Any modern laptop has at least one video card that comes "by default". Considering that the vast majority of portable computers come with Intel processors, the graphics system is from the same manufacturer. Naturally, AMD processors use a video core of their own production, but in this case Let's talk about Intel and the fact that each CPU has an integrated graphics card (GPU) - Intel HD Graphics or Iris Graphics. For use in modern games, for serious work with 3D modeling, creating animations, working with complex graphics packages, the capabilities of such graphics systems are not enough, but for the vast majority of everyday tasks, performance is more than necessary.

What is an integrated graphics card

The concept of "integrated" implies that the video core is located on the same substrate as the processor, sharing RAM. The size of the RAM taken away by the integrated video card lies within 5% of the total volume and depends on the tasks performed. The video card driver, interacting with the operating system, seeks to maintain optimal performance and memory allocation between the graphics subsystem and the processor.

According to Intel representatives, the task of catching up with discrete solutions is not worth it, since the integrated video card aims to ensure maximum stability, reduce the cost of the system by refusing to purchase an additional video card, and reduce heat dissipation and power consumption. The last two arguments are especially relevant for laptops.

In the latest generation of Kaby Lake processors, the integrated video core has been updated, which exists in two varieties and is Intel names HD Graphics and Intel Iris Plus Graphics. In the previous generation of Skylake, they were called Intel HD Graphics and Intel Iris Graphics, respectively.

The model of the integrated video card depends on the processor used, as shown in the table.

CPU generation	Intel GPU Model	CPU
skylake	Intel HD Graphics 500	Celeron N3350, Celeron N3450
	Intel HD Graphics 510	Pentium 4405U, Celeron 3955U, Celeron 3855U
	Intel HD Graphics 515	Pentium N4200, Core m7,-6Y75, Core m5-6Y57, Core m5-6Y54, Core m3-6Y30
	Intel HD Graphics 520	Core i7-6600U, Core i7-6500U, Core i5-6300U, Core i5-6200U, Core i3-6100U, Core i3-6006U
	Intel HD Graphics 530	Core i7-6920HQ Core i7-6820HQ Core i7-6820HK Core i7-6700HQ Core i5-6440HQ Core i5-6300HQ Core i3-6100H
	Intel Iris Graphics 540	Core i7-6660U, Core i7-6650U, Core i7-6560U, Core i5-6260U, Core i5-6260U
	Intel Iris Graphics 550	Core i7-6567U, Core i3-6157U, Core i3-6167U
	Intel Iris Pro Graphics 580	Core i7-6970HQ, Core i7-6870HQ, Core i7-6770HQ, Core i5-6350HQ
Kaby Lake	Intel HD Graphics 610	Pentium 4415U, Celeron 3965U, Celeron 3865U,
	Intel HD Graphics 615	Pentium 4410Y, Core i7-7Y75, Core i5-7Y54, Core i5-7Y757, Core m3-7Y30
	Intel HD Graphics 620	Core i7-7600U, Core i7-7500U, Core i5-7300U, Core i5-7200U, Core i3-7100U
	Intel HD Graphics 630	Core i7-7920HQ Core i7-7820HQ Core i7-7820HK Core i7-7700HQ Core i5-7300HQ Core i5-7440HQ Core i3-7100H
	Intel Iris Plus Graphics 640	Intel Core i7-7660U, Core i5-7360U, Core i5-7260U
	Intel Iris Plus Graphics 650	Core i5-7287U, Core i5-7267U

What is the difference between Intel HD Graphics and Intel Iris Plus Graphics

It should be said right away that an integrated graphics card is not the best choice for working in AutoCAD, for games such as DOOM, Rise of the Tomb Raider and the like. You don't have to wait for miracles. Old games that are several years old, or those with low hardware requirements, can be played on such video cards.

Unlike Intel HD Graphics, a number of processors are equipped with a more "advanced" video core - Intel Iris Plus Graphics, as it is called in the generation of Kaby Lake processors. In previous Skylake, such video cards were called Iris (Pro), and in the 5th generation, Broadwell, the name Iris was used - like that, without fanfare.

What is the difference between regular video cores and Iris? The latter uses double the number of execution cores, 48 ​​versus 24 for HD Graphics (Intel Iris Pro Graphics 580 uses 72 cores), and also uses a small 64 MB eDRAM cache (Intel Iris Pro Graphics 580 has 128 MB), which significantly increases the performance of such a card. According to tests, such solutions can compete with the initial lines of discrete video cards. For example, the Iris Plus 650 is about on par with the GeForce 930M in terms of performance.

Another thing is that laptop models with integrated Iris graphics are one, two, and countless. This is, one might say, a niche product used in just a few models. Yes, in Apple MacBook Pro 13 is equipped with Intel Core i5 6267U processors with Intel Iris Graphics 550, or Dell XPS 13 is one of the hits in the class, in one of the modifications it uses Intel Core i5 6560U with Iris Graphics 540. There are similar offers from Lenovo and HP, but the quantity models can be counted on the fingers. By the way, I did not find modifications with Iris graphics in the updated line of Dell XPS 13 laptops, although I may have looked at something.

The main characteristics of integrated video cards:

ModelGPU	Number of execution cores	Base frequency, MHz	Maximum frequency, GHz	VolumeeDRAM, MB
Intel HD Graphics 500	12	200	0.7
Intel HD Graphics 510	12	350	1.05
Intel HD Graphics 515	24	300	1.00
Intel HD Graphics 520	24	300	1.05
Intel HD Graphics 530	24	300	1.15
Intel Iris Graphics 540	48	300	1.05	64
Intel Iris Graphics 550	48	300	1.10	64
Intel Iris Pro Graphics 580	72	300	1.15	128
Intel HD Graphics 610	24	350	0.95	—
Intel HD Graphics 615	24	300	1.05	—
Intel HD Graphics 620	24	300	1.05	—
Intel HD Graphics 630	24	300	1.10	—
Intel Iris Plus Graphics 640	48	300	1.05	64
Intel Iris Plus Graphics 650	48	300	1.10	64

Support for multiple monitors and 4K resolution

The latest generations of processors, specifically the 6th and 7th generations, support 4K monitors. The only exception is the integrated Intel HD Graphics 500, which does not have this support. Actually, maximum resolution of these graphics chips is 4096 x 2304, which exceeds the 4K values ​​of 3840 x 2160.

As for connecting multiple monitors, in the case of laptops, it matters how they will be connected, what interfaces are used. Notebooks equipped with DisplayPort or USB Type-C/Thunderbolt 3 ports will allow you to use 3 displays with Full HD (1920 x 1080) resolution, two monitors with 2K resolution, or one 4K. If there are no such ports, then you can use USB adapters.

Conclusion

So are integrated graphics cards good or not? For games, serious graphics programs - no, if not in question about simple or old games, for daily work- more than. At the same time, the use of low-power discrete cards of the GeForce 920M(X) class in combination with processors of the latest generations is not very clear to me.

For example, the ASUS A541UV laptop uses a Core i7-6500U and a GeForce 920M. Yes, discrete card will be 30-40 percent faster, but its capabilities still lie outside the limits of comfortable use for games. But there is an extra consumer of electricity and an additional source of heating.

3 Great processor for gaming 4 Best price 5

Computers have entered our lives so tightly that we already consider them something elementary. But their structure is by no means simple. Motherboard, processor, RAM, hard drives: all these are integral parts of a computer. It is impossible to throw out this or that detail, because they are all important. But most important role the processor is playing. They don't call it "central" for nothing.

The role of the CPU is simply huge. He is responsible for all calculations, which means that it depends on him how quickly you will complete your tasks. It can be web surfing, drafting a document in text editor, photo editing, file transfer and much, much more. Even in games and 3D modeling, where the main burden falls on the shoulders graphics accelerator, the central processor plays a huge role, and with an incorrectly selected “stone”, the performance of even the most powerful video card will not be revealed to its fullest.

At the moment, there are only two on the consumer market. major manufacturer processors: AMD and Intel. It is about them that we will talk in the traditional rating.

The best inexpensive processors: budget up to 5000 rubles.

4 Intel Celeron G3900 Skylake

The most affordable Intel processor
Country: USA
Average price: 4 381 ₽
Rating (2019): 4.5

Opens the rating of an extremely weak processor Celeron line. The G3900 model has two cores of the previous generation - Skylake, which, coupled with a frequency of 2.8 GHz, gives the lowest performance result. IN synthetic tests the processor shows a result about half that of the Core i3. But the price here is quite budgetary - 4-4.5 thousand rubles. It means that given processor perfect for assembling, for example, a simple office computer or a multimedia system for the living room. In general, this model cannot be called bad. Still, the 14 nm process technology provides good power efficiency, and the HD Graphics 510 graphics core is suitable for casual games.

Advantages:

• Lowest price in the class
• Great for office PC or HTPC

Disadvantages:

• Does not support Hyper-Threading Technology

3 AMD Athlon X4 845 Carrizo

Best price
The country:
Average price: 3 070 ₽
Rating (2019): 4.5

The processors of the Athlon line belong to the budget class, which is clearly seen in the price of the bronze medalist. But for over three thousand rubles you will get a very interesting stone. There are 4 cores (2 logical cores for each physical core) made according to the 28 nm process technology. Thanks to this, power consumption is low, and heat dissipation is quite low for AMD - only 65 watts. True, this is not particularly rejoicing because of the locked multiplier - it will not work to overclock the processor. Also, the disadvantages include the lack of a built-in graphics core, which means that when assembling an office PC or a multimedia system, you will have to separately purchase a video card.

Advantages:

• Lowest price in the class
• Great performance for the price

Disadvantages:

• Lack of integrated graphics core
• Not unlocked multiplier

2 AMD FX-6300 Vishera

The only 6-core processor in the class
The country: USA (Made in Malaysia, China)
Average price: 4 160 ₽
Rating (2019): 4.6

AMD's FX-6300 is the only processor in the category with six cores. Unfortunately, one cannot hope for high power in the budget class - the model is based on the 2012 Vishera core. In normal mode, the cores run at 3.5 GHz, but like many AMD CPUs, it overclocks perfectly. Yes, performance, judging by user reviews, is enough even for games, but there are still enough minuses.

One of the main ones is high power consumption. Due to the use of an inexpensive 32 nm process technology, AMD gets very hot and consumes a lot of electricity. Also note the lack of support for modern random access memory DDR4 standard. Because of this, the processor can be advised not to build a new PC, but to upgrade an old one without replacing the motherboard and other components.

Advantages:

• 6 cores. Great for doing multiple simple tasks at the same time.
• Good overclocking potential
• Low cost

Disadvantages:

• Poor energy efficiency
• Legacy platform

At the moment, there are only two players in the processor market - Intel and AMD. It's just that the choice doesn't get any easier. To make it easier for you to decide whether to buy a CPU from one manufacturer or another, we have listed some of the main pros and cons of these companies' products for you.

Company	pros	Minuses
	Programs and games are better optimized for Intel Lower power consumption Performance tends to be slightly better More high frequencies cache	Effectively work with no more than no more than two resource-intensive tasks Higher cost When changing the line of processors, the socket also changes, which means that the upgrade is more complicated
	Below cost Better price-performance ratio Work better with 3-4 resource-intensive tasks (better multitasking) Most processors overclock well	Higher power consumption and temperatures (not entirely true regarding latest processors Ryzen) Worse program optimization

1 Intel Pentium G4600 Kaby Lake

Best Performance
Country: USA
Average price: 7 450 ₽
Rating (2019): 4.7

We can recommend the good old Pentium for purchase in this category. This processor, like the previous participants, is made according to the 14 nm process technology, socket LGA1151. Refers to one of the latest generations - Kaby Lake. Of course, there are only 2 cores. They operate at a frequency of 3.6 GHz, which causes the gap from the Core i3 by about 18-20%. But this is not much, because the difference in price is twofold! In addition to the frequency of nuclei relative to low power due to the small amount of L3 cache - 3071 KB.

In addition to the excellent price-performance ratio, the advantages of this CPU include the presence of an integrated graphics core Intel HD Graphics 630, which is more than enough for comfortable use of a PC without a discrete graphics card.

Advantages:

• Great price for this performance
• Generation Kaby Lake
• Good integrated graphics

The best mid-range processors: budget up to 20,000 rubles.

5 Intel Core i3-7320 Kaby Lake

The most affordable processor with integrated graphics
Country: USA
Average price: 12 340 ₽
Rating (2019): 4.6

Let's open the rating available processor i-core lines. The model is extremely difficult to call excellent in terms of price / quality ratio, because the cheaper ryzen 3 even shows slightly better results in synthetic tests. Nevertheless, the model that opens the TOP-5 can be safely chosen not only for an office system, but also for a gaming computer.

There are only two physical cores, but these are modern 14 nm chips of one of the latest generations - Kaby lake. Frequency - 4100 MHz. This is a very shameful indicator. In addition, there is the possibility of overclocking. Given the excellent energy efficiency and low heat dissipation - even with the bundled cooler, the idle temperature stays at 35-40 degrees, under load up to 70 degrees - you can painlessly increase the frequencies. Unlike competitors from AMD, Core i3 has an integrated graphics core, which allows it to be used in an office system without a discrete graphics card. But keep in mind that officially it only works on Windows 10.

Advantages:

• Integrated graphics core
• Overclocking capability
• Low temperatures

Disadvantages:

• Weak performance for the price

4 AMD Ryzen 3 1200 Summit Ridge

Best price
The country: USA (Made in Malaysia, China)
Average price: 6 917 ₽
Rating (2019): 4.7

Ryzen 3 is AMD's low-cost new line of processors, designed to once again impose a fight on Intel. And the 1200 does a great job. For 7 thousand rubles, the buyer receives a 4-core processor. The factory frequencies are low - only 3.1 GHz (3.4 GHz in high performance mode), but the multiplier is unlocked, which means that enthusiasts can easily make the "stone" a little faster.

The transition to new chips not only improved performance, but also reduced power consumption, and also allowed temperatures to be reduced to acceptable values. Due to the lack of an integrated graphics chip, we can only recommend this processor for budget gaming builds. The performance is only slightly better than the previous entrant.

Advantages:

• Unlocked multiplier

Disadvantages:

• No built-in graphics chip

3 Intel Core i5-7600K Kaby Lake

Great processor for gaming
Country: USA
Average price: 19 084 ₽
Rating (2019): 4.7

Let's start with the fact that the i5-7600K is by no means an outsider. Yes, in terms of performance, it is somewhat worse than the mastodons that you will see below, but for most gamers it will be more than enough. The processor has four Kaby Lake cores running at 3.8 GHz (in reality up to 4.0 GHz with TurboBoost). There is also a built-in graphics core - HD Graphics 630, which means that even demanding games can be played at the minimum wage. With a normal video card (for example, GTX 1060), the processor reveals itself completely. In most games at FullHD resolution (most gamers have such monitors) and high graphics settings, the frame rate rarely drops below 60 fps. Is there anything else needed?

Advantages:

• Best price
• Enough power for most gamers
• Excellent graphics core

2 AMD Ryzen 5 1600 Summit Ridge

Best price/performance ratio
The country: USA (Made in Malaysia, China)
Average price: 11 970 ₽
Rating (2019): 4.8

The second line of the TOP-5 mid-range processors is occupied by one of the best processors in terms of price / performance ratio. With an average cost of only 12,000 rubles, in synthetic tests, Ryzen 5 is able to compete with the well-known Intel Core i7-7700K at standard settings (In PassMark 12270 and 12050 points, respectively). Such power is due to the presence of six Summit Ridge physical cores, made according to the 12 nm process technology. The clock frequency is not a record - 3.6 GHz. The possibility of overclocking is present, but in the reviews, users claim that at frequencies above 4.0-4.1 GHz, the processor behaves unstable and gets very hot. At factory settings, in idle time, temperatures are kept at 42-46 degrees, in games 53-57 when using a standard cooler.

Also, high performance is due to large cache volumes of all levels. The CPU supports the modern DDR4-2667 standard, which allows you to create excellent computers based on this processor for playing at medium-high settings in FullHD.

Advantages:

• Excellent price/performance ratio
• Little heated

Disadvantages:

• Low overclocking potential

1 AMD Ryzen 7 1700 Summit Ridge

The most powerful processor in the class
The country: USA (Manufactured in Malaysia, China, China)
Average price: 17 100 ₽
Rating (2019): 4.8

As expected, the processor from the top Ryzen 7 line has better performance in the class. Again, one cannot help but recall the cost - for 17 thousand rubles we get power at the level of the top Core i7 of previous years. The processor includes eight cores divided into two clusters. With a stock clock speed of just 3.0GHz, the Ryzen 7 is guaranteed to top out at 3.7GHz, and with a bit of luck, up to 4.1GHz.

Like the previous representatives of the line, the leader is made according to the 12 nm process technology, which makes it possible to save energy. The situation with heat dissipation is good - in stress tests, temperatures are kept at 70-75 degrees.

