Built-in graphics processor for both gamers and undemanding users plays an important role.

It depends on the quality of games, movies, watching videos on the Internet and images.

Principle of operation

The graphics processor integrates into the motherboard of the computer - this is the built-in graphics.

Usually it is used to remove the need to install a graphics adapter.

This technology helps to reduce the cost of the finished product. In addition, due to the compactness and undemanding power consumption of such processors, they are often installed in laptops and low-power desktop computers.

Thus, the integrated graphics processors have filled this niche so much that 90% of laptops on the shelves of US stores have just such a processor.

Instead of a conventional video card in embedded graphics, the computer’s RAM itself often serves as an aid.

True, this solution somewhat limits the performance of the device. Yet the computer itself and the graphics processor use the same bus for memory.

So such a “neighborhood” affects the performance of tasks, especially when working with complex graphics and during gameplay.

Kinds

Built-in graphics has three groups:

1. Shared memory graphics is a device based on memory management with the main processor. This significantly reduces the cost, improves the system of energy saving, however, degrades performance. Accordingly, for those who work with complex programs, embedded graphics processors of this type are more likely not suitable.
2. Discrete graphics - video chip and one or two video memory modules are soldered to system board. Thanks to this technology, the image quality is significantly improved, and it also becomes possible to work with three-dimensional graphics with the best results. True, it will have to pay a lot for it, and if you are looking for a high-powered processor in all respects, then the cost can be incredibly high. In addition, the electricity bill will increase somewhat - the power consumption of discrete graphics processors is higher than usual.
3. Hybrid discrete graphics - a combination of the two previous types, which ensured the creation of the PCI Express bus. Thus, access to the memory is carried out through the decoupled video memory, and through the operational one. With this solution, manufacturers wanted to create a compromise solution, but it still does not eliminate the disadvantages.

Manufacturers

As a rule, large companies are engaged in the manufacture and development of embedded graphics processors -, and, but many small businesses.

Make it easy. Find the label Primary Display or Init Display First. If you don't see something like this, look for Onboard, PCI, AGP or PCI-E (it all depends on installed tires  on the motherboard).

Selecting PCI-E, for example, you turn on the PCI-Express video card, and you turn off the integrated integrated card.

Thus, to enable the integrated video card, you need to find the corresponding parameters in the BIOS. Often the process of switching on is automatic.

  Subscribe to news

   Subscribe

Introduction

In the development of all computer technology in recent years, the course towards integration and the miniaturization accompanying it is well traced. And here we are talking not so much about the familiar desktop personalities, as about the huge fleet of “user-level” devices - smartphones, laptops, music players, tablets, etc. - which are reborn in new form factors, incorporating more and more new functions. As for the desktops, it is precisely this current that affects them last. Of course, in recent years, the vector of user interest has slightly deviated in the direction of small-sized computing devices, but it's hard to call it a global trend. The basic architecture of x86 systems, which implies a separate processor, memory, video card, motherboard and disk subsystem remains unchanged, and this is what limits the possibilities for miniaturization. You can reduce each of these components, but the total change in the dimensions of the resulting system in the amount will not work.

However, during the last year, it seems, there has been a certain change in the “personal” environment. As modern semiconductor technological processes are introduced with more subtle norms, the developers of x86 processors are gradually able to transfer the functions of some previously separate components of devices to the CPU. So, no one is surprised that the memory controller and, in some cases, the PCI Express bus controller, has long become an accessory of the CPU, and the motherboard chipset has degenerated into a single chip - the south bridge. But in 2011, a much more significant event happened - a graphic controller began to be embedded in processors for productive desktops. And we are not talking about some tiny video cores that can only provide the operation of the operating system interface, but about fully-fledged solutions that can be opposed to discrete graphics accelerators in their performance. entry level  and certainly surpass all those integrated video cores that were previously integrated into the system logic sets.

The pioneer was the company Intel, at the very beginning of the year released for desktop computers Sandy Bridge processors with an integrated graphics core of the Intel HD Graphics family. True, she thought that good integrated graphics would be interesting first of all for users. mobile computers, and for desktop CPUs, only a trimmed version of the video core was proposed. The incorrectness of this approach was later demonstrated by AMD, which launched the Fusion processors with full-featured graphic cores of the Radeon HD series on the desktop systems market. Such proposals immediately gained popularity not only as office solutions, but also as the basis for low-cost home computers, which forced Intel to reconsider its attitude towards the prospects of a CPU with integrated graphics. The company has updated the Sandy Bridge desktop processor lineup, adding to the number of available offers for desktop computers models with more fast version  Intel HD Graphics. As a result, now users who want to build a compact integrated system are faced with the question: which manufacturer’s platform should be more rational? After extensive testing, we will try to give recommendations on the choice of a processor with an integrated graphics accelerator.

Question terminology: CPU or APU?

If you are already familiar with those processors with integrated graphics that are offered to users of desktop computers from AMD and Intel, then you know that these manufacturers are trying to distance their products from each other as much as possible, trying to instill the idea that their direct comparison is incorrect. The main "confusion" makes AMD, which relates its decision to a new class of APU, and not to the usual CPU. What is the difference?

The abbreviation APU stands for Accelerated Processing Unit (accelerated processor unit). If we turn to detailed explanations, it turns out that from a hardware point of view, this is a hybrid device that combines traditional general-purpose computing cores with a graphics core on a single semiconductor chip. In other words, the same CPU with integrated graphics. However, the difference is still there, and it lies at the program level. The graphics core included in the APU should have a universal architecture in the form of an array of stream processors capable of working not only on the synthesis of three-dimensional images, but also on solving computational problems.

That is, the APU offers a more flexible scheme than the simple combination of graphics and computing resources within a single semiconductor chip. The idea lies in creating a symbiosis of these heterogeneous parts, when part of the calculations can be performed by means of the graphics core. True, as always in such cases, to use this promising opportunity requires support from software.

