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
Covert_Death
AMD is doing fine.... they are finally back on track competing with Intel on the main desktop CPU front (performance not units sold.... yet) now they have to jump on marketing and let people know its good to buy AMD again. it is going to take a while but i expect to see more and more AMD pre-builts and custom builts popping up in the next few years as they maximize the FX line. their graphics division is strong and can support their CPU division for the mean time.

don't give up on AMD yet
Posted on Reply
#2
fusionblu
Rather than getting ahead of ourselves I believe we should just wait and when the product comes out the facts should be known by then (such as benchmarks and other tests on engineering samples that come out before the release). I'm sure that the integrated graphics in the new Haswell CPUs will be better than both Sandybridge and Ivybridge, and there will probably be improvements in general performance too.

For now it is best to not rely on what has been said so far as quite a few things have been exaggerated as a result of what people have claimed to have seen at CES; we only have to look at SteamBox (hence Xi3 Piston which was really Xi3's X7A micro PC which can run Steam on its Big Picture mode and as for Xi3 Piston that hasn't even been made and was not at CES, and no this wasn't SteamBox as Valve hasn't decided or announced what SteamBox will be) to know that.

All I can hope from the Haswell series is that it is not half-baked like Sandybridge or Ivybridge where Sata III and USB 3 isn't fully integrated yet and I hope that they integrate PCI-E 3.0 a little better into the new chipset too as I don't think it has been covered properly (just for the fact there is the Ivybridge CPUs which supports it and also the PLX PEX8747 chipset which also supports PCI-E 3.0); lastly all I would like Intel to do with Haswell is to drop the cheap thermal materials they used in Ivybridge and use the right ones like they did in Sandybridge as that can definitely be done.
Posted on Reply
#3
cadaveca
My name is Dave
No mention of clockspeed. Odd...or is it? :p
Posted on Reply
#4
KissSh0t
Can you play Crysis with everything set on Ultra yet with this series of Intel graphics?
Posted on Reply
#5
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
by: KissSh0t
Can you play Crysis with everything set on Ultra yet with this series of Intel graphics?
I dont think you can do that on any IGP, unless on 320x240 or something.
Posted on Reply
#6
1c3d0g
I can play far cry 3 with low settings on my HD4000. Textures and such I can even bump to high. There are the occasional shadow bugs etc., but that is understandable and Intel should hopefully fix them in an upcoming release.

Obviously the iGPU was never meant for hardcore gamers, but for casual games, it's O.K. And it's one of the few GPU's which does video playback RIGHT.
Posted on Reply
#7
Naito
This is great news for Ultrabooks and Windows 8 Pro tablets. I have an old HD 3000 and as long as can load up UT2K4 with decent graphics and frame rates, I'm not going to complain; and that is in an Ultrabook which I didn't expect to get any gaming out of.

by: Covert_Death
AMD is doing fine.... they are finally back on track competing with Intel on the main desktop CPU front (performance not units sold.... yet)
I beg to differ. AMD need to do something radical to their architectures to compete with Intel heavyweights. Their latest bulldozer architecture improved in very few areas compared to the predecessing architecture, in fact, even went backwards in some. Pair that with higher latency memory architecture and relatively poor single threaded performance and you'll only see disappointment. Their top-tier FX CPUs only just manage to trade blows with Intels i5s. The only thing that is working for them is their prices, APU lineup, and AMD loyalists. Now don't take what I just said the wrong way, I want AMD CPU division to recover, and I'm not saying they won't either, they just need to pull something out of the hat as competition is good for consumers. Just my 2 cents.
Posted on Reply
#8
Rebel333
by: Naito
I beg to differ. AMD need to do something radical to their architectures to compete with Intel heavyweights. Their latest bulldozer architecture improved in very few areas compared to the predecessing architecture, in fact, even went backwards in some. Pair that with higher latency memory architecture and relatively poor single threaded performance and you'll only see disappointment. Their top-tier FX CPUs only just manage to trade blows with Intels i5s. The only thing that is working for them is their prices, APU lineup, and AMD loyalists. Now don't take what I just said the wrong way, I want AMD CPU division to recover, and I'm not saying they won't either, they just need to pull something out of the hat as competition is good for consumers. Just my 2 cents.
Who cares CPU? CPUs stopped being bottleneck for years, the GPU is more important. AMD is going on this track for years, while Intel just start realizing GPU is important too...
Posted on Reply
#9
Naito
by: Rebel333
Who cares CPU? CPUs stopped being bottleneck for years, the GPU is more important. AMD is going on this track for years, while Intel just start realizing GPU is important too...
Not everyone will be too fussed about the performance of modern CPUs when it comes to games, most are more than adequate, but not everyone only cares about gaming performance. As for their APU line up, they offer great value if on a tight budget. I will ask you this though; what do most current games have in common? What is it they demand most from a CPU? Maybe this will give you an incite to what I was getting at: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6347/amd-a10-5800k-a8-5600k-review-trinity-on-the-desktop-part-2/6

Obviously not the most comprehensive list, but gives you an idea.

