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 kind of frail video cores that are only capable of ensuring the operation of the operating system interface, but about completely full-fledged solutions that, in terms of their performance, can be opposed to discrete entry-level graphics accelerators and probably surpass all those integrated video cores that were built into systems logic sets earlier.
The pioneer was Intel, which released Sandy Bridge processors with integrated Intel HD Graphics for desktop computers at the beginning of the year. True, she thought that good integrated graphics would be of interest primarily to users of mobile computers, and for desktop CPUs, only a stripped-down version of the video core was offered. The incorrectness of this approach was later demonstrated by AMD, which released Fusion processors with full-fledged graphics cores of the Radeon HD series on the market of desktop systems. Such proposals immediately gained popularity not only as solutions for the office, but also as 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 the choice of a particular processor with an integrated graphics accelerator.
Terminology question: CPU or APU?
If you are already familiar with the integrated graphics processors that AMD and Intel offer for desktop users, then you know that these manufacturers are trying to distance their products as much as possible from each other, trying to instill the idea that their direct comparison is incorrect. The main "confusion" is brought by AMD, which refers its solutions to a new class of APUs, and not to conventional CPUs. What's the difference?APU stands for Accelerated Processing Unit. If we turn to detailed explanations, it turns out that from a hardware point of view, this is a hybrid device that combines traditional general-purpose computing cores with a graphics core on a single semiconductor chip. 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 can get practical benefits from running on an array of Radeon HD stream processors, including cryptographic algorithms, rendering of 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 in the case of OpenCL, it requires special software support, but 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 can only use graphics power when transcoding video, but in fact, both of these features are almost never used. So, from a practical point of view, any of the processors discussed in this article is a regular CPU and a video card, assembled inside a single microcircuit.
Processors - Test Participants
In fact, you shouldn't think of processors with integrated graphics as some kind of special offer aimed at a certain group of users with atypical requests. Universal integration is a global trend, and such processors have become the standard offer in the lower and middle price range. Both AMD Fusion and Intel Sandy Bridge have ousted CPUs without graphics from the current offerings, so even if you are not going to rely on an integrated video core, we can not offer anything other than focusing on the same processors with graphics. Fortunately, no one forces the built-in video core to be used, and it can be turned off.Thus, starting to compare a CPU with an integrated GPU, we came to a more general task - comparative testing of modern processors with a cost of $ 60 to $ 140. Let's see what suitable options in this price range AMD and Intel can offer us, and what specific processor models we were able to involve in the tests.
AMD Fusion: A8, A6 and A4
To use desktop processors with an integrated graphics core, AMD offers a dedicated Socket FM1 platform that is compatible exclusively with the Llano family of processors - A8, A6 and A4. These processors have two, three or four general-purpose Husky cores with a microarchitecture similar to 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, there is one regularity in the model range - the computing performance is correlated with the graphics performance, that is, the processors with the largest number of cores and with the maximum clock frequency are always supplied with the fastest video cores.
Intel Core i3 and Pentium
Intel can oppose the AMD Fusion processors with its dual-core Core i3 and Pentium, which do not have their own collective name, but are also equipped with graphics cores and have a comparable cost. Of course, there are graphics cores in more expensive quad-core processors, but they play a clearly secondary role there, so 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.
Since the main goal of this test was to study the capabilities of processors with integrated graphics, all tests were carried out without using an external graphics card. The built-in video cores were responsible for displaying the image on the screen, 3D functions and accelerating HD video playback.
It should be noted that, due to the lack of DirectX 11 support in Intel graphics cores, testing in all graphics applications was carried out in DirectX 9 / DirectX 10 modes.
Performance in common tasks
Overall performanceTo assess the performance of processors in common tasks, we traditionally use the Bapco SYSmark 2012 test, which simulates 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 typical office work: preparing word, processing spreadsheets, working with e-mail, and surfing the Internet. The script uses the following set of applications: ABBYY FineReader Pro 10.0, Adobe Acrobat Pro 9, Adobe Flash Player 10.1, Microsoft Excel 2010, Microsoft Internet Explorer 9, Microsoft Outlook 2010, Microsoft PowerPoint 2010, Microsoft Word 2010, and WinZip Pro 14.5.
The Media Creation scenario simulates the creation of a commercial using pre-shot digital images and video. For this purpose, popular packages from Adobe are used: Photoshop CS5 Extended, Premiere Pro CS5 and After Effects CS5.
Web Development is a scenario within which the creation of a website is modeled. Applications used: Adobe Photoshop CS5 Extended, Adobe Premiere Pro CS5, Adobe Dreamweaver CS5, Mozilla Firefox 3.6.8 and Microsoft Internet Explorer 9.
Data / Financial Analysis Scenario is dedicated to statistical analysis and forecasting of market trends that are performed in Microsoft Excel 2010.
3D Modeling Script is all about creating 3D objects and rendering static and dynamic scenes using Adobe Photoshop CS5 Extended, Autodesk 3ds Max 2011, Autodesk AutoCAD 2011 and Google SketchUp Pro 8.
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 the WinRAR archiver, with the help of which we archive a folder with various files with a total size of 1.4 GB with the maximum compression ratio.
We measure performance in Adobe Photoshop using our own benchmark, which is a creatively reworked Retouch Artists Photoshop Speed Test including typical processing of four 10-megapixel images taken with a digital camera.
When testing the audio transcoding speed, the Apple iTunes utility is used, with the help of which the contents of a CD-disc are converted to AAC format. Note that a characteristic feature of this program is the ability to use only a couple of processor cores.
To measure the speed of video transcoding into H.264 format, the x264 HD test is used, which is based on measuring the processing time of the original MPEG-2 video recorded in 720p resolution with a 4 Mbps stream. It should be noted that the results of this test are of great practical importance, since the x264 codec used in it underlies numerous popular transcoding utilities, for example, HandBrake, MeGUI, VirtualDub, etc.
Testing the final rendering speed in Maxon Cinema 4D is performed using the specialized Cinebench benchmark.
We also used the Fritz Chess Benchmark, which evaluates the speed of the popular chess algorithm used in the programs of the Deep Fritz family.
Looking at the diagrams above, 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 surpass 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 Sync technology. Numbers speak better than words: Quick Sync transcodes HD video content several times faster than any other toolkit. The second large group unites all other processors, among which CPUs with a large number of cores are in the first place. The Stream technology promoted by AMD, as we can see, does not manifest itself in any way, and the Fusion series APUs with two cores show no better result than Pentium processors, which transcode video exclusively by the computational cores.
Graphics core performance
The group of 3D gaming tests opens with the results of the 3DMark Vantage benchmark, which was used with the Performance profile.
A change in the nature of the load immediately leads to a change in leaders. The graphics core of any AMD Fusion 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.
In gaming tests, a very positive picture for AMD's proposals is developing. Despite the fact that they have rather mediocre computational performance, powerful graphics allow them to show good (for integrated solutions) results. Almost always, representatives of the Fusion series allow you to get a higher number of frames per second than Intel platform with processors of the Core i3 and Pentium families gives.
Even the fact that Intel began to build in a productive version of the HD Graphics 3000 graphics core did not save the 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. A concomitant bonus is quieter modes of operation, 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, to correctly estimate idle power consumption, we have activated all available energy-saving technologies, as well as Turbo Core technology (where supported).
At rest, all systems showed the total energy consumption, which is approximately at the same level. At the same time, as we can see, Intel processors practically do not load the processor power line when idle, while competing AMD solutions, on the contrary, consume up to 8 W. But this does not mean that the representatives of the Fusion family do not know how to fall into deep energy-saving states. The differences are caused by the different implementation of the power scheme: in Socket FM1 systems, both the 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 reveals that the power efficiency issues inherent in the Phenom II and Athlon II are not gone with AMD's 32nm 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 or Core i3 processors. Moreover, the lowest-frequency AMD Fusion, the A6-3500 offers the best economy in this use case.
conclusions
At first glance, summing up the test results is easy. AMD and Intel processors with integrated graphics have shown completely dissimilar advantages, which allows us to recommend either one or the other depending on the planned use of the computer.So, the strong point of the AMD Fusion family of processors is the integrated graphics core with relatively high performance and compatibility with DirectX 11 and Open CL 1.1 software interfaces. Thus, these processors can be recommended for those systems where the quality and speed of 3D graphics is not the least important. At the same time, the processors included in the Fusion series use general-purpose cores based on the old and slow K10 microarchitecture, which translates into their low performance in computational tasks. Therefore, if you are interested in options that provide the best performance in 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. Within the same budget, Intel Pentium line-ups can offer significantly faster computing performance. To tell the truth, against the background of Sandy Bridge, only the A8-3850 can be considered a processor with an acceptable speed in common programs. And even then, its good results are 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.
Good day friends.
The topic of our conversation today will be the graphics core in the processor - what it is and when it is used. The article is especially relevant for those who choose between an integrated and discrete graphics card or just bother with the image quality.
Explanation of the concept
There was already an article on my blog about what it is. But don't confuse those kernels with these. Now we will talk about the schedule. It is not built into everyone. This is just a variety of them.
I will try to explain it as simply as possible.
These devices simultaneously perform the functions of a processor, that is, they process all computational tasks, and a video card, which is responsible for displaying images on your monitor.
You can also find such a designation for this chip as IGP. It is an abbreviation for Integrated Graphics Processor, which means integrated graphics processor.
Why combine percent with vidyuhoy inside?
In order to:
- Reduce the power consumption of iron, not only because low-power devices eat less themselves, but they also need weak cooling;
- Make the hardware more compact;
- Reduce the cost of the PC.
By the way, when manufacturers were just starting to practice combining devices, they built the graphics core directly into.
Integrated graphics on the motherboard Now it is more popular to combine them with central processors in order to unload the motherboard as much as possible. In addition, due to the reduction, it is now possible to make devices of the same size, but with greater power.
