How about including iGPU performance in CPU reviews?

[dgianstefani]

Actually in media encoding the 6 core 6 thread it 8600k beats out the 2700x because of the IGP accelerated Adobe hardware encoding. Do your research.

 

[eidairaman1]

Yes Media Encoding, video playback, CAD, AutoCAD, work.

Actually in media encoding the 6 core 6 thread it 8600k beats out the 2700x because of the IGP accelerated Adobe hardware encoding. Do your research.

Probably because most use an intel compiler vs a 3rd party.

 

[qubit]

I'm up for iGPU reviews. I suggest 720p and 1080p resolutions. A small selection of games will be fine for this. I think having at least one of the games an older one is prudent, because realistically, these are the ones which will give reasonable performance and hence the most likely use case for an iGPU.

 

[newtekie1]

No I'm not. Most people arent gamers, so why do they need an APU with better than average onchip GPU solution? Useless for them.

And that is exactly why they would be satisfied with the slower RAM.

Why do they need a dedicated GPU?

 

[Space Lynx]

You are correct. Minimum fps is the most important for a smooth gaming experience. They should be definitely be included.

the @W1zzard used to include them with his cpu reviews, but he said not many people were interested in it. AMD fanboys seem to ignore the fact intel is still 10-15 fps better across the board in almost every game in min fps, with a few exceptions where it ties. that was a key decision in me going with intel in my latest builds for the smoothest gaming experience, when a frame drop occurs, if its 5 fps drop turned into 15 fps... that changes the entire gaming experience, hard to notice, sure... but overall its noticeable if you want the best gaming experience possible.

 

[looniam]

Yes Media Encoding, video playback, CAD, AutoCAD, work.

just what does the intel's igpu do in CAD? graphics acceleration is NV and AMD only afaik.

and as i said the graphics accelerated media encoding is utter garbage compared to the software/cpu. good enough to toss a vid on you tube, but if you're doing a PROJECT ie being productive, you'll get laugh at using an igpu. last i saw intel quick sync had the worse quality of all graphics accelerated video encoding.

video playback? that is such a reach . . just stop.

 

[eidairaman1]

just what does the intel's igpu do in CAD? graphics acceleration is NV and AMD only afaik.

and as i said the graphics accelerated media encoding is utter garbage compared to the software/cpu. good enough to toss a vid on you tube, but if you're doing a PROJECT ie being productive, you'll get laugh at using an igpu. last i saw intel quick sync had the worse quality of all graphics accelerated video encoding.

video playback? that is such a reach . . just stop.

Trying to troll doesn't get you anywhere, by the way welcome to my brown list bucko.

 

[Mussels]

I think 720p and 1080p should be tested for all IGPs
Older titles or at miniumum graphics makes total sense, we want to know if games run on them, rather than how high settings can go

The ryzen chips with the integrated graphics are spicing things up

 

[looniam]

Trying to troll doesn't get you anywhere, by the way welcome to my brown list bucko.

a little sensitive buddy?

i'm just telling you that you're trying to make something out of nothing. i checked that CAD support,after i realized in my reply i was thinking adobe and i found it barely gets basic support from intel. go ahead, go check the forums you'lll find posts like this or this.

i'm sorry if you're not aware but intel really hasn't generally been in the gpu business until they hired raja, so i do hope for . . something better. but until then, intel treats their igpu hardly more than an amenity. there is like what? two driver updates each cycle? hell, intel only did the last one a month or so ago just to show they can use a distribution channel.

it's great to have trouble shooting, bread boarding or lightweight HTPC (for netflix). but to make it out to be something . . productive . . that's a lot of smoke is all i see.

 

[robot zombie]

Intel hasn't gotten there, but AMD starting to bring it when it comes to budget solutions. I see all of this talk of Ryzen APU's, but what of their A-series? A8-9600 goes for just $60! To me, it's almost more worth taking about than the Ryzen APU's.

I started this Ryzen build off with an A8-9600, as an AM4 buy-in to get the thing booted up until I could decide/save for a better CPU and a dedicated card. Not exactly a graphical powerhouse but it would've been plenty if I wasn't planning to game on it. And at 720p it actually did play most current games at low to mid settings. Older games would for the most part hold 60fps at higher settings. I was impressed, as I, like most people assumed it just wouldn't be possible. If all I did was play casual games and older emulators, I'd be quite happy with it.

