New Intel HD graphics

I was wondering about this but looks like Intel is going to use Intel HD graphics again on there new model but is this Intel HD alot better than my current Intel HD that I have for my Sony notebook that I got around thanksgiving last year in 2010? If the Intel HD that will be used in the new i3, i5, i7 is different or better what will be the difference? Is it alot better or just little better?

 

about 2X times faster than current Intel HD, equivalent to mobility HD5450

 

So the features the new Intel HD has is the same as mine but just that it's 2X times faster?

 

That, and it can encode video faster and better than anything else around, it seems. Also, it actually seems to be a bit more than twice as fast.

 

Will you see a noticeable difference in games like if I played Crysis? Will the FPS be alot better than around 22? Mine is currently around 22 FPS when playing Crysis on low setting.

 

Well, it's faster, so it should be better... Maybe around 30?

 

lmfao.

You're getting 22 FPS on intel HD in Crysis?

Allow me to laugh .

 

i 5450 is supposed to be able to play crysis at low fluently 30-35fps so i guess the new intel hd will

 

i was just gonna comment on the same thing.
you probably have a discrete gpu to run crysis at 22fps at any acceptable res and quality settings.

 

he is saying 22 is the highest peak I suppose? with average of 5, lol.

 

The expectations for the new HD3000 included on the Sandy Bridge is HIGLY EXAGGERATED. It's not amazing, it's not even fast as a discrete $50 card. The HD5450 is still A LOT BETTER.

The HD2000/3000 on the desktop Sandy Bridge is not impressive. Nevermind what it may be on the mobile.

The Sandy Bridge Review: Intel Core i7-2600K, i5-2500K and Core i3-2100 Tested - AnandTech :: Your Source for Hardware Analysis and News

I don't think anyone wants to play games at 1024*768 on the lowest settings.

 

the false information ratio on this forum is pretty high.....

 

Highest FPS for Crysis it goes is around 30 or 31. But normaly it's around 22. This is for my current Intel HD though not the new one.

 

But eatherway it looks like it's not going to be that much better when compairing the new Intel HD and the one I have now. When you guys said it was 2X times faster or so I thought it was alot better.

 

are you playing at 16 pixels by 9 pixels or something?

 

Lowest settings @ 320x240... Welcome to original Doom!

 

Maybe he plays the same way they "played" on iPad? Record a video then play it full screen. Would explain the fps ^^

 

Review Intel HD Graphics 3000 graphics solution - Notebookcheck.net Reviews

check this out.

The full blown intel HD on the quad cores gets 5kish on 3dmark06...my 260m gets 11500 overclocked....not very good? seriously? That is awesome for a freakin on-die gpu. 5kish? really? That can play like almost all games. A few year old games really well.

-notebookcheck.net

EDIT: The ivy bridge is going to be "2x" faster than this....thats like my GTX260m....i am soo buying my gf (will be wife by then) a laptop!


I say their estimate of being 2x faster was underestimated!


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

EDIT: As you can see it is almost as fast as the 330m. Also it was stated that it seemed to perform lower in some games due to flaky drivers. So it's possible that with some newer drivers the performance of the on-die gpu will increase to maybe 330 lvl.

 

loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool

you sir are a genius

 

It's a significant improvement over the previous Intel IGP, the replies are a bit off due to the Crysis claim of 22fps on old Intel IGP (assuming low details and or low resolution). The main points are:

1 - its a good performance jump, gaming should significantly improve but you'd still be better off getting a discrete gpu such as ATI 5650 or NVIDIA 425 if you want performance.
2 - reviews also state that when Intel IGP is used the CPU performance can take a hit - this is because the CPU and GPU are sharing same resources, but worth taking into account.

If you want better casual gaming performance the sandy bridge IGP may bring it, but if you don't mind a potential battery life hit and price increase a discrete GPU will last you a bit longer.

 

Right now it is a disappointment. Unless they fix drivers it can't reliably replace an HD5470.

 

i wouldn't say a disappointment. Just needs a drivers update. Otherwise its pretty good. unless your a hard core gamer ^^

 

Considering that the main reason most people get a laptop with only integrated graphics is to save money, I'd say that the performance is more than adequate. What were you guys expecting? An integrated 5770? It's definitely impressive.

