19.04.2014 0 25889
There have been times when a PC couldn't run any decent game if it didn't have discrete graphics card... Today, most off-the-shelf computers and almost all laptops rely on graphics solutions integrated into central processing units... Yet the discrete graphics market continues to thrive. If you don't play heavy AAA games, is the graphics card a worthwhile upgrade? To find out the answer, let's compare the performance of integrated and discrete GPUs.
AMD and Intel significantly improved the quality integrated graphics... AMD's Kaveri APUs use the same powerful GCN graphics core found in their top-of-the-range Radeon series discrete graphics cards.
Intel has also updated the features and capabilities of its graphics systems HD-series, which are built into the fourth generation Core processors (codenamed Haswell). They currently provide broader support for Microsoft DirectX 11.1, can support multiple displays (including 4K resolution), and are compatible with most games.
To determine the benefits of a discrete graphics card, two computers were assembled. One runs on a Kaveri A8-7800 with an integrated Radeon R7 series GPU and the other on an Intel Core i7- 4670 Haswell processor with an integrated Intel HD 4600. Tests were then run with and without a discrete graphics card on board each system.
The argument for discrete graphics
Per discrete graphics says its performance. All but entry-class graphics cards have a much more powerful GPU than those integrated into processors. Moreover, a separate graphics card will provide the GPU dedicated pool of high-speed memory... An integrated GPU should be content with sharing system memory and data bus. Usually, with a discrete card, you can set the graphics settings in games higher than with integrated solutions.
There are other benefits to using discrete graphics cards as well. On current generation Nvidia graphics cards, users can use proprietary technologies Shadowplay and PhysX... ShadowPlay optimizes the use of the video encoding engines built into NVIDIA GPUs to record and stream games in real time, with little impact on frame rates. This is a key feature of the Nvidia Shield portable gaming device.
PhysX is a proprietary physics simulation technology that makes objects in games behave more closely to reality. PhysX is not supported by all games, but it can have a huge visual impact on supported ones.
Games aren't the only applications that benefit from the performance of a discrete GPU. GPUs from AMD and Nvidia are made up of thousands of processors that can perform multiple operations at the same time. Any application can benefit from parallel processing, be it image editing programs like Photoshop, data encryption, or distributed computing projects like Folding @ Home or SETI @ Home.
Discrete video cards can accelerate the mining of cryptographic currencies Bitcoins, Litecoins and others. The miners bought the latest graphics cards from AMD, as the Radeon architecture here turned out to be more efficient than Intel processors and Nvidia graphics cards. Where the Intel Haswell Core i7-4770K processor is capable of processing about 93 thousand hashes per second, AMD Radeon The R9 290X makes about 880K hashes per second.
The argument against discrete graphics
Discrete video cards also have drawbacks, and the main one is the price. Buying a video card will cost from a couple of thousand rubles to 30 thousand or more. AMD recently announced the world's fastest graphics card. The Radeon R9 295X2 has two Tahiti XT GPUs on one card and costs $ 1,500.
AMD and Intel have almost completely ditched processors without integrated graphics (only AMD's FX series and Intel's Ivy Bridge-E chips don't), and motherboards that support these processors have integrated video output.
The discrete graphics card also adds complexity to the system. The motherboard must have a free PCIe x16 slot for installing a video card. Usually in the system unit, it is available, although some of the ready-made small computers it may not be there, or the card may not fit inside the case. Or the power supply will not be able to support the requirements of the card. This is because the PC makers did not anticipate, or simply did not care, that the end user could upgrade.
Installing a discrete graphics card with Intel processors, technologies such as the Quick Sync video encoding engine can be difficult to use. Quick Sync is linked to the integrated graphics core Intel, and installing a discrete card might disable it. Fortunately, it can be activated again.
But you have to pay for everything. An external video card will increase the level of power consumption, generate heat, which requires a fan to remove it (some cards even have three fans), and this will increase the noise level of the system as a whole. There are also passive cooling systems, but they are only suitable for cards entry level and are more expensive.
Moving on to numbers
Two computers were assembled: an AMD A8-7600 APU with a Radeon R7 iGPU on an Asus A88X-Pro motherboard, and an Intel Core i5-4670 with an Intel HD 4600 on a Gigabyte Z87X-UD5 TH board. Both systems were equipped with 16GB of memory, a Samsung 840 Pro SSD and a 1000W Silverstone power supply, and the operating system was Windows 8.1 Pro 64-bit.
A series of tests were run, including games and content creation applications, using only integrated GPUs. After the system was installed Radeon graphics The R9 280X is from XFX and has been re-tested.
As you can see from the graphs, the presence of a discrete graphics card improves performance in almost all directions, and not only in games. PCMark 8, for example, launched the Home and Work versions with OpenGL support. This interface uses all available computing resources of the computer, both the central processor and the graphics. The addition of a discrete graphics card increased system performance in this benchmark by 3-19% (Figure 1).
In the multi-threaded Cinebench test, the video card had little effect, but with OpenGL on a system with a processor Intel graphics card gave an increase in productivity by 79%, in AMD system- 42% (Figure 2).
