Just a few years ago, talking about the performance of integrated graphics cores made virtually no sense. It was possible to rely on such solutions only in cases where working with three-dimensional graphics was not among the possible uses of the computer, because the built-in graphics cores, compared to discrete video accelerators, had minimalistic functionality in 3D modes. However, today this situation has changed radically. Since 2007, the instigator of the bulk of changes in the computer market, Intel considers increasing the capabilities and performance of its own integrated graphics one of the most important tasks. And its successes are impressive: built-in graphics cores have not only increased their performance by more than an order of magnitude, but have also become an integral part of modern processors. Moreover, the company clearly does not intend to stop there and has ambitious plans to increase the speed of embedded graphics by another order of magnitude by 2015.
The sudden interest among processor developers in improving graphics cores became a reflection of the desire of users to have at their disposal fairly compact, but at the same time quite productive computing systems. It would seem that just recently the term “mobile computer” was associated with a system that can simply be moved from place to place with one hand, and few people were concerned about the issue of its size and weight. Today, even looking at fairly small two-kilogram laptops, many consumers wrinkle their noses with dissatisfaction. The trend has turned towards tablet computers and ultra-compact solutions, which Intel calls ultrabooks. And it was precisely this desire for lightness and miniaturization that became the main driving force in integrating graphics into central processors and increasing its performance. One chip that fully replaces both the CPU and the GPU and has low heat dissipation is exactly the basis that is needed to create mobile solutions that entice modern users. That is why we are seeing the rapid development of hybrid processors, the existence of which even adherents of desktop systems have to put up with. The latter, it must be said, also receive certain dividends from such progress.
Ivy Bridge processors are the second version of Intel's microarchitecture, characterized by a hybrid design that combines computing cores with graphics in one semiconductor chip. Compared to the previous version of the microarchitecture, Sandy Bridge, dramatic changes have occurred, and they primarily affect the graphics core. Intel even had to give special explanations regarding the violation of the “tick-tock” principle: Ivy Bridge was supposed to be the result of a transfer of the previous design to a new, 22-nm process technology, but, in fact, in terms of graphics capabilities there was a very significant step forward. That is why we reviewed the new video core included in Ivy Bridge in the form of a separate material - the number of various innovations is extremely large, and the improvement in 3D performance is quite serious.
An excellent idea of how significant the changes have been can be obtained by simply comparing Ivy Bridge and Sandy Bridge semiconductor crystals.
Sandy Bridge - area 216 sq.mm; Ivy Bridge - area 160 sq.mm
Both of them are made using different technological processes and have different areas. But note that while the Sandy Bridge design allocated approximately 19 percent of the die area to the graphics core, the Ivy Bridge design increased that share to 28 percent. This means that the complexity of the graphics included in the processor has more than doubled: from 189 to 392 million transistors. It is quite obvious that such a noticeable increase in the transistor budget could not be wasted.
It must be emphasized that Intel's policy regarding combining computing and graphics cores and increasing the power of the latter is somewhat at odds with the APU concept proposed by AMD. Intel's competitor is considering the on-chip graphics core as a complement to the computing core, hoping that flexible programmable shader processors can help increase the overall performance of the solution. Intel, on the other hand, does not take into account the possibility of widespread use of graphics for calculations: with traditional processor speed, Ivu Bridge is fine as is. At the same time, the primary role of the graphics core is completely traditional, and the struggle of developers to increase its power is due to the desire to minimize the number of cases when a discrete video card acts as a necessary system component, especially in mobile computers.
However, whether AMD’s approach or Intel’s, the result turns out to be the same. The market share of discrete graphics is steadily declining, giving way to new generations of integrated graphics, which have now acquired support for DirectX 11 and have received performance higher than that of a number of budget video cards. In this material, we will look at the Intel HD Graphics 4000 and Intel HD Graphics 2500 graphics accelerators implemented in Ivy Bridge and try to evaluate which discrete video cards have lost their meaning with the advent of the new generation of Intel graphics.
