ivy Bridge products). So, Intel does not yet provide for any joint work of dissimilar parts of the processor on the same computing tasks.
With one important exception. The fact is that the graphics cores of Intel processors contain a specialized Quick Sync block, focused on hardware acceleration work of video stream encoding algorithms. Of course, as in the case of OpenCL, it requires special software support, but it can really improve the performance when transcoding video. high resolution almost an order of magnitude. So in the end, we can say that Sandy Bridge is to some extent also a hybrid processor.
Is it legal to compare AMD APUs and Intel CPUs? From a theoretical point of view, an equal sign cannot be put between an APU and a CPU with a built-in video accelerator, but in real life we have two names for the same. AMD Llano processors can accelerate parallel computing, and Intel Sandy Bridge can only use graphics power when transcoding video, but in fact, both of these features are almost never used. So from a practical point of view, any of the processors discussed in this article is a regular CPU and a video card assembled inside a single microcircuit.
Processors - Test Participants
In fact, you shouldn't think of processors with integrated graphics as some kind of special offer aimed at a certain group of users with atypical requests. Universal integration is a global trend, and such processors have become the standard offer in the lower and middle price range. Both AMD Fusion and Intel Sandy Bridge have ousted CPUs without graphics from the current offerings, so even if you are not going to rely on an integrated video core, we can not offer anything other than focusing on the same processors with graphics. Fortunately, no one forces the built-in video core to be used, and it can be turned off.Thus, starting to compare a CPU with an integrated GPU, we came to a more general task - comparative testing of modern processors with a cost of $ 60 to $ 140. Let's see what suitable options in this price range AMD and Intel can offer us, and what specific processor models we were able to involve in the tests.
AMD Fusion: A8, A6 and A4
To use desktop processors with an integrated graphics core, AMD offers a dedicated Socket FM1 platform that is compatible exclusively with the Llano family of processors - A8, A6 and A4. These processors have two, three or four general-purpose Husky cores with a microarchitecture similar to the Athlon II, and the Sumo graphics core, inheriting the microarchitecture of the younger representatives of the five thousandth Radeon HD series.
The line of processors of the Llano family looks quite self-sufficient, it includes processors of different computing and graphics performance. However, in lineup there is one regularity - the computing performance is related to the graphics performance, that is, the processors with the largest number of cores and with the maximum clock frequency are always supplied with the fastest video cores.
Intel Core i3 and Pentium
Intel can oppose the AMD Fusion processors with its dual-core Core i3 and Pentium, which do not have their own collective name, but are also equipped with graphics cores and have a comparable cost. Of course, there are graphics cores in more expensive quad-core processors, but they play a clearly secondary role there, so Core i5 and Core i7 were not included in the actual testing.
Intel did not create its own infrastructure for low-cost integrated platforms, therefore Core processors i3 and Pentium can be used in the same LGA1155 motherboards as the rest of Sandy Bridges. To use the integrated video core, motherboards based on special H67, H61 or Z68 logic sets are required.
All Intel processors that can be considered competitors for Llano are based on dual-core design... At the same time, Intel does not place much emphasis on graphics performance - most CPUs have a weak version of HD Graphics 2000 graphics with six executive devices. An exception was made only for the Core i3-2125 - this processor is equipped with the most powerful graphics core in the company's arsenal, HD Graphics 3000 with twelve executive devices.
How we tested
After we got acquainted with the set of processors that are presented in this testing, it's time to pay attention to the test platforms. Below is a list of components from which the composition of the test systems was formed.
Processors:
AMD A8-3850 (Llano, 4 cores, 2.9 GHz, 4 MB L2, Radeon HD 6550D);
AMD A8-3800 (Llano, 4 cores, 2.4 / 2.7 GHz, 4 MB L2, Radeon HD 6550D);
AMD A6-3650 (Llano, 4 cores, 2.6 GHz, 4 MB L2, Radeon HD 6530D);
AMD A6-3500 (Llano, 3 cores, 2.1 / 2.4 GHz, 3 MB L2, Radeon HD 6530D);
AMD A4-3400 (Llano, 2 cores, 2.7 GHz, 1 MB L2, Radeon HD 6410D);
AMD A4-3300 (Llano, 2 cores, 2.5 GHz, 1 MB L2, Radeon HD 6410D);
Intel Core i3-2130 (Sandy Bridge, 2 cores + HT, 3.4 GHz, 3 MB L3, HD Graphics 2000);
Intel Core i3-2125 (Sandy Bridge, 2 cores + HT, 3.3 GHz, 3 MB L3, HD Graphics 3000);
Intel Core i3-2120 (Sandy Bridge, 2 cores + HT, 3.3 GHz, 3 MB L3, HD Graphics 2000);
Intel Pentium G860 (Sandy Bridge, 2 cores, 3.0 GHz, 3 MB L3, HD Graphics);
Intel Pentium G840 (Sandy Bridge, 2 cores, 2.8 GHz, 3 MB L3, HD Graphics);
Intel Pentium G620 (Sandy Bridge, 2 cores, 2.6 GHz, 3 MB L3, HD Graphics).
Motherboards:
ASUS P8Z68-V Pro (LGA1155, Intel Z68 Express);
Gigabyte GA-A75-UD4H (Socket FM1, AMD A75).
Memory - 2 x 2 GB DDR3-1600 SDRAM 9-9-9-27-1T (Kingston KHX1600C8D3K2 / 4GX).
Hard disk: Kingston SNVP325-S2 / 128GB.
Power supply: Tagan TG880-U33II (880 W).
Operating system: Microsoft Windows 7 SP1 Ultimate x64.
Drivers:
AMD Catalyst Display Driver 11.9;
AMD Chipset Driver 8.863;
Intel Chipset Driver 9.2.0.1030;
Intel Graphics Media Accelerator Driver 15.22.50.64.2509;
Intel Management Engine Driver 7.1.10.1065;
Intel Rapid Storage Technology 10.5.0.1027.
Since the main purpose of this test was to study the capabilities of processors with integrated graphics, all tests were carried out without using an external graphics card. The built-in video cores were responsible for displaying the image on the screen, 3D functions and accelerating HD video playback.
It should be noted that due to the lack of DirectX 11 support in Intel graphics cores, testing in all graphics applications was carried out in DirectX 9 / DirectX 10 modes.
