Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [TPU] Core i5-3570K Graphics 67% Faster Than Core i5-2500K, 36% Slower Than GeForce GT 240
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[TPU] Core i5-3570K Graphics 67% Faster Than Core i5-2500K, 36% Slower Than GeForce GT 240 - Page 10

post #91 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kand View Post

Yes, but you're comparing a Desktop APU. Show me a laptop APU. The 6550D an A8-3800 is not equivalent to the 6620G in the A8-3500M.

This is a thread about desktop integrated graphics! But since you bring it up, the only difference between 6550D and 6620G is the core clock - 6550D at 600mhz, 6620G at 400mhz. Also note, you can OC Llano APU's CPU and integrated graphics. You can't OC any Intel mobile Core i parts (exception being the ~$1000 EE's). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_Fusion

To be fair, Intel's integrated graphics are clocked much closer between mobile and desktop. But still, you can close at least half of Llano mobile's gap with OC, for one. For 2, 6620G is about 40% faster than mobile HD 3000, and Trinity will minimally bring a 30% performance gain (die shrink + GCN). So maybe Llano mobile will be slower than HD 4000, but Trinity mobile definitely won't. And I won't even start with image quality (lucky you, I can't find the review!)

These benches are a bit meh, but for completeness: http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-3000.37948.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Radeon-HD-6620G.54675.0.html
Edited by jrbroad77 - 2/21/12 at 6:48pm
 
Lanbox Lite
(16 items)
 
 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
i3-2310M Intel HD 3000 8GB DDR3 Samsung 830 64GB SSD 
Hard DriveOSMonitorCase
640GB Hitachi HDD Windows 7 13.3" LCD Magnesium Alloy, 3.2lbs 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom II X4 955 BE Gigabyte GA-MA78GPM-UD2H MSI Hawk R5770 3x2GB G.Skill DDR2 800 4-4-4-12 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
1TB Samsung Spinpoint F3 250 GB WD Caviar Black Samsung 20X DVD-R/RW Thermaltake MaxOrb 
CoolingOSMonitorPower
Noctua NF-B9-1600 Windows 7 Pro 64-bit BenQ E2420HD, 24" 1920x1080 TT Purepower 500W 
Case
TT Lanbox Lite 
  hide details  
Reply
 
Lanbox Lite
(16 items)
 
 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
i3-2310M Intel HD 3000 8GB DDR3 Samsung 830 64GB SSD 
Hard DriveOSMonitorCase
640GB Hitachi HDD Windows 7 13.3" LCD Magnesium Alloy, 3.2lbs 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom II X4 955 BE Gigabyte GA-MA78GPM-UD2H MSI Hawk R5770 3x2GB G.Skill DDR2 800 4-4-4-12 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
1TB Samsung Spinpoint F3 250 GB WD Caviar Black Samsung 20X DVD-R/RW Thermaltake MaxOrb 
CoolingOSMonitorPower
Noctua NF-B9-1600 Windows 7 Pro 64-bit BenQ E2420HD, 24" 1920x1080 TT Purepower 500W 
Case
TT Lanbox Lite 
  hide details  
Reply
post #92 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asterox View Post

Intel CPU with integrated graphics core, you can t call the APU because it is not the same thing as AMD APU it is very different concept AMD APU = Horse/Intel CPU+GPU+bad GPU drivers it is not APU it is Unbalanced Donkey. It will definitely be evident in third-generation AMD APU called Kaveri, who will come to market in 2013 raw GPU power is not the most crucial but something else is.wink.gifcoolsmiley03.png

*sigh* Most CPU chips are good for general purposes so long as you give them 4 gigs of ram. Intel graphics on the atom can actually slow down desktop performance. And actually, the CPU in the Llano is not something to be scoffed at. For general usage, it's perfectly fine and even dare I say it, actually really good. GPUs are the really main factor for gaming. To be blunt basically all of bleeding edge games don't care.

700
post #93 of 119
I know there are exceptions, but honestly caring about an the integrated graphics performance on an enthusiast cpu is like talking about a Ferrari having cruise control.

Said best on the first page:
Quote:
Originally Posted by reflex99 View Post

turd polishing competition?

It's better, but it's still crap.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-2500K Biostar TP67B+ XFX HD5750 1GB 2x4GB DDR3 Corsair 1600 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
60GB OCZ SSD, 2x160GB HDD RAID0, 500GB+500GB+1.5TB Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Samsung SyncMaster 930B Antec SmartPower 450w 
Case
Antec 900 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-2500K Biostar TP67B+ XFX HD5750 1GB 2x4GB DDR3 Corsair 1600 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
60GB OCZ SSD, 2x160GB HDD RAID0, 500GB+500GB+1.5TB Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Samsung SyncMaster 930B Antec SmartPower 450w 
Case
Antec 900 
  hide details  
Reply
post #94 of 119
i dont believe its that much faster that intel cud have made this much progress in a year if thats true then AMD must be down in hell or something
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5 2500k ASRock Z68 Extreme3 GEN3 MSI HAWK GTX560ti G.Skill Ripjaws 8gb 9-9-9-24 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Intel 320 Series 80gb Western Digital Caviar Blue 640gb TSSTcorp CDDVDW TS-H653R CoolerMaster Hyper212+ 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Samsung SyncMaster2233 Stock HP Seasonic x660 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Corsair Carbide 400r stock hp my desk :) on board (good enough dont know y people need s... 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5 2500k ASRock Z68 Extreme3 GEN3 MSI HAWK GTX560ti G.Skill Ripjaws 8gb 9-9-9-24 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Intel 320 Series 80gb Western Digital Caviar Blue 640gb TSSTcorp CDDVDW TS-H653R CoolerMaster Hyper212+ 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Samsung SyncMaster2233 Stock HP Seasonic x660 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Corsair Carbide 400r stock hp my desk :) on board (good enough dont know y people need s... 
  hide details  
Reply
post #95 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by guyladouche View Post

I know there are exceptions, but honestly caring about an the integrated graphics performance on an enthusiast cpu is like talking about a Ferrari having cruise control.
Said best on the first page:
It's better, but it's still crap.

Aren't you missing the point? I may be way off, but won't HD4000 graphics make its way into lower end, lower power CPUs as well?
post #96 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foolsmasher View Post

Aren't you missing the point? I may be way off, but won't HD4000 graphics make its way into lower end, lower power CPUs as well?

I'm sure it will trickle down, but looking at the current lineup and what's been done, i3-2100 vs i5-2500k is HD2k vs HD3k. It will be interesting if Intel does integrate HD4k into the lower-end CPU's immediately. But if it's not immediately, it's a little irrelevant.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-2500K Biostar TP67B+ XFX HD5750 1GB 2x4GB DDR3 Corsair 1600 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
60GB OCZ SSD, 2x160GB HDD RAID0, 500GB+500GB+1.5TB Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Samsung SyncMaster 930B Antec SmartPower 450w 
Case
Antec 900 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-2500K Biostar TP67B+ XFX HD5750 1GB 2x4GB DDR3 Corsair 1600 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
60GB OCZ SSD, 2x160GB HDD RAID0, 500GB+500GB+1.5TB Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Samsung SyncMaster 930B Antec SmartPower 450w 
Case
Antec 900 
  hide details  
Reply
post #97 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foolsmasher View Post

Aren't you missing the point? I may be way off, but won't HD4000 graphics make its way into lower end, lower power CPUs as well?

This is Intel. Looks like HD 4000 will mostly be in higher-end CPUs, although there are a couple (more expensive) i3's that will have HD 4000. Now to me, I'd think, hey, low-power/crappy dual-core, give it the darn HD 4000! So it'll be another case of $130-150 dual-cores if you want HD 4000, at which point... hey, Trinity isn't looking too bad. http://www.techspot.com/news/47463-desktop-core-i3-ivy-bridge-cpus-leaked-ahead-of-launch.html
 
Lanbox Lite
(16 items)
 