⇡ Graphics architecture Intel HD Graphics 4000/2500: what's new
Increasing the performance of integrated graphics cores is far from an easy task. And the fact that Intel was able to raise it by more than an order of magnitude in just a few years is actually the result of serious engineering work. The main problem here is that integrated graphics accelerators cannot take advantage of dedicated high-speed video memory, but share with the computing cores regular system memory with a bandwidth that is quite low by the standards of modern 3D applications. Therefore, optimizing memory is the very first step that must be taken when designing high-speed embedded graphics.
And Intel took this important step in the previous version of the microarchitecture - Sandy Bridge. The introduction of a ring intraprocessor bus that links together all CPU components (computational cores, third-level cache, graphics, system agent with a memory controller) opened up a short and progressive route for memory access for the built-in video core - through a high-speed third-level cache. In other words, the integrated graphics core, along with the computing processor cores, became an equal user of the L3 cache and memory controller, which significantly reduced downtime caused by waiting for graphics data to be processed. The ring bus turned out to be such a successful find from the previous design that it migrated to the new Ivy Bridge microarchitecture without any changes.
As for the internal structure of the Ivy Bridge graphics core, in general it can be considered a further development of the ideas inherent in the HD Graphics accelerators of previous generations. The architecture of the current Intel graphics core has its roots in the Clarkdale and Arrandale processors introduced in 2010, but each new reincarnation of it is not a simple copy of the previous design, but its improvement.
Ivy Bridge Generation HD Graphics Core Architecture
Thus, when moving from the Sandy Bridge microarchitecture to the Ivy Bridge, an increase in graphics performance is achieved primarily due to an increase in the number of execution units, especially since the internal structure of HD Graphics initially implied the technical possibility of their simplest addition. While the older version of graphics from Sandy Bridge, HD Graphics 3000, had 12 devices, the most productive modification of the video core built into Ivy Bridge, HD Graphics 4000, received 16 actuators. However, the matter was not limited to this; the devices themselves were also improved. They added a second texture sampler, and the throughput increased to three instructions per clock.
The increase in the speed of data processing by the graphics core required developers to think again about their timely delivery. Therefore, the Ivy Bridge graphics core now has its own cache memory. Its volume has not been disclosed, however, apparently, we are talking about a small but high-speed internal buffer.
Although the innovations in the microarchitecture of the graphics core do not seem too significant at first glance, in total they result in a clearly visible increase in 3D performance, estimated by Intel itself as twofold. By the way, the next generation of HD Graphics accelerators, which will be built into processors of the Haswell family, should offer approximately the same increase. In them, the number of executive units will increase to 20, and the fourth level cache will be included in the fight to reduce latencies when the graphics core works with memory.
As for Ivy Bridge graphics, increasing its performance was not the only goal of the engineers. In parallel, the formal specifications of the new graphics core have been brought into line with modern requirements. This means that HD Graphics 4000 finally has full support for Shader Model 5.0 and hardware tessellation. That is, now Intel graphics are fully compatible “in hardware” with DirectX 11 and OpenGL 3.1 software interfaces. And of course, running HD Graphics 4000 in the upcoming Windows 8 operating system will not be a problem - the necessary drivers are already available on the Intel website.
Intel also added to the new graphics core the ability to perform computational work using it; for this purpose, the new generation of HD Graphics added support for DirectCompute 5.0 and OpenCL. In Sandy Bridge processors, these software interfaces were also supported, but at the driver level, which redirected the corresponding load to the computing cores. With the release of Ivy Bridge, full-fledged GPU computing became available on systems with Intel graphics.
In light of modern realities, Intel engineers paid attention to supporting multi-monitor configurations that are becoming increasingly popular. The HD Graphics 4000 graphics core was Intel's first integrated solution capable of running three independent displays. But keep in mind that to implement this function, it was necessary to increase the width of the FDI bus, through which the image is transferred from the processor to the system logic set. So support for three monitors is only possible with new motherboards using seventh series chipsets.