Performance in common tasks
Overall performanceTo assess the performance of processors in common tasks, we traditionally use the Bapco SYSmark 2012 test, which simulates user work in common modern office programs and applications for creating and processing digital content. The idea of the test is very simple: it produces a single metric that characterizes the weighted average speed of a computer.
As you can see, AMD Fusion series processors look just shameful in traditional applications. AMD's fastest quad-core Socket FM1 processor, the A8-3850, barely outperforms the dual-core Pentium G620 at half the price. All the other representatives of the AMD A8, A6 and A4 series are hopelessly behind Intel competitors. In general, this is a quite natural result of using the old microarchitecture, which migrated there from the Phenom II and Athlon II, in the basis of the Llano processors. Until AMD implements processor cores with a higher specific performance, even a quad-core APU of this company will be very difficult to fight with current and regularly updated Intel solutions.
A deeper understanding of the SYSmark 2012 results can provide insight into the performance scores obtained in various system use cases. The Office Productivity script simulates a typical office work: preparing texts, processing spreadsheets, working with by e-mail and visiting Internet sites. The script uses the following set of applications: ABBYY FineReader Pro 10.0, Adobe Acrobat Pro 9, Adobe Flash Player 10.1, Microsoft Excel 2010, Microsoft Internet Explorer 9, Microsoft Outlook 2010, Microsoft PowerPoint 2010, Microsoft Word 2010 and WinZip Pro 14.5.
The Media Creation scenario simulates the creation of a commercial using pre-shot digital images and video. For this purpose, popular packages from Adobe are used: Photoshop CS5 Extended, Premiere Pro CS5 and After Effects CS5.
Web Development is a scenario within which the creation of a website is modeled. Applications used: Adobe photoshop CS5 Extended, Adobe Premiere Pro CS5, Adobe Dreamweaver CS5, Mozilla Firefox 3.6.8 and Microsoft Internet Explorer 9.
Data / Financial Analysis Scenario is dedicated to statistical analysis and forecasting of market trends that are performed in Microsoft Excel 2010.
3D Modeling Script is all about creating 3D objects and rendering static and dynamic scenes using Adobe Photoshop CS5 Extended, Autodesk 3ds Max 2011, Autodesk AutoCAD 2011 and Google SketchUp Pro 8.
In the last scenario, System Management, you create backups and install software and updates. Several different versions of Mozilla Firefox Installer and WinZip Pro 14.5 are involved here.
The only type of application that AMD Fusion processors can achieve with acceptable performance are 3D modeling and rendering. In such tasks, the number of cores is a weighty argument, and the quad-core A8 and A6 can provide higher performance than, for example, Intel Pentium. But up to the level set by Core i3 processors in which support for Hyper-Threading technology is implemented, AMD's offerings fall short even in the most favorable case for themselves.
Application performance
To measure the speed of processors when compressing information, we use the WinRAR archiver, with which we archive a folder with various files with a total size of 1.4 GB with the maximum compression ratio.
We measure performance in Adobe Photoshop using our own benchmark, which is a creatively reworked Retouch Artists Photoshop Speed Test including typical processing of four 10-megapixel images taken with a digital camera.
When testing the audio transcoding speed, the Apple iTunes utility is used, with the help of which the contents of a CD-disc are converted to AAC format. Note that a characteristic feature of this program is the ability to use only a couple of processor cores.
To measure the speed of video transcoding into H.264 format, the x264 HD test is used, which is based on measuring the processing time of the original MPEG-2 video recorded in 720p resolution with a 4 Mbps stream. It should be noted that the results of this test are of great practical importance, since the x264 codec used in it underlies numerous popular transcoding utilities, for example, HandBrake, MeGUI, VirtualDub, etc.
Testing the final rendering speed in Maxon Cinema 4D is performed using the specialized Cinebench benchmark.
We also used the Fritz Chess Benchmark, which evaluates the speed of the popular chess algorithm used in the programs of the Deep Fritz family.
Looking at the diagrams, you can once again repeat everything that has already been said in relation to the SYSmark 2011 results. AMD processors, which the company offers for use in integrated systems, can boast of any acceptable performance only in those computing tasks where the load is good. is parallelized. For example, in 3D rendering, video transcoding, or when iterating over and evaluating chess positions. And then, the competitive level of performance in this case is observed only in the senior quad-core AMD A8-3850 with a clock frequency that is increased to the detriment of power consumption and heat dissipation. Still, AMD processors with a 65-watt thermal design lag behind any of the Core i3s, even in the most favorable case for them. Accordingly, against the background of Fusion, representatives of the Intel Pentium family look quite decent: these dual-core processors perform about the same as the three-core A6-3500 with a well-parallelized load, and surpass the older A8 in programs like WinRAR, iTunes or Photoshop.
In addition to the conducted tests, to check how the power of graphics cores can be used to solve everyday computing tasks, we conducted a study of the video transcoding speed in Cyberlink MediaEspresso 6.5. This utility has support for computing on graphics cores - it supports both Intel Quick Sync and ATI Stream. Our test consisted of measuring the time it took to transcode a 1.5GB 1080p video to H.264 (which was a 20-minute episode of the hit TV series) downsampled for viewing on an iPhone 4.
The results are divided into two groups. The first includes Intel Core i3 processors, which have support for Quick Sync technology. Numbers speak better than words: Quick Sync transcodes HD video content several times faster than any other toolkit. The second large group unites all other processors, among which CPUs with a large number of cores are in the first place. The Stream technology promoted by AMD, as we can see, does not manifest itself in any way, and the Fusion series APUs with two cores show no better result than Pentium processors, which transcode video solely by the computational cores.
Graphics core performance
The group of 3D gaming tests opens with the results of the 3DMark Vantage benchmark, which was used with the Performance profile.
A change in the nature of the load immediately leads to a change in leaders. The graphics core of any AMD Fusion processors outperforms any Intel HD Graphics in practice. Even the Core i3-2125, equipped with the HD Graphics 3000 video core with twelve execution units, is able to reach only the performance level demonstrated by the AMD A4-3300 with the weakest integrated graphics accelerator Radeon HD 6410D among all presented in the Fusion test. All the rest of Intel processors in terms of 3D performance are outperformed by AMD's proposals by two to four times.
Some compensation for the failure in graphics performance can be the results of the CPU test, but it should be understood that the speed of the CPU and GPU are not interchangeable parameters. We should strive to balance these characteristics, and as is the case with the compared processors, we will see further, analyzing their gaming performance, which depends on the power of both the GPU and the computing component of hybrid processors.
To study the speed of work in real games, we selected Far Cry 2, Dirt 3, Crysis 2, the beta version of World of Planes and Civilization V. Testing was carried out at a resolution of 1280x800, and the quality level was set to Medium.
In gaming tests, a very positive picture for AMD's proposals is developing. Despite the fact that they have rather mediocre computational performance, powerful graphics allow them to show good (for integrated solutions) results. Almost always, representatives of the Fusion series allow you to get a higher number of frames per second than Intel platform with processors of the Core i3 and Pentium families gives.
Even the fact that Intel began to build in a productive version of the HD Graphics 3000 graphics core did not save the position of the Core i3 processors. The Core i3-2125 equipped with it turned out to be faster than its counterpart Core i3-2120 with HD Graphics 2000 by about 50%, but the graphics embedded in Llano, even faster. As a result, even the Core i3-2125 can only compete with the cheap A4-3300, while the rest of the Sandy Bridge microarchitecture carriers look even worse. And if we add to the results shown in the diagrams the lack of support for DirectX 11 in the video cores of Intel processors, then the situation for the current solutions of this manufacturer seems even more hopeless. Only the next generation of the Ivy Bridge microarchitecture can fix it, where the graphics core will receive both much higher performance and modern functionality.
Even if we disregard specific numbers and look at the situation qualitatively, AMD's offerings look like a much more attractive option for an entry-level gaming system. Senior Fusion A8 series processors, with certain compromises in terms of screen resolution and image quality settings, allow you to play almost any modern games without resorting to the services of an external video card. No Intel processors for cheap gaming systems we cannot recommend - the various HD Graphics options have not yet matured for use in this environment.
Energy consumption
Systems based on processors with integrated graphics cores are gaining more and more popularity not only due to the opening possibilities for miniaturization of systems. In many cases, consumers opt for them, guided by the opening opportunities to reduce the cost of computers. Such processors allow not only to save on a video card, they also allow you to assemble a system that is more economical in operation, since its total power consumption will obviously be lower than the consumption of a platform with discrete graphics. A concomitant bonus is quieter operating modes, since a decrease in consumption translates into a decrease in heat generation and the possibility of using simpler cooling systems.That is why developers of processors with integrated graphics cores try to minimize the power consumption of their products. Most of the CPUs and APUs reviewed in this article have an estimated typical heat dissipation in the 65W range - and this is an unspoken standard. However, as we know, AMD and Intel approach the TDP parameter somewhat differently, and therefore it will be interesting to assess the practical consumption of systems with different processors.
The graphs below show two energy consumption values. The first is the total system consumption (without a monitor), which is the sum of the energy consumption of all components involved in the system. The second is the consumption of only one processor through a dedicated 12-volt power line. In both cases, the efficiency of the power supply is not taken into account, since our measuring equipment is installed after the power supply and records the voltages and currents entering the system via 12-, 5- and 3.3-volt lines. During the measurements, the load on the processors was created by the 64-bit version of the LinX 0.6.4 utility. The FurMark 1.9.1 utility was used to load the graphics cores. In addition, to correctly estimate idle power consumption, we have activated all available energy-saving technologies, as well as Turbo Core technology (where supported).
At rest, all systems showed the total energy consumption, which is approximately at the same level. At the same time, as we can see, Intel processors practically do not load the processor power line in idle mode, and competing AMD solutions, on the contrary, consume up to 8 W. But this does not mean that the representatives of the Fusion family do not know how to fall into deep energy-saving states. The differences are caused by the different implementation of the power scheme: in Socket FM1 systems, both the computing and graphics cores of the processor and the north bridge built into the processor are powered from the processor line, while in Intel systems the north bridge of the processor takes power from the motherboard.
Maximum compute load finds that the power efficiency issues inherent in the Phenom II and Athlon II AMD processors have not gone away with the introduction of 32nm process technology. Llano uses the same microarchitecture and loses to Sandy Bridge in the same way in terms of the ratio of performance per watt of electricity consumed. Older Socket FM1 systems consume about twice as much as systems with LGA1155 Core i3 processors, despite the fact that the computing performance of the latter is clearly higher. The gap in power consumption between Pentium and the younger A4 and A6 is not that huge, but nevertheless, the situation does not change qualitatively.
Under the graphics load, the picture is almost the same - Intel processors are significantly more economical. But in this case, their significantly higher 3D performance can serve as a good excuse for AMD Fusion. Note that in gaming tests, the Core i3-2125 and A4-3300 "squeezed out" the same number of frames per second, and in terms of consumption under the load on the graphics core, they also went very close to each other.
The simultaneous load on all units of hybrid processors allows you to obtain a result that can be figuratively represented as the sum of the two previous graphs. The A8-3850 and A6-3650 processors, which have a 100-watt thermal package, seriously break away from the rest of the 65-watt offerings from AMD and Intel. However, even without them, Fusion processors are less economical than Intel solutions in the same price range.
When using processors as the basis of a media center, busy with playing high-definition video, an atypical situation arises. The computational cores are mostly idle here, and the decoding of the video stream is assigned to specialized blocks built into the graphics cores. Therefore, platforms based on AMD processors manage to achieve good energy efficiency; in general, their consumption does not greatly exceed the consumption of systems with Pentium or Core i3 processors. Moreover, the lowest frequency AMD Fusion, the A6-3500 offers the best economy in this use case.
conclusions
At first glance, summing up the test results is easy. AMD and Intel processors with integrated graphics have shown completely dissimilar advantages, which allows us to recommend either one or the other depending on the planned use of the computer.So, strong point processors of the AMD Fusion family turned out to have a graphics core built into them with a relatively high performance and compatibility with the DirectX 11 and Open CL 1.1 programming interfaces. Thus, these processors can be recommended for those systems where the quality and speed of 3D graphics is not the least important. At the same time, the processors included in the Fusion series use general-purpose cores based on the old and slow K10 microarchitecture, which translates into their low performance in computational tasks. Therefore, if you are interested in options that provide the best performance in regular non-gaming applications, you should look towards Intel's Core i3 and Pentium, even though such CPUs are equipped with fewer processing cores than competing offerings from AMD.