EDIT: Just want to apologize to the Tatty_One for the double post. I am aware of the edit button and did use it, but since I'm without internet, I've been using my phone and thus something odd must have happened. Sorry for that.
Posted on Reply
#10
cyneater
by: Naito
Not everyone will be too fussed about the performance of modern CPUs when it comes to games, most are more than adequate, but not everyone only cares about gaming performance.
True most of my friend are running Core 2 Duo's or Quads or Phenom processors and have no issues playing the latest games. Although they might up grade there graphics card once every few years there isn't much of a need to upgrade CPU's are programers are retarded and couldn't code anything that takes full advantage of a Core 2 quad lead alone any of the latest processors.

Less and less people care about gaming pcs as there are consoles and tablets.

As for intel IGP or integrated graphics they are okay if you want to play the odd game.
Hell most of the bleeding edge games aren't much fun. So why would people even bother?
Posted on Reply
#11
Naito
Interesting point raised there. It's true though, those CPUs still would be adequate for most games these days. We've seen so many poorly optimised console ports and the likes. I wouldn't blame the developers/programmers, but rather the publisher for strict deadlines and budgets, and possibly ourselves, as we are the ones buying a large variety of devices that stretch these publisher constraints even thinner (though you cannot excuse studios like Activision with games such as Call of Duty; they'd be raking in the cash). As for taking full advantage of a CPU, you'd probably need to be getting down and dirty with assembly :P. However, that may be counterproductive.
Posted on Reply
#12
Prima.Vera
Anyone care to explain why oh why an i7 needs strong GPU incorporated??? Is OK to have a crappy GPU core inside, just for the safety or safe mode, but why would I care if the GPU will be double as fast as prev gen.???
Posted on Reply
#13
lZKoce
by: Prima.Vera
Anyone care to explain why oh why an i7 needs strong GPU incorporated??? Is OK to have a crappy GPU core inside, just for the safety or safe mode, but why would I care if the GPU will be double as fast as prev gen.???
Well, Intel knows that a person buying a mid-high range CPU will most probably, almost certainly have a discrete GPU onboard- be it GT210, GS8400 or some other old low-profile card, just for the BOOT up. So why would they add up>?- because you are going to pay for the whole chip in package anyway. At least that's one reason in my opinion, of course they are many more decent ones. But cash is a factor here as well, I agree with other people on this.
Posted on Reply
#14
NeoXF
What's the worst that can happen for AMD? Mobile Trinity will get outperformed, but not desktop, because AMD and Intel work backwards here, AMD offers the faster variants for desktop, while Intel for mobile... And lastly, Richland APUs or on their way too, my guess they will make some headway with them, and take whatever they lost back, especially if they are 28nm and GCN (remember the vast driver improvements AMD did in regard to that architecture?).
Posted on Reply
#15
xenocide
by: lZKoce
Well, Intel knows that a person buying a mid-high range CPU will most probably, almost certainly have a discrete GPU onboard- be it GT210, GS8400 or some other old low-profile card, just for the BOOT up. So why would they add up>?- because you are going to pay for the whole chip in package anyway. At least that's one reason in my opinion, of course they are many more decent ones. But cash is a factor here as well, I agree with other people on this.
I'm pretty sure even HD4000 is better than a GT210 or GS8400...
Posted on Reply
#16
lZKoce
by: xenocide
I'm pretty sure even HD4000 is better than a GT210 or GS8400...
It's not. My parents PC is with HD4000 and is running Palit GT210. I have compared the two, by a small margin the GT is still better, allows for a few games more and the CUDA acceleration for the 1080p movies makes a difference too. But the difference is minimal- I mean if you are buying a new PC and had to choose between taking the onboard and shelling, let's say 50 euros for a brand new gt210, I wouldn't pay them either. I got that one a real bargain.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment