Integrated core. How to choose a central processing unit, and why do you need it? Option for office tasks and home use

Perhaps the key advantage of the personal computer as a platform is its impressive flexibility and customization capabilities, which today, thanks to the emergence of new standards and types of components, seem almost limitless. If ten years ago, pronouncing the abbreviation "PC", one could confidently imagine a white iron box, entangled with wires and buzzing somewhere under the table, today there are no such unambiguous associations and cannot be.

Today's PC can be a powerful workstation focused on computing performance, or a designer's workstation geared toward 2D quality and fast data handling. It could be a top-end gaming machine or a humble multimedia system that lives under the TV ...

In other words, each PC today has its own tasks, which correspond to a particular set of hardware. But how do you choose the right one?

You should start with the central processor. The graphics card will determine the performance of the system in games (and a number of work applications that use GPU computing). Motherboard - the format of the system, its functionality "out of the box" and the ability to connect components and peripherals. However, it is the processor that will determine the capabilities of the system in everyday household tasks and work.

Let's take a look at what is important when choosing a processor and what is not.

What you should NEVER pay attention to

Processor manufacturer

As is the case with video cards (yes, indeed, with many other devices), our compatriots are always happy to turn an ordinary consumer product into something that can be raised to the standards and go to war with the supporters of the opposite camp. Can you imagine a situation in which lovers of pickled cucumbers and canned tomatoes have divided the store with a barricade, cover each other with the last words and often resort to assault? Agree, it sounds like complete nonsense ... but in the field of computer components this happens all the time!

If you choose a processor for a completely new system, you should pay attention to the current sockets:

AM1 is an AMD platform designed for nettops, embedded systems and entry-level multimedia PCs. Like all APUs, it has relatively powerful integrated graphics, which is the main advantage.

AM4- AMD's universal platform for the mainstream segment. Combines desktop APUs with powerful Ryzen CPUs to build PCs for virtually any budget and user need.

TR4 is AMD's flagship platform for Threadripper processors. This is a product for professionals and enthusiasts: 16 physical cores, 32 threads of computing, a four-channel memory controller and other impressive numbers that give a serious increase in productivity in work tasks, but are practically not in demand in the home segment.

LGA 1151_v2- a socket, which in no case should be confused with the usual LGA 1151 (!!!). It is the current generation of Intel's mainstream platform, and is finally bringing processors with six physical cores to the consumer segment - and this is why it is valuable. However, be sure to keep in mind that Coffee Lake processors cannot be installed in motherboards with 200 and 100 series chipsets, and older Skylake and Kaby Lake processors cannot be installed in motherboards with 300 series chipsets.

LGA 2066 is the latest generation of Intel's platform for professionals. It can also be interesting as a platform for a gradual upgrade. Younger processors Core i3 and Core i5 practically do not differ from their counterparts for LGA 1151 of the first version and are relatively affordable, but later they can be replaced with Core i7 and Core i9.

Number of Cores

This parameter requires a lot of caveats, and it should be used with caution, but it is this parameter that allows you to more or less logically build and differentiate central processors.

Models with two computing cores and also with two physical cores and four virtual threads regardless of the clock frequency, the degree of dynamic overclocking, architectural advantages and fan mantras, today they are firmly established in the segment of office PCs, and even there - not in the most critical places. We don't have to seriously talk about using such CPUs in gaming machines, and even more so - in workstations.

Processors with four computing cores look a little more relevant, and can satisfy the needs of both office workers and not the most demanding home users. It is quite possible to build a budget gaming PC on them, although in modern titles the performance will be limited, and the simultaneous execution of several operations - for example, recording a game video - will be impossible or will lead to a noticeable drop in FPS.

The best option for home - six-core processors... They are capable of providing high performance in games, do not faint when performing several resource-intensive tasks at the same time, allow you to use a PC as a home workstation, and with all this, they keep quite an affordable cost.

Eight-core processors- the choice of those who are busy with more serious tasks than games. While they can handle entertainment without any problems, their benefits are most noticeable in work applications. If you are engaged in video processing and editing, draw complex layouts for printing, design houses or other complex structures, then these CPUs should be chosen. You will not notice the excess performance, but the fast processing and the absence of freezes at the most crucial moment will definitely delight you.

Processors with 10 and 16 cores- this is already a server segment and very specific workstations, which differ from the previous version approximately like the work of a special effects designer for a big movie from the work of a video editor on youtube (in fact, they are used there approximately). It is difficult to recommend unequivocally, or vice versa, to discourage them from buying. If you really need such performance, you already know how and where you will apply it.

Recommendation # 8: The number of cores is not the clearest parameter, and it does not always allow us to classify processors with similar characteristics to the same group. Nevertheless, when choosing a processor, you should be guided by this parameter.

Performance

The final and most important parameter, which, alas, cannot be found in any store catalog. Nevertheless, in the end, it is he who determines whether this or that processor is right for you, and how much the operation of a PC based on it will meet your initial expectations.

Before heading to the store for a processor that seems to suit you, do not be too lazy to study its detailed tests. Moreover, "detailed" are not vidos on YouTube, showing you what you should see as intended by their author. Detailed tests are a large-scale comparison of a processor in synthetic benchmarks, professional software and games, carried out according to a clear methodology with the participation of all or most of the competing solutions.