 

I agree with you but only until its 2x faster than previous Intel HD. Sorry to break the bubble, firstly nobody plays 3DMark. And also 3DMark score is highly dependent on CPU speed that is why it get those scores with fast SandyBridge CPUs.

Its not apples-to-apples comparison unless its run on same platform. In 3DMark yes it comes close to GT330M because CPU scores comes into play, in real games it wont even close

 

The 3dmark vantage score is ~1500 compared to ~2000 so yea its like 75% of a 330m but that still is awesome for an IGP. Plus that will probably improve as they fix the drivers.

 

When I play Crysis I have everything on low and res on 1024x768. I can't go anything higher on the res since I only have a 15.5 inch screen on my Sony notebook.

 

Eatherway it seems like since the drivers aren't that good the new Intel HD isn't better than what I have right now. But I bet that around the end of this year it would be probley better than what I have when the drivers are updated. Kinda like the Intel HD I have at first when it came out the drivers weren't good so it could not play Doom 3 or Quake 4 well but today it plays those games at 40 FPS and some areas it even goes upto 60 FPS on the ultra settings and res at 1024x768.

 

ummmm its far better than the GMA HD but it still needs a driver update but that'll come. We will see that the intel on-die GPU will become very powerful end of this year when ivy bridge comes out. That will show the death of lowend discrete cards for good.

 

Stop with these BS benchmarks that don't tell us anything. 3dmark 06? Just stop it. Those benchmarks are "fun" but meaningless if we want actually useful information. Compare the framerates of Intel HD graphics to discrete cards in modern games at high settings and using the same processors to show you just how much Intel HD graphics suck. Of course running 3dmark will make any graphics card seem good if the rest of the system is alright.

 

That simply isn't true. 3DMark06 is accurate for games that are 2-3 years old or older. It may not be quite as accurate for the newest titles, but it would be a fair indicator for how well the new Intel HD would run Crysis due to its age.

I would bet money that the new Intel HD will run Crysis on med settings at native resolution (1366x768) just fine (22+ FPS). Crysis scales incredibly well. It causes beast desktops to choke on the highest settings, but it scales down to laptops well. My old Asus UL80VT Nvidia 310m scored 3600 on 3Dmark06, and it could run Crysis well at native resolution with a mix of med-low settings.

As for running newer titles, it will probably be 2/3's that of a 330m, maybe 3/4's once better drivers come out. But those are just guesses. I'd love to see some benchmarks. I'm sure many new games will be playable at med settings at native resolution.

EDIT: Here's a link to Notebook Review's benchmarks. Medium settings got: 24.8 FPS on average. 32 on Low in Black Ops. Starcraft 2 on the other hand sucked it up on Medium settings at only 22 FPS. I think that SC2 should improve with better drivers. It seems really low. http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-3000.37948.0.html

 

Come again???

 

No way. We are trying to isolate the performance of the Intel HD graphics. No version of 3dmark can do this. Not 2001, not Vantage, and not anything in between. All the 3dmark benchmarks severely overstate the performance of any weak card because they are so dependent on the CPU. And because the new Intel HD graphics are all paired with very capable processors, probably significantly more powerful than the ones being used with the other mid-low discrete graphics when running 3dmark, the score is out of whack with reality. So you really have to remember that 3dmark is not a graphics card benchmark, but a whole system benchmark, and even then the numbers it spits out does not really translate to anything else.

The only apples to apples comparison you can make is by recording the framerates you get on one laptop with Intel HD graphics, and another laptop with similar specs but with another graphics card.

 

You sound like a huge graphics snob. Cheap and gaming don't go together. Deal with it, and quit whining that an IGP that doesn't promise bleeding edge performance doesn't give bleeding edge performance. It's an IGP. Compare it to other IGPs, and consider the fact that IT DOES NOT ADD COST TO THE NOTEBOOK. What, are you going to ask for the GTS 450 to be compared to the GTX 580 next?

 

I meant to say "with integrated graphics". lol *edits*

 

3Dmark06 scores do vary with the CPU, it is FAR more reliant on the GPU for the primary score, and the CPU's used in those tests were not grossly more powerful or weaker than the other CPUs. The difference in score that the different CPUs produced isn't enough to disqualify it's 5500 score. I'd say that the GPU accouts for 2/3's of the score, while the CPU accounts for 1/3 of it.