Many people think that people who play simple games like Farmville, Angry Birds, etc. - will not get any benefit from discrete graphics. But the addition of a graphics card gave a significant performance boost in the HTML5-oriented Fishbowl benchmark. This test is limited to 60 frames per second (the refresh rate of most monitors), and this value was achieved in three of the four tests with a discrete card (Figure 3). "Casual" games are becoming more and more complex, and accordingly their requirements for video cards are growing.
Speaking of complex games, the graphics cards showed a noticeable boost in BioShock Infinite at 1920 x 1080 pixels (Figure 4) and the synthetic gaming benchmark 3DMark Fire Strike.
There is an area where the addition of a discrete video adapter did not have a significant impact: video playback. There was very little CPU impact when running both YouTube videos (HTML5) and H.264 files in an MKV container.
Takeaway: Almost every desktop user can benefit from a graphics card. They are useful not only for gamers, although, of course, they get the main benefit.
P.S. If you have any problems with the equipment, please contact our computer service, or order a visit
Processors with integrated graphics have been fighting for a place in the sun for a long time and with varying success. However, initially, no one imagined that graphics cores located on the same semiconductor chip with a CPU would be able to compete with discrete graphics cards. Nevertheless, as semiconductor technologies have improved, manufacturers have learned to build fully-fledged graphics accelerators into processors that can accelerate both 3D graphics and video playback. high resolution, and video transcoding. All of this has become a completely natural and timely response to the changes in the typical environment in which the average computer user lives. Three-dimensional graphics are used everywhere today, even on the Internet, and it is impossible to pass by video content with all the desire.
In addition, games have acquired serious importance, which have become a full-fledged and popular form of mass leisure. The segment of computer entertainment continues to grow at a rapid pace, but not all popular games make serious demands on the power of graphics accelerators. Wide distribution can boast, including network multiuser projects, the needs of which, when modern level technological advances may well satisfy not only traditional graphics cards, but also integrated 3D accelerators. Therefore, the following statistics are not surprising: almost a third of the currently sold personal computers does not have a discrete graphics accelerator at all. Moreover, a significant proportion of such systems are home computers purchased for entertainment.
The power of the graphics core that can be built into the processor is limited by two factors: the size of the GPU semiconductor crystal and its heat dissipation. However, with the development of new production technologies and the introduction of modern graphics architectures, the scope of possibilities is gradually expanding. Now, with the widespread introduction of technical processes with 14-nm standards, it has become possible to combine a graphics accelerator with a central processor, which occupies about 100 mm 2 on a chip. This is comparable to the area occupied by the GPU of current discrete graphics cards in the price category "under $ 100". Thus, it all comes down to the fact that modern processors with integrated graphics should be able to reach at least the performance level of the GeForce GT 1030.
And these calculations do not lie. The senior member of the Raven Ridge family (this is the codename AMD named its new project- Ryzen processor with integrated graphics core of the Vega generation) promises a theoretical peak performance of 1.76 teraflops, which is comparable to not only the GeForce GTX 1030, but also the GeForce GTX 1050! However, you need to understand that in practice, the graphics performance of the Raven Ridge, like any other processor with integrated graphics, is significantly constrained by the memory bandwidth. While budget discrete graphics cards get their own dedicated memory with bandwidth in excess of 50-100 GB / s, integrated graphics are forced to be content with a shared dual-channel memory controller with the processor, which usually offers significantly worse bandwidth, spiced up with higher latencies.
In some situations, developers solve this problem by adding additional buffer memory to the processor with integrated graphics. For example, the sensational Kaby Lake-G with Radeon RX Vega M graphics will contain its own 4 GB HBM2 video memory. Or another example: the most powerful Intel processors with an integrated video core that have been released so far, Skylake-R, are equipped with a 128MB eDRAM-based victim cache of the fourth level.
However, in the case of the Raven Ridge, this approach does not work. Additional buffer memory increases the cost of the final product, and AMD's strategy is to launch an attack on the lower market segment with its new offerings, offering a good option to those users who build systems from inexpensive CPUs and budget GPUs. Therefore, in Raven Ridge, the bet is made on the intensification of the capabilities of system memory. For the new processor with an integrated video core, AMD engineers have optimized the existing DDR4 memory controller, added support for faster frequency modes and reduced latency. As a result, the company has got a very interesting product that has no close analogues in its market niche.
With the launch of the new Raven Ridge integrated processors, AMD continues its solid return to the CPU market last year as a full-fledged participant. The Zen microarchitecture has already proven its viability as a foundation for performance chips, but now it should serve as a foundation for low-cost mainstream integrated processors that AMD was able to package its best in this moment graphic architecture Vega. As AMD itself expects, with such a step it will be able to easily "transplant" to its devices those users who until now have been content with discrete graphics cards with a price of less than $ 100. The goal is somewhat ambitious, but considering the steps taken to achieve it, it is quite real.
In addition, it was very fortunate that Raven Ridge came to the rescue at a very difficult time. A shortage of discrete graphics accelerators provoked by crypto enthusiasts is raging on the market, as a result of which even an entry-level video card can be bought today only at a noticeably inflated price. And this means that Raven Ridge can become a kind of "magic wand" for those users who do not want to pay exorbitant prices for a video card and are either willing to be content with integrated solutions, or can afford to wait out the troubled times with their help. In general, the interest in Raven Ridge is huge for many reasons.