In addition, there are some restrictions in resolutions and methods of connecting monitors. In a desktop platform based on processors of the Ivy Bridge family, theoretically, you can get three outputs: the first is universal (HDMI, DVI, VGA or DisplayPort) with a maximum resolution of 1920x1200, the second is DisplayPort, HDMI or DVI with a resolution of up to 1920x1200, and the third is DisplayPort with support for high resolutions up to 2560x1600. That is, the popular option of connecting WQXGA monitors via Dual-Link DVI with Intel HD Graphics 4000 is still impossible to implement. But the version of the HDMI protocol has been brought to 1.4a, and the DisplayPort protocol to 1.1a, which in the first case means support for 3D, and in the second - the ability of the interface to transmit an audio stream.
Innovations have also affected other components of the graphics core of Ivy Bridge processors, including their multimedia capabilities. High-quality hardware decoding of AVC/H.264, VC-1 and MPEG-2 formats was successfully implemented in the last generation of HD Graphics, but in Ivy Bridge graphics the AVC decoding algorithms have been adjusted. Due to the new design of the module responsible for context-adaptive encoding, the performance of the hardware decoder has increased, which has resulted in the theoretical possibility of simultaneous playback of several streams with high resolution, up to 4096x4096.
Considerable progress has also been made to Quick Sync technology, designed for fast hardware video encoding into the AVC/H.264 format. Commissioned at Sandy Bridge, it was recognized as a colossal breakthrough a year and a half ago. Thanks to it, Intel processors have moved into first place in the speed of transcoding high-resolution video, for which a separate hardware unit is now allocated, which is part of the graphics core. As part of HD Graphics 4000, Quick Sync technology has become even better and has an improved media sampler. As a result, the updated Quick Sync engine provides approximately a twofold advantage in transcoding speed to the H.264 format compared to its previous Sandy Bridge version. At the same time, as part of the technology, the quality of the video produced by the codec has also improved, and ultra-high resolution video content, up to 4096x4096, has also been supported.
However, Quick Sync still has its weaknesses. At the moment, this technology is used only in commercial video transcoding applications. There are no popular freely available utilities that work with this technology on the horizon. Another disadvantage of the technology is its close combination with the graphics core. If your system uses an external graphics card, which generally disables integrated graphics, you cannot use Quick Sync. True, a solution to this problem can be offered by a third-party company, LucidLogix, which has developed the Virtu graphic virtualization technology.
Nevertheless, Quick Sync remains a unique technology for the market. A highly specialized hardware codec implemented within its framework turns out to be significantly better in all respects than encoding using the power of shader processors of modern video cards. Following Intel, only NVIDIA was able to implement a similar utilitarian hardware solution for encoding. And that company’s specialized tool, NVEnc, appeared only very recently - in Kepler generation accelerators.
⇡ Intel HD Graphics 4000 vs Intel HD Graphics 2500: what's the difference?
As before, Intel is integrating two graphics core options into Ivy Bridge. This time these are HD Graphics 4000 and HD Graphics 2500. The older and high-performance modification, which was primarily discussed in the previous section, has absorbed all the improvements inherent in the microarchitecture. The junior version of graphics is not aimed at establishing new performance standards for integrated solutions, but at simply providing modern processors with the minimum required level of graphics functionality.
The difference between HD Graphics 4000 and HD Graphics 2500 is dramatic. The fast version of the video core has sixteen actuators, while in the younger version their number is reduced to six. As a result, while HD Graphics 4000 delivers roughly 2x the theoretical 3D performance over the previous-generation HD Graphics 3000, HD Graphics 2500's performance advantage over HD Graphics 2000 is projected to be 10 to 20 percent. The same applies to the speed of Quick Sync - a twofold increase in speed compared to its predecessors is promised only in relation to older versions of the video core.
|
|
|
|
Intel HD Graphics 4000 |
Intel HD Graphics 2500 |
At the same time, the “full-fledged” HD Graphics 4000 core can be found not in all representatives of the Ivy Bridge generation, but mainly only in mobile devices, where graphics integrated into the CPU are most in demand. In desktop models, HD Graphics 4000 is present either in Core i7 series processors or in overclocking Core i5 series processors (with the K suffix in the model number) with the only exception to this rule - the Core i5-3475S processor. In all other cases, desktop users have to either deal with HD Graphics 2500 or resort to the services of external graphics accelerators.
