Processor with a good integrated card. Choose a processor with a powerful graphics core

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 the most important role is played by the processor. 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 surfing the web, drafting a document in a text editor, editing photos, moving files, and much, much more. Even in games and 3D modeling, where the main load falls on the shoulders of the 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 major processor manufacturers in the consumer market: 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

The rating is opened by an extremely weak processor of the 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. This means that this processor is 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

Flaws:

• Does not support Hyper-Threading Technology

3 AMD Athlon X4 845 Carrizo

Best price
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

Flaws:

• Lack of integrated graphics core
• Not unlocked multiplier

2 AMD FX-6300 Vishera

The only 6-core processor in the class
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 DDR4 RAM. 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

Flaws:

• 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 Higher cache frequencies	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 exactly true for the latest Ryzen processors) 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 the cores, the relatively low power is 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 with the most affordable processor of the i-core line. 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

Flaws:

• Weak performance for the price

4 AMD Ryzen 3 1200 Summit Ridge

Best price
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

Flaws:

• 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
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 the factory settings, in idle time, the 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

Flaws:

• Low overclocking potential

1 AMD Ryzen 7 1700 Summit Ridge

The most powerful processor in the class
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 the best 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 was the top processor in Intel's lineup. 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 in the market allows you to find an affordable motherboard with an LGA1151 socket. In general, we have an excellent base for a powerful gaming system at a relatively low cost.

Advantages:

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

Flaws:

• 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 at the standard clock frequency is able to enter the TOP-10 most powerful CPU. 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 the necessary modern standards and commands, which allows it to be used for any task.

Advantages:

• Top performance
• Excellent overclocking potential
• Acceptable temperatures

Flaws:

• 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.

Such 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

Introduction In the development of all computer technology in recent years, a course towards integration and the miniaturization that accompanies it is well traced. And this is not so much about the usual desktop personal computers, but about a huge fleet of "user-level" devices - smartphones, laptops, players, tablets, etc. - which are reborn in new form factors, absorbing more and more new features. As for desktops, they are the last to be affected by this trend. Of course, in recent years, the vector of user interest has slightly deviated towards small computing devices, but it's hard to call this a global trend. The basic architecture of x86 systems, which assumes the presence of a separate processor, memory, video card, motherboard and disk subsystem, remains unchanged, and this is precisely what limits the possibilities for miniaturization. It is possible to reduce each of the listed components, but there will not be a qualitative change in the dimensions of the resulting system in total.

However, over the past year, it seems like there has been a certain turning point in the “personalok” environment. With the introduction of modern semiconductor technological processes with more “thin” standards, x86 processor developers are able to gradually transfer the functions of some previously separate components and devices to the CPU. So, no one is surprised 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 integrated into processors for productive desktops. And we are not talking about some frail video cores that are only capable of providing the operation of the operating system interface, but about quite complete solutions that can be opposed to entry-level discrete graphics accelerators in terms of performance and certainly surpass all those integrated video cores that were built into system logic sets earlier.

The pioneer was Intel, which at the very beginning of the year released Sandy Bridge processors for desktop computers with an integrated graphics core of the Intel HD Graphics family. True, she considered that good integrated graphics would be of interest primarily to users of mobile computers, and only a stripped-down version of the video core was offered for desktop CPUs. The incorrectness of this approach was later demonstrated by AMD, which launched Fusion processors with full-fledged graphics cores of the Radeon HD series on the desktop market. 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 of CPUs with integrated graphics. The company has updated its Sandy Bridge line of desktop processors, adding models with a faster version of Intel HD Graphics to the number of available desktop offerings. As a result, now users who want to assemble a compact integrated system are faced with the question: which manufacturer's platform is more rational to prefer? After extensive testing, we will try to give recommendations on choosing one or another processor with a built-in graphics accelerator.

Terminology question: CPU or APU?

If you are already familiar with those processors with integrated graphics that AMD and Intel offer for desktop users, then you know that these manufacturers are trying to distance their products from each other as much as possible, trying to instill the idea that their direct comparison is incorrect. It is AMD that brings the main “disturbance”, which refers its solutions to a new class of APUs, and not to ordinary CPUs. What is the difference?