Raven Ridge Formula: Zen + Vega
In order to understand what Raven Ridge is, how AMD was able to put together two of its cutting-edge developments, and why it required almost a year of additional engineering efforts, just look at what the semiconductor crystal of the new hybrid processors looks like. Here it is:
You will probably remember that at the heart of all Ryzen processors released to date is a Zeppelin semiconductor crystal, which is assembled from two CCX (Core Complex) modules and the necessary strapping. Each such CCX module has four computational cores with the Zen microarchitecture and a shared L3 cache of 8 MB. The modules are interconnected with each other and with "extra-core" controllers through a special Infinity Fabric bus, which is an improved version of HyperTransport. Thus, all Ryzen without integrated graphics, regardless of how many cores are available to the user, are based on a single eight-core die with an area of about 218 mm 2, including about 4.8 billion transistors.
It is clear that additionally expanding such a large crystal with a graphics core is difficult from a production point of view. Therefore, in order to release Raven Ridge, AMD engineers had to design a different crystal based on the cores with the Zen microarchitecture. In it, the graphics core took the place of the second quad-core CCX module. As a result, the Raven Ridge die area remains almost the same - it is 210 mm 2, and the number of transistors has grown slightly - to 4.94 billion.
"Drive" Raven Ridge into such a framework was by no means a small amount of blood. AMD engineers intended to combine a fairly productive version of the Vega graphics core with the Zen computing cores. Past APUs of the company, codenamed Bristol Ridge, were equipped with an integrated graphics core with the GCN 1.3 architecture (for example, it was also used in the R9 Fury graphics cards) and in the maximum versions had a set of 512 stream processors. In Raven Ridge, which were initially positioned by AMD as products of a fundamentally different level, the power should have increased by a noticeable amount, so a very large GPU with 11 computing units (CU) was inscribed in the new semiconductor crystal, which in total corresponds to an array of 704 stream processors (SP).
As a result, it was not possible to leave one old CCX borrowed from Zeppelin intact in Raven Ridge, providing the integrated processor with four processing cores and an 8-megabyte L3 cache. In pursuit of cost reduction, engineers had to cut it somewhat. As a result, the volume of the L3 cache memory located in the Raven Ridge CCX module has been halved - to 4 MB. True, its associativity has not changed at the same time, which means that one should not count on a serious change in the speed characteristics of the L3 cache.
Nevertheless, a fourfold reduction in the total volume of the L3 cache memory compared to the "big Ryzen" had an effect on its performance: latencies decreased slightly. Below, all this is demonstrated on the graphs, which show the practically measured latencies of the memory subsystem of a quad-core Raven Ridge and a quad-core Ryzen 5 1500X processor, brought to a single clock speed of 3.8 GHz.
The L3 cache latency in Raven Ridge has decreased by about 5 clock cycles. They were won back by simplifying the algorithms of work, which now do without maintaining the coherence of parts of the cache memory located in different CCXs.
Along the way, one more curious detail is revealed: a noticeable acceleration in Raven Ridge was also received by the second-level cache. Its latency dropped from 17 to 13 clocks, although the manufacturer did not advertise this change anywhere.
Pointing to the change in the cache memory subsystem, AMD promises that reducing the amount of L3 cache in new processors should not negatively affect performance. Compensating for the negative vector is not only the decrease in latencies, but also the fact that the Raven Ridge does not have to suffer from the relatively slow inter-core connections between CCXs, made by the Infinity Fabric bus operating at the same frequency with the memory controller. Indeed, in the new processor design there is only one CCX module, and this internal bus connects it with the graphics core and other "extra-core" components, but the exchange of data between the computational cores is in no way concerned.
This can be clearly seen if we compare the practically measured latencies during inter-core data exchange between the Raven Ridge and the Ryzen 5 1500X. Here Raven Ridge wins noticeably - for a quad-core processor, the design with one CCX looks more optimal.
In addition to the caching improvements in Raven Ridge, the memory controller has also been optimized. First, it added official compatibility with DDR4-2933 modules, making the Raven Ridge the first processor on the market to support such a fast JEDEC specification. Second, all other things being equal, the Raven Ridge is more memory efficient than its predecessor Ryzen. Tests point to not too dramatic, but still observable naked eye decreased latency.
True, here you can see a decrease in practical throughput, but this effect should rather be attributed to "dampness" Motherboard BIOS boards. Since the release of Raven Ridge, motherboard manufacturers are again actively updating firmware, and new BIOS versions do bring additional performance improvements to the Raven Ridge memory controller.
Thus, in total, the changes in the Raven Ridge memory subsystem are diverse, and the reduced L3 cache is unlikely to be a serious drawback of these processors. But he was not the only one who underwent resection in the Raven Ridge. One more block was seriously cut down - the graphics bus controller built into the processor. PCI Express... For connecting an external graphics card in Raven Ridge processors, a full PCI interface Express 3.0 x16 is not supported: instead, it is proposed to use the truncated PCI Express 3.0 x8 bus. However, in the case of non-top-tier graphics cards, this limitation is unlikely to have any effect on performance, and the only thing worth keeping in mind is the lack of compatibility of Raven Ridge with multi-GPU configurations.