 

That's not what I'm talking about at all. If you can play Crysis at full settings and 1080p with the new Intel HD then great, I don't care. But people coming in here and saying how amazing it is and how it is better than, as good as, or close to low-mid discrete graphics cards based on 3dmark 06 scores is just complete bologna and out of touch with reality.

It is unfortunately a lot more complicated than that. There is no way to remove the cpu component from the score, or in other words to normalize scores independent of cpu. 3dmark 06 came out in 2005, and the current Intel HD graphics are a little more powerful (at most things), and can do a lot more things than any graphics card of that time. CPU's are miles ahead. Mad Onion, or whatever they call themselves now kept producing new versions of 3dmark as time went on to actually be able to keep their benchmarks somewhat apace of reality. 3dmark 06 when it came out brand new was actually good at showing the relative performance of gpu's. Nowadays though it is completely bogus. I am completely positive that if you actually run a meaningful comparison between Intel HD and discrete cards, the Intel HD will not fare nearly as well as it does in 3dmark 06.

 

Then why are you talking about high settings? Do you really think that the 310M and 5450 are meant for playing at high settings?

 

No one said anything about running Crysis with full settings at 1080p. People are coming in here and saying it's amazing because it is amazingly better than previous integrated cards, and it is! It is as powerful as low-mid discrete cards. Look at the benchmarks. It performs at/near 9600m GT, and faster than the 320m, and better than 5470 in at least once benchmark I saw.

 

I highly doubt that the new Intel HD will run equally to my old desktop ATI Radeon HD 3850 discrete graphics card (similar performance to a HD 4670, 9600GT, etc.) even if it's an older card. I know Intel has improved their Intel HD graphics, but I don't think enough to play demanding games like Crysis, smoothly on medium settings.

At a native resolution of 1366x768, I get an average of 22 FPS in Crysis on medium settings. FPS will drop around 9-14 in battle scenes and max out at around 28-31 in less demanding scenes.

I'll wait on the new HD Intel graphic tests and see the real results.

 

I'm not talking about settings. That was a hypothetical scenario followed by a "I don't care" to show that I was not talking about settings or absolute performance of the Intel HD. I'm talking only about its relative performance in comparison with other graphics chips.

I agree that the performance is leaps and bounds ahead of what it was before. But it was so crappy that it still remains, well, kind of crap. I have found some benchmarks where the Intel HD 3000 is supposedly tested, but I can't find anything decent where graphics performance is isolated from the system. I'm still waiting for some balanced gaming benchmarks to come out.

 

Here's a review of it. I'm pretty sure it performs pretty close if not better than a 3850 would.

Review Intel HD Graphics 3000 graphics solution - Notebookcheck.net Reviews

The simple fact is that most modern games don't utilize the CPU 100%. CPUs are almost never maxed out in the majority of 3D gaming done these days, so CPUs have a minimal effect on most games benchmarks. Here's the same link as above with a bunch of benchmarks confirming that it is indeed roughly equal to a 5470m and slightly less powerful than a 420m.

Review Intel HD Graphics 3000 graphics solution - Notebookcheck.net Reviews

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-3000.37948.0.html

 

So, in other words, you feel that 3DMark is BS and gaming tests are being carried largely by the CPU. So, say, in AnandTech's tests, you think that the quad-core CPU is greatly affecting the performance and that a dual core CPU with the same graphics core would cause a significant performance drop? I guess that's reasonable, but that's assuming that the CPU is the main bottleneck, which is rarely the case...

Also, keep in mind that isolating the graphics is next to impossible in the case of laptops.

 

well said and +rep

 

Yeah on lowest settings and something like 800x600 fps. The mods closed his last thread about playing Crysis on his Intel HD because they didn't fully believe it either.

Edit: this thread: http://forum.notebookreview.com/gaming-software-graphics-cards/535769-intel-graphics-9.html

 

I have my Crysis game res set to 1024x768 and with everything on low settings. There is no lowest or lower. There is only low so that's what I set it to. As I said normaly I get around 20-22 FPS and some areas around 30 FPS.

I just wondered how much better will Crysis play on the new Intel HD graphics. I first thought it was going to be soo much better but it seems like maybe it's not that good as I thought it was.

Also I guess I have to think off it actualy since it's only been one year from the Intel HD I have so it can't be night a day difference you know.

 

as i said earlier the HD 3000 is more than 2x faster than the fastest GMA HD