The abbreviation APU stands for Accelerated Processing Unit (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 one 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 a three-dimensional image, but also on solving computational problems.

That is, the APU offers a more flexible scheme than simply combining graphics and computing resources within a single semiconductor chip. The idea lies in creating a symbiosis of these heterogeneous parts, when part of the calculations can be performed by means of the graphics core. However, as always in such cases, software support is needed to enable this promising feature.

AMD Fusion processors with a video core, codenamed Llano, fully comply with this definition, they are precisely APUs. They integrate graphics cores of the Radeon HD family, which, among other things, support ATI Stream technology and the OpenCL 1.1 software interface, through which calculations on the graphics core are really possible. In theory, a range of applications could benefit from running on an array of Radeon HD stream processors, including cryptographic algorithms, 3D rendering, or photo, audio, and video post-processing tasks. In practice, however, everything is much more complicated. Implementation difficulties and questionable real performance gains have so far held back widespread support for the concept. Therefore, in most cases, the APU can be considered nothing more than a simple CPU with an integrated graphics core.

Intel, on the other hand, sticks to more conservative terminology. It continues to refer to its Sandy Bridge processors, which contain integrated HD Graphics, by the traditional term CPU. Which, however, has some grounds, 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, no joint work of heterogeneous parts of the processor on the same computing tasks is foreseen by Intel yet.

With one important exception. The fact is that the graphics cores of Intel processors contain 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 really can improve 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 fair to compare AMD APUs and Intel CPUs? From a theoretical standpoint, an identical 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 thing. AMD Llano processors can speed up parallel computing, and Intel Sandy Bridge processors can only use graphics power when transcoding video, but in reality, both possibilities 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 one chip.

Processors - test participants

In fact, you should not 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 a standard offering in the lower and middle price range. Both AMD Fusion and Intel Sandy Bridge have been pushed out of the current offerings of CPUs without graphics, so even if you are not going to bet on the integrated video core, we can’t offer anything else but to focus on the same processors with graphics. Fortunately, no one is forcing you to use the built-in video core, and you can turn it off.

Thus, having taken up the comparison of the CPU with the integrated GPU, we came to a more general task - comparative testing of modern processors with a cost of 60 to 140 dollars. Let's see what suitable options AMD and Intel can offer us in this price range, and which specific processor models we managed to involve in the tests.

AMD Fusion: A8, A6 and A4

To use desktop processors with an integrated graphics core, AMD offers a specialized Socket FM1 platform that is compatible exclusively with Llano family processors - A8, A6 and A4. These processors feature two, three, or four general-purpose Husky cores with a microarchitecture similar to the Athlon II, and a Sumo graphics core that inherits the microarchitecture of the low-end Radeon HD 5,000 series.

The line of processors of the Llano family seems to be quite self-sufficient, it includes processors that are heterogeneous in terms of computing and graphics performance. However, there is one pattern in the model range - computing performance correlates with graphics performance, that is, processors with the largest number of cores and with the maximum clock frequency are always equipped with the fastest video cores.

Intel Core i3 and Pentium

Intel can oppose 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 current 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 the rest of Sandy Bridge. To use the built-in video core, you will need motherboards based on special sets of H67, H61 or Z68 logic.

All Intel processors that can be considered as competitors for Llano are based on a dual-core design. At the same time, Intel does not put much emphasis on graphics performance - most CPUs have a weak version of HD Graphics 2000 graphics with six execution units built into them. An exception is made only for the Core i3-2125 - this processor is equipped with the most powerful HD Graphics 3000 graphics core in the company's arsenal with twelve actuators.

How We Tested

After we got acquainted with the set of processors presented in this test, it's time to pay attention to 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 drive: 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 purpose of this test was to explore 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.

At the same time, it should be noted that, due to the lack of DirectX 11 support in Intel graphics cores, testing in all graphic applications was carried out in DirectX 9/DirectX 10 modes.

Performance in common tasks

Overall Performance

To 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 the computer.

As you can see, in traditional applications, the AMD Fusion series processors look simply shameful. AMD's fastest quad-core Socket FM1 processor, the A8-3850, struggles to outperform the dual-core Pentium G620 at half the cost. All other representatives of the AMD A8, A6 and A4 series are hopelessly behind their Intel competitors. This, in general, is quite a natural result of the use of the old microarchitecture in the basis of Llano processors, which migrated there from Phenom II and Athlon II. Until AMD introduces processor cores with higher specific performance, even the company's quad-core APUs will have a very hard time competing with 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 usage scenarios. The Office Productivity scenario models typical office work: word preparation, spreadsheet processing, e-mail, and Internet browsing. 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-captured digital images and video. For this purpose, popular Adobe packages are used: Photoshop CS5 Extended, Premiere Pro CS5 and After Effects CS5.

Web Development is a scenario that simulates the creation of a web site. Applications used: Adobe Photoshop CS5 Extended, Adobe Premiere Pro CS5, Adobe Dreamweaver CS5, Mozilla Firefox 3.6.8 and Microsoft Internet Explorer 9.

The Data/Financial Analysis scenario is dedicated to the statistical analysis and forecasting of market trends that are performed in Microsoft Excel 2010.

The 3D Modeling scenario 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, performs backups and installs software and updates. Several different versions of Mozilla Firefox Installer and WinZip Pro 14.5 are involved here.

The only type of application in which AMD Fusion processors can achieve acceptable performance is 3D modeling and rendering. In such tasks, the number of cores is a weighty argument, and the quad-core A8 and A6 can provide faster performance than, for example, the Intel Pentium. But to the level set by the Core i3 processors, which support Hyper-Threading technology, AMD offers do not reach even in the most favorable case for themselves.

Application performance

To measure the speed of processors when compressing information, we use the WinRAR archiver, with which we archive a folder with various files with a total volume of 1.4 GB with the maximum compression ratio.

We measure performance in Adobe Photoshop using our own test, which is a creatively redesigned Retouch Artists Photoshop Speed ​​Test, which includes a typical processing of four 10-megapixel images taken with a digital camera.

When testing the speed of transcoding audio, the Apple iTunes utility is used, with the help of which the contents of a CD are converted to AAC format. Note that a characteristic feature of this program is the ability to use only a couple of processor cores.

The x264 HD test is used to measure the speed of video transcoding to H.264 format. 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, and so on.

Final rendering speed testing in Maxon Cinema 4D is performed using a specialized Cinebench test.

Also, we used the Fritz Chess Benchmark, which evaluates the speed of the popular chess algorithm used in the basis of programs of the Deep Fritz family.

Looking at the above diagrams, one can once again repeat everything that has already been said in relation to the results of SYSmark 2011. 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, during 3D rendering, video transcoding, or when iterating and evaluating chess positions. And then, a competitive level of performance in this case is observed only in the older 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 package give in to any of the Core i3 even in the most favorable case for them. Accordingly, representatives of the Intel Pentium family look quite worthy against the background of Fusion: these dual-core processors perform approximately the same as the triple-core A6-3500 under a well-parallelized load, and outperform the older A8 in programs like WinRAR, iTunes or Photoshop.

In addition to the conducted tests, in order to check the effect with which the power of graphics cores can be involved in solving everyday computing tasks, we conducted a study on the speed of video transcoding 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 was to measure the time required to downscale a 1.5GB 1080p H.264 video (which was a 20-minute episode of a popular TV series) downsampled 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 louder than words: Quick Sync transcodes HD video content several times faster than any other tool. The second large group includes all other processors, among which CPUs with a large number of cores take the first place. The Stream technology promoted by AMD, as we can see, does not show 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 computing cores.

Graphics core performance

A 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 processors in practice outperforms any Intel HD Graphics options. Even the Core i3-2125, equipped with an HD Graphics 3000 video core with twelve execution units, is only able to achieve the performance level demonstrated by the AMD A4-3300 with the weakest Radeon HD 6410D integrated graphics accelerator among all those presented in the Fusion test. All other Intel processors in terms of 3D performance lose to AMD offers by two to four times.

Some compensation for the dip in graphics performance may come from the CPU test results, but it should be understood that CPU and GPU speed are not interchangeable parameters. It is necessary to strive for a balance of these characteristics, and how the situation is with the compared processors, we will see further by 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 settings were set to Medium.

In gaming tests, the picture is very positive for AMD's proposals. Despite the fact that they differ in rather mediocre computing 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 the Intel platform with processors of the Core i3 and Pentium families gives out.

Even the fact that Intel began to integrate a productive version of the HD Graphics 3000 graphics core into them did not save the position of the Core i3 processors. The Core i3-2125 equipped with it was faster than its fellow 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 compete only 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 ignore 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 processors of the A8 series, with certain compromises in terms of screen resolution and image quality settings, allow you to play almost any modern game 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 opportunities for system miniaturization. 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 more economical system in operation, since its total power consumption will be obviously lower than the consumption of a platform with discrete graphics. An accompanying bonus is quieter operating modes, as reduced consumption translates into reduced heat generation and the ability to use simpler cooling systems.

That is why developers of processors with integrated graphics cores are trying to minimize the power consumption of their products. Most of the CPUs and APUs reviewed in this article have a calculated typical heat dissipation in the range of 65 W - 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 evaluate the practical consumption of systems with different processors.

The graphs below show two values ​​of energy consumption. The first is total system consumption (without a monitor), which is the sum of the power consumption of all components involved in the system. The second is the consumption of only one processor on a 12-volt power line dedicated for this purpose. 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 captures the voltages and currents entering the system through 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, in order to properly assess idle power consumption, we have enabled all available energy-saving technologies, as well as Turbo Core technology (where it is supported).

At rest, all systems showed the total power consumption, which is approximately at the same level. At the same time, as we can see, Intel processors practically do not load the processor power line in idle time, while competing AMD solutions, on the contrary, consume up to 8 W on the 12-volt line dedicated to the CPU. But this does not at all indicate that the representatives of the Fusion family do not know how to fall into deep energy-saving states. The differences are due to the different implementation of the power scheme: in Socket FM1 systems, both the computational and graphics cores of the processor and the northbridge built into the processor are powered by the processor line, while in Intel systems, the northbridge of the processor takes power from the motherboard.

Maximum compute load reveals that AMD's Phenom II and Athlon II energy efficiency issues persist with the introduction of the 32nm process. Llano use the same microarchitecture and just as badly lose to Sandy Bridge in terms of performance per watt expended. 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 the Pentium and the younger A4 and A6 is not so huge, but nevertheless, the situation does not change qualitatively.

Under graphics load, the picture is almost the same - Intel processors are much 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 when the graphics core is loaded, they also did not go far from each other.

Simultaneous load on all units 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 rest of the mass of 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 playing high-definition video, an atypical situation develops. The computing cores here are mostly idle, 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. What's more, the lowest frequency AMD Fusion, the A6-3500 offers the best economy overall in this usage scenario.

conclusions

At first glance, summing up the test results is easy. AMD and Intel processors with integrated graphics cores have shown completely different advantages, which allows us to recommend either one or another option, depending on the planned model of using the computer.

So, the strength of the AMD Fusion family of processors turned out to be their integrated graphics core with relatively high performance and compatibility with DirectX 11 and Open CL 1.1 programming interfaces. Thus, these processors can be recommended for those systems where the quality and speed of 3D graphics is not of the last importance. At the same time, processors included in the Fusion series use general-purpose cores based on the old and slow K10 microarchitecture, which results in their low performance in computing tasks. Therefore, if you are interested in options that provide better performance in ordinary non-gaming applications, you should look towards Intel's Core i3 and Pentium, even though such CPUs are equipped with fewer processing cores than AMD's competing offerings.

Of course, in general, AMD's approach to the design of processors with a built-in 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 processors of the A8 line 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 a junior level, their performance is no longer enough, so you can bet on such solutions only when it comes to creating multimedia computers that will run exclusively graphically simple casual games or online role-playing games of past generations.

However, no matter what is said about balance, the A4 and A6 series are poorly suited for resource-intensive computing applications. Within the same budget, representatives of the Intel Pentium line can offer significantly higher performance in computing tasks. To tell the truth, against the backdrop of Sandy Bridge, only the A8-3850 can be called a processor with an acceptable speed in commonly used programs. And even then, its good results are far from being manifested everywhere and, moreover, are provided with increased heat dissipation, which not every computer owner without a discrete video card will like.