Raven Ridge does not work with Dual technology Graphics, which was supported in previous generations of AMD APUs. It is impossible to "pair" the built-in Vega graphics core with an external video card with the same architecture into a single multi-GPU array directly using the graphics driver. However, the joint work of the integrated graphics and external video card it is still possible through the mGPU technology, which is a part of DirectX 12. In other words, the built-in Vega can still "help" an external accelerator, it does not matter which discrete video card is used, but such a bundle will work exclusively in DirectX 12.
Ryzen 2000G Family: Ryzen 5 2400G and Ryzen 3 2200G
AMD has released two desktop variants of the Raver Ridge. Both are based on the same design and are manufactured at GlobalFoundries using a 14nm (14LPP) process that is also used in the case of our familiar Ryzen processors without integrated graphics. This means that, although the hybrid novelties received model numbers from the two thousandth series, the more advanced 12-nm process technology for their release is not used and they have nothing to do with the promising Zen + generation processors, which are scheduled for release in April.
The senior desktop Raven Ridge is a $ 169 Ryzen 5 2400G quad-core processor with SMT support and integrated Vega 11 graphics. Its younger sibling, Ryzen 3 2200G, is also a quad-core processor, but without SMT support and with a weaker Vega 8 graphics core. the characteristics of the new processors can be found in the table, where we have placed them next to the "classic" quad-core Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 3.
| Ryzen 5 2400G | Ryzen 5 1500X | Ryzen 5 1400 | Ryzen 3 2200G | Ryzen 3 1300X | Ryzen 3 1200 | |
| Codename | Raven Ridge | Summit ridge | Summit ridge | Raven Ridge | Summit ridge | Summit ridge |
| Production technology, nm | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 |
| Kernels / threads | 4/8 | 4/8 | 4/8 | 4/4 | 4/4 | 4/4 |
| Base frequency, GHz | 3,6 | 3,5 | 3,2 | 3,5 | 3,5 | 3,1 |
| Turbo frequency, GHz | 3,9 | 3,7 | 3,4 | 3,7 | 3,7 | 3,4 |
| XFR frequency, GHz | - | 3,9 | 3,45 | - | 3,9 | 3,45 |
| Overclocking | There is | There is | There is | There is | There is | There is |
| L3 cache, MB | 4 | 2 × 8 | 2 × 4 | 4 | 2 × 4 | 2 × 4 |
| Memory support | DDR4-2933 | DDR4-2666 | DDR4-2666 | DDR4-2933 | DDR4-2666 | DDR4-2666 |
| Integrated graphics | Vega 11 | Not | Not | Vega 8 | Not | Not |
| Stream Processors | 704 | - | - | 512 | - | - |
| Graphics core frequency, GHz | 1,25 | - | - | 1,1 | - | - |
| PCI Express Lines | 8 | 16 | 16 | 8 | 16 | 16 |
| TDP, W | 65 | 65 | 65 | 65 | 65 | 65 |
| Socket | Socket AM4 | Socket AM4 | Socket AM4 | Socket AM4 | Socket AM4 | Socket AM4 |
| Official price | $169 | $174 | $169 | $99 | $129 | $109 |
If you remember that Raven Ridge is based on a semiconductor crystal with one CCX-module, then it is quite clear that more powerful APU models from AMD are not expected in the foreseeable future. No Ryzen 7 with integrated graphics is possible. Ryzen 5 2400G fully reveals the possibilities that are inherent in the developed design. This processor utilizes all four processor cores and SMT multithreading technology, as well as the full set of 11 Compute Units (CUs) found in the embedded Vega accelerator. It is worth noting that as a result, the Ryzen 5 2400G turned out to be even more powerful than the mobile Ryzen 7 2700U, in which the graphics core uses only 10 out of 11 computing units.
The Ryzen 5 2400G's 11 CUs translate to 704 stream processors, 38 percent more than the arsenal of the Kaveri, Carrizo and Bristol Ridge generations. Combined with this comes a roughly 13 percent increase in graphics frequency, an increased number of texture units (from 32 to 44) and rasterization (from 8 to 16), as well as a new generation of architecture. Vega belongs to the most recent, fifth generation GCN, while the previously embedded video cores had a third generation architecture. All this together should provide a significant superiority of the older novelty over its predecessors in terms of performance.
However, here it will be appropriate to recall the existence of Kaby Lake-G with Radeon RX Vega M graphics again. Obviously, Raven Ridge will not be able to compete with them in any of its manifestations. Due to the fact that in Intel's version of processors with Vega graphics, the video core is located on a separate semiconductor crystal, it is much more powerful - it houses 24 computing units and 1536 stream processors. In addition, do not forget about the separate 4 GB HBM2 memory, which Intel also managed to fit into the processor package. Therefore, the scope of application for Ryzen and Kaby Lake-G with Vega graphics will be different. The Intel variant is a premium and expensive product for laptops and ultra-compact NUC desktops, while AMD is aiming for the mainstream segment.
That is why it is noteworthy that the Ryzen 5 2400G received a recommended price of $ 169: this allows this processor to be a direct and improved alternative to the Ryzen 5 1400. Obviously, the old version without graphics will now gradually go off the shelves, because the Ryzen 5 2400G surpasses the Ryzen 5 1400 in many basic parameters. In addition to having an integrated GPU, it has a higher clock speed (3.6 GHz versus 3.2 GHz - base and 3.9 GHz versus 3.4 GHz - turbo), there is support for faster DDR4-2933 memory and things are much better with inter-core interaction. In fact, the Ryzen 5 1400 can be more interesting only due to the more capacious L3 cache, but it is worth recalling that in this model it is also cut from 16 to 8 MB. Thus, in the vast majority of scenarios, the Ryzen 5 2400G will be faster when operated with an external graphics card.
Ryzen 3 2200G looks no worse than the $ 169 Ryzen 5 2400G in its niche. In terms of baseline performance, this processor is a typical Ryzen 3, with four non-SMT cores and a nominal 3.5 GHz clock rate with auto-overclocking capability up to 3.7 GHz. But to all this is added the comparatively powerful Vega 8 graphics core, and the price is set at $ 99, which makes this offer not only an attractive hybrid APU, but also the cheapest Ryzen in general. That is, even if you forget about the presence of good graphics in the Ryzen 3 2200G, it is unique in that it offers four productive x86 cores at a price below $ 100. There are no other offers of similar generosity at the moment.
As for the Vega 8 accelerator built into the Ryzen 3 2200G, this GPU option offers 512 stream processors, that is, it is at least as good as the graphics from previous generations of APUs that AMD implemented under the names A10 and A12 at a price significantly exceeding 100- dollar level.
Despite the fact that Ryzen processors with Vega graphics got quite high clock speeds, AMD managed to keep their heat dissipation within reasonable limits. The Ryzen 5 2400G and Ryzen 3 2200G have a typical heat dissipation of 65W - a great achievement when the company's fastest desktop APUs previously could have a design heat dissipation of 95W. And even more, in Raven Ridge, with the simultaneous load on the computing and graphics parts of the processor, the frequency of cores of both types does not drop below the nominal values, as was the case with APUs of previous generations. Even the older Ryzen 5 2400G can remain within the declared thermal package without any tweaks.
Separately, it should be mentioned that the updated Precision Boost 2 technology deals with clock speed control in Raven Ridge. It implements an improved and more aggressive algorithm, thanks to which the turbo mode in new processors with an integrated graphics core is turned on more often than before. In addition, with an incomplete load on some of the cores, intermediate frequencies between the base and maximum values are more actively involved. In other words, tuning for a specific load in Ryzen 5 2400G and Ryzen 3 2200G is more sensitive than it was before.
However, the XFR technology, which made it possible to additionally increase the frequency when the processor was operated in a favorable temperature mode, is absent in Raven Ridge.
You can install new processors of the Raven Ridge family in the same Socket AM4 motherboards that run other Ryzen. The only limitation is that compatible boards must use an updated BIOS: Raven Ridge requires versions built with AGESA Libraries 1.0.7.1 or later. In other words, the new CPUs with integrated graphics do not require any additional costs. They come to an existing and widespread platform.
Talking about how attractive price / performance ratio the new desktop Raven Ridge received, one cannot ignore the fact that boxed versions The Ryzen 5 2400G and Ryzen 3 2200G come with a bundled Wraith Stealth cooler, which is also included in the announced $ 169 and $ 99.
Of course, such a cooler has nothing to do with high-efficiency cooling solutions, but it will definitely cope with heat removal from 65-watt processors and will allow you to save an additional couple of tens of dollars when building a system on Raven Ridge. Moreover, the capabilities of this cooler will probably suffice for moderate overclocking.
« Why is this building needed? Give more cores, megahertz and cache!"- asks and exclaims the average computer user. Indeed, when a discrete graphics card is used in a computer, there is no need for integrated graphics. I must admit that I was lying about the fact that today a central processor without integrated video is harder to find than with it. There are such platforms - they are LGA2011-v3 for Intel chips and AM3 + for AMD “stones”. In both cases it comes about top solutions, but you have to pay for them. Mainstream platforms such as Intel LGA1151 / 1150 and AMD FM2 + are all equipped with processors with integrated graphics. Yes, in laptops, "embedded" is irreplaceable. If only because in 2D mode mobile computers work longer on battery power. In desktops, there is a lot of integrated video in office assemblies and the so-called HTPC. First, we save on components. Secondly, we again save on energy consumption. However, lately AMD and Intel have been seriously talking about their integrated graphics - all graphics cards! Suitable for gaming as well. This is what we will check.
We play modern games on the graphics built into the processor
300% increase
Integrated into the processor graphics (iGPU) was first introduced in Intel Clarkdale (1st generation Core architecture) solutions in 2010. It is integrated into the processor. An important amendment, since the very concept of "embedded video" was formed much earlier. Intel - back in 1999 with the release of the 810th chipset for Pentium II / III. At Clarkdale, the integrated HD Graphics video was implemented as a separate chip located under the processor's heatsink cover. The graphics were produced according to the old 45-nanometer process technology at that time, the main computing part - according to 32-nanometer standards. The first Intel solutions, in which the HD Graphics block "settled" along with the rest of the components on a single die, were the Sandy Bridge processors.
Intel Clarkdale is the first processor with integrated graphics
Since then, stone-built graphics have become the de facto standard for LGA115 * mainstream platforms. Generations of Ivy Bridge, Haswell, Broadwell, Skylake all have integrated video.