As is the case with video cards, reading and analyzing such materials will help you determine whether a particular processor is worth your money, and what, if possible, you can replace it with.

Recommendation # 9: Spending a couple of evenings reading and comparing information from different sources (it is important that they are authoritative, and highly desirable - foreign), you will make an informed choice and save yourself a lot of problems in the future. Trust me, it's more than worth it.

Criteria and options for selection:

According to the above criteria, the CPUs from the DNS directory can be distributed as follows:

Processors AMD Sempron and Athlon under socket AM1 suitable for assembling budget multimedia PCs, embedded systems and similar tasks. For example, if you want to install a full-fledged PC with a desktop operating system in the car or assemble a small nettop that will secretly live in the bowels of a country house or garage, you should pay attention to this platform.

For office PCs dual-core processors will do Intel Celeron, Pentium and Core i3... Their advantage in this case will be the presence of a built-in graphics core. The performance of the latter is sufficient to display the necessary information and speed up browsers, but it is completely insufficient for games, which should not be in the workplace anyway.

For home multimedia pc the best choice would be AMD's APUs for the current AM4 socket. Representatives of the A8, A10 and A12 lines combine a quad-core processor and quite good graphics under one cover, which can confidently compete with budget video cards. A PC based on this platform can be made very compact, but its performance is sufficient to play any content, as well as a number of work tasks and a considerable list of games.

For budget gaming PC quad-core processors will do AMD Ryzen 3 and quad-core Core i3 for socket LGA 1151_v2 ( do not confuse with dual-core Core i3 for the LGA 1151 socket !!!). The performance of these processors is sufficient for any home tasks and most games, but it is still not worth loading them with serious work or trying to perform several resource-intensive tasks at the same time.

For budget workstation compromise option could be AMD Ryzen 5 Quad-Core Processors... In addition to physical cores, they also offer virtual compute threads, which ultimately allow operations to be performed in eight threads. Of course, this is not as efficient as physical cores, but the probability of seeing 100% CPU load and a drop in FPS below playable when recording or streaming gameplay is much lower here than in the previous two options. And the subsequent editing of this video will be faster.

The best choice for home gaming pc- six-core processors AMD Ryzen 5 and Intel Core i5 for the LGA 1151_v2 socket (not to be confused with their four-core predecessors !!!). The cost of these CPUs is quite humane, they can even be called relatively affordable, in contrast to the top lines of Ryzen 7 and Core i7. But the performance is quite enough to play any games interesting to the user and work from home. And even at the same time, if there is such a desire.

For top-end gaming PCs or workstations processors will do without pretensions to being chosen and elitist AMD Ryzen 7 and Intel Core i7 having, respectively, 8 cores / 16 threads and 6 cores / 12 threads. As a mainstream platform, these processors are still relatively affordable and do not require expensive motherboards, power supplies, or coolers. However, their performance is sufficient for almost all tasks that an ordinary user can put before a PC.

If it is still not enough - for high-performance workstations processors intended AMD Ryzen Threadripper designed for installation in the TR4 socket, and top models of Intel processors for the LGA 2066 socket - Core i7 and Core i9 with 8, 10, 12 or more physical nuclei. In addition, the processors offer a four-channel memory controller, which is important for a number of professional tasks, and up to 44 PCI-express lines, allowing you to connect a lot of peripherals without losing data exchange speed. It is impossible to recommend these CPUs for home use both due to their price and due to their "sharpening" for multithreading and professional tasks. But in operation, processors for top platforms can literally outpace their desktop counterparts by several times.

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 that the memory controller and, in some cases, the PCI Express bus controller have long become a part of the central processor, 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 that can only ensure the operation of the operating system interface, but about completely full-fledged solutions that in their performance can be opposed to discrete entry-level graphics accelerators and probably surpass all those integrated video cores that were built into systems 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 integrated graphics would be of interest primarily to users of mobile computers, and for desktop CPUs only a stripped-down version of the video core was offered. The incorrectness of this approach was later demonstrated by AMD, which released Fusion processors with full-fledged graphics cores of the Radeon HD series on the desktop systems market. 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 of CPUs with integrated graphics. The company has updated its Sandy Bridge line of desktop processors by adding faster Intel HD Graphics to its desktop offerings. 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 one or another 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 at the 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, which contain the integrated HD Graphics, 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 the graphics cores of Intel processors there is a specialized Quick Sync block, 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 can only use graphics power 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 cannot 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 a CPU with an integrated GPU, we came to a more general task - comparative testing of modern processors with a cost of $ 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 the Athlon II, and the 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 related to 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 devices. 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 that are 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 be very difficult to fight with current and regularly updated Intel solutions.

A deeper understanding of the SYSmark 2012 results can provide insight into the performance estimates 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. For this purpose, popular packages from Adobe are used: 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 that AMD Fusion processors can achieve with acceptable performance are 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.

Application performance

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

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 the CD are converted to AAC format. Note that a characteristic feature of 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 above, 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 computational 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 transcodes 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 drop 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 at 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 to use, 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 12-volt power line dedicated for this purpose. 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 in idle time, and competing AMD solutions, on the contrary, consume up to 8 W. 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 computational 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 get 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.

