AMD processors with integrated graphics. The best integrated graphics versus budget discrete graphics. Disadvantages of integrated graphics

Good day friends.

The topic of our conversation today will be the graphics core in the processor - what it is and when it is used. The article is especially relevant for those who choose between an integrated and discrete graphics card or just bother with the image quality.

Explanation of the concept

There was already an article on my blog about what it is. But don't confuse those kernels with these. Now we will talk about the schedule. It is not built into everyone. This is just a variety of them.

I will try to explain it as simply as possible.

These devices simultaneously perform the functions of a processor, that is, they process all computing tasks, and a video card, which is responsible for displaying images on your monitor.

You can also find such a designation for this chip as IGP. It is an abbreviation for Integrated Graphics Processor, which means integrated graphics processor.

Why combine percent with vidyuhoy inside?

To:

• Reduce the energy consumption of iron, not only because low-power devices eat less themselves, but they also need weak cooling;
• Make the hardware more compact;
• Reduce the cost of the PC.

By the way, when manufacturers were just starting to practice combining devices, they built the graphics core directly into.

Now it is more popular to combine them with central processors in order to unload the motherboard as much as possible. In addition, due to the reduction, it is now possible to make devices of the same size, but with greater power.

Minuses

Let's consider the points mentioned above as advantages of graphics cores. Now I'll tell you about the disadvantages.

The best in terms of the quality of the image displayed on the screen are discrete ones, since they are independent devices created specifically for this.

In turn, embedded kernels do not have such resources of their own. In particular, they do not use separate, their own RAM, but shared. They also use one data bus in conjunction with the process. This naturally slows down the performance of the entire computer because it slows down the CPU.

Where are the graphics cores used?

Considering the pros and cons described above, integrated controllers are often used in laptops and inexpensive desktop computers. This solution is perfect for office PCs that do not require high quality graphics and accelerated performance.

But connoisseurs of high-quality pictures and powerful realistic games are still better off buying discrete models. They have their own RAM, cooling system and data transfer bus, so they can afford to be much more powerful than integrated ones.

Note

I want to warn you that if you want to add performance to your chip with an integrated graphics core by purchasing an external video card, then you will be wasting your money. Either one or the other will work.

True, there are exceptions - laptops with two video devices. Usually some kind of Intel model HD. And when she fails, a stronger device from AMD or NVidia helps her. This solution allows you to simultaneously enjoy high-quality graphics and reduce power consumption. Since a powerful device rests while surfing the Internet or working with office programs.

Subscribe to updates so as not to miss new useful information.

Introduction In the development of all computer technology in recent years, the course towards integration and the accompanying miniaturization is well traced. And here we are talking not so much about the usual desktop personal computers, but about a huge park of "user-level" devices - smartphones, laptops, players, tablets, etc. - which are reborn in new form factors, absorbing more and more new functions. As for the desktops, it is this trend that affects them in the last turn. Of course, in recent years, the vector of user interest has slightly deviated towards small-sized computing devices, but it's hard to call this a global trend. The basic architecture of x86 systems, which assumes the presence of separate processor, memory, video card, motherboard and disk subsystem, remains unchanged, and this is what limits the possibilities for miniaturization. It is possible to reduce each of the listed components, but a qualitative change in the dimensions of the resulting system in total will not work.

However, in the course of the last year, it seems, there has been a certain turning point in the environment of personal computers. With the introduction of modern semiconductor technological processes with "finer" standards, developers of x86 processors are able to gradually transfer the functions of some devices that were previously separate components to the CPU. So, no one is surprised anymore that the memory controller and, in some cases, the PCI Express bus controller, have long become an accessory central processing unit, and the motherboard chipset has degenerated into a single microcircuit - the south bridge. But in 2011, a much more significant event happened - a graphics controller began to be built into processors for productive desktops. And we are not talking about some frail video cores, capable only of ensuring the operation of the interface operating system, but about completely full-fledged solutions, which in their performance can be opposed to discrete entry-level graphics accelerators and certainly surpass all those integrated video cores that were built into the system logic sets earlier.

The pioneer was Intel, which at the very beginning of the year released Sandy Bridge processors for desktop computers with an integrated graphics core of the Intel HD Graphics family. True, she thought that good built-in graphics would be of interest primarily to users. mobile computers, and for desktop CPUs, only a stripped-down version of the video core was proposed. The incorrectness of this approach was later demonstrated by AMD, which released on the market of desktop systems Fusion processors with full-fledged graphics cores of the Radeon HD series. Such proposals immediately gained popularity not only as solutions for the office, but also as a basis for low-cost home computers, which forced Intel to reconsider its attitude towards the prospects for CPUs with integrated graphics. The company has updated its Sandy Bridge line of desktop processors by adding faster models to its desktop offerings. Intel version HD Graphics. As a result, now users who want to build a compact integrated system are faced with the question: which manufacturer's platform is more rational to prefer? After conducting comprehensive testing, we will try to give recommendations on choosing a particular processor with an integrated graphics accelerator.

Terminology question: CPU or APU?

If you are already familiar with the integrated graphics processors that AMD and Intel offer for desktop users, then you know that these manufacturers are trying to distance their products as much as possible from each other, trying to instill the idea that their direct comparison is incorrect. The main "confusion" is brought by AMD, which refers its solutions to a new class of APUs, and not to conventional CPUs. What's the difference?

APU stands for Accelerated Processing 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, there is still a difference, and it lies in program level... The graphics core included in the APU must have a universal architecture in the form of an array of stream processors capable of working not only on the synthesis of a three-dimensional image, but also on solving computational problems.

That is, the APU offers a more flexible design than simply combining graphics and computing resources within a single semiconductor chip. The idea is to create a symbiosis of these disparate parts, when some of the calculations can be performed by means of the graphics core. True, as always in such cases, software support is required to tap into this promising opportunity.

AMD Fusion processors with a video core, known under the codename Llano, fully meet this definition, they are precisely the APU. They integrate the graphics cores of the Radeon HD family, which, among other things, support the ATI Stream technology and the OpenCL 1.1 programming interface, through which calculations on the graphics core are really possible. In theory, a number of applications can get practical benefits from execution on an array of Radeon HD stream processors, including cryptographic algorithms, rendering of three-dimensional images, or tasks of post-processing of photos, sound and video. In practice, however, everything is much more complicated. Implementation difficulties and dubious real performance gains have held back widespread support for the concept so far. Therefore, in most cases, an APU can be viewed as nothing more than a simple CPU with an integrated graphics core.

