Monday, February 20th 2012
Core i5-3570K Graphics 67% Faster Than Core i5-2500K, 36% Slower Than GeForce GT 240
An Expreview community member ran benchmarks comparing the performance of the Intel HD 4000 graphics embedded into its upcoming 22 nm "Ivy Bridge" Core i5-3570K, comparing it to the integrated graphics of Core i5-2500K, and discrete graphics NVIDIA GeForce GT 240. These tests are endorsed by the site. The suite of benchmarks included games that aren't quite known to be very taxing on graphics hardware by today's standards, yet are extremely popular; games such as StarCraft II, Left4Dead 2, DiRT 3, Street Fighter IV. Some of the slightly more graphics-intensive benchmarks included Far Cry 2 and 3DMark Vantage. All benchmarks were run at 1280 x 720 resolution.
The Intel HD 4000 graphics core beats the HD 3000 hands down, with performance leads as high as 122% in a particular test. The chip produces more than playable frame-rates with Left4Dead 2 and Street Fighter IV, both well above 50 FPS, even DiRT 3 and Far Cry 2 run strictly OK, over 30 FPS. StarCraft II is where it produced under 30 FPS, so the chip might get bogged down in intense battles. A mainstream discrete GeForce or Radeon is a must. On average, the graphics core embedded into the Core i5-3570K was found to be 67.25% faster than the one on the Core i5-2500K.
When pitted against a 2+ year old GeForce GT 240, the Core i5-3570K struggles. In StarCraft II, it's 53.64% slower. On average, the GT 240 emerged 56.25% faster. A decent effort by Intel to cash in on the entry-level graphics. We are hearing nice things about the HD video playback and GPU acceleration capabilities of Intel's HD 4000 core, and so there's still something to look out for. Agreed, comparing the i5-3570K to the i5-2500K isn't a 100% scientific comparison since the CPU performance also factors in, but it was done purely to assess how far along Intel has come with its graphics.
Source:
Expreview
The Intel HD 4000 graphics core beats the HD 3000 hands down, with performance leads as high as 122% in a particular test. The chip produces more than playable frame-rates with Left4Dead 2 and Street Fighter IV, both well above 50 FPS, even DiRT 3 and Far Cry 2 run strictly OK, over 30 FPS. StarCraft II is where it produced under 30 FPS, so the chip might get bogged down in intense battles. A mainstream discrete GeForce or Radeon is a must. On average, the graphics core embedded into the Core i5-3570K was found to be 67.25% faster than the one on the Core i5-2500K.
62 Comments on Core i5-3570K Graphics 67% Faster Than Core i5-2500K, 36% Slower Than GeForce GT 240
Doesnt make much sense to me.
semiaccurate.com/forums/showpost.php?p=153673&postcount=23
GT240 is 56.25% faster than HD4000.
Still have no clue why Intel is not involved in some scam with a IGP company to force the use of their IGP's vs Intel wasting time on IGP's.
The best part is when you run a i7 cpu with IGP (no dedicated amd / nvidia gpu's) then the cpu's suck much more.
Example:
Mobile i7-2670 runs 7-zip 8/8 at avg. 12500 where a i7-2630 with nvidia mobile gpu runs at 15244~15384 8/8, same hardware except for gpu used and swapped out cpu for testing. You would expect it to be the opposite results.
I understand Trinity figures aren't avaliable yet, I can't wait for the rumored performance of Kaveri though, finally a decent enough integrated GPU with absolutely no need for additional GPU, if only they can get the CPU IPC performance up from the 2006 first generation Phenom level ...
How about the Xeon dual socket version of this chip. If it could combine combine graphics performance, now that would be decent enough for most people, and every reason for everyone to buy a workstation board and for Intel to sell twice as many CPU chips ;)
In fact, they could go back in time to the 386 and 387 math coprocessor concept. Only this time it would be GPU coprocessor. They could build a sister-chip that had half the CPU cores but double the GPU core/shaders, and it would make a marvellous combination.
It has mixed results: a GT 240 has performance over the A8-3850 (with the RAM @ 1866) between 91% and 120%.
Would prefer a more comprehensive review for this comparison but was unable to locate one :(
EDIT
With this, it seems that Core i5-3570K Graphics still isn't up to the graphics of an A8-3850. It's a whole new ball game when you factor the CPU portion of the chip.
www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GeForce_GT_240/30.htmlWhile didn’t do anything better than a the 780G.I second that
As to why they don't... it comes down to power and heat, most anyone or the OEM's that builds and markets the volume of general use computers have to do it for a price and within "green" efficiency. While at this time cooling would need to be developed and I would consider a prohibitive cost. But give it two years and you'll probably be getting 7770 performance with an APU.
You don't count every penny on the enthusiast range, so a more powerful GPU integrated to a Phenom II or bulldozer won't necesarelly means the enthusiast crowd will buy it, first because you will be tied to that integrated GPU until you buy a discrete card, and second, no matter how powerful the integrated GPU is, it shares memory, and that makes performance drop, also DDR3 is not comparable to GDDR5 in any way.agree.
And I'm not counting graphics quality in 3D, microstutterings, and compatibility.