• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Ivy Bridge IGP up to 122% faster than HD3000

W

WMD

Senior member
An Expreview community member tested the HD4000 in the i5 3570K against the HD3000 in the i5 2500K. It score 122% faster in 3dmark 11 GPU score and 84% faster in Farcry2.

Core_i5-3570K.JPG


Platform.png


vs2500k.png


http://www.techpowerup.com/160895/C...e-i5-2500K-36-Slower-Than-GeForce-GT-240.html

http://www.expreview.com/18483.html

This is what I call progress. :thumbsup:
 
Intel17 said:
By Grabthar's Hammer...what performance.
Click to expand...

With AMD's low end discrete gpu moving at a snail's pace. I would say give Intel a another couple of generation and they will overtake AMD in the low end. Even with 67% average increase in graphics performance the i5 3570K retails for $10 less than the i5 2550K in my country! AMD could learn a thing or two from Intel.
 
Last edited:
Interesting if true.

As a comparison the A8-3850 gets 46.8fps at 1680x1050 on medium (according to Anandtech's Bench). Would be interesting to see what it gets at 1280x720 on high. My guess would be higher than it gets at 1680.
 
I want to see what the image quality is like compared to the Nvidia or AMD offerings. I'd like to know if Intel is just outputting some shit-looking graphics at a higher framerate.
 
Still 40% slower than GT 240? Being 100% faster than sandy bridge isn't exactly an accomplishment, the iGPU on SB is such a worthless POS that anything is an improvement.

I'm not sure why anyone is impressed
 
blackened23 said:
Still 40% slower than GT 240? Being 100% faster than sandy bridge isn't exactly an accomplishment, the iGPU on SB is such a worthless POS that anything is an improvement.

I'm not sure why anyone is impressed
Click to expand...


When's the last time you saw Intel IGP gain so much? For low end users, this is a big win.

I'd look at IvB more for a low end unit over Llano at this point. Well, until AMD puts something new on the table.
 
blackened23 said:
Still 40% slower than GT 240? Being 100% faster than sandy bridge isn't exactly an accomplishment, the iGPU on SB is such a worthless POS that anything is an improvement.

I'm not sure why anyone is impressed
Click to expand...
You have not factored in the fact that it is an IGP with a fully functional 4C/8T processor sharing the 77W TDP. Imagine what Intel could achieve if they had set the TDP of IB at 95W and allocate the extra budget for IGP performance.

power_maximum.gif
 
blackened23 said:
Still 40% slower than GT 240? Being 100% faster than sandy bridge isn't exactly an accomplishment, the iGPU on SB is such a worthless POS that anything is an improvement.

I'm not sure why anyone is impressed
Click to expand...


Because you can play games at console quality >30fps without even needing a graphics card? Plus its a huge performance leap over previous generation HD3000 which already competes well with AMD 5400 series. With intel's insanely good 22nm 3D transistor you can probably overclock it 80%-100%
 
Stuka87 said:
Interesting if true.

As a comparison the A8-3850 gets 46.8fps at 1680x1050 on medium (according to Anandtech's Bench). Would be interesting to see what it gets at 1280x720 on high. My guess would be higher than it gets at 1680.
Click to expand...

That isn't testing the Llano GPU, closest you could probably get using Anandtech results (didn't look hard so something else might be there) would be the Starcraft II results from the Llano review.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4476/amd-a83850-review/5

A8-3850 = 68.1 fps, HD3000 = 36 and then add 30.22% per the table to get the HD4000 at about 46.9 fps. It's not an apples-to-apples comparison so it could be off base.
 
WMD said:
Because you can play games at console quality >30fps without even needing a graphics card? Plus its a huge performance leap over previous generation HD3000 which already competes well with AMD 5400 series. With intel's insanely good 22nm 3D transistor you can probably overclock it 80%-100%
Click to expand...

Plus, it gives a push to AMD/NV to actually make low-end mobile GPUs worth their salt. If not for SB we would be still putting up crappy 5470/310Ms.
 
WMD said:
With AMD's low end discrete gpu moving at a snail's pace. I would say give Intel a another couple of generation and they will overtake AMD in the low end. Even with 67% average increase in graphics performance the i5 3570K retails for $10 less than the i5 2550K in my country! AMD could learn a thing or two from Intel.
Click to expand...