Thus, the strong point of the AMD Fusion family of processors is the integrated graphics core with relatively high performance and compatibility with DirectX 11 and Open CL 1.1 software interfaces. Thus, these processors can be recommended for those systems where the quality and speed of 3D graphics is not of the least importance. 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 the best performance in regular non-gaming applications, you 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 the 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, which will run extremely graphically simple casual games or network role-playing games of previous 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 not manifested everywhere and, moreover, they are provided with increased heat dissipation, which will not please every computer owner 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.

Features of the new generation and what is Crystal Well

In the new generation of the processor architecture, Haswell, Intel uses several modifications of the new graphics core, codenamed GT1, GT2, GT3, GT3e. However, the code names were used only during the development period, now the names of the Intel HD Graphics HDxxxx type are used for identification. Their comparison with indices in the market is shown in the table below.

The top-end GT3e core is more or less widely used only in mobile solutions. In the desktop segment, it is presented only in BGA form factor processors, which are soldered directly to motherboards. This solution is more suitable for embedded systems and is unlikely to gain widespread acceptance in the market. Basically, the desktop segment will be content with GT1 and GT2 cores.

On the one hand, using the top version only in mobile solutions (well, BGA for desktops) looks logical: gamers and everyone who needs high graphics performance will still use discrete video cards, and those who do not need performance will have enough of any built-in solution. , including the younger series. On the other hand, there are certain categories of users who would not give up on more powerful graphics, but would not like to use an external video adapter. There are also technical issues: integrating GT3e into a desktop quad-core crystal would increase its area and heat dissipation, increase the complexity of production and the cost of the solution with unclear market prospects.

The top versions of Haswell's integrated graphics have received their own name Iris. More precisely, the GT3 core can, depending on the frequencies, be called HD5000 or Iris 5100, and GT3e - only Iris Pro 5200. That is, Iris proper names have two modifications. Let's take a look at the main technical specifications of the GT3 and GT3e.

The number of graphics cores for all three modifications of GT3 is the same and equals 40. The difference between 5000 and 5100 lies only in the maximum frequencies, but another innovation appears in GT3e (Iris Pro 5200), which we met on the very first presentation slides from Intel - a new one L4 cache / high speed buffer called Crystal Well. Unfortunately, in reality it appeared only in the top-end solution, the Iris Pro 5200. We'll come back to it, but for now let's move on to GT2 and GT1.

The GT1 core, traditionally called Intel HD, is aimed at the budget segment and is found in Intel Pentium G3xxx processors. The most common version on the market will be the GT2 version, and it will appear in both desktop and mobile Haswell processors. It also has three modifications: HD 4200, HD 4400 and HD 4600, plus two modifications in the server segment - P4600 and P4700.

Thus, in the new generation of the Core architecture, Intel has introduced only 9 modifications of the new generation graphics core. Formally, Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge had fewer of them - three each: HD3000, HD2000, Intel HD and HD4000, HD2500, Intel HD, respectively. But there versions with the same name in different processors also had different operating frequencies. So now the line looks more logical.

Let's see how graphics solutions have evolved using the example of Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge and Haswell. The first thing to look out for is support for new APIs and an increase in the number of unified blocks compared to the previous architecture.

As you can see, with each new generation of graphics adapters, there is an increase in the number of pipelines, on average by about 30% in each subsequent generation. So we are guaranteed a noticeable increase in productivity. As for API support, Haswell initially looked much more interesting due to support for more modern APIs. However, in the latest versions of drivers, their support was added to Ivy Bridge (API support at the time of the announcement is indicated in brackets).

Haswell graphics architecture

Let's move on to an overview of the architectures of three generations of graphics solutions: Sandy Bridge (HD2000, HD3000), Ivy Bridge (HD2500, HD4000), Haswell.

HD2000 / HD3000 (Sandy Bridge)

HD2500 / HD4000 (Ivy Bridge)

As you can see, each subsequent generation of graphics adapters not only makes architectural changes to the old functional blocks, but also adds new ones, expanding the architecture of the graphics core. It is worth noting, however, that the move from SB to IB brought more changes to the integrated graphics architecture than the move from IB to Haswell.

With the transition to IB, graphics accelerators, in addition to an increase in the number of graphics cores, received a second texture sampler, an L3 cache, and increased volumes of texture caches L1 and L2. In Haswell, the architectural changes were mainly in the increase in the number of GPUs, the addition of new execution units such as Video Quality Engine (VQE) and Resource Streamer, as well as improvements to the old units - Texture Sampler, Multi Format Codec. It is worth noting that the layout of the executive modules (EU) has changed - previously 16 EUs were pulled into a long chain, now EUs are placed above and below the rasterization units and L3 cache, 10 EU each. It is worth noting that the modification of the GT3 core not only doubles EU from 20 to 40, but also duplicates the entire Slice Common block, which contains rasterization blocks, L3 cache, and pixel operations blocks. That is, there is not only an increase in the number of pipelines, but also a doubling of other important blocks, such as blocks of rasterization, pixel processing and rendering.

Haswell graphics core block diagram

Well, let's take a look at the innovations and changes in architecture.

The Command Streamer block now includes a Resource Streamer block, which offloads the CPU by taking over some driver functions. This reduces the load on the central processor and improves performance.

Command Streamer

Redesigned texture sampler. According to Intel, in some modes the increase in texture performance can be up to four times.

Texture sampler

A Video Quality Engine (VQE) block has been added, which is responsible for video quality, which allows not only to improve the quality of video images, but also to reduce power consumption. This unit reduces noise in the video image, adapts the color scheme and contrast, stabilizes the image, and also allows converting the video frame rate from 24 fps and 30 fps to 60 fps. It is worth noting that the increase in the number of frames per second occurs not by simply copying frames, but by intelligent analysis of interframe motion estimation.

Video quality engine

The video codec also received improvements in the form of support for new formats: MPEG encoding, improved video coding quality, Motion JPEG decoding, 4K video decoding, SVC (Scalable Video Coding) decoding to AVC, VC1, MPEG2.

Video Codec

As you can see, some of the improvements were aimed at reducing electricity consumption. Haswell graphics cores can save power in multimedia workloads - as you can see from the slide, due to more parallelization, the Haswell core shuts down earlier and plunges into an economical idle state earlier.

About Crystal Well

Crystal Well is a 128 MB eDRAM memory chip soldered on a single textolite substrate with a processor. It is available only in processors with the top version of the integrated graphics Iris Pro 5200. This memory chip is produced, like the processor, according to the 22 nm process technology and acts as an intermediate cache of the fourth level. Moreover, it is important to note that it caches requests not only for the video accelerator, but also for the central processor. That is, theoretically, the performance of the central processor, if available, should also increase.

As for the speed characteristics, the eDRAM chip shows a throughput (bandwidth) of 50 GB / s in each direction, that is, the total bandwidth is 100 GB / s. Which fits well enough between the RAM bandwidth of 25.6 GB / s and the L3 cache bandwidth of about 180 GB / s. At the same time, the latency of such memory is rather low - about 50-60 ns, while a two-channel ICP using DDR3-1600 has 90-100 ns. It is worth noting that the L3 cache in Haswell processors has a latency of about 30 ns. Thus, eDRAM fits quite well in terms of its speed indicators between L3 and RAM.

Physically, the eDRAM is a separate chip with an area of ​​84 mm², consuming up to 1 W idle and up to 4.5 W under load. If such a chip were installed in desktop processors, then the TDP of the "hottest" Haswell quad-core processors would reach 90 W, although this is still significantly lower than that of processors with the LGA2011 socket (and you can also recall AMD, whose recently released processors have a TDP 220 Tue). However, in desktop solutions, Crystal Well is found only in BGA processors (that is, directly soldered on the motherboard, and not installed in a socket), which, most likely, will have a cooling system included.

It is worth noting here that Intel in the new generation did not introduce support for new, faster memory standards, so its maximum bandwidth remained at 25.6 GB / s. Even the HD2500 was able to use all the available bandwidth, so the much more powerful HD4600 is likely to run into the DDR3-1600 bandwidth, and using Crystal Well would be good for it too. Not to mention the more powerful modifications to the integrated graphics. In general, it would be logical to expect either support for DDR3-1866 or DDR3-2133, or a more extensive list of processors with Crystal Well, or both at the same time. As a result, we have the undiscovered potential of the new generation of graphics adapters.

Approx. Ed .: It seems to me that the roots of Intel's solutions for using Crystal Well should be sought not in the technical, but in the financial plane. From a technical point of view, this may be a promising solution, but quite costly in terms of finance: two chips on one substrate are in any case much more expensive than one. And yet the technology has very dim market prospects. Therefore, now Intel, most likely, is "trying the water": having released only a couple of models, the company will track their fate on the market and see if the solution becomes popular or not. From this point of view, everything looks logical: either BGA, where the processor goes to a specific product with a certain positioning, or mobile solutions, where the demand for integrated graphics is significantly higher due to the lack of space and power consumption requirements. By the way, the demand in this segment is noticeably higher.

As for memory support, the manufacturer, apparently, focused mainly on DDR3 L, but her work frequencies have not increased. Plus, support for faster memory is unlikely to pay dividends in real life, especially considering that in most cases, memory is installed by manufacturers of ready-made systems, and they also look more at cost than speed.

For clarity, here is a comparison of the theoretical maximum performance.

	Chip frequency	Frequency / bus / memory type	PSP	Theoretical performance
Intel HD2000 (SB)	1250 MHz	1333 MHz / 128 bit / DDR3	21.2 GB / s	60 GFLOPs
Intel HD3000 (SB)	1350 MHz	1333 MHz / 128 bit / DDR3	21.2 GB / s	129.6 GFLOPs
Intel HD2500 (IB)	1150 MHz	1600 MHz / 128 bit / DDR3	25.6 GB / s	110.4 GFLOPs
Intel HD4000 (IB)	1300 MHz	1600 MHz / 128 bit / DDR3	25.6 GB / s	332.8 GFLOPs
Intel HD4600 (Haswell)	1350 MHz	1600 MHz / 128 bit / DDR3	25.6 GB / s	432 GFLOPs
Intel Iris Pro 5200 (Haswell)	1300 MHz	1600 MHz / 128 bit / DDR3 + Crystal Well	25.6 + 2 × 50 GB / s	832 GFLOPs
AMD A8-3870K (Llano)	600 MHz	1866 MHz / 128 bit / DDR3	29.9 GB / s	480 GFLOPs
AMD A10-5800K (Trinity)	800 MHz	1866 MHz / 128 bit / DDR3	29.9 GB / s	614 GFLOPs
AMD A10-6800K (Richland)	844 MHz	2133 MHz / 128 bit / DDR3	34 GB / s	779 GFLOPs
GeForce GTX 650 (GK107-450-A2)	1058 MHz	5000 MHz / 128 bit / GDDR5	80 GB / s	812.5 GFLOPs
GeForce GT 640 (GF116)	720 MHz	1782 MHz / 192 bit / DDR3	42.8 GB / s	414.7 GFLOPs

For Ivy Bridge, frequencies are indicated for LGA modifications.

From this table, the following observations and conclusions can be drawn:

• Theoretical peak performance (in GFLOPs) in each generation of Intel graphics adapters increases by 150%: transition from top-end Sandy Bridge HD3000 graphics core to top-end HD4000 - + 156.8%, transition from HD4000 to top-end Iris Pro 5200 - + 150%, but the transition from the top-end HD4000 to the average modification of the Haswell HD4600 graphics core gives an increase of only about 30%. However, Intel's significant growth is largely due to the initially low performance level. AMD, for example, initially built powerful (for its class) graphics solutions into APUs, so for them the increase in GFLOPs from generation to generation is about 30%;
• Intel's top-of-the-line integrated graphics, the Iris Pro 5200, delivers 6.8% more peak performance than the new AMD A10-6800K, but the mid-range HD4600 is already 10% behind the AMD A8-3870K (Llano);
• If you select competitors for the Iris Pro 5200 and HD4600 in terms of peak performance from discrete nVidia video cards, then it turns out that the Iris Pro 5200 is 2.4% more productive than the GeForce GTX 650 (GK107-450-A2), and the HD4600 is 4.2% faster than the GeForce GT 640 (GF116);
• The performance of modern graphics accelerators largely depends on the speed of work with video memory. Therefore, integrated solutions always have problems with this: not only do they work with, by definition, slower DDR3, they also have to share it with the central processor. For example, the GeForce GTX 650 (GK107-450-A2) has 80 GB / s memory bandwidth, but what could Ivy Bridge offer? Only 25.6 GB / s combined on GPU and CPU cores. AMD introduces support for faster memory standards in each generation, and now the maximum for its latest generation is 2133 MHz, which allowed to reach 34 GB / s. Intel, as we know from the Haswell processor architecture review, did not introduce support for new memory standards, remaining at the DDR3-1600 level. Therefore, to eliminate the bottleneck in the most productive solution, she had to add an intermediate buffer / cache L4 (Crystal Well) with a volume of 128 MB with a throughput of 50 GB / s in each direction (100 GB / s in total). So when working with it, the bandwidth will exceed even the bandwidth of discrete solutions - another question is that the volume of this buffer is small.

To summarize, some assumptions can be made:

If the performance of Intel's integrated graphics continues to grow at the same or at least similar rates, then the bandwidth of the memory standards available today will be seriously lacking for the next generation - in fact, this bottleneck can eat up all the gains. So it will be necessary either to increase the memory bandwidth by introducing support for DDR4 or DDR3 in several channels, or to look for other solutions. Perhaps, Crystal Well, which is now a separate chip, will move to the main crystal (as the integrated graphics moved in due time when moving to Sandy Bridge) and become a full-fledged part of the Broadwell core. True, judging by the available information, Broadwell will have several chips on one substrate ... In general, there are still many questions here.

However, AMD is also likely to face a serious memory bandwidth shortage, and its approximate directions of development are the same: either faster DDR4 memory, or "remember" its own (ATI) HyperMemory (a small frame buffer for an integrated video card soldered on the motherboard board) and try to adapt it to modern tasks.

Finally, let's not forget about two serious trump cards of the new generation of integrated graphics from Intel: support for OpenCL, and applications with its support are becoming more and more, and the new version of Quicksync, which greatly simplifies the work with video encoding.

conclusions

So let's jump to conclusions. As in the processor part of the Haswell architecture review, we will split the output into several parts.

Desktop

Buyers of desktop computers with Haswell integrated graphics have a number of significant benefits. First of all, this is a seriously increased performance of the graphics subsystem, as well as improvements in the work with video thanks to Quicksync and support for OpenCL, which can significantly increase performance in many applications. In theory, the owner of a computer with the HD4600 will even be able to play some older games in high definition.

If we talk about an upgrade, then the difference with Ivy Bridge is too small to even think about switching. The Sandy Bridge video core is significantly weaker, but the gain is still not large enough to justify the replacement of the processor and motherboard. Unless you absolutely need OpenCL, which is not supported by Sandy Bridge's built-in graphics.

But the owners of previous generations of processors should seriously think about it. And it's not only about productivity growth, but also about a significant increase in the efficiency of the system as a whole. With the same performance level as older discrete mid-range solutions, buyers will be able to eliminate the need for an external graphics adapter altogether. It is also cheaper, and you can choose a significantly smaller case. In addition, the power consumption of the system, which means the heating of the surrounding space and the noise of the cooling fans, will be much less.

Servers and workstations

There is no need to migrate from the Xeon E3-12xx and Xeon E3-12xx v2 for the new P4600 graphics core. If we talk about workstations, then at least some sense appears only when switching from Sandy Bridge due to the lack of OpenCL support in it (and only for rare server applications that use OpenCL).

Mobile solutions

This is perhaps the most interesting and promising segment, and also the most massive one today. Moreover, in mobile systems, net performance does not play a decisive role now, but is considered only as one of the components of the system's efficiency along with energy conservation and other factors.

First, let's take a look at the main lines, GT2 and GT3 (e). For GT2, it makes sense to evaluate the main solution HD 4600.

A modern universal video adapter has a sufficient level of performance for any task, except for highly specialized (three-dimensional modeling, for example) and games. However, if you lower the graphics quality settings, you can play relatively simple or relatively old games.

The overall performance level surpasses the HD 4000, but in normal tasks (except for games) this is unlikely to be noticeable. The HD 4600 is well optimized for video (Quicksync) and any application that can take advantage of OpenCL. And here it is important not only to increase the speed of completing tasks, but also to increase overall energy efficiency through optimization. But Ivy Bridge also has support for these technologies, so it's pointless to switch from it to Haswell. But the transition from Sandy Bridge already makes sense: both the speed is noticeably higher, and there was no support for OpenCL, and Haswell is far ahead in energy efficiency. In mobile systems, this is an important factor.

HD / Iris Pro 5x00

The older version of integrated graphics (especially with Crystal Well) has a noticeably higher performance, which allows you to significantly expand the list of available tasks and games, including relatively modern ones. Moreover, so far most laptops have relatively low screen resolutions, which makes it easier for a graphics adapter. The presence of Crystal Well should also increase the performance of the system as a whole, although much here will depend on the type of tasks.

Thus, modern Haswell with integrated graphics of the 5xxx level, and especially with the Iris Pro 5200, looks much more interesting than Ivy Bridge with discrete graphics of the lower series. And it's not even about pure performance (it's not a fact that the difference with Ivy Bridge + discrete graphics will be so striking), but rather an increase in the overall energy efficiency of the system. Plus, it will simplify and reduce the cost of the design of the laptop (by throwing out the large chip and its entire cooling system). Thus, in terms of overall efficiency, notebooks with Iris / Iris Pro will significantly outperform the previous generation.

Another thing is that the market niche itself for the same Iris Pro 5200 looks rather narrow: those who do not need graphics performance will choose the HD 4600, and those who care about it will choose modern discrete graphics anyway. That is, this chip is beneficial to use only in professional models that must combine high performance and portability. In other cases, it doesn't make much sense.

Paired with discrete graphics

Finally, it is worth noting that Haswell is also more efficient when working with external graphics. Now Intel's policy is that graphics must be hybrid: in the case when the load is low, the integrated adapter works, and if high performance is required (in games, etc.), then powerful discrete graphics are connected. So, the more powerful and optimized the integrated adapter is, the more tasks it will be able to solve on its own - and this is a direct gain in power consumption (i.e., the laptop will heat up less, make less noise, run longer on batteries, etc.).

As a result, the transition to Haswell is objectively beneficial not due to the increase in productivity, but due to the fact that the energy efficiency of the system increases significantly. While the advantage is not large enough to justify a switch from the previous generation, overall Haswell's integrated graphics represent a significant step forward, significantly increasing the efficiency of the overall system.

An integrated GPU plays an important role for both gamers and undemanding users.

The quality of games, movies, watching videos on the Internet and images depends on it.

Principle of operation

The graphics processor is integrated into the motherboard of the computer - this is how the integrated graphics looks like.

As a rule, they use it to remove the need to install a graphics adapter -.

This technology helps to reduce the cost of the finished product. In addition, due to their compactness and low power consumption, such processors are often installed in laptops and low-power desktop computers.

Thus, integrated GPUs have filled this niche so much that 90% of laptops on US store shelves have such a processor.

Instead of a conventional video card, the computer's RAM itself is often an auxiliary tool in integrated graphics.

However, this solution somewhat limits the performance of the device. Yet the computer itself and the GPU use the same bus for memory.

So this "neighborhood" affects the performance of tasks, especially when working with complex graphics and during gameplay.

Views

Built-in graphics have three groups:

1. Shared memory graphics are a device based on shared memory management with the main processor. This significantly reduces the cost, improves the energy saving system, but degrades the performance. Accordingly, for those working with complex programs, this kind of integrated GPU is more likely to be unsuitable.
2. Discrete graphics - a video chip and one or two video memory modules are soldered on the motherboard. This technology significantly improves image quality and makes it possible to work with 3D graphics with the best results. True, you will have to pay a lot for this, and if you are looking for a high-power processor in all respects, then the cost can be incredibly high. In addition, the electricity bill will rise slightly - the power consumption of discrete GPUs is higher than usual.
3. Hybrid discrete graphics - a combination of the two previous types, which ensured the creation of the PCI Express bus. Thus, access to the memory is carried out both through the unsoldered video memory, and through the operative one. With this solution, manufacturers wanted to create a compromise solution, but it still does not level the disadvantages.

Manufacturers

As a rule, large companies are engaged in the manufacture and development of integrated graphics processors, and, but many small enterprises are also involved in this area.

This is not difficult to do. Find Primary Display or Init Display First. If you don't see something like that, look for Onboard, PCI, AGP or PCI-E (it all depends on the buses installed on the motherboard).

Choosing PCI-E, for example, you enable the PCI-Express video card, and disable the built-in integrated one.

Thus, to enable the integrated video card, you need to find the appropriate parameters in the BIOS. The start-up process is often automatic.

Disable

Disabling is best done in BIOS. This is the simplest and most unpretentious option, suitable for almost all PCs. The only exceptions are some laptops.

Again, search BIOS for Peripherals or Integrated Peripherals if you are on a desktop.

For laptops, the name of the function is different, and not always the same. So just find something related to graphics. For example, the required options can be placed in the Advanced and Config sections.

Disconnection is also done in different ways. Sometimes it's enough just to click “Disabled” and put the PCI-E video card first in the list.

If you are a laptop user, do not be alarmed if you cannot find a suitable option, you may not have such a function a priori. For all other devices, the same rules are simple - no matter how the BIOS itself looks, the filling is the same.

If you have two video cards and they are both shown in the device manager, then the matter is quite simple: click on one of them with the right side of the mouse and select “disable”. However, keep in mind that the display may go out. Most likely it will.

However, this is also a solvable problem. It is enough to restart your computer or software.

Perform all subsequent settings on it. If this method does not work, roll back your actions using safe mode. You can also resort to the previous method - through BIOS.

Two programs - NVIDIA Control Center and Catalyst Control Center - configure the use of a specific video adapter.

They are the most unpretentious in comparison with the other two methods - the screen is unlikely to turn off, through the BIOS you also will not accidentally lose the settings.

For NVIDIA, all settings are in the 3D section.

You can choose your preferred video adapter for the entire operating system and for certain programs and games.

In Catalyst software, the same function is located in the Power option under the Switchable Graphics sub-item.

Thus, switching between GPUs is not difficult.

There are different methods, in particular, both through programs and through BIOS. Enabling or disabling one or another integrated graphics may be accompanied by some failures, mainly related to the image.

It may go out or just appear distortion. Nothing should affect the files themselves in the computer, unless you have inserted something in the BIOS.

Conclusion

As a result, integrated graphics processors are in demand due to their low cost and compactness.

For this you will have to pay with the level of performance of the computer itself.

In some cases, integrated graphics are essential - discrete processors are ideal for working with 3D images.

Plus, the industry leaders are Intel, AMD and Nvidia. Each of them offers its own graphics accelerators, processors and other components.

The latest popular models are Intel HD Graphics 530 and AMD A10-7850K. They are quite functional, but they have some flaws. In particular, this applies to power, productivity and cost of the finished product.

You can enable or disable a graphics processor with an embedded kernel or independently through BIOS, utilities and various programs, but the computer itself may well do it for you. It all depends on which video card is connected to the monitor itself.

• Socket: AM4
• Number of cores / threads: 4/4
• Number of graphics cores: 6
• Base frequency: 3.8 GHz
• Graphics: Radeon R7
• Graphics frequency: 1 GHz
• Overclocking: Yes
• TDP power: 65 watts

Opening our list is the A10-9700 A-series. This series is a low-power, integrated graphics processor commonly found in the base and costing less than all other APUs. The A10-9700 is based on the Excavator architecture that predates Zen and uses legacy Radeon R7 graphics, albeit AM4 socket compatible.

Overall, the A10-9700 can hardly be called the preferred option, as it is seriously inferior to the newer and more advanced Zen architecture processors with Vega graphics. Indeed, this is a 3.5 GHz quad-core processor with an unlocked multiplier and not very high power consumption, although the 28 nm architecture and the relatively high price of about $ 80 may present a certain problem. It is unable to compete with the new Zen architecture processors in terms of performance, and in this price range there are plenty of models with and without integrated graphics that significantly outperform it.

Overall, it was a decent model for its time, but it can hardly be recommended for purchase. Unless you can buy a used one or at a discount on a very limited budget.

pros

• Decent performance

Minuses

• Outdated architecture
• Poor value for money

AMD Athlon 200GE

Specifications

• Socket: AM4
• Number of cores / threads: 2/4
• Number of graphics cores: 3
• Base frequency: 3.2 GHz
• Graphics: Vega 3
• Graphics frequency: 1 GHz
• Overclocking: No
• TDP power: 35 watts

If you are looking for affordability, you can hardly find a better model than the new Athlon 200GE. AMD has been producing decent budget solutions under this brand since 1999. It has survived to this day, and even in the Ryzen era is poised to present a range of reliable and affordable processors.

The highlight of the Athlon 200GE is the latest Vega graphics. Of course, there are only three cores, but in any case, this is a decent entry-level gaming processor with integrated graphics, especially considering its price. Sure, it can't compete with the more powerful Ryzen processors or most Intel models in terms of processing power, but at a cost of only $ 50, it significantly outperforms similarly priced Intel Celeron processors. Moreover, it surpasses even the A10 discussed above, although it costs almost half the price.