Intel, by contrast, has a more conservative terminology. It continues to refer to its Sandy Bridge processors containing the integrated HD Graphics core by the traditional term CPU. Which, however, has some ground, because the OpenCL 1.1 programming interface is not supported by Intel graphics (compatibility with it will be provided in the next generation Ivy Bridge products). So, Intel does not yet provide for any joint work of dissimilar parts of the processor on the same computing tasks.

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

Is it legal to compare AMD APUs and Intel CPUs? From a theoretical point of view, an equal sign cannot be put between an APU and a CPU with a built-in video accelerator, but in real life we ​​have two names for the same. AMD Llano processors can accelerate parallel computing and Intel Sandy Bridge is able to use the graphics power only when transcoding video, but in fact, both of these features are almost never used. So, from a practical point of view, any of the processors discussed in this article is a regular CPU and a video card assembled inside a single microcircuit.

Processors - Test Participants

In fact, you shouldn't think of processors with integrated graphics as some kind of special offer aimed at a certain group of users with atypical requests. Universal integration is a global trend, and such processors have become the standard offer in the lower and middle price range. Both AMD Fusion and Intel Sandy Bridge have ousted CPUs without graphics from the current offerings, so even if you are not going to rely on an integrated video core, we can not offer anything other than focusing on the same processors with graphics. Fortunately, no one forces the built-in video core to be used, and it can be turned off.

Thus, starting to compare the CPU with the integrated GPU, we came to a more general problem - comparative testing modern processors with prices ranging from $ 60 to $ 140. 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 dedicated Socket FM1 platform that is compatible exclusively with the Llano family of processors - A8, A6 and A4. These processors have two, three or four general-purpose Husky cores with a microarchitecture similar to Athlon II, and a Sumo graphics core, inheriting the microarchitecture of the younger representatives of the five thousandth Radeon HD series.

The line of processors of the Llano family looks quite self-sufficient, it includes processors of different computing and graphics performance. However, there is one regularity in the model range - the computing performance is correlated with the 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 oppose the AMD Fusion processors with its dual-core Core i3 and Pentium, which do not have their own collective name, but are also equipped with graphics cores and have a comparable cost. Of course, there are graphics cores in more expensive quad-core processors, but they play a clearly secondary role there, so Core i5 and Core i7 were not included in the actual testing.

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

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

How we tested

After we got acquainted with the set of processors presented in this testing, it's time to pay attention to the 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 L2, Radeon HD 6550D);
AMD A8-3800 (Llano, 4 cores, 2.4 / 2.7 GHz, 4 MB 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 MB L3, HD Graphics 3000);
Intel Core i3-2120 (Sandy Bridge, 2 cores + HT, 3.3 GHz, 3 MB 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 MB 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 disk: 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 carried out without using an external graphics card. The built-in video cores were responsible for displaying the image on the screen, 3D functions and accelerating HD video playback.

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

Performance in common tasks

Overall performance

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

As you can see, AMD Fusion series processors look just shameful in traditional applications. AMD's fastest quad-core Socket FM1 processor, the A8-3850, barely outperforms the dual-core Pentium G620 at half the price. All the other representatives of the AMD A8, A6 and A4 series are hopelessly behind Intel competitors. In general, this is a quite natural result of using the old microarchitecture, which migrated there from the Phenom II and Athlon II, in the basis of the Llano processors. Until AMD implements processor cores with a higher specific performance, even a quad-core APU of this company will find it very difficult to fight against current and regularly updated Intel solutions.

A deeper understanding of the SYSmark 2012 results can provide insight into the performance scores obtained in various system use cases. The Office Productivity script simulates typical office work: preparing word, processing spreadsheets, working with e-mail, and surfing the Internet. 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.

The Media Creation scenario simulates the creation of a commercial using pre-shot digital images and video. Popular packages are used for this purpose. Adobe: Photoshop CS5 Extended, Premiere Pro CS5, and After Effects CS5.

Web Development is a scenario within which the creation of a website is modeled. Applications used: Adobe photoshop CS5 Extended, Adobe premiere Pro CS5, Adobe Dreamweaver CS5, Mozilla Firefox 3.6.8 and Microsoft Internet Explorer 9.

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

3D Modeling Script is all about creating 3D 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. Several different versions of Mozilla Firefox Installer and WinZip Pro 14.5 are involved here.

The only type of application in which AMD Fusion processors can achieve acceptable performance is 3D modeling and rendering. In such tasks, the number of cores is a weighty argument, and the quad-core A8 and A6 can provide higher performance than, for example, Intel Pentium. But up to the level set by Core i3 processors in which support for Hyper-Threading technology is implemented, AMD's offerings fall short even in the most favorable case for themselves.

Application performance

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

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

When testing the audio transcoding speed, the Apple iTunes utility is used, with the help of which the contents of a CD-disc are converted to AAC format. notice, that characteristic feature this program is the ability to use only a couple of processor cores.

To measure the speed of video transcoding into H.264 format, the x264 HD test is used, which is based on measuring the processing time of the original video in MPEG-2 format, 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 underlies numerous popular transcoding utilities, for example, HandBrake, MeGUI, VirtualDub, etc.

Testing the final rendering speed in Maxon Cinema 4D is performed using the specialized Cinebench benchmark.

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

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

In addition to the conducted tests, to check how the power of graphics cores can be used to solve everyday computing tasks, we conducted a study of the video transcoding speed 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 of measuring the time it took to transcode a 1.5GB 1080p video to H.264 (which was a 20-minute episode of the hit TV series) downsampled for viewing on an iPhone 4.

The results are divided into two groups. The first includes Intel Core i3 processors, which have support for Quick Sync technology. Numbers speak better than words: Quick Sync allows you to transcode HD video content several times faster than any other toolkit. The second large group unites all other processors, among which CPUs with a large number of cores are in the first place. The Stream technology promoted by AMD, as we can see, does not manifest itself in any way, and the Fusion series APUs with two cores show no better result than Pentium processors, which transcode video exclusively by the computational cores.

Graphics core performance

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

A change in the nature of the load immediately leads to a change in leaders. The graphics core of any AMD Fusion processors outperforms any Intel HD Graphics in practice. Even the Core i3-2125, equipped with the HD Graphics 3000 video core with twelve execution units, is able to reach only the performance level demonstrated by the AMD A4-3300 with the weakest integrated graphics accelerator Radeon HD 6410D among all presented in the Fusion test. All the rest of Intel processors in terms of 3D performance are outperformed by AMD's proposals by two to four times.

Some compensation for the failure in graphics performance can 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 computing component of 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 carried out in a resolution of 1280x800, and the quality level was set to Medium.

