Ivybridge should match LLano in graphics

[ydnas7]

12EU - HD3000 is twice as fast as arrandale (HD) graphics
12EU -Arrandale (HD) is about twice as fast as as GMA 4500 series
10EU - GMA 4500 was about double the speed of its predecessor 8EU GMA 3_00 series

so Intel is keeping to a doubling each year on graphics performance (perhaps turned off) on their IGPs
if intel goes to 16 EU, + increase the IPC of each EU + process improvements then Ivybridge could also end up hitting a bandwidth bottleneck just like LLano.

the other thing, currently games have not bothered tuning for weak Intel IGPs, now that HD3000 is equivalent to XBOX 360/PS3, we are likely to see new games being tuned for HD3000 and performing better than current titles.

 

[ydnas7]

Ivy Bridge won't be competing with Llano, it'll be competing with Trinity, which will have NEXT generation Bulldozer CPU cores. Since Llano, Bulldozer, Bulldozer II and Trinity will all be fabricated on the same GloFo process node, and AMD is currently shipping Llano (and very soon Bulldozer) on that node, one might expect Trinity to be coming sooner than later in 2012. Bulldozer II also for that matter. No 28nm node holdup on these products.

it was about 18 months from propus to Llano, I don't think AMD will cease Llano production at the end of the year. Yes I think they will want to push Trinity, but I would expect IB to be introduced about 1/2way between the llano and trinity.

but if Llano is bandwidth bound, then i don't see Trinity being much more graphically useable unless they break socket compatibility with Llano.
Same for IB, unless they do something funky, its IGP won't be able to be more useful than Llano either

 

[ydnas7]

supposedly from intel

'What is Ivy Bridge going to bring for game developers? We have more graphics and multi-core samples coming, until they are a bit further along I don’t want to say too much, but you could expect post processing, texturing, terrain, that sort of thing
Ivy Bridge is going to be an exciting product. Not only does it continue with the improvements AVX processor SIMD vector capabilities D3D11 and DX Compute Shader, 30 percent more EUs'


so it will be a 16EU unit
it also gets some post processing, and other secret sauce
+ a process improvement


so IB should finally get to play on a 1920x1080 what SB can play on 1366 x 768

 

[podspi]

I've also heard unfounded rumors that Intel is going to stack memory on IB. If they do this, the memory bandwidth problem (mostly) goes away.


Bonus points to them if (and the ringbus should make this possible?) they allow the main CPU to also draw on this cache when it isn't being used for graphics.

 

[ElFenix]

supposedly from intel

'What is Ivy Bridge going to bring for game developers? We have more graphics and multi-core samples coming, until they are a bit further along I don’t want to say too much, but you could expect post processing, texturing, terrain, that sort of thing
Ivy Bridge is going to be an exciting product. Not only does it continue with the improvements AVX processor SIMD vector capabilities D3D11 and DX Compute Shader, 30 percent more EUs'


so it will be a 16EU unit
it also gets some post processing, and other secret sauce
+ a process improvement


so IB should finally get to play on a 1920x1080 what SB can play on 1366 x 768

just 30% isn't going to get you to go from 1366x768 to 1920x1080. that's nearly 100% more pixels

 

[Topweasel]

Actually tweak's statement is not too far off. Even if 98% of people use onboard audio, it's miles and miles off what a dedicated sound card can throw out. The difference between my P55 audio and the X-FI Platinum is staggering. I would never use onboard audio again. Most people who continue to claim that onboard audio is just as good clearly haven't used a good dedicated sound card. I am not even talking about Asus Xonar series which are even better than X-FI.

My point wasn't what was capable. I said what was used by everyone. Its not the days of quake where a SB Live meant 5 more frames per second. As long as the impact is small (nearly immeasurable now), and the features cabable (5.1/7.1). Then its all we as gamers generally need. Audiophile for consumers is almost gone in the world of Ipods.

Do you have evidence to support your view? You buy a videocard to use it, not to "preserve" it as a fossil for 1000 years. In 5 years, a $50 videocard will be faster than a $500 videocard you purchase today. So trying to curb the usage of your main videocard to "preserve" its life is a ridiculous proposition. This is especially so since a lot of brands offer 3 year and even lifetime warranties.

Missed point. If I am in Windows 7 running office I don't need Vid card acceleration. If I am in Firefox I don't need Video card acceleration. In those circumstances or even when doing straight up 2d work I don't need my video card plugging away, speeding up electric migration and killing the fan. I want it to last longer so I am not getting pissed and being without my card when I start up Dead Space. Ask all of the people baking their 8800GT's if they knew they could get an extra year out of it with the card turning off completely when its not being used whether they wanted that feature. Warranty is nice and all but it sucks when you have to use it.