All of this makes the 200GE the ideal entry-level gaming APU, and with the AM4 socket, upgrades to more powerful processors are a breeze. If you want the cheapest processor with integrated graphics for 720p gaming, this Athlon won't disappoint.

pros

• Decent performance for the money
• Good value for money
• Very low power consumption

Minuses

• Multiplier not unlocked
• Not the most powerful processor overall

AMD Ryzen 3 2200G

Specifications

• Socket: AM4
• Number of cores / threads: 4/4
• Number of graphics cores: 8
• Base frequency: 3.5 GHz
• Graphics: Vega 8
• Graphics frequency: 1.1 GHz
• Overclocking: Yes
• TDP power: 65 watts

Do you want something more serious? Then take a look at the Ryzen 3 2200G. With 8 graphics cores, Vega is the second most powerful processor with integrated graphics in existence, and in terms of price-performance ratio, it is perhaps the best.

Basically, the Ryzen 3 2200G has everything we love Ryzen so much for: low cost, good value for money, an unlocked multiplier, and a compact but reasonably quiet Wraith Stealth cooler. And of course the integrated Vega graphics. How does he show himself in relation to competitors? It practically leaves them no chance. Compared to the slightly more expensive Intel i3-8100, it lags slightly behind in terms of computational tasks, but a cut above in terms of graphics. Take a look at the video below:

As you can see, the integrated graphics from Intel can't match the Vega: the 2200G is twice as good as the i3-8100 in most games. Considering that this processor is cheaper than Intel's budget solution, it becomes the leader in our rating in terms of price-quality ratio.

pros

• Excellent graphics performance
• Cheaper than competitors
• Excellent value for money

Minuses

• Not as fast in computational tasks
• A small stock cooler is not suitable for overclocking

AMD Ryzen 5 2400G

Specifications

• Socket: AM4
• Number of cores / threads: 4/8
• Number of graphics cores: 11
• Base frequency: 3.6 GHz
• Graphics: Vega 11
• Graphics frequency: 1.2 GHz
• Overclocking: Yes
• TDP power: 65 watts

Finally, if the Ryzen 3 2200G is not good enough for you and you want the best integrated graphics processor available, that is, the Ryzen 5 2400 G. It surpasses the aforementioned model in every way, but a little more expensive.

The main advantages of the Ryzen 5 model over the Ryzen 3 2200G are multithreading (the number of threads increased to 8) and three additional Vega graphics cores. All of these contribute to the overall performance of this processor. In terms of graphics, you've seen what 8 Vega cores are capable of, so you can roughly imagine what 11 will allow you to achieve. Needless to say, this most powerful APU at the moment surpasses even some budget discrete ones in performance. Of course, it falls short of RX 560 or GTX 1050, but it allows you to play even in 1080p resolution.

In addition, with 8 threads, it handles multitasking better than the previous Ryzen 3 model, although it is inferior to Intel in tasks where only one thread is involved. As before, Intel provides a lot of processing power, but it's the graphics that give Ryzen 5 the edge.

Overall, the Ryzen 5 2400G is questionable in terms of value for money. It is definitely a step forward in terms of graphics and multitasking, but whether it is worth the extra $ 50 is an open question.

pros

• Most powerful APU at the moment
• Best Integrated Graphics

Minuses

• Limited performance in single threaded tasks
• Questionable price-performance ratio

Should you buy a GPU with a GPU?

So, we have already mentioned that the abbreviation APU stands for "accelerated processing unit" and was introduced by AMD as a designation for a processor in which the main and graphics cores are located on the same chip. AMD is the only manufacturer of gaming APUs, and while Intel's Core-series processors have integrated graphics, they can't compete with the new Vega-based APUs in terms of performance.

But, as you know, it is impossible to be a jack of all trades, and this problem is also typical for APUs. They are not as fast in computational tasks as conventional processors in the same price range, and in terms of graphics performance, most of them are inferior to even the cheapest discrete graphics cards.

Nonetheless, APUs remain unbeatable in terms of value for money. Why spend $ 200 on an entry-level processor and graphics card when a GPU-accelerated processor can do the job for half the money? On the other hand, if you need 3-digit frame rates, or are running CPU-intensive applications, look for something more powerful.

Our choice

So, which processor with a graphics accelerator from the ones discussed above can we recommend and to whom?

Best Budget Model - AMD Athlon 200GE

The humble Athlon does not attract enthusiastic looks and does not go off scale in benchmarks, but at the very bottom of the entry-level 200GE simply dominates. It's incredibly cheap and the performance is more than adequate for the money. In addition, thanks to the use of the standard AM4 socket, which is not yet out of fashion, future upgrades will be much easier.

Best Value for Money - AMD Ryzen 3 2200G

There is little to say about this Ryzen model that hasn't already been said. It has decent processing power and 8 Vega cores deliver graphics performance unattainable for Intel integrated graphics. Considering the cost, it can give odds even to some discrete graphics cards. Overall, we can say that this is the preferred option for most gamers on a budget.

Overall Best - AMD Ryzen 5 2400G

As we said, the Ryzen 5 2400G is simply the best GPU-equipped processor out there. With a combination of four processor cores with eight threads and 11 Vega cores, it really looks like a jack of all trades. Of course, the downside is the slightly higher price tag than the 2200G, which is already good enough for the entry-level performance.