Processors AMD fusion  with video core, known under the code name Llano, fully comply with this definition, they are exactly APU. They incorporate graphics cores of the Radeon HD family, which, among other things, support ATI Stream technology and the OpenCL 1.1 programming interface, through which calculations on the graphics core are really possible. In theory, the practical benefits of running on an array of stream processors Radeon HD can get a variety of applications, including cryptographic algorithms, rendering three-dimensional images or the task of post-processing photos, sound and video. In practice, however, everything is much more complicated. Difficulties with implementation and dubious real performance gains so far hold back wide support for the concept. Therefore, in most cases, an APU can be considered as nothing more than a simple CPU with an integrated graphics core.

Intel, by contrast, adheres to a more conservative terminology. She continues to call her Sandy Bridge processors, containing the integrated graphics core HD Graphics, the traditional term CPU. That, however, has some ground, because the OpenCL 1.1 software interface is not supported by Intel graphics (compatibility with it will be provided in the next generation Ivy Bridge products). So no joint work of disparate parts of the processor on the same computational tasks is not foreseen by Intel.

With one important exception. The fact is that in the graphics cores intel processors  A specialized Quick Sync unit was introduced that focuses on hardware acceleration of video encoding algorithms. Of course, as is the case with OpenCL, it requires special software support, but it really can improve the performance when transcoding high-definition video by almost an order of magnitude. So in the end we can say that the Sandy Bridge is to some extent also a hybrid processor.

Is it legal to compare AMD's APUs and Intel's CPUs? From the theoretical positions between the APU and the CPU with a built-in video accelerator, you cannot put a sign of identical equality, but in real life we ​​have two names of the same. AMD Llano processors can accelerate parallel computing, while Intel Sandy Bridge can use graphics power only when transcoding video, but in fact both of them and other features are almost never used. So from a practical point of view, any of the processors referred to in this article is a regular CPU and a video card assembled inside a single chip.

Processors - testing participants

In fact, you should not think about processors with integrated graphics as a special offer aimed at a specific group of users with atypical requests. Universal integration is a global trend, and such processors have become standard offerings in the lower and middle price range. Both AMD Fusion and Intel Sandy Bridge have supplanted CPUs with no graphics from the list of current offers, so even if you don’t intend to rely on the integrated video core, we can’t offer anything other than targeting the same processors with graphics. Fortunately, no one forces the built-in video core to use it, and it can be disabled.

Thus, having taken the CPU comparison with the integrated GPU, we came to a more general problem - comparative testing. modern processors  with cost from 60 to 140 dollars. Let's see what suitable options in this price range AMD and Intel can offer us, and what specific processor models we were able to involve in the tests.

AMD Fusion: A8, A6 and A4

To use desktop processors with an integrated graphics core, AMD offers a specialized Socket FM1 platform that is compatible exclusively with Llano processors - A8, A6 and A4. These processors have two, three or four general-purpose Husky cores with a microarchitecture similar to the Athlon II, and the Sumo graphics core, which inherits the microarchitecture of the younger representatives of the five-thousandth series Radeon HD.

The Llano family of processors looks quite self-sufficient, it includes computationally and graphically different processors. However, there is one pattern in the model range - computational performance correlates with graphics performance, that is, the processors with the largest number of cores and with the maximum clock frequency are always supplied with the fastest video cores.

Intel core  i3 and Pentium

Intel can counterpose AMD Fusion processors to their dual-core Core i3 and Pentium, which do not have their own collective name, but are also equipped with graphic cores and have comparable cost. Of course, there are also graphics cores in more expensive four-core processors, but there they clearly play a secondary role, so Core i5 and Core i7 didn’t get into real testing.

Intel did not create its own infrastructure for low-cost integrated platforms, therefore core processors  i3 and Pentium can be used in the same LGA1155 motherboards as the rest of the Sandy Bridge. To enable the integrated video core, motherboards will be required, based on special sets of logic H67, H61 or Z68.

All Intel processors that can be considered as competitors for Llano are based on dual-core design. At the same time, Intel does not place much emphasis on graphics performance — a weak version of HD Graphics 2000 with six execution devices is embedded in most CPUs. The exception is made only for Core i3-2125 - this processor is equipped with the most powerful in the company's arsenal, the graphics core HD Graphics 3000 with twelve execution devices.

How we tested

After we got acquainted with the set of processors, which is presented in this test, it's time to pay attention to test platforms. Below is a list of components from which the composition of the test systems was formed.

Processors:

AMD A8-3850 (Llano, 4 cores, 2.9 GHz, 4 MB of L2, Radeon HD 6550D);
AMD A8-3800 (Llano, 4 cores, 2.4 / 2.7 GHz, 4 MB of L2, Radeon HD 6550D);
AMD A6-3650 (Llano, 4 cores, 2.6 GHz, 4 MB L2, Radeon HD 6530D);
AMD A6-3500 (Llano, 3 cores, 2.1 / 2.4 GHz, 3 MB L2, Radeon HD 6530D);
AMD A4-3400 (Llano, 2 cores, 2.7 GHz, 1 MB L2, Radeon HD 6410D);
AMD A4-3300 (Llano, 2 cores, 2.5 GHz, 1 MB L2, Radeon HD 6410D);
Intel Core i3-2130 (Sandy Bridge, 2 cores + HT, 3.4 GHz, 3 MB L3, HD Graphics 2000);
Intel Core i3-2125 (Sandy Bridge, 2 cores + HT, 3.3 GHz, 3 Mbyte L3, HD Graphics 3000);
Intel Core i3-2120 (Sandy Bridge, 2 cores + HT, 3.3 GHz, 3 Mbyte L3, HD Graphics 2000);
Intel pentium  G860 (Sandy Bridge, 2 cores, 3.0 GHz, 3 MB L3, HD Graphics);
Intel Pentium G840 (Sandy Bridge, 2 cores, 2.8 GHz, 3 Mbyte L3, HD Graphics);
Intel Pentium G620 (Sandy Bridge, 2 cores, 2.6 GHz, 3 MB L3, HD Graphics).

