Integrated Intel graphics - better than thought?

[maverick77_uk]

Hi there,

Just a curiosity question really. Intel are always getting slated for their integrated graphics, so I've always kind of not thought about it. However, I regularly check out new cards etc on Techarp's comparison:

https://www.techarp.com/guides/deskt...-comparison/8/

In this, take for instance the Intel 630 integrated graphics - I know it depends on which CPU it is on, but generally gets 1.05-3GT/s. If you compare this to the Vega 8 in a Ryzen 2200G with 35 GT/s, it appears horribly slow.

However, in benchmarks, the 630 generally get about 30% of the performance of the Vega8 - which would put it at about 10 GT/s. Also on numerous places over the web, people say it is comparable to a Radeon R5 240, which again would make approximate sense given the apparent performance as that graphics card was 15 GT/s.

Therefore, are Intel integrated graphics actually not too bad? For instance, last year I built my nephew a seriously budget PC - mainly for school work, but for the odd game here and there. Due to RAM prices at the time, and the tight budget I had, I ended up using a A6 7400K as that had a R5 IGP at about 12GT/s, which is fine for the odd blast on War Thunder. However, therefore, did I write Intel out a bit prematurely? Although of course, at that price point the integrated Intel IGP would of been the 610 or so, and so probably worse again......

Just curious really, Am I being way to hard on Intel???

Cheers!

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

TechEpiphany has done a lot of videos comparing integrated graphics like the following:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FINQBqCZneE



The Core i5 8400 was using 3200MHZ DDR4 and the A12 9800 2400MHZ DDR4.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfCu6xHIM7A

The Core i5 8400 was using 3200MHZ DDR4 and the A8 9600 2400MHZ DDR4.

[DanceswithUnix]

GT/s is a superb measure for DirectX 7 games. Modern games need floating point shader throughput, as well as the memory bandwidth to back it up.

Note that Intel GPUs often do quite well in OpenCL benchmarks, it's just turning that compute into stable game frames isn't so good.

So no, you aren't being hard on Intel graphics. They are just about good enough for the most basic gaming if you are lucky.

[scaryjim]

... Just curious really, Am I being way to hard on Intel??? ...

I think the real problem is that you're focusing on theoretical peak statistics that don't reflect real world game performance. Take pixel fill rate - theoretically modern graphics cards can drive well over 1 gigapixel per second. But if they were actually outputting that many pixels from the game engine, they'd be driving a 4k display at over 100fps. Pixel and Texture fill rates are only a small fraction of the picture.

Intel's recent IGPs are actually comfortably passable - when I was researching my new laptop I concluded that a 7th or 8th gen intel chip with IGP (i.e. (U)HD 620/630) was slightly faster than my outgoing top-end AMD Trinity A10 4600m (that was a 6CU (i.e. 384 shader) IGP), which was considered reasonably capable at the time. You're certainly looking at a chip that's capable of playing older games at moderate IQ levels. Perhaps you could be a little less hard on them...

[maverick77_uk]

Thanks guys - that makes sense

I'll be a little less hard on Intel now then....

Although to get equivalent IGP performance on Intel, you need to pay a fair bit more than AMD - although you get a better CPU. Swings and roundabouts!

Cheers!

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Thanks guys - that makes sense

I'll be a little less hard on Intel now then....

Although to get equivalent IGP performance on Intel, you need to pay a fair bit more than AMD - although you get a better CPU. Swings and roundabouts!

Cheers!

The BR CPUs are BD based,and you can see how an A8 9600 which costs £45 is faster than the UHD630 on the Core i5 8400!!

[DanceswithUnix]

But if they were actually outputting that many pixels from the game engine, they'd be driving a 4k display at over 100fps. Pixel and Texture fill rates are only a small fraction of the picture.

Except that not all triangles are culled, so you render lots of pixels and discard them when the Z buffer says something is already rendered in front, so rendering more pixels than are on screen was common in older games.