Of course, in general, AMD's approach to the design of processors with an integrated video accelerator seems to be more rational. The APU models offered by the company are well balanced in the sense that the speed of the computing part is quite adequate to the speed of the graphics and vice versa. As a result, the older A8 series processors can be considered as a possible basis for entry-level gaming systems. Even in modern games, such processors and the Radeon HD 6550D video accelerators integrated into them can provide acceptable playability. With the younger A6 and A4 series with weaker versions of the graphics core, the situation is more complicated. For universal gaming systems of the lower level, their performance is no longer enough, therefore, it is possible to rely on such solutions only in those cases when it comes to creating multimedia computers, which will run extremely graphically simple casual games or network role-playing games of past generations.
However, whatever is said about balance, the A4 and A6 series are poorly suited for demanding computing applications. Within the same budget, Intel Pentium line-ups can offer significantly faster computing performance. To tell the truth, against the background of Sandy Bridge, only the A8-3850 can be considered a processor with an acceptable speed in common programs. And even then, its good results are manifested far from everywhere and, moreover, they are provided with increased heat dissipation, which not every computer owner will like without a discrete video card.
In other words, it's a shame that Intel still can't offer a graphics core worthy of performance. Even the Core i3-2125, equipped with the fastest Intel HD Graphics 3000 graphics in the company's arsenal, works at the level of AMD A4-3300 in games, since the speed in this case is limited by the performance of the built-in video accelerator. All the other Intel processors are equipped with a one and a half times slower video core, and in 3D games they appear very faded, often showing a completely unacceptable number of frames per second. Therefore, think about Intel processors, as a possible basis for a system capable of working with 3D graphics, we would not recommend at all. The Core i3 and Pentium video core does an excellent job of displaying the operating system interface and playing high-definition video, but it is not capable of more. So the most suitable application for Core i3 and Pentium processors is seen in systems where the computing power of general-purpose cores is important with good energy efficiency - in these parameters, no AMD offers with Sandy Bridge can compete.
And in conclusion, it should be reminded that Intel's LGA1155 platform is much more promising than AMD Socket FM1. When purchasing an AMD Fusion series processor, you should be mentally prepared for the fact that it will be possible to improve a computer based on it within very limited limits. AMD plans to release only a few more Socket FM1 models from the A8 and A6 series with a slightly increased clock frequency, and their successors coming out next year, known under the codename Trinitу, will not have compatibility with this platform. Intel's LGA1155 platform is much more promising. Not only can the much more computationally productive Core i5 and Core i7 be installed in it today, but the Ivy Bridge processors planned for next year in motherboards purchased today should work.
For a long time, the integrated systems market was completely ruled by Intel, while the level of performance of integrated graphics in 3D applications was below any criticism. However, it was originally intended for the corporate sector of the market and fully satisfied its needs.
ATI and NVIDIA also produced integrated chipsets with a video core of their own design, but their market share was small, since the main activity of these companies is the release of discrete graphic solutions... At one time, the performance of Intel integrated graphics was in no way inferior to competitors, but the speed and functionality of ATI and NVIDIA products grew much faster. And, starting with the emergence of AMD 780G chipsets and NVIDIA GeForce 9300, the difference in 3D performance has become quite significant, not to mention support for hardware HD video decoding. Intel responded to the emergence of these products with the release of the G4x series chipsets, but they did not close the performance gap. Then Intel seriously thought about it and ... prepared a local revolution.
So, in early 2010, Intel introduced a number of new chipsets H55, H57 and Q57, as well as several Clarkdale processors with an integrated graphics core. The latter is called Intel HD Graphics and is a logical continuation of the Intel GMA X4x00 family, which is an integral part of the Intel G41-G45 chipsets. The new processors are made in the LGA1156 form factor and are subdivided into three families - Core i5, Core i3 and Pentium, which have some differences in operating frequencies and functionality.
What systems are the new products designed for? Firstly, these are mid-range computers based on the Intel P55 chipset, the owners of which are eager to save some amount of money and purchase an inexpensive processor. The cheapest models today are the Core i3-530 and Pentium G6950 processors, which are offered in stores for about 3800 and 3000 rubles. respectively. This is a very good offer, but the owner of such a system should be prepared for the fact that he will not be able to use the integrated graphics core, and the memory subsystem performance will be slightly lower than that of systems with Intel Core i5 processors on the Lynnfield core. The fact is that the P55 chipset does not support the Intel FDI (Flexible Display Interface; modified DisplayPort protocol) bus, which carries the video signal from the graphics core. Note that the memory controller for Lynnfield processors is integrated into the processor core, while in Clarkdale processors it is part of the graphics core. The latter is a separate crystal, which, moreover, is made according to another 45 nm process technology (the processor core has 32 nm). Roughly speaking, Intel engineers have combined the Clarkdale processor core and the improved G45 northbridge in one package. Thus, we can make a preliminary conclusion that the popularity of the Intel P55 + Clarkdale bundle will be directly proportional to the number of users who want to save 3000-4000 rubles. (the difference between the cheapest Clarkdale models (Core i3-530, Pentium G6950) and Lynnfield (Core i5-750).
The second group of users is planning to use Clarkdale processors for their intended purpose, namely in conjunction with the H55, H57 and Q57 chipsets, with which it becomes possible to use the integrated graphics core. It is worth noting here that the speed and functionality of the Intel HD Graphics of the Clarkdale processors significantly surpasses the corresponding parameters of the graphics cores of the G4x family of chipsets, and even more so of the G3x chipsets. However, motherboards based on "outdated" chipsets do not disappear from store shelves at all. The reason is quite simple - HD Graphics is not currently intended to replace budget graphics. This is confirmed by the price level: if a bundle of a Clarkdale processor and a motherboard on the H55 chipset costs more than 7000 rubles. (3500 + 4000), then a system based on the G45 chipset with an almost identical LGA775 processor costs a couple of thousand rubles less. At the same time, the use of motherboards based on G41, G31 chipsets, as well as super-cheap Intel Celeron processors, makes it possible to assemble a system for about 3300 rubles, which is more than half the price of an integrated LGA1156 platform. Needless to say, the productivity of an accountant or an office worker will be exactly the same on any of the listed computers.
