1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

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

Discussion in 'News' started by btarunr, Jan 14, 2013.

  1. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    28,436 (11.28/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,620
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    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.

    [​IMG]

    Source: Bjorn3D
  2. Rebel333 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    29 (0.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6
    Intel graphics is scum, nowhere as fast as Intel claiming.
    hellrazor, Roph and Eagleye say thanks.
  3. MxPhenom 216

    MxPhenom 216 Corsair Fanboy

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    9,931 (6.79/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,209
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    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.
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2013
  4. Kvarta New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Messages:
    2 (0.00/day)
    Thanks Received:
    10
    VLC player again? :)
    hellrazor, Roph, Rowsol and 7 others say thanks.
  5. james888

    james888

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    4,368 (3.76/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,512
    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.
    Crunching for Team TPU
  6. micropage7

    micropage7

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2010
    Messages:
    5,732 (3.54/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,316
    Location:
    Jakarta, Indonesia
    intel selling point is for basic needs, and of course newer architecture would give us better performance
  7. de.das.dude

    de.das.dude Pro Indian Modder

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    7,587 (4.92/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,982
    twice as fast but nowhere near useable.
    Rebel333 says thanks.
  8. KainXS

    KainXS

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,600 (2.21/day)
    Thanks Received:
    501
    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.
  9. NC37

    NC37

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,184 (0.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    264
    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.
  10. lZKoce

    lZKoce

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    593 (0.63/day)
    Thanks Received:
    63
    Location:
    Bulgaria
    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
  11. Aquinus

    Aquinus Resident Wat-man

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    6,196 (6.54/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,031
    Location:
    Concord, NH
    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.
  12. Eagleye

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2012
    Messages:
    69 (0.11/day)
    Thanks Received:
    12
    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:
  13. timmyisme22

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2011
    Messages:
    64 (0.05/day)
    Thanks Received:
    11
    Location:
    Yakima, Washington
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2013
    n-ster, Shihabyooo and NHKS say thanks.
  14. blibba

    blibba

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    829 (0.46/day)
    Thanks Received:
    183
    Location:
    Oxford, UK
    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.
  15. Aquinus

    Aquinus Resident Wat-man

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    6,196 (6.54/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,031
    Location:
    Concord, NH
    Not on price though. AMD CPUs are considerably cheaper to hold on to that performance.
  16. Fourstaff

    Fourstaff Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,178 (5.28/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,971
    Location:
    Home
    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.
    1c3d0g says thanks.
  17. axis007

    axis007

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2012
    Messages:
    44 (0.05/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6
    Location:
    Brisbane, Australia
    Like NC37 said, give us some real benchmarks intel:banghead: How BF3, FC3, Crysis2 run on GT3 will be interesting...
  18. Supercrit

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Messages:
    89 (0.08/day)
    Thanks Received:
    29
    Good thing, these waste of silicon type of cards such as 520 and 6450 are going extinct.
  19. NHKS

    NHKS New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2011
    Messages:
    596 (0.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    375
    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
  20. CounterZeus

    CounterZeus

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2009
    Messages:
    208 (0.12/day)
    Thanks Received:
    37
    Location:
    Belgium
    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 :)
  21. darkangel0504

    darkangel0504

    Joined:
    May 20, 2011
    Messages:
    87 (0.07/day)
    Thanks Received:
    28
    where is benchmark result ?
  22. chodaboy19

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2010
    Messages:
    87 (0.06/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3
    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.
  23. esrever

    esrever

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Messages:
    63 (0.09/day)
    Thanks Received:
    25
    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.
  24. esrever

    esrever

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Messages:
    63 (0.09/day)
    Thanks Received:
    25
    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?
  25. Covert_Death

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2011
    Messages:
    308 (0.28/day)
    Thanks Received:
    82
    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 ???

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page