In other words, it's a pity that Intel still can't offer a decent performance graphics core. Even the Core i3-2125, equipped with the fastest Intel HD Graphics 3000 in the company's arsenal, works at the AMD A4-3300 level in games, since the speed in this case rests on the performance of the built-in video accelerator. All other Intel processors are completely equipped with a one and a half times slower video core, and in 3D games they perform very faded, often showing a completely unacceptable number of frames per second. Therefore, we would not recommend thinking about 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-resolution video, but it is not capable of more. So, the most suitable application for Core i3 and Pentium processors seems to be in systems where the processing power of general-purpose cores is important with good energy efficiency - no AMD offerings with Sandy Bridge can compete in these parameters.

Well, in conclusion, it should be recalled that the Intel LGA1155 platform is much more promising than AMD Socket FM1. When purchasing an AMD Fusion series processor, you must 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 models of Socket FM1 representatives of the A8 and A6 series with a slightly increased clock speed, and their successors coming out next year, known under the code name Trinity, will not have compatibility with this platform. Intel's LGA1155 platform is much more promising. Not only can the much more computationally efficient Core i5 and Core i7 be installed in it today, but the Ivy Bridge processors planned for next year should work in motherboards purchased today.

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.

Thus, integrated graphics processors have 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 such a “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 not be suitable.
2. Discrete graphics - a video chip and one or two video memory modules are soldered on the motherboard. 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-powered 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 of the PCI Express bus. 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

As a rule, large companies are engaged in the manufacture and development of embedded graphics processors -, 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.

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 we will talk about Intel and the fact that each CPU has an integrated video 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, there has been an update to the integrated video core, which exists in two varieties and is called Intel 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. So, in the Apple MacBook Pro 13, Intel Core i5 6267U processors with Intel Iris Graphics 550 graphics are installed, 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 number of 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. In fact, the 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 we are not talking about simple or old games, for everyday 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, a discrete card will be 30-40 percent faster, but its capabilities are still beyond the limits of comfortable use for games. But there is an extra consumer of electricity and an additional source of heating.

19.04.2014 0 25890

There were times when a PC could not run any decent game if it did not have discrete graphics card. Today, most off-the-shelf computers and almost all laptops rely on graphics solutions integrated into the CPUs. Yet the discrete graphics market continues to thrive. If you don't play heavy AAA games, is the graphics card a worthwhile upgrade? To find out the answer, let's compare the performance of integrated and discrete GPUs.

AMD and Intel significantly improved the quality integrated graphics. AMD's Kaveri APUs use the same powerful GCN graphics core found in their top discrete Radeon series graphics cards.

Intel has also updated the features and capabilities of its HD-series graphics systems, which are built into the fourth generation Core processors (codenamed Haswell). They currently provide broader support for Microsoft DirectX 11.1, can support multiple displays (including 4K), and are compatible with most games.

To determine the advantages of a discrete graphics card, two computers were assembled. One runs on an A8-7800 Kaveri with an integrated Radeon R7 series GPU, and the other runs on an Intel Core i7-4670 Haswell processor with an integrated Intel HD 4600. Tests were then run with and without a discrete graphics card onboard each system.

The argument for discrete graphics

Per discrete graphics says its performance. All but entry-level graphics cards have a much more powerful GPU than those integrated into processors. Moreover, a separate graphics card will provide a GPU dedicated high-speed memory pool. The integrated GPU, on the other hand, must be content with sharing system memory and the data bus. Usually, with a discrete card, you can set the graphics settings in games higher than with integrated solutions.

There are other benefits to using discrete graphics cards as well. On current generation Nvidia graphics cards, users can use proprietary technologies Shadowplay and PhysX. ShadowPlay optimizes the use of video encoding engines built into NVIDIA GPUs to record and stream games in real time, with little impact on frame rates. This is a key feature of the Nvidia Shield portable gaming device.

PhysX is a proprietary physics simulation technology that makes objects in games behave more realistically. PhysX isn't supported by all games, but it can have a huge visual impact on those that do.