Advantages:

• High performance
• Overclocking available
• Fresh platform to be supported for at least 4 years

The best top processors

3 Intel Core i7-7700K Kaby Lake

The most popular top processor
Average price: 29 060 ₽
Rating (2019): 4.6

More recently, the i7-7700K has been top processor in the Intel line. But technology is developing extremely quickly, and in 2018 it is difficult to recommend this particular chip for purchase. According to synthetic tests, the model clearly lags behind its competitors - in PassMark, the CPU scores only 12,000 points, which is comparable to modern mid-range processors. But these figures are achieved at standard settings, when 4 physical cores operate at a frequency of 4.2 GHz, and the CPU can be easily overclocked to even higher frequencies, thereby increasing performance.

Yes, the bronze medalist lags behind competitors, but costs at least half as much, and given the popularity, it is quite possible to find a good second-hand processor. Also, the high prevalence and long-standing presence on the market allows you to find an affordable motherboard with socket LGA1151. In general, we have an excellent base for a powerful gaming system for relatively little high cost.

Advantages:

• Good price for this class
• High performance
• Great overclocking possibilities
• High popularity

Disadvantages:

• Not really relevant in 2018

2 Intel Core i9-7900X Skylake

The most powerful processor in the Intel line
Country: USA
Average price: 77 370 ₽
Rating (2019): 4.7

Until recently, Intel's top line was the Core i7 series. But modern realities require more and more power. If you have few familiar solutions, pay attention to the Core i9-7900X. The processor is already on the standard clock frequency is able to enter the TOP-10 most powerful CPUs. For example, in PassMark, the model scores almost 22 thousand points - this is twice as much as that of the bronze medalist in the rating. At the same time, in the reviews, users talk about trouble-free overclocking to 4.2-4.5 GHz with high-quality air cooling. Temperatures do not exceed 70 degrees under load.

Such high performance is due to the use of 10 cores made according to the 14 nm process technology. The model supports all necessary modern standards and commands, which allows you to use it for any task.

Advantages:

• Top performance
• Excellent overclocking potential
• Acceptable temperatures

Disadvantages:

• Very high cost
• No solder under the lid.

1 AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X

The leader of the rating is insane in everything - starting at a price of 65 thousand rubles, ending with incredible performance. In terms of power in synthetic tests, the model is slightly ahead of the previous participant. The internal arrangement is significantly different. Threadripper uses 16 (!) cores. The clock speed is comparable to the Core i9 - 3400 MHz - but the overclocking capabilities are more modest. Stable "stone" works at a frequency of 3.9 GHz, with an increase in rates, the necessary stability is lost.

So a large number of cores performs well in all tasks. But using a monster for games is not entirely reasonable - not all projects can reveal its potential. AMD is useful for professional video editors, 3D designers and more. - in professional software, the addition of cores gives a significant increase in rendering speed.

Advantages:

• Relatively low price tag
• high power
• Excellent performance in professional programs

Problems when registering on the site? PRESS HERE ! Don't pass by too much interesting section of our site - projects of visitors. There you will always find the latest news, jokes, weather forecast (in ADSL newspaper), TV program of on-air and ADSL-TV channels, the latest and most interesting news from the world of high technologies, the most original and amazing pictures from the Internet, a large archive of magazines for last years, appetizing recipes in pictures , informative . The section is updated daily. Always up-to-date versions of the best free programs for everyday use in the Essential programs section. There is almost everything that is required for daily work. Start to gradually abandon pirated versions in favor of more convenient and functional free counterparts. If you still do not use our chat, we strongly advise you to get acquainted with it. You will find many new friends there. Moreover, it is the fastest and effective way contact project administrators. The Antivirus Updates section continues to work - always up-to-date free updates for Dr Web and NOD. Didn't have time to read something? The full content of the ticker can be found at this link.

AMD Trinity for desktop. Part 1. Graphics core

Announcement: APU Llano was assigned great expectations, but they were justified only partially - in the laptop segment. AMD does not lose hope: the new Trinity APUs have already been released for mobile platforms, and now they have appeared for desktops. We tested the second generation of desktop APUs and in this review we will talk about both their architecture and graphics performance.

There is no doubt that the fastest processors for personal computers delivers today by no means AMD. And this situation did not happen yesterday. Since Intel moved from the Pentuim 4 to various Core processors, AMD's offerings have slipped into second place. In fact, all today's processor products from this company are either budget or some highly specialized solutions that are of little interest to a wide range of users who put high performance at the forefront. However, the low performance indicators of the produced processors, as well as the reduction in the market share, are not at all a reason to put an end to the results of the AMD processor division.

The engineers of this company are famous for being able to give out some original ideas from time to time, allowing AMD not only to maintain its market position, but also to have a considerable impact on the entire industry as a whole. You don't have to look far for examples of such ideas: 64-bit extensions of the x86 microarchitecture, multi-core CPU design, integration of the memory controller and chipset northbridge into the processor - all these solutions were first developed and implemented by AMD, and not by the current leader in processor engineering.

That is why we continue to closely monitor what innovations mature in the depths of AMD. And it seems that by now the company has again found a fruitful vector of development that can give a positive impetus not only to itself, but to the entire processor market as a whole. This vector - APU (Accelerated Processing Unit, "accelerated processor device") - an ideology that provides for the combination of traditional computing cores with a powerful graphics core on a single semiconductor chip. And not a simple neighborhood, but symbiosis - the ability to combine their resources to solve common problems.

The APU class includes several different AMD offerings released back in 2011. The most interesting among them are the A-series hybrid processors codenamed Llano, which serve as the basis for the Lynx and Sabine platforms and are aimed at applications in a wide range desktop and mobile systems. Despite the fact that these processors and platforms serve only as a “trial balloon”, since they only test the APU principles, they were quite warmly received by the market. Llano turned out to be especially in demand in the mobile segment, which was immediately reflected in the increase in the presence of AMD products in modern laptops. And it's really visible to the naked eye. If a couple of years ago, AMD mobile platforms were found in very few offers, today it is not difficult to buy a laptop based on a processor from this manufacturer. In any computer store, you can easily find a huge number of offers equipped with AMD-designed APUs.

However, the increased interest in AMD processors, observed in the mobile computer market, arose not at all because of their hybridity. Rather, it should be understood as a side effect. In reality, the fact is that a fairly powerful graphics core, arranged with acceptable standards mobile solutions computing cores - this is exactly what is missing in the Intel assortment. And if we take into account the very democratic prices set by AMD for their APUs, it is not surprising that they fit perfectly into inexpensive laptops, thus giving their manufacturers the opportunity to assemble state-of-the-art computers without installing discrete video accelerators in them and the associated additional costs. .

As a result, the very concept of APU went to the people. Its preachers from AMD, communicating with software developers, were able to rely on relevance and prevalence, and in the end, real programs designed for full use hybrid processor resources. The May update of the AMD A-series mobile processors with the Trinity design, within which the performance of both computing and graphic parts APU, has become an additional argument in favor of the viability and attractiveness of the concept. So in the future, the proportion of laptops with the AMD Vision logo will only increase.

With desktop AMD processors of the APU class, a completely different story happened. The requirements of desktop users are very different from those of laptop users, and they were not particularly interested in the topic of APU from the very beginning. The driving force behind the penetration of the first generations of hybrid processors into laptops was quite powerful graphics, but when used in desktop computers, this epithet should be abandoned. The fact is that desktops are characterized by much higher screen resolutions, in which AMD A-series processors do not develop an acceptable level of 3D performance. In other words, from the point of view of desktop users, the graphics core of Llano processors does not differ qualitatively from the integrated graphics of Intel's offerings: both options are for a gaming system entry level fit almost equally badly. The power of the computing cores that AMD hybrid processors have is significantly lower than that of Intel processors, and this closes Llano's path to a number of home or office systems. Even as the heart of media centers, AMD's APUs don't stand much of a chance over competing offerings. In this case, they are let down by too high heat dissipation and the lack of means to speed up the encoding of video content. high resolution.

However, the biggest obstacle in the way of Llano in desktop computers became the Socket FM1 platform specially developed for them with completely unclear prospects. It is impossible to install any other processors, except for Llano, and this makes it a "thing in itself", on the one hand, not prone to a subsequent upgrade, and on the other, with a very limited lifespan. It is quite natural that it is almost impossible to interest a solution with such a combination of characteristics of desktop users, because the market is flooded with competing LGA1155 offerings for every taste and wallet with a much longer life cycle.

But giving the market of integrated desktop processors to the power of a competitor who, seeing the promise of the APU concept, hastily increases the power of its own graphics cores, is clearly not part of AMD's plans. Therefore, after about a year since the appearance of Llano, the company is ready to offer the second generation of A-series desktop processors, corrected and redesigned. The design of the new desktop APUs is not specialized and utilitarian. It's Trinity and it's already run in mobile systems, where it has been successfully applied since the beginning of summer. However, for desktop systems, the frequencies of the computing and graphics components have been seriously increased, which allows the manufacturer to assure the public that the latest APUs, unlike their predecessors, should appeal to many desktop users, including enthusiasts.

On the whole, we are almost ready to believe in AMD words: at least the design of Trinity is definitely better than Llano. As we have already seen in the example of mobile APUs, the computing cores used in Trinity, which are based on the Piledriver microarchitecture, work faster cores Husky from Llano, whose microarchitecture roots go back to the distant past. The performance of the graphics core has also risen significantly, the structure of which has been radically redesigned. And most importantly, Trinity desktop processors are now offered new platform Socket FM2, which should be devoid of all the old shortcomings. AMD is ready to guarantee its stability over the next few years, and the model line of processors in a compatible version will include wide range offers at various levels.

In other words, if we compare Trinity and Llano, then the new processors are obviously better. However, are they good enough to effectively push the concept of APU to desktop systems, whose users are still very skeptical about such solutions? In our material, we will try to partially answer this question, for which we will test in detail the graphics component of new-generation desktop hybrid processors and try to understand whether it has enough power for use in entry-level gaming systems.

Unfortunately, we have to postpone a detailed consideration of the second part of Trinity - computational cores - for some time. However, this is not our fault. The fact is that AMD has not yet officially announced its new A-series processors for desktop systems. Therefore, our hands are partly bound by non-disclosure obligations, so this article will be followed by a second one, including tests of a different plan. However, no one forbids us to use the available information about the Trinity microarchitecture, so first let's analyze what work AMD engineers have done to make the newly minted APUs a reality.

Trinity Design

In accordance with the original concept, any APU consists of three main parts. In this regard, Trinity does not bring any changes: new generation hybrid processors include processor cores, an integrated graphics accelerator and a small but very important component - a combined northbridge. It is he who turns the sum of heterogeneous cores into a single system and, including the DDR3 SDRAM controller, is responsible for the interaction of computing and graphics cores with each other and with system memory, ensuring that they can work together with the same data.

In general, the overall structure of Trinity has remained exactly the same as that of Llano, but at a lower level, all components have been redesigned. At the same time, all changes are made in such a way as not to inflate the semiconductor crystal: AMD's production technology has not been updated, the company continues to use the 32-nm Globalfoundries process with SOI, and the manufacturer is not going to raise the cost of APUs positioned as fairly affordable offers. As a result, the area of ​​the Trinity crystal increased by only 8 percent compared to Llano - up to 246 mm 2 . The number of transistors also changed very slightly and reached 1.303 billion pieces (it was 1.178 billion). Moreover, even the division of the transistor budget between computing and graphics resources has not changed much: they occupy approximately the same area on the chip in both cases.

Nevertheless, this talk about the similarity of Llano and Trinity can be finished. Computing cores, for example, have changed dramatically with the release of a new generation of APUs. Now hybrid processors are based (and will be used in the future) on the Bulldozer microarchitecture, and more specifically, its second generation, the Piledriver. Dual-core and quad-core Trinity modules include one or two conditionally called dual-core modules, which, recall, contain two sets of execution units and can process two threads simultaneously, but at the same time have a common cache memory, instruction fetch unit, and their decoder and a floating point block. At the same time, Trinity has not only a reduced number of cores, but also no L3 cache compared to FX-class processors based on the Bulldozer microarchitecture without integrated graphics.

But the second generation of the Bulldozer microarchitecture used in the new APUs, which has not yet been presented in any other processor family, offers a number of small improvements aimed at increasing performance, reducing leakage currents and ensuring stability at high clock frequencies. The front of the pipeline received a more accurate branch predictor, as well as an increased instruction window. Execution devices have gained an improved scheduler, and they themselves have learned to perform a little faster individual instructions, such as integer and real division. In addition, developers are talking about increasing the capacity of the L1 TLB and improving the algorithms for arbitrating and prefetching L2 cache data. All this is estimated at about 25% superiority (according to AMD calculations) of Trinity processors over Llano in computing performance.

Cardinal changes have also affected the unified northbridge. First of all, engineers revised the shared memory access priority system, giving priority to computational cores, which, as practice shows, generate a relatively small part of requests. In addition, AMD also took care of supporting new types of memory, including DDR3-1866 in normal mode or DDR3-2400 when overclocked. The internal data buses were expanded, in particular, the graphics core was able to work with the memory controller via a 256-bit dedicated Radeon Memory Bus, and outside the chip, all connections now use the PCI Express protocol, which replaced Hyper-Transport.

However, the most interesting are the changes that have occurred with the graphics core. The fact is that without a significant increase in the transistor budget and without a radical redesign of the architecture, AMD managed to noticeably increase its performance, that is, in fact, increase the density of useful blocks in the GPU by eliminating some surpluses. This finding, perhaps, deserves a separate discussion, especially since it is the graphics integrated into Trinity that is in the focus of our attention today.

Graphic core Devastator

The most intriguing fact about the design of the Devastator - which is the code name given to the GPU embedded in Trinity processors - is that it is based on the VLIW4 architecture. Given that the Llano graphics core was based on the VLIW5 architecture, such a move by AMD seems somewhat strange, and we would rather expect to see the CGN architecture in Trinity, which is typical for the latest versions of discrete accelerators. However, in fact, it is VLIW4 that allows you to increase the specific efficiency of the graphics core, artificially limited number transistors. AMD has already pulled this trick with its own graphics cards. radeon series HD 6900, and then its results were more than satisfactory.

The bottom line is that the grouping of five ALUs per VLIW stream processor provided by VLIW5 is not very efficient, and one of the ALUs in large numbers cases are simply idle. Therefore, the Devastator VLIW4 layout, which assumes the presence of four ALUs in the VLIW stream processor, entails a more rational use of available resources. Of course, the downside is a decrease in the total number of execution units and a decrease in the theoretical peak performance of the core, but the practical specific performance per square millimeter is growing. And for a hybrid processor chip, on which, in addition to the graphics core, there are computing cores, this is the most correct way of optimization.

In total, the Trinity graphics core has six SIMD engines, each of which consists of four texture units and sixteen VLIW stream processors. In total, this gives the presence of 384 ALUs in the core, and this is 16 pieces less than the Sumo graphics core of Llano processors had at its disposal. However, simple arithmetic is not entirely appropriate here, Devastator ALUs are usually more workloaded than their predecessors, and, in addition, the relative simplicity of VLIW stream processors allows you to set higher clock frequencies to the graphics core. For example, while in the older version of Llano the graphics ran at a frequency of 600 MHz, in Trinity the graphics core speed can reach 800 MHz.

Considering that Devastator has 24 texturing units (4 TMUs for each SIMD engine) and 8 raster operations units (ROPs), we can conclude that this graphics core is actually about one quarter of the Radeon HD 6970-class GPU. That even after adjusting for a slightly lower operating frequency and the absence of a dedicated memory bus with high bandwidth - very good. In other words, when saying that Trinity processors are equipped with "discrete" class integrated graphics, AMD is not being disingenuous at all. You can really expect very good 3D performance from new generation APUs.

It is unlikely that anyone will be surprised that the Trinity graphics core is compatible with modern DirectX 11, OpenCL 11 and DirectCompute 11 programming interfaces. These features were also available in the Radeon HD 6900 video cards based on the same architecture, and in the predecessors of Trinity - Llano processors. But at the same time, some features are inherited in the new integrated graphics. modern solutions, in which the CGN architecture has found its place. In particular, Devastator has an improved tessellation block, as well as support for all current types of full-screen anti-aliasing: SSAA, EQAA and MLAA.

Special attention in the Trinity graphics is given to the media capabilities that are relevant for hybrid processors. The graphics core has borrowed from fresh GPU versions AMD HD Media Accelerator, which includes engines for hardware video decoding (UVD3) and hardware encoding of video content in H.264 format (VCE). Last Opportunity critical to Trinity's ability to compete against Intel's long-established Quick Sync technology for high-speed, high-definition video transcoding. Now there is something similar in AMD processors, but at the moment we have not been able to verify the performance of the VCE engine due to problems with its support in drivers and in existing software.

When introducing its new hybrid processor to the desktop market, AMD also thought about ensuring that its users do not feel left out compared to owners of discrete graphics cards in terms of monitor connectivity. This is expressed in the fact that up to four independent displays can be connected to an integrated system with a Trinity processor simultaneously, while all types of connections are supported: analog - VGA - and digital - DVI, HDMI and Display Port 1.2, as well as four independent audio streams. True, in this case, the number of physical outputs is limited to three, and to connect four displays, you will need to connect a pair of monitors in a “chain” via Display Port.

Even more impressive, Trinity graphics also support Eyefinity technology. Of course, in order to find some game that can work with an acceptable FPS level on three or four monitors connected to the Devastator, you will have to work hard, but the very presence of such an opportunity speaks of the attention that AMD developers have approached equipping the second generation APU before its introduction to the mass market.

Trinity range

Speaking about the graphics core of Trinity desktop processors, it is necessary to touch on the composition of their lineup. The fact is that different representatives of the A-series with the Trinity design can be equipped with different versions of the Devastator core. Their differences are formed in a standard way: trying to introduce segmentation of their products into different price categories, the manufacturer disables one or more SIMD engines in minor modifications. As a result, the set of resources described in detail in the previous section, which includes 384 execution units, is available only for older APU modifications.

The nomenclature of Trinity models is as follows. The fastest models with a full-fledged Devastator core, which has the marketing name Radeon HD 7660D, belong exclusively to the new flagship A10 series. All other modifications with graphics cores with a reduced number of stream processors and lower frequencies belong to the more “simple” A8, A6 and A4 series, replacing processors with the old Llano design in them.

The full composition of the APU line, based on the Trinity design, is given in the table:

Specifications APU Trinity
Model number	A10-5800K	A10-5700	A8-5600K	A8-5500	A6-5400K	A4-5300
Integrated graphics	HD 7660D	HD 7660D	HD 7560D	HD 7560D	HD 7540D	HD 7480D
TDP, W	100	65	100	65	65	65
Number of unified shader processors	384	384	256	256	192	128
GPU frequency, MHz	800	800	760	760	760	723
Number of Cores	4	4	4	4	2	2
CPU frequency, GHz (base/turbo)	3,8 / 4,2	3,4 / 4,0	3,6 / 3,9	3,2 / 3,7	3,6 / 3,8	3,4 / 3,6
L2 cache, MB	4	4	4	4	1	1
Maximum memory frequency	DDR3-1866	DDR3-1866	DDR3-1866	DDR3-1866	DDR3-1866	DDR3-1600

Even the version of the graphics core installed in A8-class processors is purely theoretically slower than the full-fledged Devastator by more than 35 percent. What can we say about the even slower A6 and A4. And this means that for use as a gaming solution, the A10-5800K and A10-5700 processors are primarily of interest. It is them that you can try to imagine in entry-level gaming systems that lack a discrete graphics card. The processors of the lower series, perhaps, are very poorly suited for universal gaming computers, so they are recommended to be used in multimedia centers or in home entertainment systems not aimed at running resource-intensive 3D gaming applications.

That is why in this article we focused on testing the oldest hybrid processor - the A10-5800K, with the Radeon HD 7660D graphics core built into it. This processor has two Piledriver modules at its disposal, due to which it recognizes diagnostic utilities and operating system as a quad-core. However, we also note the existence of an alternative opinion, according to which this processor is dual-core, but with the ability to execute four threads. Actually, this opinion, although it contradicts the statements of AMD itself, just more accurately reflects the positioning of the A10-5800K. In terms of cost, this APU falls into the same price category as Intel's Core i3, which, as you know, are dual-core, but with support for Hyper-Threading technology.

The operating frequency of the processor in question, taking into account its support for Turbo Core 3.0 technology, should range from 3.8 to 4.2 GHz. However, in practice, we have seen that under load most of the time the A10-5800K spends in an intermediate state - at a frequency of 4.0 GHz.

The built-in Radeon HD 7660D graphics core in the A10-5800K operates at a frequency of 800 MHz, and when there is no 3D load, it drops to 300 MHz. Despite the fact that AMD promised the operation of the turbo mode for the graphics core, in reality, its frequency does not rise above the 800 MHz specified in the specifications.

How We Tested

As part of this material, we set ourselves the goal of studying the performance of the graphics core of new AMD hybrid processors and, based on the results, answer the question: can the most modern processors with integrated graphics be used as part of entry-level gaming systems without adding discrete graphics cards.

In testing, the AMD A10-5800K processor with the Radeon HD 7660D graphics core was opposed to other integrated chips on the market that have 3D graphics with an acceptable level of performance. Firstly, these are AMD Llano, which are outdated with the advent of Trinity, but still relevant, represented in our tests by the older processor of this family, AMD A8-3870K with the Radeon HD 6550D video core. Second, members of the family Intel Ivy Bridge, whose maximum version of the graphics core, HD Graphics 4000, has promising (according to its developers) 3D performance. The honor of the Intel graphics was defended by the dual-core Core i3-3225 processor. We chose it, and not the quad-core Core i5 family, since AMD's APUs are positioned as an alternative to Intel's dual-core processors by the manufacturer itself. In particular, according to preliminary data, the cost of the AMD A10-5800K will be approximately the same as that of the younger members of the Core i3 family.

In addition, we should not forget about the conclusions of our past studies, showing a higher specific efficiency of Intel processor cores. Quad-core microarchitecture Sandy Bridge quite successfully resisted the eight-core Bulldozer processors, and it is unlikely that with the release of new generations of microarchitectures Ivy Bridge and Piledriver, this situation has somehow changed. This can be confirmed by the relative results of the SYSmark 2012 test, showing the general performance of processors.

Although the AMD A10-5800K received noticeably higher performance than the AMD A8-3870K, it lags behind the Core i3-3225 and Core i3-2125 processors, not to mention its solid loss in computing performance to the quad-core Core i5-3330. So the opposition of AMD's quad-core APUs in graphics tests dual-core Core i3 is quite justified. In addition, the differences in the graphics performance of the most powerful Intel Core i7 and the Core i3 we have chosen come down to a 100-MHz difference in the frequency of the integrated video core: 1.05 GHz for our test subject versus 1.15 GHz for the flagship processor under Socket LGA1155. So no other Intel processor can show a fundamentally better result than the Core i3-3225 in graphics tests.

So that we can judge the level of performance of integrated graphics cores modern processors regarding discrete graphics cards, an option equipped with external graphics was added to the number of tested configurations. The Radeon HD 6570 video card was chosen as a benchmark, the cost of which today in the version we use with GDDR5 memory is about $70. Its testing was carried out in a system with an A10-5800 processor.

As a result, the following hardware and software components were involved in the tests:

• Processors:
  • AMD A10-5800K (Trinity, 4 cores, 3.8-4.2 GHz, 4 MB L2, Radeon HD 7660D);
  • AMD A8-3870K (Llano, 4 cores, 3.0 GHz, 4 MB L2, Radeon HD 6550D);
  • Intel Core i3-3225 (Ivy Bridge, 2 cores + HT, 3.3 GHz, 3 MB L3, HD Graphics 4000).
• Motherboards:
  • ASUS P8Z77-V Deluxe (LGA1155, Intel Z77 Express);
  • ASUS F2A85-V Pro (Socket FM2, AMD A85);
  • Gigabyte GA-A75-UD4H (Socket FM1, AMD A75).
• Video Card: AMD Radeon HD 6570 1 GB GDDR5 128-bit.
• Memory: 2 x 4GB DDR3-1866 SDRAM, 9-11-9-27 (Kingston KHX1866C9D3K2/8GX).
• Disk subsystem: Crucial m4 256 GB (CT256M4SSD2).
• Power supply: Corsair AX1200i (80 Plus Platinum, 1200 W).
• Operating system: Microsoft Windows 7 SP1 Ultimate x64.
• Drivers:
  • AMD Catalyst 12.8 Driver;
  • AMD Chipset Driver 12.8;
  • Intel Chipset Driver 9.3.0.1019;
  • Intel Graphics Media Accelerator Driver 15.26.12.2761;
  • Intel Management Engine Driver 8.1.0.1248;
  • Intel Rapid Storage Technology 11.2.0.1006.

When testing a platform based on the AMD A10-5800K processor, patches were installed operating system KB2645594 and KB2646060 adapting the scheduler behavior to the Bulldozer microarchitecture.

The main emphasis in this test was quite naturally placed on gaming applications of the integrated processor graphics. Therefore, the bulk of the benchmarks we used are games or specialized gaming tests. Moreover, given the goals set, we were primarily interested in the performance of various graphic solutions in the de facto desktop standard Full HD resolution 1980x1080. Therefore, most of the tests were carried out in it at a low or medium level of image quality.

3D performance

The results of the 3DMark family of tests are very popular for assessing the average gaming performance of video cards. Therefore, we turned to 3DMark in the first place. First, let's look at the performance in Vantage, which uses DirectX version 10.