However, the future of systems with integrated graphics is clearly associated with the LGA1156 platform. The fact is that Intel plans to release a new line of Celeron processors with an integrated graphics core, and at quite competitive prices relative to the current Celeron models. In addition, it can be assumed that motherboards for such processors will also be significantly cheaper. The reason is that the ICH10 "south bridge" costs about $ 3, and the "south bridges" of the previous generations are even cheaper. At the same time, motherboard manufacturers manage to create products based on G41, G31 chipsets worth 1500-1800 rubles. and get some kind of profit. As for the Intel H55 chipset, at present the "official" price for it is $ 40, but in terms of functionality this chip fully corresponds to the "south bridge" ICH10, with the exception of support for the Intel FDI protocol. Accordingly, Intel has a significant price reduction reserve, using which the company can regulate the speed of user transition from the LGA775 platform (G31, G41-G45) to the LGA1156 platform. Simply put, Intel can create a situation even tomorrow when the cost of a bundle of an integrated Celeron LGA1156 processor and a motherboard based on the H55 chipset will amount to the already mentioned 3,300 rubles.
Summing up the preliminary results, we can say that at the moment the combination of the Clarkdale processor and the Intel H55 chipset is intended for home computers whose users are not fond of video games, but actively use PCs for multimedia, including playback of HD content. By the way, in our materials we have already said that Intel has significantly modified the blocks of the graphics core responsible for hardware video decoding in MPEG2, VC-1 and H.264 formats. Recall that in addition, the Intel HD Graphics core can decode two independent video streams simultaneously, as well as transmit data in Dolby TrueHD / DTS-HD Master Audio formats in their original form.
Returning to video games, we note that any built-in video core cannot match the speed of discrete high-end and mid-range graphics cards. However, do not forget about the mass of old, as well as relatively simple ("casual") games, which are very undemanding to the speed of the graphics subsystem, but have a certain popularity among users. However, in testing we will use modern games, since they most accurately reflect the difference in speed between different systems.
But before proceeding directly to testing, let's take a look at the subject of today's review - the Intel Core i3-530 processor.
The CPU-Z utility reports the following information:
Here is a table of specifications for Intel processors based on the Clarkdale core:
| Series | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Core | |||
| Bclk, MHz | |||
| Memory | |||
| L3, Mb | |||
| Technical process |
32 nm |
32 nm |
32 nm |
| TurboBoost support | |||
| TDP, W |
⇡ Performance
In almost all reviews of Clarkdale processors, the performance of its graphics core was compared with integrated systems based on Intel G45 and AMD 785G chipsets. In the first pair, Clarkdale's superiority is quite understandable, while the second is causing the eternal debate "AMD versus Intel". Therefore, to make this test as interesting as possible, we compared the speed of Intel HD Graphics to the very best integrated chipset for Intel processors. The last one is NVIDIA GeForce 9300, which was released more than a year ago and is intended for processors in the LGA775 form factor (we will not dwell on the frictions between NVIDIA and Intel in terms of licensing products for LGA1156 / LGA1366). Thus, we will look at the progress of integrated graphics performance within the Intel platform. In addition, we carried out an additional series of tests in which we equalized clock frequency processors Intel Core i3-530 and Core 2 Duo E7200, which will allow you to evaluate the "pure" difference in the speed of graphics cores from different manufacturers. And finally, to make this comparison as complete and useful as possible, we have added the performance results of the latest AMD 890G chipset, as well as a kind of starting point - the results of the Intel G41 chipset.
The following equipment was used in the test system:
|
Test Equipment |
|
|---|---|
| Processors | Intel Core 2 Duo E7200 based on Wolfdale core Intel Core i3-530 on the Clarkdale core AMD Phenom II X3 720 |
| Motherboard | ASUS P7H55-M Pro on Intel H55 chipset ASUS P5N7A-VM on NVIDIA GeForce 9300 |
| Cooler | Gigabyte g-power Intel LGA1156 BOX |
| Video card | Integrated graphics NVIDIA GeForce 9300 Integrated Intel HD Graphics Integrated graphics ATI Radeon HD4290 Intel Integrated Graphics GMA X4500 |
| HDD | Samsung HD160JJ |
| Memory | 2x 1024 MB DDR3 A-Data AD31600X001GU 2x 1024 MB GoodRAM DDR2 GP1066D264L5 / 2GDC |
| Power Supply | Floston Energetix E2FP-1000W |
| OS | MS Windows 7 |
First, let's look at the results of synthetic tests.
Application software tests
The SuperPI result is measured in seconds, i.e. less is better.
Data compression (WinRAR) was measured in kbps, i.e. more is better.
Game software tests
As far as speed is concerned, the HD Graphics core showed itself to be the best when compared with the NVIDIA GeForce 9300 core. However, Intel graphics has certain architectural weaknesses, which, however, are more than compensated for by the high-speed processor core. As for the AMD platform, it is understandable that it won in most tests due to the combination of the latest generation of the graphics core and a rather powerful processor (moreover, not cheap - it is 500 rubles more expensive than Intel Core i3-530). Note that Intel's assortment includes processors with integrated graphics that are more powerful than the Core i3-530, and the difference in platform speed can be much less (or disappear altogether).
It is worth noting that if there was a motherboard based on the NVIDIA GeForce 9300 chipset with support for Intel Core i3 processors, then the performance of such a platform would be much higher than the Intel Core i3 + Intel H55 bundle. This is supported by two facts. First, the performance of the Clarkdale processor core is noticeably higher than the speed of the Wolfdale core when operating at the same frequency. This can be seen both in synthetic benchmarks and in real-world applications. Secondly, as the speed of the Intel Core i3 processor core increases, the overall 3D graphics performance does not increase. At the same time, the NVIDIA chipset has a significant headroom in terms of scaling 3D performance depending on the processor speed. However, Intel did not renew the licensing cooperation with NVIDIA (moreover, it made it share the SLI technology), which makes the appearance of new NVIDIA chipsets for the LGA1156 platform an unlikely event. Accordingly, in the near future, Intel systems with integrated graphics will be based exclusively on their own chipsets.
Now let's touch on the question of the cost of Intel Core i3 processors. There is a paradox here - this processor is both expensive and cheap. For the buyer of a system with a motherboard based on an Intel P55 chipset and a discrete graphics card, this processor is definitely cheap and allows you to save 3000-4000 rubles. This is a significant amount that can be spent on a more powerful video card and, as a result, get a faster system. As for the buyer of an office or home system with integrated graphics, this family of processors is very expensive and, moreover, requires a very expensive motherboard based on the Intel H55 chipset. Therefore, perhaps the only users for whom the purchase of a bundle of an Intel Core i3 processor and a motherboard on the H55 chipset is justified are those who make high demands on the processor speed, and their requirements for the graphics subsystem are limited to playing HD content.
Hello dear users and lovers of computer hardware. Today we will speculate on what is integrated graphics in a processor, why is it needed at all, and whether such a solution is an alternative to discrete, that is, external video cards.
From the point of view of engineering design, the integrated graphics core, ubiquitous in their products by Intel and AMD is not a video card per se. It is a video chip that has been integrated into the CPU architecture to fulfill the basic duties of a discrete accelerator. But let's deal with everything in more detail.
In this article, you will learn:
History of appearance
Companies first began embedding graphics into their own chips in the mid-2000s. Intel started development with Intel GMA, however this technology showed itself rather poorly, and therefore was unsuitable for video games. As a result, the famous HD Graphics technology is born (at the moment the latest representative of the line is HD graphics 630 in the eighth generation of Coffee Lake chips). The video core on the Westmere architecture debuted, as part of the Arrandale mobile chips and the Clarkdale desktop chips (2010).
AMD took a different path. The company first bought out ATI Electronics, a once-cool graphics card maker. Then she began to pore over AMD's own Fusion technology, creating her own APUs - a central processing unit with an integrated video core (Accelerated Processing Unit). The first generation chips made their debut as part of the Liano architecture, and then Trinity. Well, the graphics of the Radeon r7 series on long time registered in the composition of laptops and netbooks of the middle class.
Advantages of embedded solutions in games
So. What is an integrated card for and what are its differences from a discrete one.
We will try to make a comparison with an explanation of each position, making everything as reasoned as possible. Let's start with such characteristics as performance. We will consider and compare the most relevant solutions at the moment from Intel (HD 630 with a graphics accelerator frequency from 350 to 1200 MHz) and AMD (Vega 11 with a frequency of 300-1300 MHz), as well as the advantages that these solutions provide. 
Let's start with the cost of the system. Built-in graphics allow you to save a lot on the purchase of a discrete solution, up to $ 150, which is critical when creating the most economical PC for office and use.
The frequency of the AMD graphics accelerator is noticeably higher, and the performance of the adapter from the red ones is significantly higher, which indicates the following indicators in the same games:
| The game | Settings | Intel | AMD |
| PUBG | FullHD, low | 8-14 fps | 26-36 fps |
| Gta v | FullHD, medium | 15-22 fps | 55-66 fps |
| Wolfenstein ii | HD, low | 9-14 fps | 85–99 fps |
| Fortnite | FullHD, medium | 9-13 fps | 36-45 fps |
| Rocket league | FullHD, high | 15-27 fps | 35-53 fps |
| CS: GO | FullHD, maximum | 32–63 fps | 105-164 fps |
| Overwatch | FullHD, medium | 15-22 fps | 50-60 fps |
As you can see, Vega 11 is the best choice for inexpensive "gaming" systems, since in some cases the adapter's performance reaches the level of a full-fledged GeForce GT 1050. And in most online battles it shows itself perfectly.
For now, only the AMD Ryzen 2400G comes with this graphics, but it's definitely worth checking out.
Option for office tasks and home use
What are the most common requirements for your PC? If you exclude games, you get the following set of parameters:
- watching movies in HD quality and videos on Youtube (FullHD and in rare cases 4K);
- work with the browser;
- listening to music;
- communication with friends or colleagues using instant messengers;
- Application Development;
- office tasks ( Microsoft Office and similar programs).
All of these items work fine with the integrated graphics core at resolutions up to FullHD. 
The only nuance that must be taken into account without fail is support for video outputs by the motherboard on which you are going to install the processor. Check this point in advance so that there are no problems in the future.
Disadvantages of integrated graphics
Since we have dealt with the pros, we need to work out the disadvantages of the solution.
- The main disadvantage of this venture is productivity. Yes, you can play with a clear conscience more or less modern toys at low and high settings, but graphics lovers will definitely not like this idea. Well, if you work with graphics professionally (processing, rendering, video editing, post-production), and even on 2-3 monitors, then the integrated video type will definitely not suit you.
- Moment number 2: lack of its own high-speed memory (in modern cards these are GDDR5, GDDR5X and HBM). Formally, a video chip can use at least 64 GB of memory, but where will all of it come from? That's right, from the operational. This means that it is necessary to build the system in advance in such a way that there is enough RAM for both work and graphics tasks. Keep in mind that the speed of modern DDR4 modules is much lower than that of GDDR5, and therefore more time will be spent on data processing.
- The next drawback is heat dissipation. In addition to its own nuclei, another one appears in the process, which, in theory, warms up no less. It is possible to cool all this splendor with a boxed (complete) turntable, but get ready for periodic underreporting of frequencies in especially complex calculations. Buying a more powerful cooler solves the problem.
- Well, the last nuance is the impossibility of upgrading video without replacing the processor. In other words, in order to improve the integrated video core, you literally have to buy a new processor. Dubious benefit, isn't it? In this case, it is easier to purchase a discrete accelerator after a while. Manufacturers like AMD and nVidia offer great solutions for all tastes.
Outcomes
Embedded graphics are great in 3 cases:
- you need a temporary video card, since there was not enough money for an external one;
- the system was originally conceived as superbudgetary;
- you are creating a home media station (HTPC) that focuses on the embedded core.
Hopefully one less problem in your head, and now you know what manufacturers create their APUs for.
In the following articles, we will talk about terms such as virtualization and more. Stay tuned to keep up with all the hot topics related to iron.