If I was looking to build a budget, general normie use machine I would and have used the A8-9600. $60 for a decently capable cpu with graphical performance on the level of a discreet card that costs as much as the whole APU really isn't bad at all. Especially when you consider that 8GB of 2400 is actually enough for it, no need to buy a bunch of fast, expensive ram just to fully utilize it's not-that-impressive power (looking at you ryzen. <_<) The two I've had overclock to 3.7ghz on the stock cooler with peak temps of 60C. Even with its older architecture, the A8-9600 is a super-budget desktop killer. It's the only option there AFAIC.

In fact that's what I have in my guest rig that me and friends use to look stuff up, check e-mails, show videos, play movies, play casual games, whatever on the 1080p TV in the living room. It's great for that and gets used all of the time.

I also threw one in an <$400 build for my mom and she loves it for general internet use, music, and movie streaming on her 4k TV. She wanted to get away from laptops because of heat problems and tiny screens that she can't see. Because of being able to skip on the dedicated card, I was able to squeeze in a 120GB SSD on top of the 1TB HDD. It runs great, no lag ever. And it'll likely be all she needs for many years to come.

So they have their place.


The Ryzen APU's are... ...interesting. They need some perfecting. I just feel like for what you spend on a 2400X and 16GB of 3200 ram, you could could get an OC'd 1200/1400, 8GB of ram, and a GT 1030 for a little better performance and value. It's like they created a niche nobody asked for. Now if they actually performed better or on par with a GTX 1050, I'd say they had something. But as-is they're barely entry level to me. A little too much for basic use (won't utilize what you pay for,) and yet not quite good enough for any serious use or enjoyable current-gen gaming.

So I would like to see more info on them in the future. Just based on where they've been going, things might actually get interesting. It used to be integrated graphics were just... ...integrated graphics. All you could say was "it has them." But that seems to be changing.

 

[eidairaman1]

Intel hasn't gotten there, but AMD starting to bring it when it comes to budget solutions. I see all of this talk of Ryzen APU's, but what of their A-series? A8-9600 goes for just $60! To me, it's almost more worth taking about than the Ryzen APU's.

I started this Ryzen build off with an A8-9600, as an AM4 buy-in to get the thing booted up until I could decide/save for a better CPU and a dedicated card. Not exactly a graphical powerhouse but it would've been plenty if I wasn't planning to game on it. And at 720p it actually did play most current games at low to mid settings. Older games would for the most part hold 60fps at higher settings. I was impressed, as I, like most people assumed it just wouldn't be possible. If all I did was play casual games and older emulators, I'd be quite happy with it.

If I was looking to build a budget, general normie use machine I would and have used the A8-9600. $60 for a decently capable cpu with graphical performance on the level of a discreet card that costs as much as the whole APU really isn't bad at all. Especially when you consider that 8GB of 2400 is actually enough for it, no need to buy a bunch of fast, expensive ram just to fully utilize it's not-that-impressive power (looking at you ryzen. <_<) The two I've had overclock to 3.7ghz on the stock cooler with peak temps of 60C. Even with its older architecture, the A8-9600 is a super-budget desktop killer. It's the only option there AFAIC.

In fact that's what I have in my guest rig that me and friends use to look stuff up, check e-mails, show videos, play movies, play casual games, whatever on the 1080p TV in the living room. It's great for that and gets used all of the time.

I also threw one in an <$400 build for my mom and she loves it for general internet use, music, and movie streaming on her 4k TV. She wanted to get away from laptops because of heat problems and tiny screens that she can't see. Because of being able to skip on the dedicated card, I was able to squeeze in a 120GB SSD on top of the 1TB HDD. It runs great, no lag ever. And it'll likely be all she needs for many years to come.

So they have their place.


The Ryzen APU's are... ...interesting. They need some perfecting. I just feel like for what you spend on a 2400X and 16GB of 3200 ram, you could could get an OC'd 1200/1400, 8GB of ram, and a GT 1030 for a little better performance and value. It's like they created a niche nobody asked for. Now if they actually performed better or on par with a GTX 1050, I'd say they had something. But as-is they're barely entry level to me. A little too much for basic use (won't utilize what you pay for,) and yet not quite good enough for any serious use or enjoyable current-gen gaming.

So I would like to see more info on them in the future. Just based on where they've been going, things might actually get interesting. It used to be integrated graphics were just... ...integrated graphics. All you could say was "it has them." But that seems to be changing.

Different niche, the A8 9600 is a Bristol Ridge Excavator Core, hindered by Bulldozer tech.

RYZEN APUs are a single platform solution. The IGP is far superior to Older APUs and Intel parts.