Processor Graphics Introduced 6 Years Ago
In contrast to the computing part, "integration" in Intel solutions is progressing noticeably. HD Graphics 3000 in Sandy Bridge K-series desktop processors has 12 execution units. HD Graphics 4000 in Ivy Bridge - 16; HD Graphics 4600 in Haswell - 20, HD Graphics 530 in Skylake - 25. The frequencies of both the GPU itself and the RAM are constantly increasing. As a result, the performance of the embedded video has increased 3-4 times in four years! But there is also a much more powerful series of Iris Pro built-ins, which are used in certain Intel processors. 300% interest over four generations is not 5% per year for you.
Intel Integrated Graphics Performance
Onboard graphics are where Intel has to keep up with AMD. In most cases, the Reds' decisions turn out to be faster. This is not surprising, as AMD is developing powerful gaming graphics cards. So, in the integrated graphics of desktop processors, the same architecture and the same developments are used: GCN (Graphics Core Next) and 28 nanometers.
AMD's hybrid chips debuted in 2011. The Llano family of crystals was the first in which integrated graphics were combined with a computational part on a single crystal. AMD marketers realized that they would not be able to compete with Intel on its terms, so they introduced the term APU (Accelerated Processing Unit, a processor with a video accelerator), although the idea was hatched by the "red" ones since 2006. After Llano, there were three more generations of hybrid cars: Trinity, Richland and Kaveri (Godavari). As I already said, in modern chips the integrated video is architecturally no different from the graphics used in discrete 3D Radeon accelerators. As a result, in the 2015-2016 chips, half of the transistor budget is spent on the iGPU.
Modern embedded graphics take up half of the usable area central processing unit
The most interesting thing is that the development of APU has influenced the future ... of game consoles. Here in the PlayStation 4 with Xbox one an AMD Jaguar chip is used - eight-core, with graphics on the GCN architecture. Below is a table with characteristics. The Radeon R7 is the most powerful integrated video the Reds have to date. The block is used in AMD A10 APUs. The Radeon R7 360 is an entry-level discrete graphics card that, according to my recommendations, can be considered a conditional gaming in 2016. As you can see, the modern "build-in" in terms of characteristics is not much inferior to the Low-end adapter. This is not to say that the graphics of game consoles have outstanding characteristics.
The mere appearance of processors with integrated graphics in many cases puts an end to the need to buy an entry-level discrete adapter. However, today the integrated video of AMD and Intel encroaches on the sacred - the gaming segment. For example, in nature there is a quad-core processor Core i7-6770HQ (2.6 / 3.5 GHz) on the Skylake architecture. It uses Iris Pro 580 integrated graphics and 128MB eDRAM as a L4 cache. The integrated video has 72 execution units at once, operating at a frequency of 950 MHz. This is more powerful than the graphics of the Iris Pro 6200, which uses 48 actuators. As a result, the Iris Pro 580 turns out to be faster than discrete graphics cards such as the Radeon R7 360 and GeForce GTX 750, and in some cases imposes competition between the GeForce GTX 750 Ti and the Radeon R7 370. technical process, and both manufacturers will eventually begin to use HBM / HMC memory together with integrated graphics.
Intel Skull Canyon - compact computer with the most powerful integrated graphics
Testing
To test modern integrated graphics, I took four processors: two each from AMD and Intel. All chips are equipped with different iGPUs. So, AMD A8 hybrid (plus A10-7700K) video Radeon R7 comes with 384 unified processors. The older series - A10 - has 128 blocks more. The flagship also has a higher frequency. There is also the A6 series - in it, with its graphic potential, everything is quite sad, since it uses a "built-in" Radeon R5 with 256 unified processors. I did not consider it for games in Full HD.
The most powerful integrated graphics are available in AMD A10 and Intel Broadwell processors
Concerning Intel products, then the most popular Skylake Core i3 / i5 / i7 chips for the LGA1151 platform use the HD Graphics 530 module. As I said, it contains 25 actuators: 5 more than HD Graphics 4600 (Haswell), but 23 less than the Iris Pro 6200 (Broadwell). The junior quad-core Core i5-6400 was used in the test.
| AMD A8-7670K | AMD A10-7890K | Intel Core i5-6400 (review) | Intel Core i5-5675C (review) | |
| Technical process | 28 nm | 28 nm | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Generation | Kaveri (Godavari) | Kaveri (Godavari) | Skylake | Broadwell |
| Platform | FM2 + | FM2 + | LGA1151 | LGA1150 |
| Number of cores / threads | 4/4 | 4/4 | 4/4 | 4/4 |
| Clock frequency | 3.6 (3.9) GHz | 4.1 (4.3) GHz | 2.7 (3.3) GHz | 3.1 (3.6) GHz |
| Third level cache | Not | Not | 6 MB | 4 MB |
| Integrated graphics | Radeon R7, 757 MHz | Radeon R7, 866 MHz | HD Graphics 530, 950 MHz | Iris Pro 6200, 1100 MHz |
| Memory controller | DDR3-2133 Dual Channel | DDR3-2133 Dual Channel | DDR4-2133, DDR3L-1333/1600 dual channel | DDR3-1600 Dual Channel |
| TDP level | 95 watts | 95 watts | 65 watts | 65 watts |
| Price | RUB 7,000 | RUB 11,500 | RUB 13,000 | RUB 20,000 |
| Buy |
The configurations of all test benches are described below. When it comes to the performance of the integrated video, it is necessary to pay due attention to the choice of RAM, since it also determines how many FPS the integrated graphics will show in the end. In my case, we used DDR3 / DDR4 whales operating at an effective frequency of 2400 MHz.