What immediately catches the eye is the considerable progress that has occurred with AMD's APUs in the transition from the Sumo graphics core to the new Devastator design. The advantage of the Trinity processor over the flagship of the Llano family is about 40 percent. As a result, a system built on the basis of the A10-5800K approaches the graphics performance of a platform with a discrete AMD Radeon HD 6570 graphics card.

A more recent version of 3DMark focuses on measuring DirectX 11 performance. Previously, Intel processors could not take part in such tests, leaving AMD's APU alone, but the graphics implemented in Ivy Bridge Intel core HD Graphics 4000 is finally getting support for all modern APIs, so the Core i3-3225 is also on this chart.

3DMark 11 produced an extremely interesting result. According to this benchmark, the graphics core built into the A10-5800K was able to outperform discrete graphics card Radeon HD 6570. This is an excellent illustration of the high efficiency of the VLIW4 architecture used in Devastator. Recall that the Radeon HD 6570 video card is based on the 800 MHz Turks GPU with VLIW5 architecture and at the same time has 480 stream processors against 384 in Devastator. but large quantity execution devices, as we can see, does not always result in the best practical indicators, from which we can conclude that the choice for Trinity VLIW4 design is a very correct decision.

Aliens vs. Predators (2010)

Despite the fact that in the 3DMark 11 synthetic benchmark the graphics core of the A10-5800K processor was able to overtake the discrete graphics card Radeon HD 6570, in a real gaming application - Aliens vs. Predator - the situation is completely different. Here, the discrete video accelerator is seriously ahead of any integrated graphics option, including the Radeon HD 7660D. It's obvious that weak point any processor video accelerators are left with a memory bus, which has a clearly insufficient bandwidth. That being said, we're comparing the Radeon HD 7660D here with the Radeon HD 6570 equipped with high-bandwidth GDDR5 memory. But if a more “simple” discrete video card with DDR3 SDRAM had been used in the tests, then it would certainly have been defeated by the Devastator core.

Batman Arkham City

The difference in performance between the old and new graphics cores used in AMD's APUs in Batman: Arkham City is about 30 percent. So from the point of view of graphics performance, the transition from the Llano design to the Trinity design is a completely justified decision that brings tangible dividends. At the same time, such a step was taken not at all due to increased competition with Intel: even the newest and fastest GPU of the microprocessor giant looks very faded against the background of AMD's proposals. Apparently, AMD is aiming to sign the death warrant for budget graphics cards with DDR3 memory, such as the Radeon HD 6570 or GeForce GT 630.

Battlefield 3

Of course, the Radeon HD 7660D is not the same as a high-end or mid-range discrete graphics card. The performance of this solution is significantly lower. However, as we can see, the new integrated graphics core from AMD allows you to quite decently play the most modern games in Full HD resolution, including Battlefield 3. Sometimes this requires setting low quality settings, but then the average number of frames per second is at an acceptable level. Doesn't show Radeon HD 7660D and obvious drawdowns. For example, when testing in Battlefield 3, the minimum instantaneous performance with low quality settings was quite decent, if not quite playable 18 frames per second.

Borderlands 2

Even the latest first-person shooter Borderlands 2 goes without any problems on the A10-5800K. Of course, you have to forget about the “pretty things”, but AMD’s fresh APU, unlike Intel processors with integrated graphics, makes it possible to play Borderlands 2 in 1920x1080 resolution without installing a discrete video accelerator.

Games in the genre of car racing simulators are usually not too demanding on graphic resources. Typical in this regard is the behavior of F1 2012 - this game runs on integrated systems with good performance even with choosing Full HD resolution and high image quality. At the same time, although the advantage of the Radeon HD 7660D over the graphics from the Llano processor is approaching 35 percent, the discrete graphics card Radeon HD 6570 still shows a slightly higher result. However, compared to the graphics core of competing processors, the Intel HD Graphics 4000, any AMD integrated offerings look great. In F1 2012, the A10-5800K outperforms the Core i3-3225 by about 60 percent.

Far Cry 2

We do not deliberately throw Far Cry 2 out of the test set. The presence of this four-year-old shooter allows you to see firsthand that in games of the past generation, the modern Trinity-class APU works with simply outstanding performance. For example, in the same Far Cry 2, we were able to set the resolution to 1920x1080 with the highest available image quality and at the same time received an average of more than 30 frames per second. At the same time, the minimum FPS recorded in testing was quite acceptable 23 frames per second.

Sleeping Dogs

Unfortunately, in the most recent game we have selected, the graphics core of the A10-5800K processor again demonstrates its inability to withstand the full-fledged Radeon HD 6570 video card, lagging behind it by about 10-15 percent. The source of the APU's problem is clear - it could use higher bandwidth memory. That is why the distribution of solutions like Trinity can greatly revive the DDR3 SDRAM market. In commonly used applications, the speed of operation depends on the memory frequency very little, but for systems with integrated graphics, a fast memory subsystem can turn out to be fundamentally important. However, we will pay more attention to this issue.

Sniper Elite V2

Of all the embedded GPUs on the market, the Devastator core in the Radeon HD 7660D version is the fastest solution. The results obtained in the Sniper Elite V2 benchmark confirm this once again. The new version of the integrated graphics core, developed by AMD, outperforms the previous Sumo modification by 26 and 43 percent, depending on the image quality settings. As a result, the superiority of the Radeon HD 7660D over Intel HD Graphics 4000 reaches a double value. In other words, in terms of GPUs built into the processor, AMD continues to significantly outperform its competitor. Moreover, AMD found an equally impressive answer to the progress that occurred at Intel with the release of the Ivy Bridge microarchitecture - Trinity. So the actual APUs of both companies again fall into completely different weight categories.

Cinebench R11.5

All of the games we have tested are applications that use the DirectX API. However, we also wanted to see how the accelerators cope with working in OpenGL. That's why we've added a small performance study to the purely gaming tests when working in the professional Cinema 4D graphics package.

The alignment of forces is quite typical. Trinity's performance level in an OpenGL application is not qualitatively different from its performance in DirectX gaming tasks. The Radeon HD 7660D built into the AMD A10-5800K processor outperforms its predecessor and Intel competitor, but lags behind the Radeon HD 6570 discrete graphics card. At the same time, if we take into account the achieved level of OpenGL performance, the idea of ​​using integrated graphics in professional applications begins to seem unrealistic. so absurd. Moreover, AMD's assortment even includes corresponding offers - "professional" Trinity processors sold under the FirePro trademark.

GPU Performance

AMD relentlessly emphasizes that its Llano processors, and now Trinity, belong to the APU class. This means that their architecture is optimized for solving problems of various classes using not only traditional x86 cores, but also stream processors of the graphics core - they must work together. For the successful functioning of such a community of fundamentally different computing resources, of course, specialized software is required. And if a year ago it sounded like a verdict on the APU concept, now the situation has begun to change actively. Developers of a wide range of popular software products began to make concrete attempts to use the benefits of hybrid solutions. To date, there is information that the computing capabilities of the graphics core may involve current or future versions of programs such as Adobe Flash 11.2, Adobe Photoshop CS6, GIMP, ArcSoft MediaConverter 7.5, CyberLink MediaEspresso 6.5, Handbrake and WinZip 16.5.

As part of this material, we do not yet have the right to resort to testing the Trinity processor in such software, however, we can evaluate the practical performance of the Devastator graphics core on a GPGPU load created through the OpenCL and Microsoft DirectCompute APIs. To do this, we used the test package SiSoftware Sandra 2012.10.18.74.

The computational performance of the Devastator graphics core looks very good. The use of the VLIW4-architecture in its basis allows achieving high computing efficiency general purpose, resulting in the Radeon HD 7660D noticeably outperforming not only the previous version of the graphics accelerator from Llano and the Intel graphics core Intel HD Graphics 4000, but also the discrete graphics card Radeon HD 6570. As a result, in applications that support OpenCL, Trinity can be expected high level performance.

The situation is similar in the cryptographic test. In other words, by placing high-performance VLIW4-architecture graphics in new hybrid processors, AMD sought to solve a very specific task - to demonstrate the usefulness and promise of combining general-purpose x86 cores and streaming graphics cores. Considering that software makers are starting to try out hybrid processors, this is a very timely move. At this stage, AMD must not only demonstrate the potential of new approaches, but also prove their advantage in practice.

conclusions

The times when integrated graphics had to be approached from the position of “if only it worked” are long gone. Since graphics cores have settled in central processing units, AMD and Intel have been actively increasing their power, pushing budget graphics cards out of the market and giving their processors new usage models. In this race of integrated GPUs, AMD is leading the way, with the fastest Ivy Bridge graphics cores yet to beat even Llano graphics, let alone the new Trinity. However, this state of affairs did not become a reason for AMD to slow down the pace of innovation. This company is fighting not with a specific product of a competitor, but for changing the attitude towards hybrid processors in principle. This requires not a simple superiority over alternative products in benchmarks, but its other quality.

