Monday, January 14th 2013

Intel "Haswell" GT3 Graphics Twice as Fast as "Ivy Bridge"

At its 2013 International CES booth, Intel exhibited a side-by-side comparison of two systems, one running its next-generation Core "Haswell" processor's integrated graphics, the HD 4500 GT3 (all components enabled), and the other a discrete NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 GPU. A highly forgiving DirectX 11-generation title, DiRT 3, was made to run on both GPUs. Visitors noted that even if not as smooth as the GTX 650, Intel's Haswell iGPU did produce playable frame-rates.

Sources close to the company have been claiming a significant, in fact, 100 percent performance lead of the Haswell iGPU over previous-generation HD 4000 iGPU featured in today's Core "Ivy Bridge" chips. If true, Intel's graphics may have come perilously close to, or even caught up with, AMD's A-Series "Trinity" line of APUs, which feature the fastest integrated graphics processor ever made.

Source: Bjorn3D
Add your own comment

41 Comments on Intel "Haswell" GT3 Graphics Twice as Fast as "Ivy Bridge"

#1
Rebel333
Intel graphics is scum, nowhere as fast as Intel claiming.
Posted on Reply
#2
MxPhenom 216
Corsair Fanboy
by: Rebel333
Intel graphics is scum, nowhere as fast as Intel claiming.
Have proof that Intel Graphics are trash? I wouldn't say Intel HD4000 graphics are very horrible, just not as good as AMD APUs. HD4000 Integrated graphics allows for decent gameplayability on modern games at moderate resolutions.
Posted on Reply
#3
Kvarta
VLC player again? :)
Posted on Reply
#4
james888
I know most of this increase is increasing the amount of gpu on the die but... 100% increase is pretty darn impressive. Still wish they didn't have the gpu on the die though.
Posted on Reply
#5
micropage7
intel selling point is for basic needs, and of course newer architecture would give us better performance
Posted on Reply
#6
de.das.dude
Pro Indian Modder
twice as fast but nowhere near useable.
Posted on Reply
#7
KainXS
its usable the problem with intel graphics is that as soon as you approach gaming on their stuff you will more than likely run into driver issues at some point, but when they try to compare it to the 650 its pretty obvious its not as fast, but you can have the fastest hardware on earth but if your drivers are shit, it will run like shit, of course they have gotten better over the years but they still have a long way to go to catch AMD.
Posted on Reply
#8
NC37
Sandy, Ivy, Haswell...yep I guessed back when APUs launched it would take Intel about 3-4 gens before they caught up. I'll applaud them for getting this far despite still being behind. Unfortunately Trinity has slacked when it should have been much better. Don't have much confidence the next series will pick up ground. They need some new designs on the GPU side as well as CPU.

I'd just be more impressed if they benched it with something more complex. Dirt 3...ehhh. Come back with Battlefield 3 comparisons Intel, then we'll see how much better you've gotten.
Posted on Reply
#9
lZKoce
It'll be good for ultrabooks and stuff. Why so negative about Intel graphics? It is clearly targeted at people who use their laptop/desktop for watching HD movies/listening to music, internet browsing and typing school/university reports and may be some Google SketchUp. As for these tasks its plenty of productivity it offers. You wanna game? - get a discrete GPU, everyone knows that :D
Posted on Reply
#10
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
I have a Macbook Air 13" for work and it has a i5 at 1.8Ghz (2.8Ghz turbo; dual-core with hyper-threading,) and the HD 4000 graphics works plenty fine for everything I do on it. No, it doesn't play games all that well (does Minecraft okay), but it does everything else just fine. So if you're not playing games on your laptop (or tower,) it's fine. It's not designed to be something powerful but something that is adequate for the typical computer user and the typical gamer isn't the same thing as the typical user. You want to play games, you get a discrete GPU. It's simple as that when it comes to Intel CPUs.
Posted on Reply
#11
Eagleye
I remember Intel Making 3X Claims and it turned out slower than 2X.:nutkick:

Still good for Intel on any level for graphics as they are not really expected to lite the house on fire anytime soon :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#13
blibba
by: MxPhenom 216
Have proof that Intel Graphics are trash? I wouldn't say Intel HD4000 graphics are very horrible, just not as good as AMD APUs. HD4000 Integrated graphics allows for decent gameplayability on modern games at moderate resolutions.
Actually, HD4000 is faster than all but the best few APUs. If you compare the lower power HD4000 chips with the lower power APUs, Intel wins big-time.
Posted on Reply
#14
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
by: blibba
If you compare the lower power HD4000 chips with the lower power APUs, Intel wins big-time.
Not on price though. AMD CPUs are considerably cheaper to hold on to that performance.
Posted on Reply
#15
Fourstaff
by: Aquinus
Not on price though. AMD CPUs are considerably cheaper to hold on to that performance.
If you do enjoy half as much battery life, and much poorer CPU power for those who care about CPU too. The price difference between a 4600M and a HD 4000 i3/i5 is not that much different, in return for having lower battery life you get better graphics. Or you can pay more for a bigger battery, if you don't mind the extra weight.
Posted on Reply
#16
axis007
Like NC37 said, give us some real benchmarks intel:banghead: How BF3, FC3, Crysis2 run on GT3 will be interesting...
Posted on Reply
#17
Supercrit
Good thing, these waste of silicon type of cards such as 520 and 6450 are going extinct.
Posted on Reply
#18
NHKS
Good to see Intel trying to improve iGPU with each gen..
but before they try to boast with gaming graphics they should look at other competitors too
Posted on Reply
#19
CounterZeus
It's nice that they are making progress. I'm not entirely content with my HD3000 in my lappy driver wise(not clocking to max in games...), but I know they were very far behind and I don't buy a iGPU for gaming :)
Posted on Reply
#21
chodaboy19
It's good progress, but by the time Haswell launches won't nVidia have something replacing the GTX650 that intel used as the benchmark? Maybe a Kepler silicon revision or whatnot.
Posted on Reply
#22
esrever
by: blibba
Actually, HD4000 is faster than all but the best few APUs. If you compare the lower power HD4000 chips with the lower power APUs, Intel wins big-time.
the mobile hd4000 are much slower than the A6 mobile. The 17w trinity is just as fast as the 17w HD4000 with better drivers on top of that.


As long as the APU has dual channel memory, they are much much faster than the HD4000. Intel's double HD4000 performance would only be on par or slightly better with the 4600m.
Posted on Reply
#23
esrever
by: Fourstaff
If you do enjoy half as much battery life, and much poorer CPU power for those who care about CPU too. The price difference between a 4600M and a HD 4000 i3/i5 is not that much different, in return for having lower battery life you get better graphics. Or you can pay more for a bigger battery, if you don't mind the extra weight.
actually, intel gets worse battery life and the difference is night and day. Who cares about cpu power again? Would you rather play LoL at 30fps instead of 12 or would you rather install it a while 10 seconds faster?
Posted on Reply
#24
Covert_Death
by: Supercrit
Good thing, these waste of silicon type of cards such as 520 and 6450 are going extinct.
these "waste of silicon type of cards" help fund the more expensive cards, a lot of times these cheapo cards would have to be considered trash if not sold on low end. so how does it help us that nvidia starts to throw away silicon instead of at least selling it at a lower quality and making SOME profit ???
Posted on Reply
#25
Easy Rhino
Linux Advocate
another integrated graphics solution is great news. too bad this is going to keep pushing amd products into the dustbin of history.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment