HD 4600 benching starting to show up

Ok so i was all ready to have my socks completely blown off by the HD 4600. I mean this was dubbed the end all igpu's of igpus and that it was going to rival titan...well not really but this thing was over hyped.

I know the benches are early but honestly i don't see them squeezing much more out of the HD 4600 and from what i seen the A10 5800K is still faster. Pretty far off from the monster everyone was saying this will be and spot on with what most people said what the gain over ivy would be.

So for Richland it looks like to me Intel brought a lunch box to a gun fight....Well maybe not a lunch box a small butter knife.


Now we seen how the desktop version is and honestly who cares if your rocking a i7 in a desktop you have a gpu or you just dont game so its pointless. I wanna see how the mobile version stacks ups since that's is where the igp battle is fought.


But what i really wanna see is how the HD 4600 and Trinity face off when you start to turn up the settings and res. See who takes the biggest hit since we all know Richland will win that fight. I would really like to see how the HD 4600 handles its self because i'll be honest Trinity impressed me.

 

err... the 4600 aint the top of the line, the 5200 is. can you post the links?

 

Thought it was HD 5000 that had the 'GT3' part inside?

 

http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/30633-intel-gt3-5200-5100-5000-4600-explained

" So far we are aware of a few different Haswell graphics cores. The main distinction is that the G3 is more powerful and faster, while and GT2 is smaller, less powerful and obviously more efficient.

The fastest of all of them for notebook computing is GT3 with cache memory on board that ends up with Intel HD Graphics 5200 branding. This part goes into high performance notebooks and we can imagine that this core will find its place in quad core Haswell processors.

The GT3 for Ultrabooks will end up branded as Intel HD Graphics 5200 for the faster one and Intel HD Graphics 5100 for a somewhat slower version. We don’t know the clocks or the actual specification for the 5000 series, just brands. GT3 for Ultrabooks doesn’t come with on package memory, probably due to a limited space on this dual core.

Intel GT2 HD graphics target high end notebook computers at high clocks and they end up with Intel HD Graphics 4600 branding. Intel GT2 HD graphics for Ultrabooks will end up branded as Intel HD Graphics 4400 for the faster one and Intel HD Graphics 4200 for the slowest of the GT2s for the mobile.

Intel also claims that same graphics numbering system applies across client and server products."

 

Yea, we need actual HD-5200 benches vs A10-K5800K. Until then, it's a moot point.
If I correctly remember a design picture i'd seen last month, the GT3 had twice the number of cores of GT2.

 

Why would you ever expect to be blown away by an iGPU?

 

Oh god, so Intel has decided to go all NVIDIA/AMD on us and have multiple branded products in each generation of iGPU then? Bee-rilliant!

 

Remember that 4600 is GT2. Thats the greatest they will see in desktops. The high end mobile Haswell CPUs will have GT3, which will be faster. GT2 = 20 EUs, 80 ALU shaders. GT3 = 40 EUs, 160 ALU shaders.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-4770k-haswell-performance,3461.html

 

Even if the GT3 is as fast as they are saying all they are realling doing now is playing catch up. Pretty much what AMD is doing with them on the CPU front.

Im still calling fake on their GT3 bench's. I mean it would not be the first time they did it. Im thinking around a 60% improvement over HD 3000 and it will still be about 30% slower then Richland. I mean even if they do manage to turn around and improve the performance even Kitguru went ahead and posting some stuff that if they did increase it by 100% its still slower then trinity and richland just kills the things.

AMD Richland A10 6800k Vs Haswell GT3 – graphics performance analysed | KitGuru

I would love to see GT3 with a huge gain but i just dont see it happening. I see them being slightly faster then trinity and then Richland comes out and and gives the igp crown back to AMD.


On a side not i would love to see how the pricing will going on them for systems. See if they can compete how trinity did. Lets see how close in value they can get to AMD. But for the $1,000,000.000 question. Does it run hotter then ivy?

 

My gut tells me they will be pretty close this round, Haswell vs Richland, in terms of IGP performance. GT2 saw a pretty good boost over HD4000 (Ivy), GT3 will be a lot faster than that.

From the latest leaks, it doesn`t look like Richland will be a big leap over Trinity.

10% over Trinity in 3DMark Vantage. Then again, we don`t know what contributed to that. CPU or IGP.



Then we have the Firestrike benchmark run by AMD themselves where they strangely pit it against i7 dual processors?! It scored 38% more but again, I have a strong feeling that this was the CPU that contributed to this since its a Quad core vs a Dual core, and not the IGP. Very sneaky marketing by AMD.




I too am very curious about how hot they will run and how much battery they will consume vs Ivy. Especially heat is important to me, and the Ivy temps wasn`t actually very impressive but rather a dissappointment.

 

Richland will be a 10-15% improvement over Trinity. I don't see Intel reaching Trinity performance, not gonna happen.

What would you have AMD pit it against? A10-5750m is a 35W TDP CPU, 50% the cost of the DUAL CORE i7 (A10-4600m is about $150, i7-3520m is about $250, so maybe 60%). So why not compare? Half the cost, same TDP, better performance. As far as CPU power, the A10-5750m is probably about on par with the i7-3520m. Pit an Intel CPU at the same cost, and see what the performance difference is then.

Trinity runs cool, very cool. Does not exceed 70C at max peak, at least my A10-4600m in my HP 6475b. With the bottom cover removed, it doesn't exceed 62C! Richland will likely be similar thermally unless they unlock the TDP throttling like they should, but at stock speeds it should still run cool.

 

I`m willing to bet against you here. Trinity had +20% in average over 15 games against HD4000. Sure as hell the mobile Haswell will see better than +20% over HD4000, when GT2 is 24% faster than HD4000 (tomshardware test average score over HD4000). That is GT2, mobile IGP is far faster since it have double amount of EU.
Want to bet that GT3 won`t reach Trinity performance?

Since A10-5750M is AMDs TOP Quad Core from Richland, it is obviously wrong to test it against Intel`s mid range CPUs which only have 2 cores. If this is the best AMD can come up with, then sucks for them. It even fortifies the picture that Intel is lightyears ahead of AMD. And I have a pretty good feeling that Haswell will equal GPU performance of Richland if not surpass it in a few games.

The price difference between lets say 5750M and 4700MQ is moot unless you are short on money and have a limit on how much you want to spend on a system. In that case, yes it will be better to compare against a cheaper i7 dual core. But not for the people who want the best. Then its reality: Best AMD CPU vs best Intel CPU imo. Atleast pit it against the high low end Quad cores like 3610QM.

My 3610QM runs around that temperatures too. That is my GT70 though, maybe its unfair to compare that gaming cooling system against a HP. Maybe I`m expecting too much from a CPU. I want temps around 50C for the CPU
http://i.imgur.com/iEs09.png

 

you know one interesting tid bit from toms? they said that the gt3 will appear in bga quads, there is a hope that there will be mobile quads with that them

 

Please don't make me have to prove Anandtech wrong... again. I'll gladly (but hesitantly) run my own suite of benchmarks (I have done many already) again to prove a point. From what I've done so far I've seen 50-80% improvement in general 7660G over HD4000. Not to mention you can overclock the 7660G with readily available software but need a BIOS that will OC the HD 4000. Not to mention driver updates of AMD almost weekly vs HD 4000 once or twice a year. Intel also claimed that the HD4000 would be twice the performance of the HD3000.

Edit: Interesting article on A10-4600m performance at 1080p: http://www.rage3d.com/reviews/systems/msi_gx60_gaming_notebook/

Benchmarks start here: http://www.rage3d.com/reviews/systems/msi_gx60_gaming_notebook/index.php?p=5

Too bad they didn't run at 720p/768p which is pretty much what most IGP benches are run at, just to give a fair comparison. But it can actually perform half way decent at 1080p. Guess we'll just have to wait and see what both AMD and Intel come up with. If Intel matches AMD, then the only thing AMD has going for it is price then.

 

one thing that you have to keep in mind is that the drivers when the review was made at launch have changed just a little, and they dont test multiple ram configurations. They did a piece about this once, and never tried again when they review igpus, too bad they should

I would have amd pit against a quad core OEM lvl, its simple the 3520m costs 346 per bulk, thats higher than a quad, even the 35w ones.

 

bignaz why are so invested in AMD's APUs being superior to Intel?

 

Because they are and that's a FACT. I have personally used them and i know this first hand. I also seen first hand that the HD 4000 would struggle in some games even harder if you bumped up a setting vs the HD 7660g. I mean i was against the AMD APU's until i bought one and then tested it side by side with my i7 and some of the games i played the HD 7660g completely and utterly destroyed the HD 4000.

The HD 4000 never impressed me at all. The first dual core A6 i used i was impressed. The A8 made me want the A10 and the A10 is a amazing overall chip.


I mean we know what the HD 4000 and the HD 7660g do in real life. We seen the jumps they have made from previous gens and even then why the new haswells igps will be pretty impressive there going topped by Richland. And if we do try to compare GT4 to the HD 7660g in a fair testing invro. and not with tweaked AMD or Intel drivers because i can tell you i can get the HD 7660g with some driver mods scoring pretty high in 3Dmark 11 but it dont mean anything since it visually looks like crap. Im not only hoping that GT3 not only matches the HD 7660g but surpasses it by 20% but honestly its hard for me to see that i dont care what in tell says. Then again i dont care what AMD says after the whole bulldozer.

Does intel need to deliver? Yes if not then that will slow down AMD on the APU front and we wont make any real progress. Kinda like how intel is running cpu things now. They know AMD cant catch up any time soon so haswell left me pretty unimpressed on the gains vs the ones i was expecting over ivy and i wont be upgrading my desktop.


Also ivy runs hot i have a feeling haswell will run just as hot or hotter. And trinity is pretty much the fonzz out of them and runs pretty cool from my use even in a cheap laptop like my Envy M6. Amd i would love for AMD to crank up the stock clocks.


Also as for pitting duals against quads haven't we been doing that with intels? I mean we i5's vs A10's i7's Vs A10's and FX's And dont most people say 1 intel core is abut equal to 2 AMD's? So why not? Lets get some 8 core APU's since intel has hyper threading. Were not talking about the cpu;s. Just igp's and to me the tdp means nothing just because someone cant bring out something with the same tdb does not make the lower one better on the grounds of well if it was higher it would be faster. This is like a Sat. night street race. You run what you bring.


If GT3 is as fast as they say grats on beating trinity it took you long enough to catch up and enjoy till Richland comes out. But i'm not holding my breath. I mean look at the power AMD is claiming to have put in the PS4's APU. I think they are really over hyping it but if that can do that and deliver intel is dead on this as Richland will be more impressive then we thought even if its pulling 1/2 the specs. And AMD said they would release desktop versions that were slower so even at 50% of what they say it is still going to BF GT3 hard core and AMD knows the APU fight is not a desktop fight its a mobile fight in the sub $600 range so if they can make a desktop version they can make a mobile version. But then again i think AMD on that will fall short just as GT3 will fall short.

 

You know one thing that bothers me? if the increase in performance for the richland apu is around what you guys say, it should have around the power of the 7800m series. That is way too much, a 7870m fights against the 670m.

 

You mean the 7600m series right?

 

no i actually meant the 7800m bignaz and others are so confident that the 7660g is around the 640m, that a perf increase will lead it to the 7800m range, its simple, its a 50% improvement from the 640m to the 670m

 

Oh I see what you're saying. No it may catch up to the current 7600m series, but certainly not the 7800m series. Some people tend to get overzealous with expectations of IGP's. Some people think they will make dedicated GPU's obsolete blah blah blah. It's good to have a decently powerful IGP if you want a budget gaming notebook or ability to game without the heavy power adapter or weight of a dedicated GPU. But there will be compromises. IGP inside a 35W TDP chip (that's CPU + GPU) will in no way equal a dedicated 35-45W TDP GPU. Desktops might be a bit different. Bigger die, and if they make the TDP 150W or something they could have a quad core with a fast IGP. But then you're still limited by bandwidth and RAM speed.

 

while I think they will wipe out the entry market, the mainstream one needs much more money invested, the performance is pretty abysmal

 

As long as the intel integrated Graphics allow me to watch movies and browse the web smoothly I'll be happy. Would be cool if they could squeeze out some more battery life out the as that would be much more useful then a small performance gain. For gaming I'll always have a discrete GPU and I realize not everyone has that luxury.