Games aren't the only applications that benefit from the performance of a discrete GPU. GPUs from AMD and Nvidia are made up of thousands of processors that can perform multiple operations at the same time. Any application can benefit from this parallel processing, whether it's image editing programs like Photoshop, data encryption, or distributed computing projects like Folding@Home or SETI@Home.

Discrete graphics cards can speed up the mining of the cryptographic currency Bitcoins, Litecoins and others. Miners bought up the latest graphics cards from AMD, as the Radeon architecture proved to be more efficient here than Intel processors and Nvidia graphics cards. Where the Intel Haswell Core i7-4770K processor is capable of processing about 93k hashes per second, the AMD Radeon R9 290X does about 880k hashes per second.

Argument against discrete graphics

Discrete video cards also have drawbacks, and the main one is the price. Buying a video card will cost from a couple of thousand rubles to 30 thousand or more. AMD recently announced the world's most powerful graphics card. The Radeon R9 295X2 has two Tahiti XT GPUs in one card and costs $1,500.

AMD and Intel have almost completely abandoned processors without integrated graphics (only AMD's FX series and Intel's Ivy Bridge-E chips do not have it), and motherboards that support these processors have an integrated video output.

A discrete graphics card also adds complexity to the system. The motherboard must have a free PCIe x16 slot for installing a video card. Usually it is available in the system unit, although some ready-made small computers may not have it, or the card may not fit inside the case. Or the power supply will not be able to support the requirements of the card. All this is because PC manufacturers did not assume, or simply did not take care, that the end user could upgrade.

Installing a discrete graphics card with Intel processors, it can be difficult to use technologies such as the Quick Sync video encoding engine. Quick Sync is linked to the Intel Integrated Graphics and installing a discrete card may disable it. Fortunately, it can be reactivated.

But you have to pay for everything. An external graphics card will increase power consumption, generate heat that requires a fan to dissipate (some cards even have three fans), and this will increase the noise level of the system as a whole. There are also passive cooling systems, but they are only suitable for entry-level cards and are more expensive.

Let's move on to numbers

Two computers were assembled: an AMD A8-7600 APU with a Radeon R7 iGPU on an Asus A88X-Pro motherboard, and an Intel Core i5-4670 with an Intel HD 4600 on a Gigabyte Z87X-UD5 TH board. Both systems were equipped with 16 GB of memory, a Samsung 840 Pro SSD and a 1000-watt Silverstone power supply, running Windows 8.1 Pro 64-bit.

A series of tests were conducted, including games and content creation applications, using only integrated GPUs. After that, a Radeon R9 280X video card from XFX was installed in the systems and the tests were repeated.

As you can see from the graphs, having a discrete graphics card improves performance in almost every way, and not just in games. PCMark 8, for example, launched Home and Work versions with OpenGL support. This interface uses all available computing resources of the computer, both the central processor and the graphics. The addition of a discrete graphics card increased system performance in this benchmark by 3-19% (Figure 1).

In the multi-threaded Cinebench test, the video card had little effect, but with OpenGL on a system with an Intel processor, the video card gave a performance increase of 79%, on an AMD system - 42% (Figure 2).

Many people think that people who play simple games - Farmville, Angry Birds, etc. - will not get any benefit from discrete graphics. But adding a graphics card gave a significant performance boost in the HTML5-oriented Fishbowl benchmark. This test is limited to 60 frames per second (the refresh rate of most monitors), and this value was achieved in three of the four tests with a discrete card (Figure 3). "Casual" games are becoming more and more difficult, their requirements for video cards are growing accordingly.

Speaking of complex games, the graphics cards performed well in BioShock Infinite at 1920 x 1080 pixels (Figure 4) and the 3DMark Fire Strike synthetic gaming test.

There is one area where the addition of a discrete video adapter hasn't had a significant impact: video playback. There was very little CPU impact when running both YouTube (HTML5) videos and H.264 encoded files in an MKV container.

Conclusion: Almost every desktop user can benefit from a graphics card. They will come in handy not only for gamers, although, of course, they get the main benefit.

P.S. If you have any problems with the equipment, please contact our computer service, or order a visit