AMD is dropping support for APUs that are not Ryzen Based through the bios support.

 

[Vya Domus]

until intel starts putting out drivers optimized for gaming, what's the point?

*until Intel starts shipping proper graphics hardware. No driver optimization can save hardware that's bottom of the barrel.

 

[Space Lynx]

At least their graphics driver team is getting practice for when the dedicated gpu's hit in 2020.

 

[dorsetknob]

"If the CPU has Integrated Graphics then Why would you not want some form of test or benchmark"

Or are you Happy to read an incomplete Review
the only query is the type of Test and consistancey

 

[newtekie1]

it's great to have trouble shooting, bread boarding or lightweight HTPC (for netflix). but to make it out to be something . . productive . . that's a lot of smoke is all i see.

Yes, they are a perfect fit for HTPC, but the thing is I actually play games on my HTPC. So how the iGPU performs matters to me. Sometimes I like to just kick back on my couch and play a game, and I use my HTPC to do that.

 

[looniam]

Yes, they are a perfect fit for HTPC, but the thing is I actually play games on my HTPC. So how the iGPU performs matters to me. Sometimes I like to just kick back on my couch and play a game, and I use my HTPC to do that.

i get that and i am not advocating to skip a gaming performance review of intel's igpu in a separate article such as THIS one (but not w/all the lappys ofc). but unless wikichips is lying to me, all the desktop SKU's since skylake have the same igpu so there will be a lot of redundant benchmarking for each cpu review. same hardware + same drivers = same results.

overall i cannot see where spending much time would be beneficial since i've seen the same thing over and over again; it's serviceable but gets it's ass handed to it by the most recent entry level dGPU in everything. to beat a dead horse, intel just isn't putting any effort into it. hopefully that will change. but until then, it's the same ole same ole.

again i am not against testing/benching the igpu performance for gaming, but not in every cpu review; esp since unlike AMD's APUs; there is absolutely no marketing and luck luster support for it.

 

[IceShroom]

I suggest, drop 720p and add 768p. If I am not wrong all 18.5inches and some 20inches monitors are 768p. So that will very useful. And how many monitor support 720p resulation anyway?

 

[newtekie1]

i get that and i am not advocating to skip a gaming performance review of intel's igpu in a separate article such as THIS one (but not w/all the lappys ofc).

It wouldn't just be Intel's iGPUs, it would be AMD's iGPUs as well.

but unless wikichips is lying to me, all the desktop SKU's since skylake have the same igpu so there will be a lot of redundant benchmarking for each cpu review. same hardware + same drivers = same results.

According to CPU-World, even though they all have the "UHD 630" as you go up in processor tier the clock speed and number of execution units goes up. So performance will be different.

overall i cannot see where spending much time would be beneficial since i've seen the same thing over and over again; it's serviceable but gets it's ass handed to it by the most recent entry level dGPU in everything. to beat a dead horse, intel just isn't putting any effort into it. hopefully that will change. but until then, it's the same ole same ole.

We aren't talking just Intel, AMD iGPU numbers would be there too.

I suggest, drop 720p and add 768p. If I am not wrong all 18.5inches and some 20inches monitors are 768p. So that will very useful. And how many monitor support 720p resulation anyway?

I actually can agree with this. Most TVs will do 768p, in fact most of the 720p TVs are actually 768p panels from what I can tell and higher resolution TVs handle 768p easily.

 

[looniam]

It wouldn't just be Intel's iGPUs, it would be AMD's iGPUs as well.
According to CPU-World, even though they all have the "UHD 630" as you go up in processor tier the clock speed and number of execution units goes up. So performance will be different.
We aren't talking just Intel, AMD iGPU numbers would be there too.

i'm having severe doubts that 1 EU and 50-100mhz is going to make any real difference. maybe in the past during sandy/ivy when the much better igpus were used on the K SKUs and the locked chips, that were more likely to go in an HTPC , got the low end graphics, but not anymore.

i also seriously doubt someone is going to make a decision between an i3 or i5/7 based on igpu performance. idk, maybe i'm weird like that.

your other point would be better served with a dedicated graphical performance review than adding another set of benchmarks to a cpu review. i'm at a loss as to why that would need explaining.

what do you want? to look at graphs and see it get beat by (almost) everything under the sun OR an article showing you how/what to game on it?