Aren't you forgetting AMDs APUs ?? Current AMD's road maps shows a new APU every year. Triniti will be released in Q1-2 2012 close to IB launch dates and next years APU will use the GCN architecture.

It seams to me that Intel is a full one and half year behind in iGPU performance and i don't see AMD slowing its pace.
 
AtenRa said:
Aren't you forgetting AMDs APUs ?? Current AMD's road maps shows a new APU every year. Triniti will be released in Q1-2 2012 close to IB launch dates and next years APU will use the GCN architecture.

It seams to me that Intel is a full one and half year behind in iGPU performance and i don't see AMD slowing its pace.
Click to expand...

The problem is AMD cannot improve upon their APU's too much without cannibalizing their x6xx and series low end discrete cards.
 
AtenRa said:
And why is that ??

We haven't seen yet the low end 28nm GPUs from AMD or NVIDIA.
Click to expand...

You can follow AMD's progress from 4670 to 6670. AMD's low end typically don't advance much in terms of performance for dollar. They haven't release the lowest end yet but you can see that 7750 offered about the same performance/ price as last years offerings. Intel almost doubled their igp performance year after year. In order to compete with Intel's fast moving igpu performance their APUs must eventually undercut their low end graphics and that wont happen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaehyUfWNmU
With last year's HD3000 already offering this kind of performance. Soon we won't really need an x4xx or x5xx series gpu.
 
Last edited:
I have a HD 3000 [as backup] and its actually not horrible at all. It can play games at a decent framerate on low settings [no aa but 4x af] at 1080P. For a backup thats damn good.

Also for laptops every increase in performance Intel does is gravy, its less reason to HAVE to shell out a additional $500 for a laptop that can play a game at a decent speed. Im sure Ivy on a $600 laptop could play most games @1080P med settings which is good.
 
WMD said:
The problem is AMD cannot improve upon their APU's too much without cannibalizing their x6xx and series low end discrete cards.
Click to expand...

I don't think AMD will not lose any money by increasing the GPU power of their APUs. Consider...

AMD likely makes more profit on APU sales then they do on low-end GPU sales.

An APU sold is an Intel CPU not sold.

The consumer could choose to purchase a low end Nvidia GPU instead regardless of their CPU, resulting in a lost sale.

The consumer could decide to use the Intel IGP if they aren't buying an AMD CPU, resulting in a lost sale.

The consumer could buy a low end AMD GPU from a 3rd party manufacturer, who pays bulk pricing for the silicon from AMD, has to buy all the other board components, then manufacture, ship, market, and support the board while still making some profit. There isn't much money to go around on sub-$100 GPUs.

AMD could improve it's hybrid crossfire technology to encourage more GPU sales for APU users.
 
Last edited:
You mean worse IQ from settings, or from lower default IQ in drivers?

122% is great, but really it's not coming from a huge performance part so that takes a lot away from it.

I see 122% increase in igpu performance, 10% or more increase in cpu performance, with lower TDP as a decent tock... It's a tock, it's not a next gen or redesign.

Having had one of the old intel gpu's in a laptop that couldn't even run games like Oldblivion, I'm happy Intel is finally stepping it up in this area. With the lack of cpu competition from AMD, I'd assume we'll see a lot more focus placed in this area from Intel as they continue to have no real competition in x86.
 
Last edited:
Offset this news with the fact that Intel has the worst graphics drivers in the industry, and by worst, I mean a league of their own unrivaled by the crap of AMD's and Nvidia's worst driver moments.
 
I took it out, I felt it was inflammatory in an AMD bias zone.

Just google "AMD has lower imagine quality", you'll be sure to find some sources.
 
BallaTheFeared said:
I took it out, I felt it was inflammatory in an AMD bias zone.

Just google "AMD has lower imagine quality", you'll be sure to find some sources.
Click to expand...

A persecution complex doesn't absolve you from the burden of proof. The only issue I can think of is texture shimmering, but other than that IQ is almost identical for both manufacturers to the point that most reviewers don't bother doing IQ comparisons anymore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top