Fortunately, the widening gap between older and younger modifications of Intel graphics occurred solely in performance. The functionality of HD Graphics 2500 was not affected at all. Just like HD Graphics 4000, the younger version has support for DirectX 11 and three-monitor configurations.
It should be noted that, as before, in different third-generation Core processors the graphics core can operate at different frequencies. For example, Intel is more concerned about integrated graphics performance when it comes to mobile solutions, and this is reflected in frequencies. In general, Ivy Bridge mobile processors have an HD Graphics 4000 core that operates at a slightly higher frequency than in the case of their desktop modifications. In addition, the difference in the frequency of the integrated graphics may also be due to limitations in the heat dissipation of different CPU models.
In addition, the frequency of graphics operation is variable. Ivy Bridge processors implement a special Intel HD Graphics Dynamic Frequency technology, which interactively controls the frequency of the video core depending on the load on the processor's computing cores and their current power consumption and heat dissipation.
Therefore, among the characteristics of specific HD Graphics implementations, two frequencies are indicated: minimum and maximum. The first is typical for the idle state, while the second is the target frequency to which the graphics core seeks to accelerate, if current power consumption and heat dissipation allows, under load.
| CPU | Cores/threads | L3 cache, MB | Clock frequency, GHz | TDP, W | Model HD Graphics | Execute devices | Max. graphics frequency, GHz | Min. graphics frequency, MHz |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Desktop processors | ||||||||
| Core i7-3770K | 4/8 | 8 | Up to 3.9 | 77 | 4000 | 16 | 1,15 | 650 |
| Core i7-3770 | 4/8 | 8 | Up to 3.9 | 77 | 4000 | 16 | 1,15 | 650 |
| Core i7-3770S | 4/8 | 8 | Up to 3.9 | 65 | 4000 | 16 | 1,15 | 650 |
| Core i7-3770T | 4/8 | 8 | Up to 3.7 | 45 | 4000 | 16 | 1,15 | 650 |
| Core i5-3570K | 4/4 | 6 | Up to 3.8 | 77 | 4000 | 16 | 1,15 | 650 |
| Core i5-3570 | 4/4 | 6 | Up to 3.8 | 77 | 2500 | 6 | 1,15 | 650 |
| Core i5-3570S | 4/4 | 6 | Up to 3.8 | 65 | 2500 | 6 | 1,15 | 650 |
| Core i5-3570T | 4/4 | 6 | Up to 3.3 | 45 | 2500 | 6 | 1,15 | 650 |
| Core i5-3550 | 4/4 | 6 | Up to 3.7 | 77 | 2500 | 6 | 1,15 | 650 |
| Core i5-3550S | 4/4 | 6 | Up to 3.7 | 65 | 2500 | 6 | 1,15 | 650 |
| Core i5-3475S | 4/4 | 6 | Up to 3.6 | 65 | 4000 | 16 | 1,1 | 650 |
| Core i5-3470 | 4/4 | 6 | Up to 3.6 | 77 | 2500 | 6 | 1,1 | 650 |
| Core i5-3470S | 4/4 | 6 | Up to 3.6 | 65 | 2500 | 6 | 1,1 | 650 |
| Core i5-3470T | 2/4 | 4 | Up to 3.6 | 35 | 2500 | 6 | 1,1 | 650 |
| Core i5-3450 | 4/4 | 6 | Up to 3.5 | 77 | 2500 | 6 | 1,1 | 650 |
| Core i5-3450S | 4/4 | 6 | Up to 3.5 | 65 | 2500 | 6 | 1,1 | 650 |
| Mobile processors | ||||||||
| Core i7-3920XM | 4/8 | 8 | Up to 3.8 | 55 | 4000 | 16 | 1,3 | 650 |
| Core i7-3820QM | 4/8 | 8 | Up to 3.7 | 45 | 4000 | 16 | 1,25 | 650 |
| Core i7-3720QM | 4/8 | 6 | Up to 3.6 | 45 | 4000 | 16 | 1,25 | 650 |
| Core i7-3667U | 2/4 | 4 | Up to 3.2 | 17 | 4000 | 16 | 1,15 | 350 |
| Core i7-3615QM | 4/8 | 6 | Up to 3.3 | 45 | 4000 | 16 | 1,2 | 650 |
| Core i7-3612QM | 4/8 | 6 | Up to 3.1 | 35 | 4000 | 16 | 1,1 | 650 |
| Core i7-3610QM | 4/8 | 6 | Up to 3.3 | 45 | 4000 | 16 | 1,1 | 650 |
| Core i7-3520M | 2/4 | 4 | Up to 3.6 | 35 | 4000 | 16 | 1,25 | 650 |
| Core i7-3517U | 2/4 | 4 | Up to 3.0 | 17 | 4000 | 16 | 1,15 | 350 |
| Core i5-3427U | 2/4 | 3 | Up to 2.8 | 17 | 4000 | 16 | 1,15 | 350 |
| Core i5-3360M | 2/4 | 3 | Up to 3.5 | 35 | 4000 | 16 | 1,2 | 650 |
| Core i5-3320M | 2/4 | 3 | Up to 3.3 | 35 | 4000 | 16 | 1,2 | 650 |
| Core i5-3317U | 2/4 | 3 | Up to 2.6 | 17 | 4000 | 16 | 1,05 | 350 |
| Core i5-3210M | 2/4 | 3 | Up to 3.1 | 35 | 4000 | 16 | 1,1 | 650 |
In the previous article we told you about the new processors from the Ivy Bridge line, today we will touch on one of the components of these processors - the integrated Intel HD 4000 graphics, codenamed Carlow.
The graphics, like its previous version, Intel HD 3000, has four processor cores, but the new version also has support for DirectX 11. However, it’s too early to rejoice. DirectX 11 can only be found in the latest games, which are so demanding on system resources that our built-in video card will probably be left behind their system requirements. And this is even despite the fact that compared to the graphics in Sandy Bridge, our 4000 has tripled its performance (at least, that’s what Intel claims). And in general, there are so many changes in the graphics core that this is a clear big step forward compared to the previous options.
It is now possible to connect as many as three monitors to the graphics at the same time (although this may require DisplayPort). If you need to open many windows for work, and they all need to be in front of your eyes, then this function will certainly be useful to you. In addition, a powerful processor will make it possible to run demanding graphics programs if you are a designer. In general, a rather bright prospect emerges here in terms of using a laptop or ultrabook on Ivy Bridge. When you need mobility, you take it and go where you need to go. When you need to work at a stationary place, you connect a large monitor (or even several) to your mobile computer and work.
The base clock speed of this graphics can be increased because Turbo Boost technology is built into the processor chip. Depending on the processor model, the base frequency and overclocking frequency may vary. For example, its performance on low-power processors will be 30% below average. In general, it can operate at clock frequencies from 350 to 1350 MHz.
The clock frequency here is lower than in previous versions, which makes it possible to reduce power consumption. Since the microarchitecture of the graphics core was changed for the better, Intel felt that this would not reduce its performance, which was already quite sufficient.
Intel HD 4000 graphics includes 16 execution units, or unified shaders, while Intel HD 3000 could boast only 12. In addition, there is support for OpenGL 3.1 and OpenCL 1.1 (the latter using shader processors). The totality of the characteristics of the new graphics is such that it is almost equal to a very productive development from AMD - Llano. In terms of performance, the HD 4000 is on par with the discrete Nvidia GeForce GT 330M and exceeds the performance of the integrated Radeon HD 6620G (though only when paired with a quad-core processor).
The encoding quality has also improved, and the video encoding speed has doubled. By the way, the hardware video encoder can play back at least 16 video streams, all in high definition. It can also play ultra-high resolution content of 4096x2304.
However, although we wrote that it is unlikely that you will be able to play the latest games on this graphics, some will still run on it - unless, of course, they are too demanding of graphic resources. The gaming performance of the Intel HD 4000 is 50% higher than that of the 3000. Among the games you can play on it are Left 4 Dead 2, DiRT 3, Street Fighter 4 and others. If you have run games on the Intel HD 4000, write in the comments what works on it and what doesn’t. We will make an update later.