 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
i3-2310M Intel HD 3000 8GB DDR3 Samsung 830 64GB SSD 
Hard DriveOSMonitorCase
640GB Hitachi HDD Windows 7 13.3" LCD Magnesium Alloy, 3.2lbs 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom II X4 955 BE Gigabyte GA-MA78GPM-UD2H MSI Hawk R5770 3x2GB G.Skill DDR2 800 4-4-4-12 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
1TB Samsung Spinpoint F3 250 GB WD Caviar Black Samsung 20X DVD-R/RW Thermaltake MaxOrb 
CoolingOSMonitorPower
Noctua NF-B9-1600 Windows 7 Pro 64-bit BenQ E2420HD, 24" 1920x1080 TT Purepower 500W 
Case
TT Lanbox Lite 
  hide details  
Reply
 
Lanbox Lite
(16 items)
 
 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
i3-2310M Intel HD 3000 8GB DDR3 Samsung 830 64GB SSD 
Hard DriveOSMonitorCase
640GB Hitachi HDD Windows 7 13.3" LCD Magnesium Alloy, 3.2lbs 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Phenom II X4 955 BE Gigabyte GA-MA78GPM-UD2H MSI Hawk R5770 3x2GB G.Skill DDR2 800 4-4-4-12 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
1TB Samsung Spinpoint F3 250 GB WD Caviar Black Samsung 20X DVD-R/RW Thermaltake MaxOrb 
CoolingOSMonitorPower
Noctua NF-B9-1600 Windows 7 Pro 64-bit BenQ E2420HD, 24" 1920x1080 TT Purepower 500W 
Case
TT Lanbox Lite 
  hide details  
Reply
post #98 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by reflex99 View Post

turd polishing competition?

lachen.gif
post #99 of 119
this is a big step. Now intel IGPs can basically run console ports at settings equal to console settings with at least 30FPS. To me thats a big step.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 2500K @ 4.5 GA-P67A-UD3-B3 EVGA 570 8GB Gskill 1600mhz 
Hard DrivePower
1.5TB CORSAIR 850TX 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 2500K @ 4.5 GA-P67A-UD3-B3 EVGA 570 8GB Gskill 1600mhz 
Hard DrivePower
1.5TB CORSAIR 850TX 
  hide details  
Reply
post #100 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrbroad77 View Post

500
Clearly the settings aren't 100% head-to-head, but I think this is fair enough. HD 4000 is ~30% faster than HD 3000 in SC2, while AMD A8-3850's 6550D graphics is about 75% faster than HD 3000. And just down the line, low res (which was supposed to be CPU dependant!) to 1680x1050, Llano dominating. Who thought Trinity graphics might be slower than HD4k? Newsflash: HD 4000 is slower than Llano, or at best tied.
GG Intel. Still good for QuickSync, I suppose.
edit: Forgot the link: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4476/amd-a83850-review/5

I just disagree with using different tests in this case,
focus on the GT 240, if you go with Anand numbers, and compare relatively to the HD 3000 on the other test, the GT 240 from expreview would be slower than the GT220 on Anand's graphic, which is impossible, even if you are comparing GT 240 ddr3 vs ddr5,
so... they are probably testing different scenes on the game with different settings, and maybe Intel have worked on their drivers since (as far as I know a new one was released at a later date than the Anand test and it brings some nice gains in SC2), but obviously AMD have a much faster GPU, ,

152b.png
Current PC
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 3GHz OEM Pegatron h61 HD 5850 @ 925MHz 8GB 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Samsung 1tb C2D e6300 Intel HSF Win10 HP 19" 
KeyboardMouseAudio
generic AT with PS/2 adapter wheel mouse optical 1.1 alc 662 
  hide details  
Reply
Current PC
(11 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 3GHz OEM Pegatron h61 HD 5850 @ 925MHz 8GB 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Samsung 1tb C2D e6300 Intel HSF Win10 HP 19" 
KeyboardMouseAudio
generic AT with PS/2 adapter wheel mouse optical 1.1 alc 662 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [TPU] Core i5-3570K Graphics 67% Faster Than Core i5-2500K, 36% Slower Than GeForce GT 240