It is very likely that the new Trinity desktop processors that we met today are the very necessary qualitative leap. The AMD A10-5800K didn't just turn out to be an APU with the fastest graphics core to date. The important thing is that the speed of this core is already enough to provide acceptable performance in almost any modern 3D games in Full HD resolution. Of course, in this case, you have to set not the highest quality settings, but the fact remains: Trinity looks quite worthy on a par with low-end discrete 3D accelerators, costing about $60-70, which the new hybrid processor can easily replace. In fact, today we can say that accelerators such as the Radeon HD 6570 and GeForce GT 630 with the distribution of Trinity can go to landfill, at least this applies to their DDR3 modifications.

Today we got acquainted only with the graphic component of the new promising AMD project. And this component is forte. In terms of general performance, the Trinity probably won't be as impressive an offering. Even the 25% increase in speed promised by AMD itself is clearly not enough for the A10-5800K, like other products of the family, to be able to compete on equal terms with Intel's Ivy Bridge generation processors. Of course, we can count on the fact that AMD will be able to push through the APU concept, and the hybrid proposals of this manufacturer will receive a noticeable increase in performance due to the computing resources of the graphics core. However, if this happens, it is clearly not very soon. Therefore, for now, you have to keep in mind that Trinity has a weak side.

What is the result? Think about it, most buyers of Intel desktop processors, by and large, do not care about their graphics performance. They are ready to put up with any level of it, as they are attracted to high speed x86-kernels. Trinity, on the other hand, may well win the favor of consumers by going from the other side. If this APU offers an enticing level of 3D performance, is it worth worrying so much about x86 cores being slower than the competition? The answer to this question, judging by the available data, may well be negative: for most typical tasks, the available performance of Trinity is probably enough.

However, let's not rush to final conclusions and wait until the embargo on publication is lifted complete results tests. While you are reading these lines, work on the continuation of the material is already underway.

The integrated graphics processor plays an important role for both gamers and undemanding users.

The quality of games, movies, watching videos on the Internet and images depends on it.

Principle of operation

The graphics processor is integrated into the computer motherboard - this is what the built-in graphics looks like.

As a rule, they use it to remove the need to install a graphics adapter -.

This technology helps to reduce the cost of the finished product. In addition, due to the compactness and low power consumption of such processors, they are often installed in laptops and low-power desktop computers.

So built-in GPUs filled this niche so much that 90% of laptops on US store shelves have just such a processor.

Instead of a conventional video card in integrated graphics, the computer's RAM itself often serves as an auxiliary tool.

True, this solution somewhat limits the performance of the device. Yet the computer itself and the GPU use the same bus for memory.

So this “neighborhood” affects the performance of tasks, especially when working with complex graphics and during gameplay.

Kinds

Integrated graphics have three groups:

1. Shared-memory graphics is a device based on shared memory management with the main processor. This greatly reduces the cost, improves the energy saving system, but degrades performance. Accordingly, for those who work with complex programs, integrated GPUs of this kind are more likely to fail.
2. Discrete graphics - the video chip and one or two video memory modules are soldered to system board. Thanks to this technology, image quality is significantly improved, and it also becomes possible to work with three-dimensional graphics with the best results. True, you will have to pay a lot for this, and if you are looking for a high-performance processor in all respects, then the cost can be incredibly high. In addition, the electricity bill will rise slightly - the power consumption of discrete GPUs is higher than usual.
3. Hybrid discrete graphics - a combination of the two previous types, which ensured the creation PCI bus express. Thus, access to the memory is carried out both through the soldered video memory and through the operational one. With this solution, the manufacturers wanted to create a compromise solution, but it still does not eliminate the shortcomings.

Manufacturers

Engaged in the manufacture and development of embedded graphics processors, as a rule, large companies-, and, but many small enterprises are also connected to this area.

It's easy to do. Look for Primary Display or Init Display First. If you do not see something like this, look for Onboard, PCI, AGP or PCI-E (it all depends on the installed buses on the motherboard).

By selecting PCI-E, for example, you enable the PCI-Express video card, and disable the built-in integrated one.

Thus, to enable the integrated video card, you need to find the appropriate parameters in the BIOS. Often the activation process is automatic.

Compare Iris Pro 6200 and Radeon R7 with HD Graphics and discrete Radeon R7 250X

The publication of our first article on desktop processors of the Broadwell family, among other things, caused a couple of fair remarks regarding testing the graphics core in gaming applications. Indeed, there are tests, but for comparison, only the HD Graphics 4600 GPU was taken, with which everything is clear anyway. But how the successes of the new "graphic top" of Intel look against the background of AMD processors or inexpensive discrete video cards - from a practical point of view, the question is more important. Moreover, the C-series processors are more expensive than similar Haswell dollars by 100 dollars, and this is quite enough to purchase a Radeon R7 250X or something close, that is, not quite a slow solution.

Today we will remove all questions.

Test stand configuration

CPU	Intel Core i5-4690K	Intel Core i5-5675C	Intel Core i7-4770K	Intel Core i7-5775C
Kernel name	Haswell	Broadwell	Haswell	Broadwell
Production technology	22 nm	14 nm	22 nm	14 nm
Core frequency, GHz	3,5/3,9	3,1/3,6	3,5/3,9	3,3/3,7
Number of cores/threads	4/4	4/4	4/8	4/8
L1 cache (total), I/D, KB	128/128	128/128	128/128	128/128
L2 cache, KB	4×256	4×256	4×256	4×256
Cache L3 (L4), MiB	6	4 (128)	8	6 (128)
RAM	2×DDR3-1600	2×DDR3-1600	2×DDR3-1600	2×DDR3-1600
TDP, W	88	65	84	65
Graphics	HDG4600	IPG 6200	HDG4600	IPG 6200
EU quantity	20	48	20	48
Frequency std/max, MHz	350/1200	300/1100	350/1250	300/1150
Price	N/A(0) T-10887398	N/A(0) T-12645002	$412() T-10384297	N/A(0) T-12645073

There will be two pairs of Intel processors - in order to clearly understand where Core i7 has preferences over Core i5, and where one vanity of vanities and vexation of the spirit. The comparison will be in gaming applications, of course, and with a discrete graphics card. However, we have already investigated this issue, but there i5 and i7 were of different frequencies, and today we equalized them in this parameter. In principle, it would be possible to take Broadwell of the same frequency, but it exists only in the form of Xeon, that is, not to say that a mass solution. So there will be no direct intersections - just both socket models household purpose.

CPU	AMD A10-6800K	AMD A10-7850K
Kernel name	Richland	Kaveri
Production technology	32 nm	28 nm
Core frequency std/max, GHz	4,1/4,4	3,7/4,0
Number of cores (modules) / computation threads	2/4	2/4
L1 cache (total), I/D, KB	128/64	192/64
L2 cache, KB	2×2048	2×2048
L3 cache, MiB	-	-
RAM	2×DDR3-2133	2×DDR3-2133
TDP, W	100	95
Graphics	Radeon HD 8670D	Radeon R7
Number of GPUs	384	512
Frequency std/max, MHz	844	720
Price	$138() T-10387700	$162() T-10674781

We decided to take two AMD processors - so as not to be bored. Besides, here it is also interesting to evaluate the progress of graphics, and do not forget that the A10-6800K also has a twin brother in the form of Athlon X4 760K. And which of the Athlons to choose when using a discrete video card (760K or 860K) is an interesting question from a practical point of view. Moreover, 760K will also work on a board with a "regular" FM2. Maybe some old A6-5400K stopped satisfying the user, and he decided to change the processor and add a discrete video card? It may well. So let's see if in this situation it makes sense to change the motherboard.

As for the other test conditions, they were equal, but not the same: the frequency of the RAM was the maximum supported by the specifications, but they are slightly different. But its volume (8 GB) and system drive (Toshiba THNSNH256GMCT with a capacity of 256 GB) were the same for all subjects. All tests were carried out using the integrated video core (which all six processors have) and in conjunction with a discrete Radeon R7 250X.

Test Methodology

Since we have already established that the programs from the iXBT Application Benchmark 2015 set are very weakly affected by a specific video card, we limited ourselves to the iXBT Game Benchmark 2015 gaming methodology. All results were obtained at 1920×1080 (Full HD) at minimum quality settings and at 1366×768 at maximum quality settings. Why such a choice? Maximum settings at FHD resolution are "too tough" not only for integrated video adapters, but also for many low-cost discrete solutions. But many want to improve the quality - even at the cost of lowering the resolution. Moreover, the decline is not always so radical - users still have old monitors up to those that support a maximum of 1280 × 1024 pixels. So why not check out the "low" modes. In addition, with settings for maximum quality the specific share of the load on the GPU is increasing, and today we are just interested in the GPU. And even if they do not cope with the work - you get a stress test that well demonstrates the actual capabilities of graphics.

Minimum High Definition Quality

As you can see, HD Graphics in Haswell cannot cope with this task, you can already play on both A10s, but on the verge, and Broadwell with Iris Pro leaves no doubt. But if we talk about the use of a discrete graphics card, then all processors are equal. The price of Athlon X4 is several times lower than that of any Core i7. The same state of affairs will be in other games with low requirements for processor performance, but high for graphics.

But WoT, however, is the exact opposite of what was formulated above - here the graphics are needed insofar as. As long as it doesn't interfere. HD Graphics 4600 is obviously small. The rest - enough so that when you add a discrete graphics card performance does not increase, and may even decrease.

Another processor-dependent game, which is enough for the HDG 4600 for the selected mode. However, faster graphics even with a weak processor part allows you to achieve more high results. A discrete video adapter shows that the fourth level cache in some cases really makes Broadwell-C much more quick fix than Haswell. However, there is little practical benefit from this - 200 or 300 frames is no longer important. Here, obviously, it is necessary to improve the quality, which we will deal with a little later.

The game is heavy for all systems, but first of all - video cards. As you can see, only Broadwell integrated graphics, and in the older modification (GT3e), generally allow you to play in this mode: Haswell GT2 traditionally lags behind twice, and the best AMD IGPs - one and a half times. However, when using an inexpensive discrete video card, everyone suddenly becomes equal: both cheap Athlon (and turning off the graphics part in A10 transforms processors in this way), and expensive Core i7.

In the previous version of Metro, the alignment is similar. True, here the A10 is already approaching the threshold of playability, but only Broadwell-C and the like are suitable without exaggeration. Discretka (even such a relatively weak one as 250X) depends on the performance of processors. Another question is that "athlons" are still enough, and ten frames per second can be neglected.

Once again, Hitman is similar to Metro 2033 with slight variations. For example, here two A10s of different generations behave very differently even when using a discrete one, i.e. optimization in Kaveri is not an empty phrase. However, no matter how you optimize, the Core i5 is much faster. As for integrated solutions, here again only Broadwell-C is suitable without exaggeration - the rest will have to be reduced in resolution.

A very heavy game that even Iris Pro can't handle! However, as we can see, here even 250X is enough without much reserve - paired with slow processors, it is completely on the verge of playability.

As we've said many times before, in minimal mode Tomb Raider works great on everything (or almost everything). However, new broadwell there is still something to praise for, because they are not so far behind the budget, but discrete video card :)

In this game, without discrete anywhere. And, curiously, the Iris Pro 6200, as usual, is twice as fast as the HDG 4600, but the AMD solutions are already slightly ahead. Apparently, the main load is on shader and other units, and you can't speed them up with eDRAM. Let's see how this will manifest itself with an increase in quality.

There are more or less enough new A10s, Broadwell-C is enough without stretch, Haswell has nothing to catch here (except for the R-series, also equipped with the GT3e video core). But ... but it will be cheaper to put a discrete video card.

So, what do we have in the minimum quality mode? Broadwell-C handles almost all the games in our set, except for one. The performance of the Broadwell GT3e is about twice as high as that of the Haswell GT2, and these solutions outperform AMD integrated graphics by one and a half times. But it's better, of course, if possible, to use a discrete video card - it can even come out cheaper. And always at least not slower.

Low resolution but high quality

A discrete graphics card allows you to play even with an inexpensive processor, integrated graphics are still unusable. None.

With great difficulty and strain, the Core i5-5675C got out of 30 FPS. A cheaper bundle of Athlon X4 760K or 860K and R7 250X scores almost 40 without straining. Comments are unnecessary.

This is where the Iris Pro 6200 looks really good. Let the discrete video card and a little faster, but not much. Worse, its use is not always possible, so the advent of powerful integrated video is a great boon for those who find themselves in such conditions.

There are not enough low-end discrete cards, which means you can forget about integrated solutions in practice. From the point of view of theory, it is curious that here they are quite close to each other, which is no wonder: when the main load falls on the GPU itself, no tricks in terms of memory work can help.

Still more pronounced than in the previous case. The only curious thing is that the HDG 4600 is faster than the Radeon HD 8670D. However, this is not practically significant.

Again, even a discrete card can't cope, and its gap from integrated solutions increases up to three to five times. With the minimum quality, we recall, it was sometimes less than two. Those. the higher the requirements for the GPU, the greater the difference between the integrated and discrete versions of the latter. Which is more than expected, but not taken into account by everyone.

If you have a discrete video card, you can play, but the integrated one is not enough at all, and any. A similar picture was at the minimum FHD settings, only here it became even clearer. But nothing surprising - in general, cards of the level of at least Radeon R7 265 and higher are desirable for this game. And these games are not so few.

If at minimum settings this game is very gentle on the video system, then an increase in quality can “bring it to its knees” and much more powerful solutions than we are considering today. Those. The room for maneuver here is huge, but only owners of discrete video cards can successfully use it.

Sleeping Dogs behaves in a similar way, but the advantages of a discrete solution are even more visible. But the benefits from eDRAM disappear even more noticeably, because it doesn't even reach the speed of texturing: GPUs themselves are still too weak. But weak in different ways, so that the integrated Radeon R7 can even overtake the Iris Pro. In practice, however, this does not matter, since both are still too slow.

And another similar case confirms the above hypothesis :)

In general, as we can see, attempts to use modes with high image quality (even with reduced resolution) only on integrated graphics are usually doomed to failure.

Total

So what do we see? Low quality modes lend themselves well to modern integrated graphics. At least the best representatives of the latter. The idea with eDRAM is correct and logical - it allows you to ease the lack of memory bandwidth. Actually, thanks to this, the solutions of the Iris Pro line become the fastest in their class. Not necessarily Broadwell - Haswell is not much worse, but such modifications of the latter are not installed on the socket, which imposes its own specifics.

But can gamers be satisfied with low-quality modes? Probably not. In any case, if he is generally interested in modern games - at the minimum settings, “modernity” easily disappears, often resembling a picture of a decade ago. Especially if you remember the high cost of Intel processors with GT3e - for this money you can buy something simpler, but with a good discrete video card. AMD solutions are much more affordable, and with an increase in image quality, they “sag” in performance weaker, since the GPUs themselves are still more powerful (and eDRAM cannot fix this), but ... But this does not fundamentally change anything - the final performance is still the same too low, so seriously rely on graphics capabilities APU AMD gamer does not have to.

What awaits us in the near future? The processors of the Skylake line, according to forecasts, will eventually acquire GT4e-type graphic cores, where there will be more executive devices than before (in fact, GT with the usual numbers will “grow up”, but much less noticeable, but the appearance new modification directly hints at radical changes), and eDRAM. Moreover, support for DDR4 will increase the memory bandwidth - albeit not immediately, maybe. However, it does not follow from this that even such processors can cope with high-quality game modes from our methodology even at low resolutions - for this, performance must be increased by 3-5 times, which is unlikely to work. They will be able to overtake younger discrete video cards more often, but basically only where it’s either “enough” or “still fundamentally lacking”, so the fact of greater or lesser performance is not very important in itself.

In general, progress in the field of integrated graphics is clearly visible. But so far, from the point of view of a gamer, it is still not enough to fundamentally change the state of affairs. A full-fledged gaming computer, as before, must have a discrete graphics card, and more expensive than a processor. Which, by the way, makes Broadwell-C a bad gaming solution anyway (even with a discrete graphics card) - you can see that the advantages of the fourth level cache are not so great as to justify more high prices. If instead of 250X we used 290X (for example), they would be more noticeable, but all the same, this money is just better to spend on a video card - the return will be much greater. In addition, the limited heat pack gets in the way - the Core i5 often turns out to be slightly faster than the Core i7, running at a higher clock frequency, which is not close when comparing 4690K and 4770K. In general, Broadwell-C is initially a niche solution that is great for compact computers, but it has nothing special to do in a “regular” modular desktop: there is no need to “squeeze” into 65 W and you can use powerful video cards, or it’s good to save money if high video performance is not required.