Any modern laptop has at least one video card, which comes "by default". Considering that the vast majority of laptop computers come with Intel processors, the graphics system is from the same manufacturer. Naturally, in AMD processors a video core of our own production is used, but in this case we will talk about Intel and the fact that each CPU has an integrated video card (GPU) - Intel HD Graphics or Iris Graphics. For use in modern games, for serious work with 3D modeling, creating animations, working with complex graphics packages, the capabilities of such graphics systems are not enough, but for the vast majority of everyday tasks, performance is more than necessary.
What is an integrated graphics card
Integrated means that the video core is located on the same substrate with the processor, sharing RAM... The amount of RAM taken away by the integrated video card is within 5% of the total and depends on the tasks being performed. Graphics card driver interacting with operating system, strives to maintain optimal performance and memory allocation between the graphics subsystem and the processor.
According to Intel representatives, the task of catching up with discrete solutions is not worth it, since the integrated video card aims to provide maximum stability, reduce the cost of the system by not buying an additional video card, and reduce heat generation and power consumption. The last two arguments are especially relevant for laptops.
In the latest generation of Kaby Lake processors, the integrated video core has been updated, which exists in two varieties and is called Intel HD Graphics and Intel Iris Plus Graphics. In the previous generation of Skylake, they were called Intel HD Graphics and Intel Iris Graphics, respectively.
The integrated graphics card model depends on the processor used, as shown in the table.
| Generation CPU | Intel GPU Model | CPU |
| Skylake | Intel HD Graphics 500 | Celeron N3350, Celeron N3450 |
| Intel HD Graphics 510 | Pentium 4405U, Celeron 3955U, Celeron 3855U | |
| Intel HD Graphics 515 | Pentium N4200, Core m7, -6Y75, Core m5-6Y57, Core m5-6Y54, Core m3-6Y30 | |
| Intel HD Graphics 520 | Core i7-6600U, Core i7-6500U, Core i5-6300U, Core i5-6200U, Core i3-6100U, Core i3-6006U | |
| Intel HD Graphics 530 | Core i7-6920HQ, Core i7-6820HQ, Core i7-6820HK, Core i7-6700HQ, Core i5-6440HQ, Core i5-6300HQ, Core i3-6100H | |
| Intel Iris Graphics 540 | Core i7-6660U, Core i7-6650U, Core i7-6560U, Core i5-6260U, Core i5-6260U | |
| Intel Iris Graphics 550 | Core i7-6567U, Core i3-6157U, Core i3-6167U | |
| Intel Iris Pro Graphics 580 | Core i7-6970HQ, Core i7-6870HQ, Core i7-6770HQ, Core i5-6350HQ | |
| Kaby lake | Intel HD Graphics 610 | Pentium 4415U, Celeron 3965U, Celeron 3865U, |
| Intel HD Graphics 615 | Pentium 4410Y, Core i7-7Y75, Core i5-7Y54, Core i5-7Y757, Core m3-7Y30 | |
| Intel HD Graphics 620 | Core i7-7600U, Core i7-7500U, Core i5-7300U, Core i5-7200U, Core i3-7100U | |
| Intel HD Graphics 630 | Core i7-7920HQ, Core i7-7820HQ, Core i7-7820HK, Core i7-7700HQ, Core i5-7300HQ, Core i5-7440HQ, Core i3-7100H | |
| Intel Iris Plus Graphics 640 | Intel Core i7-7660U, Core i5-7360U, Core i5-7260U | |
| Intel Iris Plus Graphics 650 | Core i5-7287U, Core i5-7267U |
What is the difference between Intel HD Graphics and Intel Iris Plus Graphics
It should be said right away that an integrated video card is not the best choice for working in AutoCAD, for games such as DOOM, Rise of the Tomb Raider and the like. There is no need to wait for miracles. Old games that are already several years old, or those with low hardware requirements, can be played on such video cards.
Unlike Intel HD Graphics, a number of processors are equipped with a more "advanced" video core - Intel Iris Plus Graphics, as it is called in the generation of Kaby Lake processors. In previous Skylakes, such video cards were called Iris (Pro), and in the 5th generation, Broadwell, the name Iris was used - just like that, no fancy.
What is the difference between regular video cores and Iris? The latter use a doubled number of executive cores, 48 versus 24 for HD Graphics (Intel Iris Pro Graphics 580 uses 72 cores), and also uses a small 64 MB eDRAM cache (Intel Iris Pro Graphics 580 has 128 MB), which significantly increases the performance of such a card. According to tests, such solutions can compete with the initial lines of discrete video cards. For example, the Iris Plus 650 is roughly on par with the GeForce 930M in terms of performance.
Another thing is that Iris models of laptops with integrated graphics have missed one, two times. It can be said to be a niche product used in just a few models. So, Apple MacBook Pro 13 uses Intel Core i5 6267U processors with Intel Iris Graphics 550, or Dell XPS 13 - one of the hits in the class, in one of the modifications it uses Intel Core i5 6560U with Iris Graphics 540. Lenovo has similar offers and HP, but the number of models can be counted on one hand. By the way, I did not find modifications with Iris graphics in the updated line of Dell XPS 13 laptops, although I may have looked at something.
Main characteristics of integrated video cards:
| ModelGPU | Number of executive cores | Base frequency, MHz | Maximum frequency, GHz | VolumeeDRAM, MB |
| Intel HD Graphics 500 | 12 | 200 | 0.7 | |
| Intel HD Graphics 510 | 12 | 350 | 1.05 | |
| Intel HD Graphics 515 | 24 | 300 | 1.00 | |
| Intel HD Graphics 520 | 24 | 300 | 1.05 | |
| Intel HD Graphics 530 | 24 | 300 | 1.15 | |
| Intel Iris Graphics 540 | 48 | 300 | 1.05 | 64 |
| Intel Iris Graphics 550 | 48 | 300 | 1.10 | 64 |
| Intel Iris Pro Graphics 580 | 72 | 300 | 1.15 | 128 |
| Intel HD Graphics 610 | 24 | 350 | 0.95 | -- |
| Intel HD Graphics 615 | 24 | 300 | 1.05 | -- |
| Intel HD Graphics 620 | 24 | 300 | 1.05 | -- |
| Intel HD Graphics 630 | 24 | 300 | 1.10 | -- |
| Intel Iris Plus Graphics 640 | 48 | 300 | 1.05 | 64 |
| Intel Iris Plus Graphics 650 | 48 | 300 | 1.10 | 64 |
Support for multiple monitors and 4K resolution
The latest processor generations, in particular the 6th and 7th generations, support 4K monitors. The only exception is the integrated Intel HD Graphics 500, which lacks this support. In fact, the maximum resolution of these graphics chips is 4096 x 2304, which is higher than the 4K values of 3840 x 2160.
As for connecting multiple monitors, in the case of laptops, what matters is how they will be connected, what interfaces are used. Laptops equipped with DisplayPort or USB Type-C / Thunderbolt 3 ports will allow you to use 3 displays with FullHD (1920 x 1080) resolution, two monitors with 2K resolution, or one 4K. If there are no such ports, then you can use USB adapters.
Conclusion
Are integrated video cards so good or not? For games, serious graphics programs - no, if we are not talking about simple or old games, for everyday work - more than. At the same time, I do not really understand the use of low-power discrete cards of the GeForce 920M (X) class in combination with the latest generation processors.
For example, in ASUS laptop The A541UV is used by the Core i7-6500U and GeForce 920M. Yes, a discrete card will be 30-40 percent faster, but its capabilities are still outside the limits of comfortable use for games. But an extra consumer of electricity and an additional source of heating is present.
Intel processors, like competitors, have integrated (on-board) graphics. It allows you to refuse to buy an expensive video card if there is no need for it. Also, the graphics built into the processor are useful in laptops, as they save battery power by using these graphics only in powerful applications. All the rest of the time, the graphics core of the processor is blown out.
Introduction
The choice of integrated graphics is given special attention in 2 cases:
- you are not going to buy a separate adapter as you do not need high performance for your desktop PC
Basically, it is these two situations that make people pay special attention to integrated graphics.
Here, as in the rest of our articles, chips until 2010 will not be considered. So we will only touch on Intel HD Graphics, Iris Graphics and Iris Pro Graphics
The question of installing integrated graphics in powerful game processors remains unclear, because they are used only in tandem with a powerful video card, which even the most powerful integrated graphics are not suitable for. Most likely this is due to the high cost of rebuilding the processors assembly line, because the cores of many chips are identical and they are assembled almost the same, and no one is going to change the assembly for a couple of models. But in this case, we would get better performance due to the fact that more transistors will work on the processor, but the price will also rise in this case.
Everyone knows that AMD's integrated graphics are more powerful than Intel's. Most likely this is due to the fact that they previously thought about creating hybrid "stones" (with a video core). If you want to know about the markings and lines of all AMD graphics (including integrated ones), then you, and a similar article about, is also available here.
Fun fact: PS4 has graphics integrated into the processor, not a separate graphics chip.
Classification
A mistake many people make is that integrated graphics are not necessarily the graphics core built into the processor. Integrated graphics are graphics that are built into the motherboard or processor.
Thus, embedded graphics are divided into:
- Shared Memory Graphics - These graphics are built into the processor and use RAM instead of separate video memory. These chips are distinguished by low power consumption, heat dissipation and cost, but the performance in 3D cannot be compared with other solutions.
- Discrete graphics - the hardware is a separate chip on motherboard... Has separate memory and is generally faster than the previous type.
- Hybrid graphics are a combination of the two previous types.
Now it's clear that Intel chips use shared memory graphics.
Generations
For the first time, Intel HD Graphics appeared in Westmere processors (but before that there was integrated graphics).
To determine the performance of a video processor, each generation must be considered separately. In the best way determining the performance will be viewing the number of execution units and their frequency.
This is the case with graphics generations:
| № | Microarchitecture | Regular models | Powerful models |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | Westmere | HD * | |
| 6 | Sandy bridge | HD * / 2000/3000 | |
| 7 | Ivy bridge | HD * / 2500/4000 | |
| 7 | Haswell / Bay Trail | HD * / 4200-5000 | Iris * 5100 / Iris Pro * 5200 |
| 8 | Broadwell / Braswell / Cherry Trail | HD * / 5300-6000 | Iris * 6100 / Iris Pro * 6200 |
| 9 | Skylake / Braswell / Cherry Trail | HD * 510-530 / 40x | Iris * 540/50 / Iris Pro * 580 |
Where Graphics is replaced by *.
If you become interested in learning about the microarchitectures themselves, then you can take a look at this one.
The letter P indicates the Xeon processor (server chips).
There is an HD Graphics model in every generation before Skylake, but these models are different from each other. After Westmere, HD Graphics is simply installed only in Pentium and Celeron. And it is worth distinguishing separately HD Graphics in mobile processors Atom, Celeron, Pentium, which are built on a mobile microarchitecture.
In mobile architectures, until recently, only the same HD Graphics models were adopted, corresponding to different microarchitectures. Graphics of different generations differ in performance, and this generation is usually indicated in parentheses, for example, Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail). Now, when the new 8th generation of the integrated graphics is released, they will also differ. This is how HD Graphics 400 and 405 differ in performance.
Within one generation, productivity increases with an increase in the number, which is logical.
With the Haswell generation, a slightly different marking of chips began to operate.
New labeling with Haswell
First digit:
- 4 - Haswell
- 5 - Broadwell
But there are exceptions to this rule, and we'll explain everything in a few lines below.
The rest of the numbers have the following meaning:
* - means that the thousand place is increased by one
The GT3e features an optional eDRAM cache that increases memory speed.
But since the Skylake generation, the classification has changed again. The distribution of models by performance can be seen in one of the previous tables.
Relationship between processor marking and embedded graphics
Processors with integrated graphics features are marked with these letters:
- P - means disabled video core
- C - enhanced integrated graphics for LGA
- R - enhanced integrated graphics for BGA (nettops)
- H - enhanced integrated graphics in mobile processors (Iris Pro)
How to compare video chips
Comparing them by eye is rather difficult, so we recommend that you take a look at this one, where you can see information about all integrated Intel solutions, and where you can see the performance rating of video adapters and their benchmark results. To find out which graphics are worth the processor you want, go to the Intel website, filter your processor, and then look under the “Onboard Graphics” column.
Conclusion
We hope that this material has helped you understand integrated graphics, especially from Intel, and will also help you in choosing a processor for your computer. If you have any questions, then first look at the instructions in the "Introduction" section, and if you still have questions, then you are welcome in the comments!