Minuses
Let's consider the points mentioned above as advantages of graphics cores. Now I'll tell you about the disadvantages.
The best in terms of the quality of the image displayed on the screen are discrete ones, since they are independent devices created specifically for this.
In turn, embedded kernels do not have such resources of their own. In particular, they do not use their own separate RAM, but shared memory. They also use one data bus in conjunction with the process. This naturally slows down the performance of the entire computer because it slows down the CPU.
Where are the graphics cores used?
Considering the pros and cons described above, integrated controllers are often used in laptops and inexpensive desktop computers. This solution is perfect for office PCs that do not require high quality graphics and accelerated performance.
But connoisseurs of high-quality pictures and powerful realistic games are still better off buying discrete models. They have their own RAM, cooling system and data transfer bus, so they can afford to be much more powerful than integrated ones.
Note
I want to warn you that if you want to add performance to your chip with an integrated graphics core by purchasing an external video card, then you will be wasting your money. Either one or the other will work.
True, there are exceptions - laptops with two video devices. The main one is usually some kind of Intel HD model, and when it fails, a stronger device from AMD or NVidia helps it. This solution allows you to simultaneously enjoy high-quality graphics and reduce power consumption, as the powerful device rests while surfing the Internet or working with office programs.
Subscribe to updates so as not to miss new useful information.
« 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, we are talking about top-end solutions, and 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.
State-of-the-art integrated graphics take up half the usable area of the CPU
The most interesting thing is that the development of APU has influenced the future ... of game consoles. So in the PlayStation 4 with the Xbox One, the AMD Jaguar chip is used - an 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 PC with 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
As for Intel products, 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 execution units: 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, 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 that the use of RAM with an effective frequency of 2400 MHz in all test benches is a rational decision. 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 applications (with the exception of Bioshock Infinite, Battlefield 4 and DiRT Rally) - poor graphics quality. 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 inline 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.
Tired of a long search for a new processor, viewing numerous reviews on forums and flipping through catalogs, the user can finally go to the website of the largest online store in Ukraine "Electronic World" at http://elmir.ua. Of course, he will be amazed not only by the fact that delivery to Kiev, Kharkov and other cities is possible, not only by low prices, but also by the wealth of choice that the store provides.
Looking through all these wise processor specs, the user may notice that some of them include an option such as an integrated GPU. At the same time, this parameter may be absent for other processors. What is it and why might it be needed?
Integrated GPU
The fact is that some manufacturers, among other things, build a special graphics accelerator into their processors. Or the so-called graphics core. For example, if you buy an amd a6 processor, then the graphics core will be found in it. In the rest, it may not be there.
The role of the graphics core - GPU - is exactly the same as that of any video card. It processes the image and displays it on the screen, however, buying a separate video card can be avoided, for example, in order to reduce the cost of the entire system as a whole.
However, does this mean that in this case you can refuse a discrete video card altogether? The built-in graphics core with a relatively high performance can really be used not only in office systems, but also in entry-level gaming systems. However, in any case, the GPU power is often much lower than that of a single video card.
When you may need it
The purchase of a system with a built-in video accelerator seems more rational at first glance. After all, the cost of a good gaming video card is sometimes several times higher than the cost of such a processor. However, don't jump to conclusions. A GPU in a processor can be useful when:
- the user collects an office system, which is required only to work with texts, spreadsheets and surf the Internet;
- a graphics core worthy of performance will replace a discrete graphics card for not too demanding gamers who are not interested in the latest gaming innovations;
- the user wants to build a system with two graphics cards - built-in and discrete. In this case, one graphics chip will work during the launch of "heavy" applications, and the second - for example, built into amd a6 - will be included in the work when you need to handle the needs of the operating system or office applications. This will achieve a balance between performance and power consumption.
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 desktop PC
Basically, it is these two situations that make people pay special attention to integrated graphics.
Here, as in the rest of our articles, chips until 2010 will not be considered. So we will only touch on Intel HD Graphics, Iris Graphics and Iris Pro Graphics
The question of installing integrated graphics in powerful game processors remains unclear, because they are used only in tandem with a powerful video card, which even the most powerful integrated graphics are not suitable for. Most likely this is due to the high cost of rebuilding the 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 P indicates the Xeon processor (server chips).
There is an HD Graphics model in every generation before Skylake, but these models are different from each other. After Westmere, HD Graphics is simply installed only in Pentium and Celeron. And it is worth distinguishing separately HD Graphics in mobile processors Atom, Celeron, Pentium, which are built on a mobile microarchitecture.
In mobile architectures, until recently, only the same HD Graphics models were adopted, corresponding to different microarchitectures. Graphics of different generations differ in performance, and this generation is usually indicated in parentheses, for example, Intel HD Graphics (Bay Trail). Now, when the new 8th generation of the integrated graphics is released, they will also differ. This is how HD Graphics 400 and 405 differ in performance.
Within one generation, productivity increases with an increase in the number, which is logical.
With the Haswell generation, a slightly different marking of chips began to operate.
New 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.
The 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!