 

[newtekie1]

i'm having severe doubts that 1 EU and 50-100mhz is going to make any real difference. maybe in the past during sandy/ivy when the much better igpus were used on the K SKUs and the locked chips, that were more likely to go in an HTPC , got the low end graphics, but not anymore.

i also seriously doubt someone is going to make a decision between an i3 or i5/7 based on igpu performance. idk, maybe i'm weird like that.

your other point would be better served with a dedicated graphical performance review than adding another set of benchmarks to a cpu review. i'm at a loss as to why that would need explaining.

what do you want? to look at graphs and see it get beat by (almost) everything under the sun OR an article showing you how/what to game on it?

I want all the information about a product and its performance present in the review of that product. An extra 5 benchmarks in the review is not going to kill anyone on time. And yes, it actually might make a buying decision for someone. I know back in the day, the AMD iGPU performing much better than the Intel definitely made me buy the AMD. You say you seriously doubt someone is going to make a decision between an i3 or i5/i7 based on iGPU performance, but you forget that AMD has iGPUs too. It very likely can make the buying decision between an i3-8300 and an 2400G. Stop ignoring the fact that these numbers would also include AMD's iGPUs.

And while the performance likely isn't a great deal different, the point is that your claim that they would all be identical because they are all exactly the same is clearly wrong. Heck, if we had this information in the reviews already, maybe you would have already known that the GPUs despite being named the same are actually different and perform differently. Also, what isn't really reflected in the CPU-World page and just looking at the GPU Boost clock and EUs is how they adjust the clock speed to fit into their thermal envelope. I'm betting that the CPUs that have lower rated TDPs also end up with significantly lower average GPU clock speeds and start to lower the GPU boost speed away from the maximum a lot quicker. So the lower power CPUs might end up have iGPUs that end up performing much worse, even though they are very similar on paper.

 

[looniam]

I want all the information about a product and its performance present in the review of that product. An extra 5 benchmarks in the review is not going to kill anyone on time. And yes, it actually might make a buying decision for someone. I know back in the day, the AMD iGPU performing much better than the Intel definitely made me buy the AMD. You say you seriously doubt someone is going to make a decision between an i3 or i5/i7 based on iGPU performance, but you forget that AMD has iGPUs too. It very likely can make the buying decision between an i3-8300 and an 2400G. Stop ignoring the fact that these numbers would also include AMD's iGPUs.

And while the performance likely isn't a great deal different, the point is that your claim that they would all be identical because they are all exactly the same is clearly wrong. Heck, if we had this information in the reviews already, maybe you would have already known that the GPUs despite being named the same are actually different and perform differently. Also, what isn't really reflected in the CPU-World page and just looking at the GPU Boost clock and EUs is how they adjust the clock speed to fit into their thermal envelope. I'm betting that the CPUs that have lower rated TDPs also end up with significantly lower average GPU clock speeds and start to lower the GPU boost speed away from the maximum a lot quicker. So the lower power CPUs might end up have iGPUs that end up performing much worse, even though they are very similar on paper.

first of all i never said identical so stop any hyperbole and also throwing in the APU's is a totally different light than someone looking to buy an itel i3, i5 or i7 for "igpu performance". so i didn't forget, i am keeping the same framework for the discussion.

secondly, it isn't just 5 benchmarks - try several dozen depending on how many SKUs are benched. figure around an hour to run those 5 games on each SKU and document, you're looking at adding two more days, if things run as expected with the hardware, and if including APUs, platform changes.
btw, don't call amd apus igpus, you'll upset the red team. maybe this would be a good time to ask; just how long do you thing a reviewer has from the time they get a sample to when the NDA is lifted?

all that TDP stuff for the igpu can get adjust in the mobo bios, just like OCing the CPU since sandy. you can try to make a mountain out of a molehill; but there is no where you are going to find that a 4% difference in core count and clock speed will make a discernible difference in graphical performance. if you do find them, i await their existence. until then, you have nothing to call me wrong.

again, it would be great to see an in-depth, deep dive, whatever for each gen. not enough sites do that. but for it on every review is looking at a waste of time.

 

[newtekie1]

first of all i never said identical so stop any hyperbole

all the desktop SKU's since skylake have the same igpu so there will be a lot of redundant benchmarking for each cpu review. same hardware + same drivers = same results.

You literally said it 5 posts up. Can you not keep up with your own rambling?

also throwing in the APU's is a totally different light than someone looking to buy an itel i3, i5 or i7 for "igpu performance". so i didn't forget, i am keeping the same framework for the discussion.

What do you think iGPU means? The APUs have been in this discussion from the beginning.

Secondly, it isn't just 5 benchmarks - try several dozen depending on how many SKUs are benched.

