Budget Graphics Card Comparison - Sandy Bridge Graphics performance is simply awful

[RussianSensation]

Was electric bill savings the argument? No one brought it up. CPUs are constrained by TDP moreso than video cards. I take it that was the point of their statements, since it would require more robust cooling and power delivery to deliver GTX 460-like performance on today's current tech. But keep on attacking an angle no one was addressing.

The point of the IGP is to make bottom level discrete cards obsolete (so to provide enough gaming performance at the same or lower power consumption). Intel's IGP can't provide performance of an even $50-60 discrete GPU. Outside of QuickSync, it's not any better than the horrible graphics they put out in the last 5 years. You can talk about TDP and power consumption constraints, but Llano is going to ship an IGP at least 3x faster.

So this whole comparison (thread) is just worthless. If we want to compare apples to oranges some more, lets campare a GTX580 with a HD5670 and call it fair. *facepalm*

How many members on our forum argued that with higher performing APUs/IGPs, we will see a boost in gaming graphics since the lowest common denominator for graphics card performance will be elevated? If you look at the performance of HD3000 series, you can't play any modern games with it - it's just a slideshow.

So Intel hasn't changed anything in terms of graphics that can be felt - they are just very good at marketing it. Increasing performance 2x from what they already had was like going from 4.5 fps to 9 fps. Also, previous generation of Intel graphics was already fast enough for playing 1080P videos. Looks like they have a long way to go before they can be taken seriously in the APU market.

The point of TechSpot's testing was to see how budget cards stack up. They threw in SB just to compare. And it looks like it falls short of every single modern discrete GPU - so how is that not disappointing to you? Basically the consumer is far better off to purchase a SB laptop with NV/AMD discrete GPU onboard and use switchable graphics.

The other purpose of this thread is to inform new buyers who think SB may be fast enough for light gaming that it's clearly not the case. It will help buyers decide if it's worth it to spend an extra $50 towards a discrete GPU for light gaming.

 

[biostud]

HD3000 is for people who don't game and laptops, everyone know this. But it's the best HTPC GPU Intel has ever released. Believe it or not there are people who don't care about gaming performance.

 

[Red Hawk]

My impression that Intel APUs would raise the standards for low-end (non-gaming) graphics, while AMD APUs would be the ones that raise the standards for budget gaming. In benchmarks, the Sandy Bridge GPU actually comes out favorably compared to stuff like a Radeon HD 5450 or a Geforce 210. And Llano, as mentioned, will have the same amount of shaders as a Radeon HD 5670, leading to equivalent or greater performance.

 

[notty22]

I get what techspots article was about, but why the debate over power #'s between a mid-high discrete card and a IGP, it was off the wall comparison to begin with.

The key with llano will be , if AMD/ vendor ships a laptop that can game for 500 dollars where it took close to a 800-1000 when it shipped with a discreet mobile gpu.
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=30378

 

[Meghan54]

So this whole comparison (thread) is just worthless. If we want to compare apples to oranges some more, lets campare a GTX580 with a HD5670 and call it fair. *facepalm*

Absolutely this. I still don't understand the whole point of this thread....it's not like rocket science that the IGP isn't competitive with a $100 discrete gpu. Wonder what the OP's point is or what the whole point of the thread is......bias? Just to hate on Intel?

But, taking what I can from the linked "test", I was surprised how well the SB IGP kept up with the 520 and 6450.

And, again, as has been said before.....you don't use the SB IGP, or any IGP for that matter, and expect to play Crysis.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

The point of the IGP is to make bottom level discrete cards obsolete (so to provide enough gaming performance at the same or lower power consumption). Intel's IGP can't provide performance of an even $50-60 discrete GPU. Outside of QuickSync, it's not any better than the horrible graphics they put out in the last 5 years. You can talk about TDP and power consumption constraints, but Llano is going to ship an IGP at least 3x faster.

And The HD 3000/2000 pretty much made bottom level discrete cards obsolete, since they provide the same level of performance of a 5450, which was the bottom level at the time of Sandy Bridge's release. So the 5450, 4550, 4350, GT 210, and etc were all pretty much unnecessary since Sandy Bridge covered it. Llano will most likely do the same at the time of its release date.

"You can talk about TDP and power consumption constraints, but Llano is going to ship an IGP at least 3x faster."