| Test benches | |||
| №1: | №2: | №3: | №4: |
| Processors: AMD A8-7670K, AMD A10-7890K; | Processor: Intel Core i5-6400; | Processor: Intel Core i5-5675C; | Processor: AMD FX-4300; |
| Motherboard: ASUS 970 PRO GAMING / AURA; | |||
| RAM: DDR3-2400 (11-13-13-35), 2x 8 GB. | Video card: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti; | ||
| RAM: DDR3-1866 (11-13-13-35), 2x 8 GB. | |||
| Motherboard: ASUS CROSSBLADE Ranger; | Motherboard: ASUS Z170 PRO GAMING; | Motherboard: ASRock Z97 Fatal1ty Performance | |
| RAM: DDR3-2400 (11-13-13-35), 2x 8 GB. | RAM: DDR4-2400 (14-14-14-36), 2x 8 GB. | RAM: DDR3-2400 (11-13-13-35), 2x 8 GB. | |
| Motherboard: ASUS CROSSBLADE Ranger; | Motherboard: ASUS Z170 PRO GAMING; | ||
| RAM: DDR3-2400 (11-13-13-35), 2x 8 GB. | RAM: DDR4-2400 (14-14-14-36), 2x 8 GB. | ||
| Motherboard: ASUS CROSSBLADE Ranger; | |||
| RAM: DDR3-2400 (11-13-13-35), 2x 8 GB. | |||
| Operating system: Windows 10 Pro x64; | |||
| Peripherals: monitor LG 31MU97; | |||
| AMD driver: 16.4.1 Hotfix; | |||
| Intel driver: 15.40.64.4404; | |||
| NVIDIA driver: 364.72. |
RAM support for AMD Kaveri processors
Such kits were chosen for a reason. According to official data, the built-in memory controller of Kaveri processors works with DDR3-2133 memory, however, motherboards based on the A88X chipset (due to an additional divider) also support DDR3-2400. Intel chips, coupled with the flagship logic Z170 / Z97 Express, also interact with faster memory, there are noticeably more presets in the BIOS. As for the test bench, for the LGA1151 platform we used a two-channel kit Kingston Savage HX428C14SB2K2 / 16, which works without any problems at overclocking up to 3000 MHz. Other systems used ADATA AX3U2400W8G11-DGV memory.
Choice of RAM
A little experiment. In the case of Core i3 / i5 / i7 processors for the LGA1151 platform, using faster memory to accelerate graphics is not always rational. For example, for Core i5-6400 (HD Graphics 530), changing the DDR4-2400 MHz kit to DDR4-3000 in Bioshock Infinite gave only 1.3 FPS. That is, with the graphics quality settings I set, the performance "rested" on the graphics subsystem.
Intel processor integrated graphics performance versus RAM frequency
The situation looks better when using AMD APUs. An increase in the speed of the RAM gives a more impressive increase in FPS, in the delta frequencies of 1866-2400 MHz we are dealing with an increase of 2-4 frames per second. I think use in all test benches RAM with an effective frequency of 2400 MHz is a rational solution. And more close to reality.
Dependence of the performance of the integrated graphics of the AMD processor on the frequency of the RAM
We will judge the performance of the integrated graphics based on the results of thirteen gaming applications. I conditionally divided them into four categories. The first includes popular but undemanding PC hits. They are played by millions. Therefore, such games ("tanks", Word of Warcraft, League of Legends, Minecraft - here) have no right to be demanding. We have the right to expect a comfortable FPS level with high graphics quality settings in Full HD resolution. The rest of the categories were simply divided into three time frames: games 2013/14, 2015 and 2016.
Integrated graphics performance varies with RAM frequency
The quality of the graphics was selected individually for each program. For undemanding games, these are mostly high settings. For other apps (excluding Bioshock Infinite, Battlefield 4 and DiRT Rally) - low quality graphics. Nevertheless, we will test the integrated graphics in Full HD resolution. Screenshots describing all the graphics quality settings are located in the one of the same name. Let's assume that 25 fps is playable.
| Undemanding games | 2013/14 Games | 2015 Games | 2016 Games |
| Dota 2 - high; | Bioshock Infinite - Medium; | Fallout 4 - Low | Rise of the Tomb Raider - low; |
| Diablo III - High | Battlefield 4 - Medium; | GTA V - standard; | Need for Speed - Low; |
| StarCraft II - high. | Far cry 4 - low. | XCOM 2 - Low. | |
| DiRT Rally - high. | |||
| Diablo III - High | Battlefield 4 - Medium; | GTA V - standard; | |
| StarCraft II - high. | Far Cry 4 - Low. | The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt - Low; | |
| DiRT Rally - high. | |||
| Diablo III - High | Battlefield 4 - Medium; | ||
| StarCraft II - high. | Far Cry 4 - Low. | ||
| Diablo III - High | |||
| StarCraft II - high. |
HD
The main goal of testing is to examine the performance of the integrated graphics of processors in Full HD resolution, but first we will knead at a lower HD. The iGPU Radeon R7 (for both A8 and A10) and Iris Pro 6200 felt quite comfortable in such conditions. But HD Graphics 530 with its 25 executive devices in some cases produced a completely unplayable picture. Specifically: in five games out of thirteen, since in Rise of the Tomb Raider, Far Cry 4, The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, Need for Speed and XCOM 2 there is nowhere to reduce the quality of the graphics. Obviously, in Full HD, the integrated video of the Skylake chip is going to be a complete failure.