Go read W1z's post, literally the person doing the reviews. He himself said "maybe 5 games or so". So yes, it is just 5 extra benchmarks per review. Unless you seriously believe the reviewer rebenchmarks every single SKU in the review for every review they do. Please tell me you don't believe that...

btw, don't call amd apus igpus, you'll upset the red team.

Don't call them literally what they are?

maybe this would be a good time to ask; just how long do you thing a reviewer has from the time they get a sample to when the NDA is lifted?

It all depends on the product. But generally if a launch day is coming for CPUs, the reviewer might be reviewing 2 or 3 processors before that day. At the CoffeeLake launch, there were 4 processors reviewed, which is actually a lot.

So an extra, maybe, 4 hours of benchmarking for the CoffeeLake launch. Probably not going to cause the review to miss the deadline. I bet W1z has the CoffeeLake reviews done a good day before the NDA was released.

all that TDP stuff for the igpu can get adjust in the mobo bios, just like OCing the CPU since sandy. you can try to make a mountain out of a molehill; but there is no where you are going to find that a 4% difference in core count and clock speed will make a discernible difference in graphical performance. if you do find them, i await their existence. until then, you have nothing to call me wrong.

What? Have you been in an Intel BIOS lately? There are virtually no controls for the iGPU. You can adjust the amount of shared memory, and that's about it. Maybe one of the voltages will change the iGPU voltage, but there isn't even an option to adjust the frequency of the iGPU.

 

[looniam]

You literally said it 5 posts up. Can you not keep up with your own rambling?

again, where did i say identical. i said same, if you need me to clarify that; then i would mean similar but certainly NOT identical. sorry didn't know i would need to explain that. unless you're taking a snippet to fit your narrative, you clearly misunderstand.

Spoiler

What do you think iGPU means? The APUs have been in this discussion from the beginning.

Go read W1z's post, literally the person doing the reviews. He himself said "maybe 5 games or so". So yes, it is just 5 extra benchmarks per review. Unless you seriously believe the reviewer rebenchmarks every single SKU in the review for every review they do. Please tell me you don't believe that...

Don't call them literally what they are?

It all depends on the product. But generally if a launch day is coming for CPUs, the reviewer might be reviewing 2 or 3 processors before that day. At the CoffeeLake launch, there were 4 processors reviewed, which is actually a lot.

So an extra, maybe, 4 hours of benchmarking for the CoffeeLake launch. Probably not going to cause the review to miss the deadline. I bet W1z has the CoffeeLake reviews done a good day before the NDA was released.

What? Have you been in an Intel BIOS lately? There are virtually no controls for the iGPU. You can adjust the amount of shared memory, and that's about it. Maybe one of the voltages will change the iGPU voltage, but there isn't even an option to adjust the frequency of the iGPU.

now since you just want to argue semantics w/o showing that there is any difference, ya know that whole 4% in specs, i'll just see my way out and wish you luck on your future endeavours.

 

[Final_Fighter]

ive used a 2400g. it ends up being about as fast as a gtx560ti once overclocked. i could play modern games at low detail with very exceptable frame rates(30+). sure it takes turning down the eye candy and res to1600x900 on modern games but even with the all that stuff turned down the games are still pretty nice. the intergrated graphics has come a long way and i know a lot of people that dont need massive gpu power to play the games they like. many people would just like a baseline so they can make a good choice based on there needs and thats what it boils down too.

 

[las]

And that is exactly why they would be satisfied with the slower RAM.

Why do they need a dedicated GPU?

They don't... Which is why they don't need an APU either. Intel CPU + iGPU is fine for people that don't play games.

the @W1zzard used to include them with his cpu reviews, but he said not many people were interested in it. AMD fanboys seem to ignore the fact intel is still 10-15 fps better across the board in almost every game in min fps, with a few exceptions where it ties. that was a key decision in me going with intel in my latest builds for the smoothest gaming experience, when a frame drop occurs, if its 5 fps drop turned into 15 fps... that changes the entire gaming experience, hard to notice, sure... but overall its noticeable if you want the best gaming experience possible.

Weird... Who cares about avg fps if min sucks?

But yeah. Ryzen is good for 60 fps/Hz gaming using ultra preset or high settings (GPU is bottleneck). For 120-240 fps/Hz gaming Ryzen is not good.
Ryzen can only match Intel in a handful of games here. When chasing high fps, CPU is becoming bottleneck and Ryzen gimps the fps.
This is not a problem for all people tho.

Minimum fps is generally also higher on Intel side yep.