Geeks for your information
AMD vs Intel Integrated Graphics: Can't We Go Any Faster? - Printable Version

+- Geeks for your information (https://www.geeks.fyi)
+-- Forum: News (https://www.geeks.fyi/forumdisplay.php?fid=105)
+--- Forum: Hardware News (https://www.geeks.fyi/forumdisplay.php?fid=38)
+--- Thread: AMD vs Intel Integrated Graphics: Can't We Go Any Faster? (/showthread.php?tid=11724)



AMD vs Intel Integrated Graphics: Can't We Go Any Faster? - harlan4096 - 07 June 20

Quote:
[Image: 27bUVmvXcubTE4WNYfAeuE-970-80.jpg]

Integrated graphics tested: ubiquitous and oh-so-slow!

Who makes the best integrated graphics solution, AMD or Intel? The answer is simple right now if you check our GPU hierarchy: AMD wins, easily, at least on the desktop. Current Ryzen APUs with Vega 11 Graphics are about 2.5 times faster than Intel's UHD Graphics 630. Of course, even the fastest integrated solutions pale in comparison to a dedicated GPU, and they're not on our list of the best graphics cards for a good reason. However, a lot of changes are coming this year, sooner than later. Judging by all the leaks, AMD’s Renoir desktop APUs should show up very soon. Meanwhile, AMD's RNDA 2 architecture is coming (and should eventually end up in an APU), and Intel's Tiger Lake with Xe Graphics should also arrive this summer. Unfortunately, as the saying goes, the more things change…

To give us a clear picture of where we are and where we've come from, specifically in regards to integrated graphics solutions, we've run updated benchmarks using our standard GPU test suite—with a few modifications. We're using the same nine games (Borderlands 3, The Division 2, Far Cry 5, Final Fantasy XIV, Forza Horizon 4, Metro Exodus, Red Dead Redemption 2, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, and Strange Brigade), but we're running at 720p (no resolution scaling) and minimum fidelity settings.

Some of these games are still relatively demanding, even at 720p, but all have been available for at least six months, so there's been plenty of time to fix any driver issues—assuming they could be fixed. We intend to see if the games work at all, and what sort of performance you can expect. The good news: Every game was able to run! Or, at least, they ran on current GPUs. Spoiler alert: Intel's HD 4600 and older integrated graphics don't have DX12 or Vulkan drivers, which eliminated several games from our list.

We benchmarked Intel's current desktop GPU (UHD Graphics 630) along with an older i7-4770K (HD Graphics 4600) and compared them with AMD's current competing desktop APUs (Vega 8 and Vega 11). We've also included performance from a budget dedicated GPU, the GTX 1050. We're working on getting results from Ice Lake's Gen11 Graphics as well, but that's only for mobile solutions, so it's in a different category. The GTX 1050 is by no means one of the fastest GPUs right now, though you can try picking up a used model off eBay for under $100. (Note: don't get the 'fake' China models, as they likely aren't using an actual GTX 1050 chip!) And before you ask, no, we didn't have a previous-gen AMD A10 (or earlier) APU for comparison. 

Test Hardware

Because we're looking at multiple different integrated graphics solutions, our test hardware needed three different platforms. We've used generally high-end parts, including better-than-average memory and storage, but the systems are not (and couldn't be) identical in all respects. One particular issue is that we needed motherboards with video output support on the rear IO panel, which restricted options. Here are the testbeds and specs. 

Intel UHD Graphics 630 AMD Vega 11/8 Graphics Intel HD Graphics 4600

Core i7-9700K Ryzen 5 3400G, 2400G Core i7-4770K
Gigabyte Z370 Aorus Gaming 7 Ryzen 3 3200G Gigabyte Z97X-SOC Force
2x16GB Corsair DDR4-3200 CL16 MSI MPG X570 Gaming Edge WiFi 2x8GB G.Skill DDR3-1600 CL9
XPG 8200 Pro 2TB M.22x8GB G.Skill DDR4-3200 CL14 Samsung 860 Pro 1TB
                                             Corsair MP600 2TB M.2


We equipped the AMD Ryzen platform with 2x8GB DDR4-3200 CL14 memory because our normal 2x16GB CL16 kit proved troublesome for some reason. It shouldn't matter much, as none of the tests benefit from large amounts of RAM (preferring throughput instead), and the tighter timings may even give a very slight boost to performance. The older HD 4600 setup used the only compatible motherboard I still have around, and the only DDR3 kit as well—but both were previously high-end options. The storage also varied based on what was available (and I didn't want to reuse the same drive, as that would entail wiping it between system tests). It shouldn’t be a factor for these gaming and graphics tests, though. 

Performance of AMD vs Intel Integrated Graphics Let's get cut straight to the heart of the matter. If you want to run modern games at modest settings like 1080p medium, none of these integrated graphics solutions will suffice—at least, not across all games. At 1080p and medium settings, AMD's Vega 11 in the 3400G averaged 27 fps across the nine games, with only two games (Forza Horizon 4 and Strange Brigade) breaking the 30 fps mark—and Metro Exodus failed to hit 20 fps.

1080p medium actually looks quite decent, not far off what you'd get from an Xbox One or PlayStation 4 (though not the newer One X or PS4 Pro). Dropping the resolution or tuning the quality should make most other games playable, but we opted to do both, running at 1280x720 and minimum quality settings. We've also tested 3DMark Fire Strike and Time Spy for synthetic graphics performance.
...
Continue Reading