Those points are valid. Although, Llano will do a lot more than SB from this point of view. You can't play modern games on SB at modern 1080P resolution, end of story. Even if it's 3x faster than previous Intel graphics, it's still borderline useless. Again, most people will care about battery life for laptops. This is where Intel wins and it's still going to be a hard sell for Llano in that regard. Considering consumers have been buying laptops with Intel craphics for 5+ years, it's hard to imagine that the majority even care about the graphics power in their laptop.

We will see all we need to know is that someone is trying actually trying to bring up the lowest common denominator. Hopefully it works, or at least forces Intel actually to compete in that arena. But in the world of today, where its harder and harder to sell a higher cost system, if AMD can match prices or under cut Intel on systems that bring the overall and not just "cpu" performance up on the sub 1k notebook market then I wish them the best and hope OEM's, stores, and even customers understand the opportunity they are given.

That will work great for Llano and its 400 SPs. But then you have to get the slower AMD processor.....sounds like a compromising proposition. I agree though, HB CF will become very cool once onboard GPUs will get even faster.

What do you think is holding people back 4 core 3GHz Athlon II's or GMA3000? Someone should make a historical benchmark all the way back to 96, relationship chart between them. Then do the same for video cards. Those "slow" cpu cores are blazing fast in everything but benchmarks. Could they be faster. Do we as geeks want them faster sure. But doubling the performance on the CPU's does almost nothing on a consumer level. The video though? We are just getting to a path of diminishing returns on high end. On an integrated level we have almost a decade of gains left to go.

 

[Blitzvogel]

Not at all.

Energy needs go up linearly with frequency, unless you are adding voltage. But voltage doesn't always increase with frequency, voltage is constant within a family. A 1GHz SKU might have same voltage as a 1.5GHz one.

Plus, there are process differences. A x process allows 1GHz max frequency @ 1.1V, and y process allows 1.6GHz frequency at same 1.1V, the power difference in this case would be only linear, not exponential as you wrongly stated.

And for those that are wondering, if you think you can just halve the voltage(which results in 1/4x the power), halve the frequency, and increase transistors by 4x to achieve 2x performance at same power works, think again. Voltage scaling(lowering voltage to lower power usage) with new process tech is slowed down significantly, so you'll hit a hard wall if trying to reduce power by reducing voltage.

My assumption was based on the need to increase the voltage in order to achieve higher clock speeds on a single particular chip, I was not bringing node processes into the equation. An i7 on 90 nm would be HUGE. I remember seeing the G80 die on my old 8800 GTS 320 MB from back in the day. What a monster. I was specifically referring to SB's very fast IGP with it's turbo ability to pretty much go twice it's base clock speed.

 

[IntelUser2000]

I remember seeing the G80 die on my old 8800 GTS 320 MB from back in the day. What a monster. I was specifically referring to SB's very fast IGP with it's turbo ability to pretty much go twice it's base clock speed.

Different design choices. Also, like I said, better process tech allowing higher frequency at the same voltage.

 

[wahdangun]

it was about 18 months from propus to Llano, I don't think AMD will cease Llano production at the end of the year. Yes I think they will want to push Trinity, but I would expect IB to be introduced about 1/2way between the llano and trinity.

but if Llano is bandwidth bound, then i don't see Trinity being much more graphically useable unless they break socket compatibility with Llano.
Same for IB, unless they do something funky, its IGP won't be able to be more useful than Llano either

amd could just use side port memory and add gddr5 in mother board, and the bottleneck is gone,

and if ivy brige just 30% faster than Sb it don't have a chance compete with llano. Let alone playing games at 1080p

 

[Blitzvogel]

Different design choices. Also, like I said, better process tech allowing higher frequency at the same voltage.

I understand this already....jesus, I was referring increases on the same chip.

 

[Joseph F]

12EU - HD3000 is twice as fast as arrandale (HD) graphics
12EU -Arrandale (HD) is about twice as fast as as GMA 4500 series
10EU - GMA 4500 was about double the speed of its predecessor 8EU GMA 3_00 series

so Intel is keeping to a doubling each year on graphics performance (perhaps turned off) on their IGPs
if intel goes to 16 EU, + increase the IPC of each EU + process improvements then Ivybridge could also end up hitting a bandwidth bottleneck just like LLano.

the other thing, currently games have not bothered tuning for weak Intel IGPs, now that HD3000 is equivalent to XBOX 360/PS3, we are likely to see new games being tuned for HD3000 and performing better than current titles.

I disagree. Can you give me an example of when PC games were ever tuned for any IGP? Let alone Intel ones.

amd could just use side port memory and add gddr5 in mother board, and the bottleneck is gone

Is this possible with Llano? I know that some Motherboard manufacturers did this back in the 790GX chipset days but I am not sure if Llano's architecture would support this now.

 

[IntelUser2000]

I understand this already....jesus, I was referring increases on the same chip.

Not getting the point. If the design wasn't limited by process technology for frequency in the first place, you won't need voltage increases to increase frequency. Therefore, the power increases are linear, not exponential.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2921/4

It’s a single BIOS option and without any changes to voltage or cooling I managed to get our Core i3 530’s GPU running at 1200MHz.

Looking at frequencies and process technology for Intel graphics cores of similar architecture.

GMA X3x00=90nm, 667MHz
GMA 4500=65nm, 800MHz
GMA HD=45nm, 733/900MHz
HD Graphics 2000/3000=32nm, 850MHz base, 1.1/1.25/1.3GHz Turbo

Process technologies alone would have explained frequency increases. 55nm 790GX had 700MHz frequency, which is similar to 65nm GMA 4500 based cores.

Geforce 8800 Ultra had 1.5GHz frequency in its shader cores and 612MHz everywhere else, but had lower power in idle and load compared to 2900XT with a 740MHz overall clock, and performed significantly better. The former even had disadvantage in process technology. The 8800 Ultra was on 90nm and 2900XT was on 80nm.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2231/30

 

[Arkadrel]

so IB should finally get to play on a 1920x1080 what SB can play on 1366 x 768

1366x768 = 1,049,088 pixels
1920x1080 = 2,073,600 pixels

differnce of ~100%, so haveing 30%'s more EUs wont let you play at twice the resolution without lower fps.


Also Llano is ~330% faster than the Sandy Bridge IGP (compaireing vantage mark scores).
Ivy Bridge being ~30% faster wont change things much, it ll still end up much slower.

 

[IntelUser2000]

1366x768 = 1,049,088 pixels
1920x1080 = 2,073,600 pixels

differnce of ~100%, so haveing 30%'s more EUs wont let you play at twice the resolution without lower fps.


Also Llano is ~330% faster than the Sandy Bridge IGP (compaireing vantage mark scores).
Ivy Bridge being ~30% faster wont change things much, it ll still end up much slower.

It won't be half.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/...core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/12

The score is also for the HD 2000. 2500K gets 1700 and 2600K gets 2000. So we're looking at 60-100%.

 

[Arkadrel]

It won't be half.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/...core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/12

The score is also for the HD 2000. 2500K gets 1700 and 2600K gets 2000. So we're looking at 60-100%.

That is the 2500k or Intel IGP HD3000 vs a 5450.
Llano will be ~5570 performance, not 5450.

Yeah maybe Ivy bridge IGP is faster than the 30% EU added indicate.... I guess a optimist would say it would be around half the performance of the Llano's GPU performance.

What matters if performance/watt, since where these will compete will be in laptops.

 

[AtenRa]

I will point you to the differences in performance of IGP the Shared L3 cache in SandyBridge have over the Clarkdale IGP plus the design enchantments put on SBs IGP.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3922/intels-sandy-bridge-architecture-exposed/5

Clarkdale has the same amount of EUs as Sandybridge (12) but SB is faster in most of the games just with only 6 EUs (HD2000).

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/...core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/11

just a few examples (Core i3 2100 vs Core i5 661)

So i will say that IB IGP could be able to have the same performance upgrade over the SB.
IB could be able to game at 720p (1280x720 or 1366x768) for most of the games.

I dont know if they will be able to catch Llanos IGP performance but they will be very close, plus IB will be way faster as a CPU.

 

[Arkadrel]

I dont know if they will be able to catch Llanos IGP performance but they will be very close, plus IB will be way faster as a CPU.

The 5570 scores 60+ fps in Civ5 picture you posted.

The HD3000, 17.5.... even if you say.... IB takes it to 25 fps.... it ll still be alot lower than than the 5570 at 60+ fps.

I doubt it ll be close, Llano will just have faster GPU.
And be able to play with Dx11 features ect, and probably have higher image quality than the Intel IGP.

 

[formulav8]

I doubt it ll be close, Llano will just have faster GPU.
And be able to play with Dx11 features ect, and probably have higher image quality than the Intel IGP.

That should be obvious. I can't see Intel having near the eye candy capabilities as 5xxx series gpu which llano is based on. LLano will have the latest aa features and especially dx11 graphics.

AMD still messed up bad by not making a llano type dual core on 45nm. They gave Intel way to much time to get their ducks in a row. Intel is now getting a steady flow of NVidia IP.

 

[AtenRa]

The 5570 scores 60+ fps in Civ5 picture you posted.

The HD3000, 17.5.... even if you say.... IB takes it to 25 fps.... it ll still be alot lower than than the 5570 at 60+ fps.

You have no idea if Llano will perform the same in Civ 5 as a discrete 5570 and even if it will then dont take only one game to evaluate the performance.

I could only take Metro 2033 and say that because SB has the same or better performance than 5450 then IB will be better than 5570.

 

[Abwx]

You have no idea if Llano will perform the same in Civ 5 as a discrete 5570 and even if it will then dont take only one game to evaluate the performance.

I could only take Metro 2033 and say that because SB has the same or better performance than 5450 then IB will be better than 5570.

The test in Metro is at 1024X768 at minimal settings...
At slightly higher resolution or settings, the HD3000
would collapse more than a 5450, wich by the way
has only 80 stream processors compared to as much
as 400 in Llano or in a 5570.....

So IB will be about three times less performant
than Llano even if Intel manage 50% perfs increase,
wich would be equivalent to 120 SPs.....

 

[Nemesis 1]

We will all know shortly how good llano is as a compute CPU soon enough . Whats amazing is that cpu speed or performance is NO longer a primary concern to PC users or note book users .

If I do in 7 hours work on an intel PC and it takes AMD 8 hours todo . It would seem Time or efficiency is being tossed out of the equation in these topics . I doubt that performance in compute is a none factor to ALOT of people. Wheres as good enough graphics is exceptable . IB llano who here in these forums is going to game with just llano or IB. Which really isn't the point its Good enough that does seem to be the point.

So why did it take AMD so long to bring good enough to the point we can do some gaming on an IGP. Until you all figure that out I fear you'll never understand the most basic concepts of the industry. SIMPLE ans . INTEL is forcing AMDs hand . AMD has to bring better graphics to the market for "FREE" THE FREE part says it all . AMD will lose money on discrete graphics . Their only hope is to gain CPU market share. TO really do this in a meaningful way AMD has to beat INTEL at COMPUTE . Thats likely not going to happen anytime soon . NV caught a break and getts 250 million a year from intel until they have there 1.5 billion intel paid for whatever.

 

[mosox]

AMD video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1I2Z6YECEkw

 

[piesquared]

How the computer performs practically is irrelevant, all that matter are bigger or smaller numbers in choice benchmarks.

[edit]

j/k obviously, but how reviewers choose to test this platform will answer a lot of outstanding questions about their relevancy, and whether or not they are providing any sort of service to readers/consumers whatsoever.

 

[podspi]

That should be obvious. I can't see Intel having near the eye candy capabilities as 5xxx series gpu which llano is based on. LLano will have the latest aa features and especially dx11 graphics.

AMD still messed up bad by not making a llano type dual core on 45nm. They gave Intel way to much time to get their ducks in a row. Intel is now getting a steady flow of NVidia IP.

Agreed. AMD's execution of Fusion has been, imho, inexcusable. At 45nm they could have put something like 100SP~200SP and dual-core, and kick-started the whole OEM market. Intel still has a LONG way to go in both hardware and software, but the difference between HD3000 and the old GMA's is huge.

So why did it take AMD so long to bring good enough to the point we can do some gaming on an IGP. Until you all figure that out I fear you'll never understand the most basic concepts of the industry. SIMPLE ans . INTEL is forcing AMDs hand . AMD has to bring better graphics to the market for "FREE" THE FREE part says it all . AMD will lose money on discrete graphics . Their only hope is to gain CPU market share. TO really do this in a meaningful way AMD has to beat INTEL at COMPUTE . Thats likely not going to happen anytime soon . NV caught a break and getts 250 million a year from intel until they have there 1.5 billion intel paid for whatever.

Actually I disagree with that. Take a look at how large the GPUs are compared to CPUs, take a look at the MSRP of Radeon cards, and then realize that AMD only supplies the GPUs for the cards. GPU margins are very, very slim. Take a look at the gross margin of Nvidia vs. AMD to see what I am talking about.

With Llano, that IGP is going to boost the ASP up, relative to what it would go for w/out those 400SPs or whatever it ends up having. And AMD gets all that revenue, not just whatever it sells the GPU for (anybody have any info on that, btw?).

To a degree with all of this I also think AMD will partially be protected by Intel's insistence and requirement of high margins. AMD is now a design-firm, and as such does not require margins as high as they used to (again, look at Nvidia). Correct me if I'm wrong, but most of the die-space on Bobcat is the IGP + uncore, and I wouldn't be surprised if the same goes for Llano. AMD is used to selling such items at very low margins, so I don't think Intel is going to push them too hard unless they are forced to by market share losses.

 

[tweakboy]

No one cares... your going to have to disable onboard video and use a solid video card..... . gl