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

Even the fact that Intel began to build in a productive version of the HD Graphics 3000 graphics core did not save the position of the Core i3 processors. The Core i3-2125 equipped with it turned out to be faster than its counterpart 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 Sandy Bridge microarchitecture carriers look even worse. And if we add to the results shown in the diagrams the lack of support for DirectX 11 in the video cores of Intel processors, then the situation for the current solutions of this manufacturer seems even more hopeless. Only the next generation of the Ivy Bridge microarchitecture can fix it, where the graphics core will receive both much higher performance and modern functionality.

Even if we disregard specific numbers and look at the situation qualitatively, AMD's offerings look like a much more attractive option for an entry-level gaming system. Senior Fusion A8 series processors, with certain compromises in terms of screen resolution and image quality settings, allow you to play almost any modern games without resorting to the services of an external video card. We cannot recommend any Intel processors for cheap gaming systems - various HD Graphics options have not yet matured for use in this environment.

Energy consumption

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

That is why developers of processors with integrated graphics cores try to minimize the power consumption of their products. Most of the CPUs and APUs reviewed in this article have an estimated typical heat dissipation in the 65W range - 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 assess the practical consumption of systems with different processors.

The graphs below show two energy consumption values. The first is the total system consumption (without a monitor), which is the sum of the energy consumption of all components involved in the system. The second is the consumption of only one processor through a dedicated 12-volt power line. 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 records the voltages and currents entering the system via 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, to correctly estimate idle power consumption, we have activated all available energy-saving technologies, as well as Turbo Core technology (where supported).

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

Maximum compute load finds that the power efficiency issues inherent in the Phenom II and Athlon II AMD processors have not gone away with the introduction of 32nm process technology. Llano uses the same microarchitecture and loses to Sandy Bridge in the same way in terms of the ratio of performance per watt of electricity consumed. Older Socket FM1 systems consume about twice as much as systems with LGA1155 Core i3 processors, despite the fact that the computing performance of the latter is clearly higher. The gap in power consumption between Pentium and the younger A4 and A6 is not that huge, but nevertheless, the situation does not change qualitatively.

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

The simultaneous load on all units of hybrid processors allows you to obtain 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 package, seriously break away from the rest of the 65-watt offerings from AMD and Intel. However, even without them, Fusion processors are less economical than Intel solutions in the same price range.

When using processors as the basis of a media center, busy with playing high-definition video, an atypical situation arises. Computing cores are mostly idle here, and the decoding of the video stream is assigned to specialized blocks built into the graphics cores. Therefore, platforms based on AMD processors manage to achieve good energy efficiency; in general, their consumption does not greatly exceed the consumption of systems with Pentium or Core i3 processors. Moreover, the lowest frequency AMD Fusion, the A6-3500 offers the best economy in this use case.

conclusions

At first glance, summing up the test results is easy. AMD and Intel processors with integrated graphics have shown completely dissimilar advantages, which allows us to recommend either one or the other depending on the planned use of the computer.

So, strong point processors of the AMD Fusion family turned out to have a graphics core built into them with a relatively high performance and compatibility with the DirectX 11 and Open CL 1.1 programming interfaces. Thus, these processors can be recommended for those systems where the quality and speed of 3D graphics is not the least important. At the same time, the processors included in the Fusion series use general-purpose cores based on the old and slow K10 microarchitecture, which translates into their low performance in computational tasks. Therefore, if you are interested in options that provide better performance in ordinary non-gaming applications, one should look towards Intel's Core i3 and Pentium, even though such CPUs are equipped with fewer processing cores than competing offerings from AMD.

Of course, in general, AMD's approach to the design of processors with an integrated video accelerator seems to be more rational. The APU models offered by the company are well balanced in the sense that the speed of the computing part is quite adequate to the speed of the graphics and vice versa. As a result, the older A8 series processors can be considered as a possible basis for entry-level gaming systems. Even in modern games, such processors and the Radeon HD 6550D video accelerators integrated into them can provide acceptable playability. With the younger A6 and A4 series with weaker versions of the graphics core, the situation is more complicated. For universal gaming systems of a lower level, their performance is no longer enough, therefore, it is possible to rely on such solutions only in those cases when it comes to creating multimedia computers that will run extremely graphically simple casual games or online RPGs of past generations.

However, whatever is said about balance, the A4 and A6 series are poorly suited for demanding computing applications. Within the same budget, Intel Pentium line-ups can offer significantly faster computing performance. To tell the truth, against the background of Sandy Bridge, only the A8-3850 can be considered a processor with an acceptable speed in common programs. And even then, its good results are manifested far from everywhere and, moreover, they are provided with increased heat dissipation, which not every computer owner will like without a discrete video card.

In other words, it's a shame that Intel still can't offer a graphics core worthy of performance. Even the Core i3-2125, equipped with the fastest Intel HD Graphics 3000 graphics in the company's arsenal, works at the level of AMD A4-3300 in games, since the speed in this case is limited by the performance of the built-in video accelerator. All the other Intel processors are equipped with a one and a half times slower video core, and in 3D games they appear very faded, often showing a completely unacceptable number of frames per second. Therefore, we would not recommend at all to think of Intel processors as a possible basis for a system capable of working with 3D graphics. The Core i3 and Pentium video core does an excellent job of displaying the operating system interface and playing high-definition video, but it is not capable of more. So the most suitable application for Core i3 and Pentium processors is seen in systems where the computing power of general-purpose cores is important with good energy efficiency - in these parameters, no AMD offers with Sandy Bridge can compete.

And in conclusion, it should be reminded that Intel's LGA1155 platform is much more promising than AMD Socket FM1. When purchasing an AMD Fusion series processor, you should be mentally prepared for the fact that it will be possible to improve a computer based on it within very limited limits. AMD plans to release only a few more Socket FM1 models from the A8 and A6 series with a slightly increased clock frequency, and their successors coming out next year, known under the codename Trinitу, will not be compatible with this platform. Intel's LGA1155 platform is much more promising. Not only can the much more computationally productive Core i5 and Core i7 be installed in it today, but the Ivy Bridge processors planned for next year in motherboards purchased today should work.

The family of integrated Intel HD Graphics chips is an excellent replacement for discrete, that is, going as a separate module for video cards. The use of the integrated video chip will be especially relevant for various laptops and netbooks. The advantages of these solutions are improved battery performance and less heating of the interior of the mobile PC.

Family of video chips

Intel HD Graphics Family includes several generations.

1. Intel HD - Installed on the iCore 3/5/7 family and first generation. Codenamed Nehalem / Lynnfield. The capabilities of such a video card are very limited. Therefore, if the laptop will be used to work with graphics and for multimedia entertainment (watching movies in HD quality, playing games), then this chip will not be the best solution.
2. Intel HD 2000/3000. The second generation of integrated video chips from Intel is installed in the second generation iCore 3/5/7 processors. Codenamed Sandy Bridge. Today it is practically not used in new laptop models, but it is still a significant market player.
3. Intel HD 2500/4000. The third generation of integrated video logic this moment it is the most massive representative of the mobile device market. These cards are part of the third generation iCore processors. This video logic is codenamed Ivy Bridge. In terms of performance, it is close to Radeon cards HD 65xx.
4. The latest generation of Intel HD Graphics, codenamed Haswell. Part of the new 4th generation iCore processors. The main model of this generation is the 4600. It has two stripped-down versions - 4200 and 4400. The most powerful are the 5100 and 5200. In terms of its performance, the latest Intel HD 5200 card outperforms most discrete mid-range graphics cards.

Intel HD 3rd and 4th generation allows you to fully enjoy the quality of movies up to 4K resolution. Also, such video cards can easily cope with the loads of video games of the last 2-3 years. Since the first generation of processors and integrated video logic is already a little outdated, we will omit it from the Intel (R) HD Graphics card review. Move on.

Second generation of video chips

Today, Intel HD Graphics 3000 video logic is still used quite often. She happens to be ideal solution for mobile PCs of the lower price level. This solution allows you to quite comfortably watch high-quality films and even sometimes enjoy the delights of video games released in 2011-2012. However, if you consider that budget laptops and netbooks are not bought for the purpose of multimedia entertainment, then everything falls into place. The maximum resolution supported by the video card is 2560 x 1600 pixels. In addition, this generation of video logic supports HDMI output. In order to optimize the operation of this interface, it is advisable to have the latest Intel HD Graphics driver installed.

As mentioned above, the second generation graphics core family is represented by two models. These are Intel HD Graphics 2000 and 3000. Despite the fact that both of them are produced according to the same technological process, the productivity of the cards can differ by two times. This is due to the fact that the younger model has a lower clock frequency core, in addition, it is equipped with only six executive devices (versus 12 for the older version of the card).

Thanks to this differentiation, a fairly clear market segmentation is achieved. Thus, a user can purchase a laptop with a dual- or quad-core processor and a full-fledged HD 3000 graphics core or a stripped-down HD 2000 graphics. Naturally, this is reflected in the cost of production.

Third generation

Intel HD Graphics 4000 video logic was presented in 2012. It is based on a 22nm process technology. The peak performance of the chip is 200 gigaflops. At the same time, the previous generation of Intel video cards was executed using a 32nm process, and the performance was exactly 2 times less.

Integrated graphics allow you to use all the features of DirectX 11 and OpenGL 3.3. The Intel HD 4000 offers the best in high-definition movies, according to developer assurances and repeated tests. In addition, this video logic makes it possible to feel comfortable enough in most modern games. Of course, here it should be understood that some of them will require lower resolution and lower quality settings.

But what if the game does not work correctly or some artifacts appear in the image? To fix this problem, on the manufacturer's website, you need to find a driver for the Intel HD Graphics 4000 chip, download and install it. This advice sounds trivial, but it actually helps. The fact is that the company's engineers are trying to regularly update the drivers of their products and improve compatibility with the latest applications.

If we compare the performance of the video card with the previous generation, then it has increased by 30%. Additionally, you can get a boost in power by using a faster i7 processor and more RAM.

The fourth generation of video logic

To date, Intel HD Graphics is installed in almost half of the laptops. This is due to both the excellent marketing moves of the corporation and the correct approach to integration. With each new generation, video logic becomes more and more perfect, which allows it to compete on an equal footing with discrete cards of the average price level.

Chip release last generation noticeably affected the sales of video cards from other manufacturers. After all, it makes no sense to pay extra money for something that can work "right out of the box." Just a few years ago, few people were interested in the performance of embedded video graphics. After all, everyone understood that chips such as Intel HD are needed only for office applications, viewing low-resolution photos and movies. However, after the release of the third generation iCore processors and Intel HD Graphics 4000 video chips, the situation began to change dramatically.

Became a real competitor for discrete chip manufacturers. And these are not empty words, it is enough just to look at the drop in the dynamics of sales of cards from AMD and nVIDIA. In addition, AMD was forced to abandon the release of budget graphics Radeon HD 70xx due to its non-competitiveness.

Description

Intel HD Graphics 4600 is an evolutionary development of the integrated video chip. Due to the fact that in 2010 Intel abandoned the then classic scheme of separating vertex and pixel pipelines and switched to a unified shader architecture, it managed to achieve regular modernization of its own video logic. Every year the company improves the chip manufacturing process, which positively affects the number of execution units and, as a result, productivity.

The Intel HD 4600 already has 20 execution units, which allows it to compete on an equal footing with AMD and nVIDIA chips. For comparison, the previous model HD 4000 had 16 blocks, and the HD 3000 had only 12. Thus, even if we take HD 4000 and HD 4600 chips with equal frequency core, then the processing power of the latter will be 25% more. In addition to the number of execution units, the frequency of the video core was also increased. Now it is 1250 MHz versus 1150 MHz for the previous generation. Distinctive feature Haswell's processors and video logic has reduced idle power consumption.

New Intel graphics support OpenGL 4.0 and DirectX 11.1 (shaders version 5). Other features of the chip include full-screen anti-aliasing, HDR and a number of other technologies that can improve the resulting image. It should be mentioned that, like the core of the previous generation, the HD 4600 can work simultaneously with three monitors.

Theoretical performance calculations

Knowing about the features of integrated graphics different generations, you can proceed to compare their performance. For greater objectivity, a budget discrete GeForce GT 630 card will take part in the test. Core performance at peak load is:

• HD 4600 - 400 gigaflops;
• GT 630 - 311 gigaflops;
• HD 4000 - 294 gigaflops;
• HD 3000 - 194 gigaflops.

As you can see, even at this stage the discrete card is inferior to the latest generation of integrated graphics. However, such a performance parameter as the scene fill rate cannot be ignored. By this indicator, discrete graphics are many times better than integrated solutions:

• GT 630 - 13 Mtex / s;
• HD 4600 - 5 Mtex / s;
• HD 4000 - 4.6 Mtex / s;
• HD 3000 - 1.35 Mtex / s.

In terms of rasterization speed, GeForce also shows the best results:

• GT 630 - 3.2 Mpix / s;
• HD 4600 - 2.5 Mpix / s;
• HD 4000 - 2.3 Mpix / s;
• HD 3000 - 1.35 Mpix / s.

At the moment, we will not affect the memory bandwidth, since Intel cores HD Graphics characteristics of this indicator depend on the load on the processor.

Integrated graphics tests

Well, let's move from theoretical foundations to practical tests. Let's start by comparing the performance of three generations of Intel chips. HD 3000 graphics are tested based on HD 4000 - i7-3770K, HD 4600 - i7-4770K. At maximum load, the frequencies of the graphics cores were 1350, 1150 and 1250 MHz, respectively.

The check is carried out at the minimum graphics settings for video games and a resolution of 1920 x 1080. At the same time, filters such as anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering are disabled. The 3DMark benchmark app was run on standard settings... Since HD 3000 does not support DirectX 11 technology, other video chips are checked without enabling it.

• HD 3000 - 3221 points;
• HD 4000 - 5795 points;
• HD 4600 - 8253 points.

The Unigine Heaven benchmark also demonstrates the significant performance of the latest generation chips:

• HD 3000 - 213 points;
• HD 4000 - 327 points;
• HD 4600 - 446 points.

Gaming performance

That is where we finish with synthetic tests and move on to comparing the performance of cards in gaming applications. In Crysis 2, the HD 4600 is almost 1.5 times faster than its predecessor (11.5 points versus 7.7). HD 3000 received only 5 points.

F1 2011 is not so sensitive to GPU performance. Due to this, the HD 4600 is only 28 percent ahead of the HD 4000. It is noteworthy that the game runs perfectly even on HD 3000 graphics, which is good news for owners of old laptops.

Applications with high quality charts such as Metro 2033 and Tomb raider, allow you to play quite well at medium or low settings in DirectX 10 mode on an HD 4600 card. Unfortunately, older chips do not provide an opportunity to feel normal in the game, since the number of frames per second noticeably sags, and the picture becomes like a slide. show.

As a result of all the tests carried out, we can say that the next round of development of integrated graphics based on Haswell processors is a real step forward. Particularly encouraging is the fact that even in the games released in 2013-2014, it is possible to achieve acceptable results. That is, even a budget laptop will allow you to fully enjoy the quality of multimedia entertainment.

Comparison of integrated and discrete cards

Now, from the test of integrated chips, let's move on to comparing the Intel HD 4600 and As you can see from the figures above, the solution from Intel has a good indicator of peak performance. Although at the same time this chip is inferior in memory bandwidth and rasterization speed.

First, let's check our cards on synthetic tests 3DMark and Unigine Heaven. The comparison is carried out at maximum graphics settings in Full HD resolution and using DirectX 11. As a result, the following test results were obtained:

• HD 4600 - 980 bp .;
• GT 630 - 919 p.

• HD 4600 - 361 pts;
• GT 630 - 360 p.

• HD 4600 - 344 pts;
• GT 630 - 320 p.

As you can see, the HD 4600 chip fights on equal terms with a discrete card, which has advantages in the number of ROP units, texture processing speed and pixels. But, unfortunately, in gaming applications, things are, albeit slightly, but still worse. In games such as Battlefield-3, Crysis-2, F1-2011, the HD 4600 lags somewhere around 5-20%. In Metro-2033, the integrated graphics lagged behind the GeForce GT 630 by more than half. But in games such as DiRT Showdown and Tomb Raider, the Intel card scored 12% and 22% better, respectively.

results

The new integrated core from Intel is a significant step forward in the development of such technologies. Modern video chips easily outperform their previous generations in all performance indicators - the average lead over the HD 4000 is 40%. What about discrete graphics? Here we can say with confidence that if the laptop will not be used only for games, then it would be much more correct to refuse to buy a mid-priced video card, since the built-in core allows you to completely replace it. Plus, don't forget about energy consumption. The top-end one with integrated graphics consumes only 84 watts, while the discrete GT 630 card based on a simple dual-core processor will initially consume 130 watts of energy. As a result, this will result in a lower battery life as well as overheating of internal components.

That is why when buying a new laptop, forget about cheap discrete graphics cards, even if they are of the latest generation. In reality, they will not be able to provide the productivity gains that would justify such a purchase. Moreover, Intel HD Graphics 4600 can easily satisfy all the needs of a modern user.

In this article, the top-end was used for testing, but today you can already purchase the i5 and i3 models that are more affordable for the average user. As with the previous generation, new graphics card has a stripped-down model - Intel HD Graphics 4400. Despite the smaller number of execution units, it still outperforms the 3rd generation cards. Well, fans of ultrabooks and expensive laptops are much more fortunate, because Haswell series processors can be equipped with a more powerful HD 5100/5200 graphics core, which already has 40 execution units, which is twice as many as in the HD 4600.

More about performance

As mentioned above, integrated video cards use RAM on an equal footing with the processor. Therefore, if you install a sufficiently powerful crystal of the latest generation in a laptop, but limit yourself to only a few gigabytes of slow memory, then the performance results of such a configuration can be very disappointing. Memory is a bottleneck for video logic, and therefore it is recommended to use it for good results latest models with high frequencies and low latencies.

Overheating is another nuance that significantly affects the performance of not only video graphics, but the computer as a whole. Above a certain degree, the video chip and processor show low results in various tests and real applications. Therefore, it is recommended to regularly clean the coolers and the interior of mobile PCs from dust. The result will not be long in coming.

It is also important to understand that the quality of the graphics will depend on the selected processor. The fact is that with an increase in the load on the core, the video chip receives a lower priority for transmitting packets, thus, this affects the image quality. Therefore, the test results when comparing budget and top-end processors and the same video logic will not be in favor of the former. Thus, the choice of the "heart" of the laptop directly affects the capabilities of the video chip.

And one last tip for today. For the driver, you must install the most recent one. Even if you purchased a laptop already fully configured for work, do not be too lazy to go to the manufacturer's official website and download the most recent version.

Intel HD 630 is an integrated chip for powerful Intel processors Core generation Kaby Lake (Core i7, Core i5 and most Core i3). The rest of the seventh generation Core i processors are equipped with Intel HD 610 and 620.

Specifications

Intel HD 630 specifications are very good for the integrated video core. The maximum frequency of the graphics chip is 1150MHz (most HD 630s work on it), the minimum is 950MHz (on a mobile Core i3 7100H). The video adapter contains 24 universal processors, which is quite a lot for an integrated solution.

Memory

As befits an integrated video card, the HD 630 does not come with its own video memory. Instead, the chip uses the RAM available on the computer. The amount of memory depends on the amount of RAM installed and UEFI settings BIOS, the speed of operation depends on the frequency of the RAM. And since Kaby Lake processors work with DDR 4 memory, you shouldn't worry about the speed of the integrated graphics core.

Unlike most other built-in video adapters, the HD 630 has a 128-bit bus width, which can be seen on fairly good discrete video cards.

In terms of API, the video card is ahead of the rest, it has full support for DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.4, OpenCL 2.0 and Intel Quick Sync. In theory, the chip is quite capable of coping with any modern computer game or complex video editing, although in practice this is not quite the case.

What tasks is the Intel HD 630 suitable for?

Usually integrated solutions are used exclusively for office tasks, and here the HD 630 has no problems, which is not surprising. With it you can watch videos or movies in any modern resolution. Be it HD, FullHD, QuadHD or even 4K - nothing can make the video chip slow down.

Fans of watching movies in 3D will also be satisfied, the HD 630 has everything you need to play this video format. All you have to do is connect a suitable monitor or 3D-capable TV.

Gaming performance

With games, things are a little more complicated. Any old games will run at maximum or close to maximum graphics settings, which is not very bad for a video card built into a processor.

Things are a little worse with modern projects. Formally, the HD 630 is capable of running any game, no matter how demanding it is. But in reality, everything rests on the performance of the chip, and which games will run with an acceptable frame rate depends on the requirements and manufacturability of the game itself.

Some Civilization 6 will work very well, because it is not too demanding on the resources of the video card, and turn-based gameplay will allow you to enjoy even with insufficient performance. The same Battlefield 1 will be able to start, but you will get a natural slideshow, which is simply not acceptable for a multiplayer game.

Overclocking

If you have a budget motherboard, you can not even hope for overclocking, it is blocked. But for owners of motherboards with the X chipset, good news - in the BIOS there is an opportunity to select the coefficient and from the standard 1150 it is chased to 1400 and higher. Thus, an increase of 10-20% can be achieved. Another thing you can do to raise the performance of the HD 630 in any way is to increase the frequency of the RAM, we analyzed the results of such overclocking in our review.

In terms of editing and working with graphics, the Intel HD 630 was able to achieve quite good results. Not entirely weak performance, as well as support for OpenCL 2.0 and Quick Sync will allow you to work in almost any professional software.

Drivers

For modern integrated video cards, Intel made very good quality drivers. Although at some points they leave much to be desired.

Windows

Installing the driver on Windows is very simple, just visit the official Intel website, download the installation package and install the program on your computer, nothing else is required from you. Updating is also very easy, you can do this through the driver properties or simply install new version after downloading it from the Intel website.

Linux

On Linux, there are already two drivers, free and proprietary (from the manufacturer). You don't need to do anything to install a free driver, it is used by default in any Linux distribution (without it, you will not see anything but a text terminal).

WITH software from the manufacturer, everything is pretty confusing. Not all Linux distributions are supported. If your distribution is supported, you can try installing the driver, otherwise it is better not to.

Comparison with competitors

AMD Vega 3 vs Intel HD 630

Comparison of Intel UHD 630 (i3 8100) vs AMD Vega (Ryzen 3 2200g, Ryzen 5 2400g)

Comparison with discrete video adapters

Comparison with video cards can surprise, because the HD 630 proved to be very cool. Any gags like the nVidia GT 710 cannot oppose this chip with absolutely nothing, they lose literally in everything. The HD 630 is on par with nVidia graphics cards.

When buying a laptop, one of the most important questions for any buyer is the choice of the type of graphics core: integrated or discrete. If you play computer games, then you will definitely need a laptop with a dedicated graphics system, if you want to play comfortably, run games at high graphics settings and high display resolutions, for example, Full HD (1080p), then in this case you will have to fork out for a laptop with a discrete gaming video card of at least an entry-level such as nVidia Ge Force GTX 850 \ 950M, but as a rule the cost of such laptops exceeds 50,000 rubles.

And what to do if you want to play on a laptop, but there is no money for a high-performance machine. There is certainly a way out of this situation, but only if your needs for 3D graphics are limited to 3D user interfaces, and in computer games you will be content with low graphics settings and low resolutions, in such cases a laptop with a GPU integrated into the processor will come in handy. Laptops with integrated graphics are usually sold for less, and the performance level of some integrated graphics cards has recently been on par with discrete graphics cards in the lower and even mid-range price ranges. For a long time, the integrated graphics market was completely under the control of Intel, while the level of performance of integrated graphics in 3D applications was below any criticism. However, it was originally intended for the corporate sector of the market and fully satisfied its needs, but as time went on, more and more performance was required from the integrated graphics. Soon it pulled up to Intel, and AMD, and for some time it even managed to get ahead with its hybrid APUs, but with the release of new processors on the architecture, Broadwell and Skylake from intel this year, the performance of embedded solutions in 3D applications from both companies almost equal.

So, let's take a look at what AMD and Intel are currently offering us in the segment of integrated mobile graphics.

The next generation of integrated graphics from Intel.

Let's start with Intel. An interesting feature that first appeared in the architecture of Intel Sandy Bridge processors was the integrated video core. This meant that, despite having a discrete graphics solution in your laptop, you could always take advantage of the additional processor power, which made it possible to encode video, watch high-definition movies, watch 3D content and run simple games without any problems. Today the composition Skylake includes an integrated graphics card that is in many ways superior to similar solutions in previous processors. The ninth generation of the integrated graphics subsystem - Intel Gen9 Graphics, implemented as part of the new architecture, and like the entire Skylake chip, manufactured in accordance with the 14nm process technology, has received powerful structural changes along with increased energy efficiency. Inheriting the basic features from the previous Broadwell architecture, the new graphics include a huge range of solutions, from the basic logic HD Graphics 510(GT1e) based on one module with 12 actuators up to the most powerful graphics subsystem Iris Pro Graphics 580(GT4e) based on three modules with 72 execution units, a built-in eDRAM buffer with a capacity of 128 MB, with a total peak performance of up to 1152 gigaflops (Gen9 GT4 is about one and a half times more than Gen8 GT3). Graphics performance varies significantly between the 9th generation, with integrated graphics being the lowest performing HD Graphics 510(GT1e), Graphics 515(GT2e) and Graphics 520(GT2e), these solutions will become an integral part of the Core M processors. The built-in video cards as part of the Core M CPU will, at best, run only old games at low graphics settings. They are followed in terms of performance by the integrated graphics core HD Graphics 530 (GT3e), which will become an integral part of some processors of the Core i5, Core I7 line, in terms of performance, this graphics solution can easily cope with many computer games, though only at a display resolution of no more than 720p ( HD), and at low, and in some gaming applications and at medium graphics settings. In fact graphics performance HD Graphics 530 corresponds to the discrete graphics card GeForce 920M. The next group includes HD Graphics 540 and HD Graphics 550 this integrated graphics will most likely become an integral part of UVL processors on the Skylake architecture, from HD Graphics 530 these two solutions are distinguished by a twofold increase in the number of actuators 48 versus 24 in HD Graphics 530 the rest of the characteristics of all three integrated video cards have the same frequency characteristics of 300-1150 MHz, and the memory bandwidth is 64/128 bits. By performance HD Graphics 540 \ 550 roughly correspond to the discrete graphics card GeForce 920M. Well, the high-performance graphics core closes the line of integrated video cards from Intel Iris Pro Graphics HD Graphics 580 (GT4e) which is the most powerful integrated graphics solution from Intel at the moment. Performance as promised by the manufacturer Graphics 580 in 3D applications, it will be comparable to a desktop video card NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750, GT4e should provide performance at the level of 1.15 Gflops; the gain relative to GT3e (Broadwell) will be about 50%. Exactly to the emergence of Windows 10, the new Intel graphics have full hardware support for Direct X 12 for games, as well as Open CL 2.0 and Open GL 4.4 technologies for a clearer and better picture. According to Intel, the new graphics will provide up to 40% faster 3D gaming performance over the previous generation. The new ninth generation of Intel graphics also supports an expanded list of hardware encoding and decoding acceleration functions (HEVC, AVC, SVC, VP8, MJPG), advanced processing and conversion of raw data directly from a 16-bit digital camera matrix with quality up to 4K 60p, as well as advanced features of the Quick Sync engine with Video Fixed-Function (FF) mode, allowing H.265 / HEVC decoding without resorting to computational cores.

Specifications

HD Graphics 5xx
Manufacturer
intel
Architecture
Skylake gt2e			Skylake gt3e			Skylake gt4e
Name
HD Graphics 510	HD Graphics 515	HD Graphics 520	HD Graphics 530	HD Graphics 540	HD Graphics 550	HD Graphics 580
Executive devices
12	24	24	24	48	48	72
Core clock speed
300-950 MHz	300-1000 MHz	300-1050 MHz	300-1150 MHz	300-1050 MHz	300-1100 MHz	no data MHz
Memory bus width
64 \ 128 Bit
eDRAM
No						128 MB
DirectX
DirectX 12
Technology
14 n.m.

The next generation of integrated graphics from AMD.

AMD Carrizo- This is the sixth generation of AMD Carrizo mobile APUs - these are the world's first production-class APUs that are completely located on a single die, whereas earlier in chips of this class, a graphics chip or a south bridge, if they were located on a single substrate with a processor, then in the form of a separate die. Here, the north bridge, Fusion Controller Hub (south bridge), graphics and processor cores fit on a single crystal grown within the 28-nm process technology Global Foundries. The Carrizo uses graphics that AMD itself calls the third-generation GCN. In the third generation, the architecture underwent some changes - in fact, this GCN generation was used in the Tonga GPU (Radeon R9 285). Also, the integrated graphics core received 512 KB of its own L2 cache. Among other things, DirectX 12 (Level 12) support, improved performance when working with tessellation, lossless color compression, an updated ISA instruction set, CPU and GPU cache connectivity, and a high-quality scaler are announced. In Carrizo, the Radeon R7 graphics controller has 8 computing clusters, while the mobile versions of Kaveri had only six such units, that is, the Carrizo graphics core has 512 stream processors and is capable of delivering peak performance up to 819 GFLOPS. Carrizo has three built-in display controllers and supports up to 4K resolution. The sixth generation of the A-series is also the first laptop solution to support HEVC hardware decoding, HSA 1.0 heterogeneous system architecture and ARM TrustZone technology. The manufacturer emphasized the support of the new processors for the functionality of the released H.265 / HEVC hardware decoder in the new AMD Carrizo processors, which allows not only smoother playback of high-definition video, but also provides many times longer battery life. operating room Windows systems 10, including DirectX 12 graphics optimization. AMD 6th Gen notebook processors use discrete graphics grade GPUs, and the Graphics Core Next (GCN) architecture delivers up to 2x the performance of the competition. Thanks to this, the user is able to play the most popular online games in HD resolution on a laptop, including: DoTA 2, League of Legends and Counter Strike: Global Offensive. In other games, the increase in fps in comparison with Kaveri will be from 30 to 40% / We also note that AMD Dual Graphics technology allows the use of 6th generation processors for laptops and graphics cards AMD Radeon R7 Mobile, which makes it possible to increase the frame rate up to 42%, and proprietary AMD FreeSync technology ensures high smoothness of the gameplay. Note that the processor supports multi-threaded APIs, including DirectX 12, Vulkan and Mantle, allowing you to use advanced gaming technologies aimed at improving performance and image quality. The AMD Radeon Rx integrated graphics lineup starts with the AMD Radeon R7 Mobile integrated graphics and is the highest performing graphics adapter in the lineup. AMD Radeon R7(Carrizo) is an integrated video card in the Carrizo APU, at the time of announcement (mid-2015) used in the AMD FX-8800P SoC with 512 GCN shaders and a frequency of 800 MHz. Depending on the TDP configuration (12-35 W) and the RAM used (up to DDR3-2133 in dual channel mode), performance can vary significantly. Next comes AMD Radeon R6(Carrizo) is a low-end integrated graphics card announced in mid-2015. It is designed for APU Carrizo, for example, AMD A10-8700P or A8-8600P, and has 384 GCN shaders and 720 respectively. The graphics offer two configurations, differing in TPD (12 to 35 W) and the type of memory used (up to DDR3-2133 in dual channel mode). Next graphics accelerator Closes the ruler Radeon R5(Carrizo), which is built into some processors, such as the AMD A6-8500P. Its performance is barely enough even for the most undemanding games of 2 years ago (Tomb Raider, Dead Space 3, BioShock Infinite) at minimum settings in games like Crysis 3 or Battlefield 4, this video accelerator produces a maximum of 10-20 frames per second. Integrated graphics Radeon R5(Carrizo) has in its arsenal 256 shader processors (4 GCN modules) operating at 800 MHz. As for the integrated graphics Radeon R4 \ R3 \ R2, its capabilities will be enough at best for games 4-5 years ago.

Specifications

AMD Radeon Rx
Manufacturer
AMD
Architecture
Carrizo
Name
AMD Radeon R7		AMD Radeon R6		AMD Radeon R5
Shader processors
512		384		256		128 (Carrizo-L)
Core clock speed
800 (Boost) MHz				850 (Boost) MHz
Memory bus width
64 \ 128 Bit						64 Bit
Memory type
no video memory of its own
DirectX
DirectX 12
Technology
28 nm

Synthetic tests

First, let's see the performance of the built-in graph in a synthetic test. 3DMark (2013)- Fire Strike Standard Score at 1920x1080 pixels.

Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200- (Core i7 5950HQ)

Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5100- (Core i5 4158U)

Kaveri AMD Radeon R5- (AMD A8-7200P)

Kaveri AMD Radeon R4- (AMD A6 Pro-7050B)

In the synthetic benchmark 3D Mark Fire Strike, as you would expect, the built-in AMD graphics lags slightly behind Intel's graphics solutions. Both in the segment of high-performance solutions and among budget video cards. If everything is clear with synthetic tests, it will still be interesting to see how the integrated graphics behave in real gaming applications. In our opinion, it makes no sense to focus on the performance of the integrated graphics of processors such as Core i7 4750HQ and the like, which are intended for enthusiasts and gamers. In 99% of cases, the laptop will have a more efficient discrete 3D card. We also note that "heavy" graphics settings reveal a number of games where the potential of even such graphics as Iris Pro Graphics will be clearly insufficient. Acceptable performance in the coveted Full HD resolution will only be achieved by reducing the quality of the graphics to a minimum, at best, to an average level.

Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare- has been developed over the course of three years, taking into account all the capabilities of the new generation gaming systems. The updated approach to game creation will allow for new tactics. Advanced military technologies and a unique exoskeleton will help you survive where an ordinary soldier won't last even five minutes! Plus, there's a gripping storyline and new characters, one of whom is Oscar-winning Kevin Spacey. The game engine for Call of Duty Advanced Warfare is a proprietary product developed by Sledgehammer Games. There is practically no information on the network about the structure and development of this engine. Most likely, the engine is a further development of the product line for games based on the proprietary intellectual property of the Sledgehammer Games studio.

720p (HD) Low

720p (HD) Normal

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M + (Core i7 4720HQ)

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M + (Core i7 4720HQ)

Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200- (Core i7 4750HQ)

Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200- (Core i7 4750HQ)

Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6100- (Core i5 5257U)

Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6100- (Core i5 5257U)

Intel HD Graphics 530- (Core i7 6700HQ)

Intel HD Graphics 530- (Core i7 6700HQ)

Intel HD Graphics 5600- (Core i7 5700HQ)

Intel HD Graphics 5600- (Core i7 5700HQ)

Intel HD Graphics 5500- (Core i5 5300U)

Intel HD Graphics 5500- (Core i5 5300U)

Intel HD Graphics 4600- (Core i5 4210M)

Intel HD Graphics 4600- (Core i5 4210M)

Intel HD Graphics 4400- (Core i7 4500U)

Intel HD Graphics 4400- (Core i7 4500U)

AMD Radeon R9 M370X + (Core i7 4870HQ)

AMD Radeon R9 M370X + (Core i7 4870HQ)

Carrizo AMD Radeon R7- (AMD FX-8800P)

Carrizo AMD Radeon R7- (AMD FX-8800P)

Kaveri AMD Radeon R7- (AMD FX-7600P)

Kaveri AMD Radeon R7- (AMD FX-7600P)

Carrizo AMD Radeon R6- (AMD A10-8700P)

Carrizo AMD Radeon R6- (AMD A10-8700P)

Kaveri AMD Radeon R6- (AMD A10-7400P)

Kaveri AMD Radeon R6- (AMD A10-7400P)

Carrizo AMD Radeon R5- (AMD A6-8500P)

Metro last light(Russian Metro: Ray of Hope) is a computer game in the first-person shooter genre, the sequel to Metro 2033. The sequel was developed on three main guiding principles: the first is to preserve the atmosphere of horror of the first part, the second is to diversify the set of weapons, the third is to improve technologies Metro 2033. Developers from 4A Games also took into account some wishes of the players and promised this time to fix some bugs, tweak artificial intelligence and stealth elements. The authors of "Metro: Last Light" decided not to take the events of the second book by Dmitry Glukhovsky as a basis for the plot. Instead, the game is a direct sequel to the first installment with a rich, linear storyline. The main character of "Metro: Last Light" again becomes Artyom, who this time has to prevent a civil war between the inhabitants of the Moscow metro. Metro Last Light was developed with modified version 4A Engine that was used in Metro2033. Among the improvements, more advanced AI and optimization of the graphics engine should be noted. Thanks to the use of PhysX, the engine has received many features, for example, destructible environments, simulation of bends on clothes, waves on water and other elements that are completely influenced by the environment. Metro Last Light is currently one of the most technological products of our time, even though the game was released not only for personal computers but also for the current generation of game consoles.

720p (HD) Low (DX10)

720p (HD) Medium, (DX10) 4xAF

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M + (Core i7 4720HQ)

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M + (Core i7 4720HQ)

Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200- (Core i7 4750HQ)

Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200- (Core i7 4750HQ)

Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6100- (Core i5 5257U)

Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6100- (Core i5 5257U)

Intel HD Graphics 530- (Core i7 6700HQ)

Intel HD Graphics 530- (Core i7 6700HQ)

Intel HD Graphics 5600- (Core i7 5700HQ)

Intel HD Graphics 5600- (Core i7 5700HQ)

Intel HD Graphics 5500- (Core i5 5300U)

Intel HD Graphics 5500- (Core i5 5300U)

Intel HD Graphics 4600- (Core i5 4210M)

Intel HD Graphics 4600- (Core i5 4210M)

Intel HD Graphics 4400- (Core i7 4500U)

Intel HD Graphics 4400- (Core i7 4500U)

AMD Radeon R9 M370X + (Core i7 4870HQ)

AMD Radeon R9 M370X + (Core i7 4870HQ)

Carrizo AMD Radeon R7- (AMD FX-8800P)

Carrizo AMD Radeon R7- (AMD FX-8800P)

Kaveri AMD Radeon R7- (AMD FX-7600P)

Kaveri AMD Radeon R7- (AMD FX-7600P)

Carrizo AMD Radeon R6- (AMD A10-8700P)

Carrizo AMD Radeon R6- (AMD A10-8700P)