Motherboards:

ASUS P8Z68-V Pro (LGA1155, Intel Z68 Express);
Gigabyte GA-A75-UD4H (Socket FM1, AMD A75).

Memory - 2 x 2 GB DDR3-1600 SDRAM 9-9-9-27-1T (Kingston KHX1600C8D3K2 / 4GX).
Hard Drive: Kingston SNVP325-S2 / 128GB.
Power supply: Tagan TG880-U33II (880 W).
Operating system: Microsoft Windows  7 SP1 Ultimate x64.
Drivers:

AMD Catalyst Display Driver 11.9;
AMD Chipset Driver 8.863;
Intel Chipset Driver 9.2.0.1030;
Intel Graphics Media Accelerator Driver 15.22.50.64.2509;
Intel Management Engine Driver 7.1.10.1065;
Intel Rapid Storage Technology 10.5.0.1027.

Since the main purpose of this test was to study the capabilities of processors with integrated graphics, all tests were performed without using an external graphics card. The display of the same image on the screen, 3D-functions and the acceleration of HD-video playback were answered by the integrated video cores.

It should be noted that, due to the lack of DirectX 11 support in Intel graphics cores, all graphics applications were tested in DirectX 9 / DirectX 10 modes.

Performance in regular tasks

Overall performance

To evaluate the performance of processors in commonly used tasks, we traditionally use the Bapco SYSmark 2012 test, which simulates user experience in popular modern office programs and applications for creating and processing digital content. The idea of ​​the test is very simple: it produces a single metric characterizing the weighted average speed of the computer.

As you can see, in traditional applications, AMD Fusion series processors simply look shameful. The fastest quad-core Socket FM1 processor from AMD, A8-3850, with great difficulty overtakes the dual-core Pentium G620 with half the cost. All the other representatives of the AMD A8, A6 and A4 series are lagging hopelessly behind Intel's competitors. This is, in general, a completely logical result of using the old micro-architecture based on the Llano processors, which migrated there from the Phenom II and Athlon II. While AMD will not implement processor cores with a higher specific performance, even this company's four-core APU will be very hard to deal with current and regularly updated Intel solutions.

A deeper understanding of the results of SYSmark 2012 can provide insight into performance ratings obtained in various system use scenarios. The Office Productivity script models typical office work: preparing texts, processing spreadsheets, working with by email  and visiting Internet sites. The script uses the following set of applications: ABBYY FineReader Pro 10.0, Adobe acrobat  Pro 9, Adobe Flash  Player 10.1, Microsoft Excel  2010 Microsoft Internet Explorer  9, Microsoft Outlook 2010, Microsoft PowerPoint 2010, Microsoft Word  2010 and WinZip Pro 14.5.

In the Media Creation scenario, the creation of a commercial is modeled using pre-captured digital images and video. For this purpose, the popular Adobe packages are used: Photoshop CS5 Extended, Premiere Pro CS5 and After effects  CS5.

Web Development is a scenario in which the creation of a web site is modeled. Used applications: Adobe Photoshop  CS5 Extended, Adobe Premiere Pro CS5, Adobe Dreamweaver CS5, Mozilla firefox  3.6.8 and Microsoft Internet Explorer 9.

The Data / Financial Analysis scenario is devoted to statistical analysis and forecasting of market trends that are performed in Microsoft Excel 2010.

The 3D Modeling scenario is entirely devoted to creating three-dimensional objects and rendering static and dynamic scenes using Adobe Photoshop CS5 Extended, Autodesk 3ds Max 2011, Autodesk AutoCAD 2011 and Google SketchUp Pro 8.

In the last scenario, System Management, you create backups and install software and updates. There are several different mozilla versions  Firefox Installer and WinZip Pro 14.5.

The only type of applications in which from aMD processors  Fusion manages to achieve acceptable performance - this is a three-dimensional modeling and rendering. In such tasks, the number of cores is a weighty argument, and the quad-core A8 and A6 can provide faster performance than, for example, the Intel Pentium. But to the level set by Core i3 processors, which support Hyper-Threading technology, AMD offers fall short even in the most favorable case for themselves.

Application Performance

To measure the speed of processors when compressing information, we use the WinRAR archiver, with which we archive the folder with various files with a total volume of 1.4 GB with the maximum degree of compression.

We measure performance in Adobe Photoshop using our own test, which is a creatively reworked Retouch Artists Photoshop Speed ​​Testfeaturing typical processing of four 10 megapixel images taken with a digital camera.

When testing the audio transcoding speed, the utility is used. Apple iTunes  With which you can convert the contents of a CD-disk to AAC-format. Note that a characteristic feature of this program is the ability to use only a pair of processor cores.

To measure the video transcoding speed in H.264 format, the x264 HD test is used, based on measuring the processing time of the original MPEG-2 video, recorded in 720p resolution with a 4 Mbps stream. It should be noted that the results of this test are of great practical importance, since the x264 codec used in it forms the basis of numerous popular transcoding utilities, for example, HandBrake, MeGUI, VirtualDub, and so on.

Maxon Cinema 4D final rendering speed testing is performed using the Cinebench specialized test.

We also used the Fritz Chess Benchmark benchmark, which assesses the speed of the popular chess algorithm used in the programs of the Deep Fritz family.

Looking at the diagrams, you can repeat everything that has already been said with reference to the SYSmark 2011 results. AMD processors that the company offers for use in integrated systems can boast some acceptable performance only in those computing tasks where the load is good. parallelized. For example, in 3D rendering, video transcoding, or when iterating over and evaluating chess positions. And that, the competitive level of speed in this case is observed only in the older four-core AMD A8-3850 with a clock frequency, which is increased to the detriment of power consumption and heat dissipation. Yet AMD processors with a 65-watt heat pack pass in front of any of the Core i3 even in the most favorable case for them. Accordingly, representatives of the Intel Pentium family look quite decent against the Fusion background: these dual cores perform in the same way as the triple-core A6-3500 with a well-parallel load, and outperform older A8 programs like WinRAR, iTunes or Photoshop.

In addition to the tests performed, to check how the power of graphics cores can be used to solve everyday computational problems, we conducted a video transcoding rate in Cyberlink MediaEspresso 6.5. This utility has support for computing on graphics cores - it supports both Intel Quick Sync and ATI Stream. Our test consisted in measuring the time required for recoding a half-gigabyte 1080p movie in H.264 format (which was a 20-minute series of a popular television series) with decreasing resolution for viewing on iPhone 4.

Results are divided into two groups. The first one includes Intel Core i3 processors, which have support for Quick Sync technology. Numbers speak better than any words: Quick Sync allows you to transcode HD video content several times faster than using any other toolkit. The second large group unites all other processors, among which CPUs with a large number of cores take the first places. As we can see, the Stream technology promoted by AMD does not manifest itself, and the Fusion series APU with two cores doesn’t perform as well as the Pentium processors, which transcode video exclusively by the cores.

Graphics core performance

A group of gaming 3D tests opens with the benchmark 3DMark Vantage, which was used with the Performance profile.

Changing the nature of the load immediately leads to a change of leaders. The graphics core of any AMD Fusion processor in practice surpasses any version of Intel HD Graphics. Even the Core i3-2125, equipped with the HD Graphics 3000 video core with twelve executive devices, is able to achieve only the performance level demonstrated by the AMD A4-3300 with the weakest integrated graphics accelerator Radeon HD 6410D. All the other Intel processors in terms of 3D performance lose to AMD offers two to four times.

Some compensation for the failure in graphics performance may be the results of the CPU test, but it should be understood that the speed of the CPU and GPU are not interchangeable parameters. We should strive to balance these characteristics, and as is the case with the compared processors, we will see further analyzing their gaming performance, which depends on the power of both the GPU and the computational component of the hybrid processors.

To study the speed of work in real games, we selected Far Cry 2, Dirt 3, Crysis 2, the beta version of World of Planes and Civilization V. Testing was conducted at a resolution of 1280x800, and the level of quality settings was set to Medium.

In gaming tests, a very positive picture emerges for AMD's proposals. Despite the fact that they differ in rather mediocre computing performance, powerful graphics allow them to show good (for integrated solutions) results. Almost always, representatives of the Fusion series make it possible to get a higher number of frames per second than the Intel platform with the Core i3 and Pentium families gives.

The situation of the Core i3 processors did not save even the fact that Intel began to build in them a high-performance version of the HD Graphics 3000 graphics core. The Core i3-2125 equipped with it turned out to be faster than its fellow Core i3-2120 with HD Graphics 2000 by about 50%, but the graphics embedded in Llano, even faster. As a result, even the Core i3-2125 can only compete with the cheap A4-3300, while the rest of the carriers of the Sandy Bridge microarchitecture look even worse. And if you add to the video cards of Intel's processors supporting DirectX 11, the situation for the current solutions of this manufacturer seems even more hopeless to the results shown in the diagrams. Only the next generation of the Ivy Bridge microarchitecture will be able to fix it, where the graphics core will receive much higher performance and modern functionality.

Even if you turn away from specific numbers, and look at the situation qualitatively, then AMD offers look like a much more attractive option for an entry-level gaming system. The older Fusion processors of the A8 series, with certain compromises in terms of screen resolution and image quality settings, allow you to play almost any modern game without resorting to an external video card. We can’t recommend any Intel processors for cheap gaming systems - various versions of HD Graphics are not yet mature for use in this environment.

power usage

Systems based on processors with integrated graphics cores are gaining ever wider popularity not only because of the opening possibilities for miniaturization of systems. In many cases, consumers opt for them, guided by the opening up opportunities to reduce the cost of computers. Such processors can not only save on the video card, they allow you to assemble and more economical to operate the system, since its total power consumption will be obviously lower than the consumption of the platform with discrete graphics. A concomitant bonus is quieter operation modes, since a decrease in consumption results in a decrease in heat generation and the possibility of using simpler cooling systems.

That is why the developers of processors with integrated graphics cores are trying to minimize the power consumption of their products. Most of the CPUs and APUs considered in this article have a calculated typical heat dissipation lying within 65 W - and this is an unspoken standard. However, as we know, AMD and Intel approach the TDP parameter somewhat differently, and therefore it will be interesting to estimate the practical consumption of systems with different processors.

The following graphs show two energy consumption values. The first is the total consumption of systems (without a monitor), which is the sum of the energy consumption of all components involved in the system. The second is the consumption of one processor only over a 12-volt power line allocated for this purpose. In both cases, the efficiency of the power supply is not taken into account, since our measuring equipment is installed after the power supply and fixes the voltages and currents entering the system through 12-, 5- and 3.3-volt lines. During the measurements, the load on the processors was created by the 64-bit version of the LinX 0.6.4 utility. The FurMark 1.9.1 utility was used to load the graphics cores. In addition, in order to properly assess energy consumption during idle time, we activated all available energy-saving technologies, as well as Turbo Core technology (in those cases where it is supported).

At rest, all systems showed total power consumption at approximately the same level. At the same time, as we see, Intel processors practically do not load the processor power line in idle mode, while competing AMD solutions, on the contrary, consume up to 8 watts of a 12-volt dedicated line on the CPU. But this does not at all indicate that representatives of the Fusion family do not know how to fall into deep energy-saving states. The differences are caused by different power scheme implementations: in the Socket FM1-systems, both the computational and graphics cores of the processor and the north bridge built into the processor are powered from the processor line, and the Intel north bridge of the processor takes power from the motherboard.

The maximum computational load reveals that the problems of AMD processors with energy efficiency inherent in the Phenom II and Athlon II, have not gone away with the introduction of the 32-nm process. Llano uses the same micro-architecture and, just as well, Sandy Bridge loses in terms of the ratio of performance per watt of electricity consumed. Older Socket FM1-systems consume approximately twice as much as systems with LGA1155-Core i3 processors, while the computational performance of the latter is clearly higher. The gap in power consumption of the Pentium and the younger A4 and A6 is not so huge, but nevertheless, the situation does not change qualitatively.

With a graphic load, the picture is almost the same - Intel processors are much more economical. But in this case, a significantly higher 3D performance can be a good excuse for AMD Fusion. Note that the Core i3-2125 and A4-3300 gaming tests “squeezed out” the same number of frames per second, and they also went very close from each other in terms of consumption under load on the graphics core.

The simultaneous load on all the blocks of hybrid processors allows you to get a result that can be figuratively represented as the sum of the two previous graphs. The A8-3850 and A6-3650 processors, which have a 100-watt thermal pack, are seriously breaking off the rest of the 65-watt AMD and Intel offerings. However, even without them, Fusion processors are less economical than Intel solutions of the same price range.

When using processors as the basis of a media center engaged in playing high-resolution video, an atypical situation arises. The computational cores here are mostly idle, and the decoding of the video stream rests on the specialized blocks built into the graphic cores. Therefore, platforms based on AMD processors can achieve good energy efficiency, in general, their consumption is not much higher than the consumption of systems with Pentium or Core i3 processors. Moreover, the lowest frequency of AMD Fusion, A6-3500 in this usage scenario generally offers the best economy.

At first glance, it’s easy to summarize the test results. AMD and Intel processors with integrated graphics cores have shown quite diverse advantages, which allows us to recommend either one or the other option depending on the planned computer usage model.

So, the strength of AMD Fusion processors was the integrated graphics core with relatively high performance and compatibility with software interfaces DirectX 11 and Open CL 1.1. Thus, these processors can be recommended for those systems where the quality and speed of 3D graphics is not of the least importance. At the same time, the processors in the Fusion series use general-purpose cores based on the old and slow K10 microarchitecture, which translates into their low speed in computing tasks. Therefore, if you are interested in options that provide better performance in ordinary non gaming applicationsYou should look in the direction of Intel's Core i3 and Pentium, even though such CPUs are equipped with fewer cores than AMD's competing offers.

Of course, in general, AMD's approach to the design of processors with integrated video accelerator seems more rational. The APU models offered by the company are well balanced in the sense that the speed of the computational part is quite adequate to the speed of graphics and vice versa. As a result, older processors of the A8 line can be quite considered as a possible basis for entry-level gaming systems. Even in modern games, such processors and Radeon HD 6550D video accelerators integrated into them can provide acceptable playability. With the younger series A6 and A4 with weaker variants of the graphics core, the situation is more complicated. For universal gaming systems of a lower level, their performance is not enough, so relying on such solutions is only possible when it comes to creating multimedia computers that will run extremely simple in graphic terms, casual games or network role-playing games of past generations.

However, whatever is said about balance, for resource-intensive computing applications, the A4 and A6 series are poorly suited. Representatives of the Intel Pentium line within the framework of the same budget can offer significantly higher performance in counting tasks. In truth, against the background of Sandy Bridge, only the A8-3850 can be spoken of as a processor with an acceptable speed in commonly used programs. And even then, its good results are far from everywhere and, moreover, they are provided with increased heat generation, which not every computer owner without a discrete video card will like.

In other words, it is a pity that Intel still cannot offer a decent performance graphics core. Even the Core i3-2125, equipped with the fastest company in the arsenal intel Graphics HD Graphics 3000, in games, works at the level of AMD A4-3300, as the speed in this case rests on the performance of the integrated video accelerator. All the other Intel processors are equipped with one and a half times slower video core, and in 3D games they appear very faded, often showing completely unacceptable number of frames per second. Therefore, we would not recommend thinking of Intel processors as a possible basis for a system capable of working with 3D graphics. Core i3 and Pentium video core copes with the output of the operating system interface and high-definition video playback, but it is not capable of anything more. So, the most suitable application for Core i3 and Pentium processors seems to be use in systems where the computational power of general-purpose cores is important with good energy efficiency - according to these parameters, no AMD offers can compete with Sandy Bridge.

Well, in conclusion, it should be recalled that Intel's LGA1155 platform is much more promising than AMD Socket FM1. When purchasing an AMD Fusion processor, you must be mentally prepared to improve your computer based on it to a very limited extent. AMD plans to release just a few Socket FM1 models from the representatives of the A8 and A6 series with a slightly increased clock frequency, and their followers coming out next year, known by the code name Trinit, will not have compatibility with this platform. Intel's LGA1155 platform is much more promising. Not only can the Core i5 and Core i7 be much more computationally powerful today, but the Ivy Bridge processors planned for next year on motherboards purchased today should work.

19.04.2014 0 20437

There were times when the PC could not run any decent game, if not possessed discrete graphics card. Today, most ready-to-sell computers and almost all laptops rely on graphics solutions integrated into CPUs. And yet the market for discrete graphics continues to flourish. If you do not play heavy AAA games, is the video card a worthwhile upgrade? To find out the answer, let's compare the performance of integrated and discrete graphics processors.

AMD and Intel  significantly improved quality integrated graphics. AMD's Kaveri APUs use the same powerful GCN graphics core as in their best discrete graphics cards from the Radeon series.

Intel also updated the features and capabilities of its HD-series graphics systems, which are built into fourth-generation Core processors (codenamed Haswell). They currently provide broader support for Microsoft DirectX 11.1, can support multiple displays (including 4K resolution), and are compatible with most games.

To determine the benefits of a discrete graphics card, two computers were assembled. One runs on the Kaveri A8-7800 with an integrated Radeon R7 series graphics processor, and the other on an Intel Core i7 4670 Haswell processor with an integrated Intel HD 4600. Then, tests were conducted with and without a discrete video card onboard each system.

Argument for discrete graphics

Behind discrete graphicssays its performance. All but the primary class video cards have a much more powerful GPU than integrated into the processors. Moreover, a separate video card will provide the GPU dedicated high-speed memory pool. An integrated GPU should be content with sharing system memory and data bus. Usually with a discrete card, you can set the graphics settings in games higher than with integrated solutions.

There are other benefits to using discrete graphics cards. On the Nvidia video cards of the current generation, users can use proprietary technologies. Shadowplay and PhysX. ShadowPlay optimizes the use of video encoding engines built into NVIDIA GPUs for recording and streaming games in real time, with little impact on the frame rate. it key feature  portable gaming device Nvidia Shield.

PhysX is a proprietary physics simulation technology that makes objects in games behave more close to reality. PhysX is not supported by all games, but can have a huge visual impact on supported ones.

Games are not the only applications that benefit from the performance of a discrete GPU. Graphics processors from AMD and Nvidia consist of thousands of processors that can perform several operations simultaneously. Any application can get a speed boost from such parallel processing, whether it be image editing programs like Photoshop, data encryption or distributed computing projects like Folding @ Home or SETI @ Home.

Discrete video cards can accelerate the extraction of cryptographic currency Bitcoins, Litecoins and others. Miners bought up latest video cards  from AMD, since the Radeon architecture here turned out to be more efficient than Intel processors and nvidia video cards. Where the Intel Haswell Core i7-4770K processor is capable of processing about 93 thousand hashes per second, the AMD Radeon R9 290X makes about 880 thousand hashes per second.

Argument against discrete graphics

There are drawbacks to discrete graphics cards, and the main one is the price. Buying a video card will cost from a couple of thousand rubles to 30 thousand and more. AMD recently announced the most productive graphics card. Radeon R9 295X2 has two Tahiti XT graphics processors on one card and it costs $ 1500.

AMD and Intel have almost completely abandoned the processors without integrated graphics (only the FX series from AMD and Intel's Ivy Bridge-E chips do not possess it), and motherboards that support these processors have an integrated video output.

The discrete graphics card also adds complexity to the system. The motherboard must have a free PCIe x16 slot for installing a video card. Usually it is present in the system unit, although some of the small computers that are already ready may not have it, or the card may not fit inside the case. Or the power supply will not be able to support the card requirements. All this because PC makers did not anticipate, or simply did not make sure that the end user was able to upgrade.

Installing a discrete graphics card  Intel processors can make it more difficult to use technologies such as the Quick Sync video encoding engine. Quick Sync is connected to the integrated graphics core of Intel, and installing a discrete card can disable it. Fortunately, it can be activated again.

But you have to pay for everything. An external video card will increase energy consumption, generate heat, which requires a fan to drain (some cards even have three fans), and this will increase the noise level of the system as a whole. There are passive cooling systems, but they are suitable only for entry-level cards and are more expensive.

Go to the numbers

Two computers were assembled: on an AMD A8-7600 APU with a Radeon R7 iGPU on motherboard  Asus A88X-Pro, and on Intel Core i5-4670 with Intel HD 4600 on the Gigabyte Z87X-UD5 TH. Both systems were equipped with 16 GB of memory, solid state drive  Samsung 840 Pro SSD and 1000-watt Silverstone power supply, operating system  - 64-bit OS Windows 8.1 Pro.

A series of tests was conducted, including games and content creation applications, using only integrated GPUs. After the system was installed graphics card Radeon R9 280X production from XFX and tests were repeated.

As can be seen from the graphs, the presence of a discrete video card improves performance in almost all areas, and not only in games. In PCMark 8, for example, versions of Home and Work were launched with support for OpenGL. This interface uses all available computing resources of the computer, both the central processor and the graphic one. Adding a discrete video card increased system performance in this benchmark by 3-19% (Figure 1).

In the Cinebench multithreaded test, the video card had little impact, but with OpenGL on a system with a processor Intel graphics card  gave a performance increase of 79%, in the AMD system - 42% (Figure 2).

Many people think that people who play simple games like Farmville, Angry Birds, etc. - will not receive any benefit from discrete graphics. But adding a video card gave a significant performance boost in the Fishbowl benchmark oriented to working with HTML5. This test is limited to 60 frames per second (the refresh rate of most monitors), and this value was achieved in three out of four tests with a discrete card (Figure 3). “Casual” games are becoming more and more complex, and their requirements for video cards are growing accordingly.

Speaking of challenging games, the video cards gave a noticeable increase in BioShock Infinite at a resolution of 1920 x 1080 pixels (Figure 4) and the 3DMark Fire Strike synthetic game test.

There is an area where adding a discrete video adapter had no significant effect: video playback. It was noticeable very little impact on the CPU when running as a video from YouTube (HTML5), and files with the H.264 codec in the container MKV.

Conclusion: almost every desktop user can benefit from a video card. They are useful not only to gamers, although, of course, they get the main benefit.

P.S.  If you have any problems with the equipment, please contact our computer service, or order an exit

Best integrated graphics vs. discrete budget

Compare Iris Pro 6200 and Radeon R7 with HD Graphics and discrete Radeon R7 250X

The publication of our first article among other things, on the desktop processors of the Broadwell family, it also caused a couple of fair remarks concerning the testing of the graphics core in gaming applications. Indeed: there are tests, but for comparison, only GPU HD Graphics 4600 is taken, with which everything is clear. But how the successes of Intel's new “graphic top” look like against the background of AMD processors or inexpensive discrete video cards - from a practical point of view, the question is more important. Moreover, C-series processors are more expensive than Haswell's equivalent dollars for 100, and this is quite enough for purchasing a Radeon R7 250X or something close, that is, not a very slow decision.

Today we will remove all the questions.

Testbed Configuration

CPU	Intel Core i5-4690K	Intel Core i5-5675C	Intel Core i7-4770K	Intel Core i7-5775C
Kernel name	Haswell	Broadwell	Haswell	Broadwell
Technology pr-va	22 nm	14 nm	22 nm	14 nm
Core frequency, GHz	3,5/3,9	3,1/3,6	3,5/3,9	3,3/3,7
Number of cores / threads	4/4	4/4	4/8	4/8
L1 cache (sums), I / D, KB	128/128	128/128	128/128	128/128
L2 cache, KB	4 × 256	4 × 256	4 × 256	4 × 256
Cache L3 (L4), MiB	6	4 (128)	8	6 (128)
RAM	2 × DDR3-1600	2 × DDR3-1600	2 × DDR3-1600	2 × DDR3-1600
TDP, W	88	65	84	65
Graphics	HDG 4600	IPG 6200	HDG 4600	IPG 6200
Number of EU	20	48	20	48
Std / max frequency, MHz	350/1200	300/1100	350/1250	300/1150
Price	N / A (0) T-10887398	N / A (0) T-12645002	$412 () T-10384297	N / A (0) T-12645073

Intel processors will have two pairs - to clearly understand where the Core i7 has preferences over the Core i5, and where one vanity vanity and longing of the spirit. Comparison will go to gaming applications, of course, and with a discrete graphics card. This question we, however, already investigated  , but there i5 and i7 were of different frequencies, and today we equated them by this parameter. In principle, it would be possible to take Broadwell of the same frequency, but it is only in the form of Xeon, that is, not to say that a mass decision. So there will be no direct intersections here - just both socket models for household use.

CPU	AMD A10-6800K	AMD A10-7850K
Kernel name	Richland	Kaveri
Technology pr-va	32 nm	28 nm
Core frequency std / max, GHz	4,1/4,4	3,7/4,0
Number of cores (modules) / calculation threads	2/4	2/4
L1 cache (sums), I / D, KB	128/64	192/64
L2 cache, KB	2 × 2048	2 × 2048
Cache L3, MiB	—	—
RAM	2 × DDR3-2133	2 × DDR3-2133
TDP, W	100	95
Graphics	Radeon HD 8670D	Radeon r7
GP count	384	512
Std / max frequency, MHz	844	720
Price	$138 () T-10387700	$162 () T-10674781

AMD processors, we decided to take two - so it was not boring. In addition, it is also interesting to assess the progress of the graphics, and you should not forget that the A10-6800K has a twin brother in the form of Athlon X4 760K. And which Athlone to choose when using a discrete video card (760K or 860K) is an interesting question from a practical point of view. Moreover, 760K will work on the board with the "usual" FM2. It may be that the user has ceased to satisfy some old A6-5400K, and he decided to change the processor and add a discrete graphics card? It may well be. So let's see if in this situation it makes sense to change the motherboard.

As for the other testing conditions, they were equal, but not the same: the frequency of work random access memory  was the maximum supported by the specifications, but they are slightly different. But its volume (8 GB) and system drive (Toshiba THNSNH256GMCT with a capacity of 256 GB) were the same for all subjects. All tests were carried out using the integrated video core (which all six processors have), and together with the discrete Radeon R7 250X.

Testing method

Insofar as we have already established  that on programs from the set iXBT Application Benchmark 2015  a specific video card has a very weak effect, we have limited ourselves to the game technique iXBT Game Benchmark 2015  . All results were obtained at a resolution of 1920 × 1080 (Full HD) with minimum quality settings and at 1366 × 768 at maximum settings. Why such a choice? Maximum settings for FHD-resolution "out of your teeth" not only integrated video adapters, but also many low-cost discrete solutions. But many want to improve the quality - even at the cost of lower resolution. Moreover, the decline is not always so radical - users still have old monitors in their hands, right down to those supporting a maximum of 1280 × 1024 pixels. So why not check the “low” modes. In addition, with settings for maximum quality, the share of the load on the GPU increases, and today we are just interested in the GPU. And even if they do not cope with the work - you get a stress test, well demonstrating the actual possibilities of graphics.

High quality minimum resolution

As you can see, HD Graphics in Haswell does not cope with this task, on both the A10 you can already play, but on the verge, and Broadwell does not leave with Iris Pro. But if we talk about the use of a discrete video card, then all processors are equal. The price of the Athlon X4 is several times lower than that of any Core i7. The same situation will be in other games with low requirements for processor performance, but high - for graphics.

But WoT, by the way, is the exact opposite of what was formulated above - here the graphics are needed as far as. Just not interfere. HD Graphics 4600 is obviously not enough. The rest is enough so that when adding a discrete video card, the performance does not increase, and may even decrease.

Another processor-dependent game, which is enough HDG 4600 for the selected mode. However, faster graphics, even with a weak processor part, allows for better results. A discrete video adapter shows that the fourth-level cache in some cases really makes Broadwell-C a much faster solution than Haswell. Practical benefit, however, from this a bit - 200 or 300 frames is no longer important. Here, obviously, we need to improve the quality, which we will do a little later.

The game is hard for all systems, but first of all - video cards. As you can see, only the integrated graphics are Broadwell, and in the older version (GT3e) it generally allows you to play in this mode: Haswell GT2 traditionally lags by half, and the best IGP AMD - one and a half times. However, when using an inexpensive discrete video card, everyone suddenly becomes equal: both cheap Athlon (and turning off the graphic part in A10 will transform the processors in this way), and expensive Core i7.

AT previous version  Metro alignment is similar. The truth is that the A10s are already approaching the threshold of playability, but only Broadwell-C and the like are suitable without stretch. Discrete (even such a relatively weak, as 250X) on the performance of the processors but it already depends. Another question is that the "atlon" is still enough, and ten frames per second can be neglected.

Once again, Hitman is similar to Metro 2033 with slight variations. For example, two A10s behave very differently here. different generations  even when using discretes, i.e. Optimization in Kaveri is not an empty sound. However, how not to optimize, and Core i5 much faster. As for the integrated solutions, only Broadwell-C is suitable here again without stretching - the rest will have to reduce the resolution.

Very hard game that even Iris Pro can't handle! However, as you can see, here and 250X is enough without a special margin - paired with slow processors, it is on the verge of playability.

As we have said more than once, in minimal mode Tomb Raider works great on everything (or almost everything). However, the new Broadwell still has something to praise, because they are not so far behind the budget, but discrete video card :)

In this game without discrete anywhere. And, curiously, the Iris Pro 6200 is as usual twice as fast as the HDG 4600, but AMD already outperforms the solutions slightly. Apparently, the main load on shader and other blocks, and they cannot be accelerated with the help of eDRAM. Let us see how this will manifest with increasing quality.

New A10 is more or less enough, Broadwell-C is enough without a stretch, Haswell has nothing to catch here (except for the R-series, also equipped with GT3e video core). But ... but it will be cheaper to install a discrete graphics card.

So, what do we have in the minimum quality mode? Broadwell-С copes with almost all games of our set, except one. The performance of the Broadwell GT3e is about twice as high as that of the Haswell GT2, and the integrated aMD graphics  these solutions bypass the time and a half. But it is better, of course, if you can use a discrete video card - it can even come out cheaper. And always at least not slower.

Low resolution but high quality

Discrete video card allows you to play even when using an inexpensive processor, integrated graphics are still unsuitable. None

With great difficulty and straining Core i5-5675C got out for 30 FPS. A cheaper bundle of Athlon X4 760K or 860K and R7 250X gaining nearly 40 without straining. Comments are superfluous.

This is where the Iris Pro 6200 looks very good. Let the discrete graphics card and a little faster, but only slightly. Worse, its use is not always possible, so the emergence of a powerful integrated video is a great blessing for those who are in such conditions.

Not enough and junior discrete cards - it means you can forget about integrated solutions in practice. From the point of view of the theory, it is curious that here they are close enough to each other, which is not surprising: when the main burden rests on the GPU itself, no tricks in terms of memory work help.

Still more pronounced than in the previous case. Interestingly enough, the HDG 4600 is faster than the Radeon HD 8670D. However, it is not practically significant.

Again, even a discrete card fails, and its separation from integrated solutions is increased to three to five times. With the minimum quality, we recall, sometimes there were less than two. Those. the higher the requirements for the GPU, the greater the difference between the integrated and discrete versions of the latter. What is more than expected, but not all are taken into account.

If you have a discrete video card, you can play, but the integrated one is not enough at all, and any. A similar picture was on the minimum settings for FHD, only then it became even clearer. But nothing surprising - in general for this game cards of a minimum level of Radeon R7 265 and higher are desirable. And these games are not so few.

If at the minimum settings this game is very sparing for the video system, then the increase in quality can “bring to its knees” and much more powerful solutions than we are considering today. Those. The space for maneuver is huge here, but only owners of discrete video cards can use it successfully.

Sleeping Dogs behaves in a similar way, but the advantages of a discrete solution are even more visible. But the benefits from eDRAM disappear even more noticeably, since the matter does not even reach the texturing speed: the graphics processors themselves are still too weak. But weak in different ways, so that the integrated Radeon R7 can even overtake Iris Pro. In practice, however, it does not matter, since both are still too slow.

And one more similar case confirms the hypothesis expressed above :)

In general, as we see, attempts to use modes with high picture quality (even with a lower resolution) only on the integrated graphics are usually doomed to a fiasco.

Total

So what do we see? Low quality modes lend themselves well to modern integrated graphics. At least the best representatives of the latter. The idea with eDRAM is correct and logical - it allows you to reduce the lack of memory bandwidth. Actually, thanks to this decision line of Iris Pro become the fastest in its class. Not necessarily Broadwell - Haswell is not much worse, but such modifications of the latter are not installed in the socket, which imposes its own specifics.

But can a gamer arrange low-quality modes? Probably not. In any case, if modern games are interesting to him at all - at the minimum settings, “modernity” easily evaporates, often resembling a picture of a decade ago. Especially if you remember the high cost of Intel processors with GT3e - for this money you can buy something simpler, but with a good discrete graphics card. AMD solutions are much more affordable, and even with an increase in the quality of the image, the “sagging” in performance is weaker, since the graphics processors themselves are still more powerful (and eDRAM cannot fix it), but ... But it doesn't change anything fundamentally - the final performance is still the same too low, so a gamer does not have to seriously rely on the graphics capabilities of the APU AMD.

What awaits us in the near future? Skylake line processors are projected over time to acquire GT4e-type graphics cores, where there will be more executive devices than before (in fact, the GT will also grow with the usual tsiferki, but much less noticeable, but the appearance of a new modification directly hints at radical changes) and eDRAM. Yes, and support for DDR4 will increase memory bandwidth - even if not immediately, maybe. However, it does not follow from this that even such processors can cope with high-quality game modes from our methodology even with low resolution - the performance for this needs to be increased by 3-5 times, which is unlikely to work. Overtaking the younger discrete video cards they will get more often, but mostly only where there is either “already enough” or “it’s still fundamentally not enough”, so the fact of more or less performance is not too important.

In general, progress in integrated graphics is well visible. But so far from the point of view of the gamer, it is still insufficient to fundamentally change the situation. A full-fledged gaming computer, as before, is obliged to have a discrete video card, moreover, more expensive than a processor. Which, by the way, makes Broadwell-C in any case a bad gaming solution (even with a discrete video card) - you can be sure that the advantages of fourth-level cache are not so great as to justify higher prices. If instead of 250X we used 290X (for example) they would have been more noticeable, but still this money is just better for a video card and spend - the return will be much more. In addition, limited heat pack also hinders - Core i5 often turns out to be slightly faster than Core i7, which operates at a higher clock frequency, which is not so close when comparing 4690K and 4770K. In general, Broadwell-C is initially a niche solution, perfectly suited for compact computers, but there is nothing special to do in a “regular” modular desktop: there is no need to “squeeze” 65 W and you can use powerful video cards, or save well if you have a high video performance is not required.