HD Graphics 530 merges already in 720p resolution
The Radeon R7 graphics used in the A8-7670K failed with three games, the Iris Pro 6200 with two, and the A10-7890K insert with one.
Test results in a resolution of 1280x720 pixels
Interestingly, there are games in which the integrated video of the Core i5-5675C seriously outperforms the Radeon R7. For example, in Diablo III, StarCraft II, Battlefield 4 and GTA V. Low resolution affects not only the presence of 48 executive devices, but also the processor dependence. And also the presence of a fourth-level cache. At the same time, the A10-7890K beat its opponent in the more demanding Rise of the Tomb Raider, Far Cry 4, The Witcher 3 and DiRT Rally. GCN architecture is doing well in modern (and not so) hits.
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 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 anymore 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, capable only of ensuring the operation of the interface operating system, but about completely full-fledged solutions that in their performance can be opposed to discrete entry-level graphics accelerators and certainly surpass all those integrated video cores that were built into the system 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 the basis for inexpensive home computers, which forced Intel to reconsider its attitude towards the prospects for 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 a particular processor with built-in 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 three-dimensional images, 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, software support is required to tap into this promising opportunity.
AMD Fusion processors with a video core, known under the codename Llano, fully meet this definition, they are precisely APUs. 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, including cryptographic algorithms, rendering 3D images or post-processing tasks for 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, which contain the integrated HD Graphics, 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 computational tasks.
With one important exception. The fact is that in the graphics cores of Intel processors there is a specialized Quick Sync unit, focused on hardware acceleration of the video stream encoding algorithms. Of course, as with OpenCL, it requires a special software support, but on the other hand, it is really capable of improving the performance when transcoding high-definition video by 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 is able to use the graphics power only 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 cannot 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 problem - comparative testing 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 Athlon II, and a 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 - computing performance correlates with graphics performance, that is, processors with the largest number of cores and with the maximum clock frequency are always equipped 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 the Core i5 and Core i7 were not included in the actual testing.
Intel did not create its own infrastructure for low-cost integrated platforms, so Core i3 and Pentium processors can be used in the same LGA1155 motherboards as other Sandy Bridges. To use the integrated video core, you will need motherboards based on special H67, H61 or Z68 logic sets.
All Intel processors that can be considered competitors for Llano are based on a 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 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.
Insofar as main goal This test consisted of studying 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 the user's 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 find it very difficult to fight against 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.
The 3D Modeling script is entirely dedicated to 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.
The last scenario, System Management, is used to 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.
Application performance
To measure the speed of processors when compressing information, we use WinRAR archiver, with the help of which we archive a folder with various files with a total volume 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 speed of audio transcoding, the utility is used Apple iTunes, with the help of which the content of the CD is converted into 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 capacity fall 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 outperform the older A8 in programs like WinRAR, iTunes or Photoshop.
In addition to the conducted tests, to check how the power of the 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) at downscaling 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 technology Sync. 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 do not show at all best result than Pentium processors, which transcode video solely by means of 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 processor is in practice superior to any Intel HD Graphics option. 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's processors are two to four times worse than AMD's in terms of 3D performance.
Some compensation for the drop 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.
V gaming tests the picture is quite positive for AMD's proposals. 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 situation 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. The older 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. We cannot recommend any Intel processors for cheap gaming systems - 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 miniaturizing 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 to use, since its total power consumption will obviously be lower than the consumption of a platform with discrete graphics. Related bonus - more quiet modes work, 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, which lies 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, for the correct assessment of energy consumption during idle time, we have activated all available energy-saving technologies, as well as Turbo technology Core (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, while competing AMD solutions, on the contrary, consume up to 8 watts per 12-volt dedicated line on the CPU. 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 computational and graphic 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 discovers that the power efficiency issues inherent in the Phenom II and Athlon II are still there with the introduction of 32nm technological process... 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, a good excuse for AMD Fusion can be their significantly higher 3D performance. 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 blocks of hybrid processors allows you to get 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. Computing 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 processors or Core i3. 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, the strong point of the AMD Fusion family of processors turned out to be the built-in graphics core with a relatively high performance and compatibility with programming interfaces DirectX 11 and Open CL 1.1. 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 included in the series Fusion processors use general-purpose kernels 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 common 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 previous generations.
However, whatever is said about balance, the A4 and A6 series are poorly suited for demanding computing applications. Representatives on the same budget Intel line Pentium can offer significantly higher performance in computing tasks. 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 far from being manifested everywhere and, moreover, are provided with increased heat dissipation, which will not please every computer owner 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, we would not recommend at all to think of Intel processors as a possible basis for a system capable of working with 3D graphics. 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.
Well, 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 be compatible 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.
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. 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 stationary 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 assembly line of processors, 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 for the processor, but in this case the price will also rise.
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 at the link.
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 embedded on 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 the 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. The best way to determine performance is to view 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 index P means that we are talking about 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 marking 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 Intel's 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!