LOL. L.O. L. TDP and power constraints are just as inherent to Llano as Sandy Bridge. Llano is going to have a faster graphics, no doubt, but it will also have a slower CPU. So there's your trade-off right there, and at this point we don't have any data as to how Sandy Bridge and Llano will compare in actual power draw. TDP just isn't enough to go by. AMD could be making the choice to not only pack in a slower CPU, but also have a slightly higher real-world power draw than Sandy Bridge.

Intel made a significant jump from Clarkdale's IGP to Sandy Bridge's. Llano will make a significant jump from Sandy Bridge. And subsequent releases will follow this same trend. Discrete cards are going to have to more robust on the bottom end; I see the bottom line of discrete cards being raised.

And I'm sorry you're wrong, but Sandy Bridge is most definitely leagues better than any Intel IGP pre-Clarkdale. Their older IGPs couldn't even remotely compete with IGPs from AMD and Nvidia, let alone discrete cards. Clarkdale brought Intel up to the level of IGPs from AMD and Nvidia, and Sandy Bridge brought it up to the level of low end discrete cards.

 

[Edrick]

The point of TechSpot's testing was to see how budget cards stack up. They threw in SB just to compare. And it looks like it falls short of every single modern discrete GPU - so how is that not disappointing to you? Basically the consumer is far better off to purchase a SB laptop with NV/AMD discrete GPU onboard and use switchable graphics

My expectations for SB IGP was not as high as others I suppose. I think their performance increase from last year to this year was great. Yes it is a long way from taking over the sub-$100 market, but it is heading in that direction. It just is not fair to compare that to a $100-$150 card right now. Not even in the same market segment.

And how many people on this forum actually planned on doing moderate gaming on a Intel IGP anyways? Perhaps on laptops, which should be fine (acceptable low end) for the lower resolutions that laptops use.

 

[formulav8]

What cracks me up the most is so many people expecting IB to be this super-duper igp. The thing will still be a dog. As always been the case, Intels crappy graphics includes their crappy drivers.

I'm guessing some people will think comparing SB IGP to AMD's APU's won't be fair to do?

 

[Zap]

Intel made a significant jump from Clarkdale's IGP to Sandy Bridge's. Llano will make a significant jump from Sandy Bridge. And subsequent releases will follow this same trend. Discrete cards are going to have to more robust on the bottom end; I see the bottom line of discrete cards being raised.

Yes, and this is a good thing. Aren't you*** enthusiasts and gamers embarrassed by cards such as the GeForce 210 and Radeon 5450? Intel's HD 3000 just put paid to those low end cards. No more finding "GeForce 310M with Optimus" advertised like it was a gaming notebook.

From looking purely at benchmarks, looks as if Clarkdale made a 2x jump in performance from GMA 4500, and HD 2000 is a bit faster than Clarkdale, while HD 3000 is over twice as fast.

Beyond the benchmarks, at least according to Anand, Intel has made great strides in making their IGP work properly with games.

The end result, of course, is that any Sandy Bridge notebook can play WoW at the common 1366x768 resolution just fine.

*** Disclaimer: Generic "you" used, since "you" guys are oversensitive and overprotective of "your" favorite brands.###

### Disclaimer: Generic "brand" used, since "you" guys are oversensitive and overprotective of "your" favorite "brands."

 

[imaheadcase]

Is this really news? onboard graphics are not meant to beat much of anything besides previous generation of onboard graphics.

Who would think otherwise..

 

[OCGuy]

I'm not sure why anyone on a forum like this would ever even consider using IGP for gaming.

 

[Maximilian]

I'm not sure why anyone on a forum like this would ever even consider using IGP for gaming.

I use my 4500MHD for gaming on the move. Its absolutely dire at it, i get 30 fps in league of legends at the lowest settings and resolution but it does play it :thumbsup:

 

[Edrick]

What cracks me up the most is so many people expecting IB to be this super-duper igp. The thing will still be a dog. As always been the case, Intels crappy graphics includes their crappy drivers.

I'm guessing some people will think comparing SB IGP to AMD's APU's won't be fair to do?

I am not expecting a super duper IGP. I am expecting some 20-40% increase over SB IGP however. Which I will take for a nice laptop system.

Expectations of new products generally run high on these forums. I guess it makes the buildup leading to release a little more exciting.

 

[RussianSensation]

I'm not sure why anyone on a forum like this would ever even consider using IGP for gaming.

Of course not. But at the same time, that review really opens your eyes as to how slow it really is. Most people probably thought it's not that bad.

It just is not fair to compare that to a $100-$150 card right now.

What about a $60 HD5670? The $100 comparison is only there to show just how far behind IGP/APU is at the moment. It's not even on the horizon to be a substitute for light gaming. I saw HD4850 1Gb for sale for less than $50 on Newegg some months ago. That $50 card would offer 5-6x the performance of HD3000, if not more!

Absolutely this. I still don't understand the whole point of this thread....

#1. Comprehensive Performance Review of Budget videocards for less than $150 (A lot of gamers find that interesting since not everyone can afford $300+ graphics cards).

#2. It shows that even if you spend $50 on a discrete GPU, for light gaming it's MILES better than an IGP. So this idea that SB replaced low-end discrete GPUs for light gaming is a myth.

#3. AMD owns the Budget graphics card market <$100.

"When it came to sub-$100 performance, AMD delivered the goods with the Radeon HD 6570. For a mere $10 extra than the GeForce GT 430, the Radeon offers 44&#37; more performance on average. In other words, the HD 6570 annihilated the GT 430 without breaking a sweat."

 

[biostud]

Of course not. But at the same time, that review really opens your eyes as to how slow it really is. Most people probably thought it's not that bad.



What about a $60 HD5670? The $100 comparison is only there to show just how far behind IGP/APU is at the moment. It's not even on the horizon to be a substitute for light gaming. I saw HD4850 1Gb for sale for less than $50 on Newegg some months ago. That $50 card would offer 5-6x the performance of HD3000, if not more!

It's a good enough gaming GPU for steam sales of 2-3 y/o games that you never got to play.
I've tried Bordelands and Down of War II on my mobile SB HD3000 and both were playable 1366x768 @ low. But I definitely prefer to play with my 6850

 

[cusideabelincoln]

So this idea that SB replaced low-end discrete GPUs for light gaming is a myth.

There's a lot of ideas and parameters not defined (well-defined) in this statement. In other words, it seems waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too generalized.

1. Where did that idea come from? Who has said it?

2. SB has been available for months now. Its performance has been no mystery. It has been shown to only be good for 3+ year old titles, indie titles, and low resolution/lowest IQ for a few the latest games. I don't see why it needs to be relegated to myth status. Its capabilities are clearly defined.

3. "Light gaming". People will have different definitions of light gaming.

4a. SB practically replaced the lowest end of discrete GPUs at the time of its release. Since then the market has moved forward. SB makes up for this with the ability to overclock the IGP, and Z68 gives you higher supported memory speeds, but we really won't see an update until new processors come out, just like you don't see an update to the low end market until someone releases a new card.

4b. In that techspot review, the lowest end discrete cards couldn't make the games playable at the settings they used. So if you're using their testing methodology as the definition of light gaming, these cards wouldn't cut it either and they are in the same boat as SB.

 

[exar333]

But how many hours a day is the user gaming? Modern discrete GPUs power down very efficiently at idle. The GTX460 768mb only consumes 24 Watts of power in idle. If we are going to start getting picky about 25 watts of power, should we stop using our laundry machines/clothes dryers and start washing everything by hand, start taking showers strictly in cold water, drink cold tea/coffee? Come on now. This obsession with power consumption around the world is getting out of hand.

We are talking about $20-40 a year for electricity costs from the GTX460 (with $40 being an extreme gamer). Considering that SB IGP is pretty much useless for real world gaming applications, I don't think its power consumption advantage amounts to anything really since it can't play games. So in other words, it's only making discrete GPUs obsolete for people who don't game at all.

Basically in its current state, Intel's IGP hasn't lived up to the hype at all - it was "supposed" to replace discrete GPUs under $100, yet it's easily 3-4x slower than an HD5670.

This is FUD, plain and simple.

SB replaces low-end GPUs that essentially are only good for plugging-in a monitor to. Many people just need a GPU to drive their displays and do some light graphics-based applications. SB does this exceptionally well (so will Llano). Most sub $100 graphics cards are trash anyways and do not play most modern games very well, minus the great deals for cars between $80-100 that we see sometimes.

Here is another angle. I can now build almost any system for someone who does not need to game on their CPU and do it EASILY. I do not need to get a discrete GPU OR a low-end IGP MB. I can get the CPU I want and pair it with any compatible MB I like and BAM they have a system. It is a great feature.

 

[WMD]

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2011/01/27/intel-hd-graphics-3000-performance-review/5

Not expecting it to work wonders but 72fps in L4D2 at 1024x768 medium is really acceptable for a low end gaming machine. It even beats the Radeon 4250 (about GF 9400M) by quite a good margin. 34fps in Starcraft2 medium 1280x720 is also really impressive for an IGP.

 

[gorobei]

just some fyi since i dont think many people ever saw this:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/intel-hd-graphics-2000-3000_2.html

the hd 2000/3000 is the same architecture as the old 3500/4500 igp. Being built into the cpu silicon, getting l3 cache access instead of ddr2/3, and the linked bus freq led to the performance gains.

 

[ElFenix]

An EPG is for the vast majority of PC users who don't do hardcore gaming. Sandy Bridge is fine for playing back movies, playing light games like Flash games or old games, and transcoding video.

i thought sandy didn't support the right fps for movies?

 

[VirtualLarry]

and at this point we don't have any data as to how Sandy Bridge and Llano will compare in actual power draw.

Yes we do. AMD released a video, comparing LLano to SB, and it showed realtime power measurements below the screen image.

 

[pcm81]

Can any one tell me why anything in this thread is of any importace?

We had IGP on Mobos which were always outperformed by dedicated GPU.
We had high end Mobos which did not waste resources on IGP, because any one using those MOBOs will have a dedicated GPU.
We now have CPUs with IGP, which are worse than dedicated GPU
We now have high end CPUs realastate on which is too valuable to waste on IGP.

IGP moved from low end MOBO to low end CPU. Its performance in no miracle way has changed...
Why is this surprising/important?

 

[GaiaHunter]

Can any one tell me why anything in this thread is of any importace?

We had IGP on Mobos which were always outperformed by dedicated GPU.
We had high end Mobos which did not waste resources on IGP, because any one using those MOBOs will have a dedicated GPU.
We now have CPUs with IGP, which are worse than dedicated GPU
We now have high end CPUs realastate on which is too valuable to waste on IGP.

IGP moved from low end MOBO to low end CPU. Its performance in no miracle way has changed...
Why is this surprising/important?

The relevance of this thread depends on how AMD fusion products perform.

There are several questions and doubts about the performance of the GPU on Llano, mostly related to bandwidth.

Lets imagine that Llano GPU portion acts at levels not far from what you would expect from a dedicated GPU card of 400 sps.

Sure the CPU will be weaker, but how many people do take advantage of the extra processing power of an icore over a phenom II or an athlon II?

Suddenly someone can play Crysis 2 or maybe Dragon Age 2, high quality, on their machine without a dedicated GPU.

Of course if Llano GPU performance is hampered by those bandwidth problems then, yes, it will be irrelevant to the gaming context. If it will be relevant on other application due to GPGPU computing will be another story.

The ideal, if it is in the realm of possibility, would be 4870/5770 performance level soon.

 

[Zap]

I use my 4500MHD for gaming on the move. Its absolutely dire at it, i get 30 fps in league of legends at the lowest settings and resolution but it does play it :thumbsup:

Just think... HD3000 is just over 4x the performance.

#2. It shows that even if you spend $50 on a discrete GPU, for light gaming it's MILES better than an IGP.

However, SB does obsolete any normally priced GPU below that.

The low end GPUs actually do a lot of volume, so perhaps this will spur AMD/Nvidia to have better performance at the low end.

 

[RussianSensation]

However, SB does obsolete any normally priced GPU below that.

The low end GPUs actually do a lot of volume, so perhaps this will spur AMD/Nvidia to have better performance at the low end.

Agreed. Anything as slow as GeForce 8400, GeForce 210, GeForce 520 or HD5450/6450, etc. is just money wasted. Once NV discontinues GTX460 768mb, the discrete GPU space is a sad place below $100.

Can any one tell me why anything in this thread is of any importace?

Not everyone buys HD6990. This review compares budget videocards and how they perform relative to each other and IGP. It's good information for gamers on a budget. We have way too many reviews of HD6950/6970/570/580 and very few "budget gaming" videocard reviews.