Here is a short table for now (click on the picture to enlarge):
Also playable:
FIFA 11 (2010)
Battlefield: Bad Company 2 (2010)
F.E.A.R. 2 (2009)
Counter-Strike Source (2004)
Intel's spirit in promoting the HD 4000 was decisive. The integrated graphics processor was located on the same chip with four Ivy Bridge cores of each Core i5-3570K and Core i7 3770 (K). For this reason, the move to 22nm Ivy Bridge from 32nm Sandy Bridge was more than just a tick in the manufacturer's famous "tick-tock" strategy, and indicated that US marketers are indeed very happy with what they go to market.
However, a presentation alone is not enough to convince one of the significant improvements in performance of the Intel HD 4000 graphics card, since the manufacturer's integrated graphics offerings often fall short of what is desired. Verification of the integrated GPU has become even more urgent after the appearance of the competing AMD FM1 hybrid processor on the market, the performance of which significantly exceeded the capabilities of the HD 3000 installed on most chips with Sandy Bridge architecture.
Intel (R) HD Graphics 4000: graphics card specifications
So, what did the manufacturing company do that caused such a fuss about the HD 4000? First of all, DirectX 11 support has been added. This means the HD 4000 can take advantage of all the great API features like tessellation and high-definition diffuse shading. No less important was the increase in the number of shader cores (or, as Intel calls them, execution units) by 30% - from 12 to 16.
To ensure that additional computing capabilities are fully utilized, the manufacturer has increased the number of texture pipelines from one to two. The pipelines are largely unchanged from the HD 3000 cores, but the increase in their number means each is shared by 8 rather than 12 cores, hence increasing theoretical throughput.
It's interesting to note that by adding one pipeline, Intel was forced to dedicate part of the L3 cache specifically to the GPU, since it makes no sense to double the number of texture processing units and leave the bandwidth unchanged. 256 KB are available, although the GPU will of course also require some of the system DDR3 RAM.
Intel HD Graphics 4000 Specifications: Memory
Since the GPU does not have a dedicated RAM, the processor must work in conjunction with the main memory and its clock speed. Typically, RAM operates at 1333 MHz, but a slightly higher speed of 1600 MHz is also common.
The integrated GPU now has a larger cache shared with the L3 CPU, which determines how much is allocated to the graphics card. Dual-core and quad-core Ivy Bridge chips have 3-4 MB and 6-8 MB of L3 cache, respectively, which determines the theoretical impact of memory size on the performance of the Intel HD Graphics 4000.
Energy efficiency
In addition to architectural changes, the characteristics of the Intel HD 4000 are due to the transition to a new 22-nm process, which, according to the company, allows it to provide the same level of performance with half the power consumption. In idle mode, the GPU consumes 54.3 W of energy, and under load - 113 W (as part of the i7-3770K processor).
However, it was not without side effects. According to user reviews, chips based on Ivy Bridge have high thermal density. This means they can run hotter than their technically weaker predecessors.
Test configuration
Users tested the Intel HD 4000 Graphics in the i5-2570K and compared the results to the GPU it replaces, the HD 3000 integrated into the i5-2500k, as well as the AMD A8-3870K chipset, which offers tough competition at the low end of the market thanks to integrated Radeon HD 6550D graphics processor and discrete graphics card Comparisons are not so easy, since the HD 650 boasts 512 MB of internal memory and modern architecture of the Northern Islands GPU family.
Selecting appropriate synthetic graphics performance testing procedures is a challenging task. Windows 7 Experience Index and CineBench R10/11 scores aren't as accurate as we'd like, and 3DMark tests tend to be more optimized and favor Intel.
According to user reviews, a good option is the DirectX11 Unigen Heaven 2.1 test.
Synthetic performance
Unigen Heaven is one of the HD 4000's toughest endurance tests, so it's no surprise that the integrated Intel GPU struggles even at low settings. The resolution is 1280 x 1024 pixels and the usual tessellation settings allow you to get an average frame rate of 13 fps. However, the HD 4000 is nearly 2x faster than some low-end dedicated GPUs such as the Radeon HD 7450 and GeForce 610M, both of which achieve frame rates as low as 7 fps in the same tests and settings. The GeForce 630M video card is in the lead with 14 fps.
Left 4 Dead 2
According to user reviews, the i5-3570K processor consistently demonstrates a minimum of 26 fps in the game Left 4 Dead 2 at 720p resolution. This result surpasses the AMD Radeon HD 6550D integrated into the A8-3870K, which shows performance of 31 fps, which is well above the 25 fps that is considered the threshold. The same story repeats when increasing the resolution to 1920 x 1080 pixels - AMD's offering again comes out on top. But it's not all bad: the HD 4000 integrated into the i5-3570K is far ahead of the old HD 3000 included in the i5-2500k. This confirms the manufacturer's claims that the graphics part of the Ivy Bridge architecture is "more than teak."
Dirt 3
Users note that the impressive characteristics of the Intel HD Graphics 4000 video card are confirmed by the game Dirt 3, in which the GPU is again ahead of the HD 3000 by 40%. Such a huge advantage is enough to take over the discrete graphics card in the test. This was another nail in the coffin for base-level discrete graphics cards.
Again, the HD 4000 is narrowly inferior to the HD 6550D at 720p, but it's important to note the higher thermal design power of the AMD processor. This isn't a major problem on the desktop (although testing the Intel chip spins the fan at a noticeably slower speed, so a system built around it should be much quieter than one based on the A8-3870K), but it is a serious challenge for mobile computing, where power and cooling capabilities are significantly limited.
Diablo III
Surprisingly, things weren't all rosy for the GPU at Diablo III's launch, with the Intel HD 4000's specs not being sufficient to handle the game, according to owners. This was not observed when using the onboard graphics of the A8-3870K or the discrete HD 6450. The HD 4000 and HD6450 cards swapped places here - the latter outperformed the former, although neither of them was able to demonstrate normal operation even at 720p resolution.
This result may be due to the fact that Diablo III was a fairly new game at the time and Intel had yet to optimize its driver. However, this cannot be an excuse for the rather poor performance, especially since the AMD driver did not have a serious performance hit.
Known Issues
Intel GPUs have been notorious for poor driver support in the past. Users have reported artifacts and other glitches in a wide range of games that are not typically seen on Nvidia and AMD GPUs.
Users who have tested the Intel HD 4000's performance have found that the manufacturer has begun to slowly but surely improve its drivers. For example, the game Alan Wake had compatibility issues with HD 3000, but can run correctly on HD 4000. However, incompatibility with a number of games remained unresolved.
In Black Ops, users are experiencing intermittent freezing issues regardless of graphical settings. The problem occurs even at the lowest settings. At the same time, the frame rate drops to 22 fps. FIFA 12 has unusually long loading times (using a dual-core Core i5-3xxx). Metro 2033 with certain settings freezes during startup (only true for dual-core Core i5-3xxx).
Threat to budget video cards
Overall, users are impressed with the integrated Intel HD 4000 GPU. GPU performance has improved by an average of 30% over the HD 3000. This difference increases to 40% when pairing integrated graphics with a powerful quad-core Ivy Bridge processor such as the i7-3610QM. Even the best AMD Llano chips can't compete with the HD 4000. Intel has about a 15% advantage over the Fusion Llano offerings.
What's even more impressive is that the processor outperforms the Radeon HD 7450, suggesting that entry-level discrete graphics cards from AMD or Nvidia are no longer viable alternatives.
Casual gamers who can live with low resolutions, disabled full-screen anti-aliasing, and muted graphical effects may find the HD 4000 processor a great option.
The manufacturing company has done an excellent job, at least in terms of integrated graphics. The Intel(R) HD Graphics 4000's performance wasn't a threat to mid- and high-end discrete graphics cards, but the base models from Nvidia and AMD had serious competition. Since integrated graphics processors were used in the vast majority of laptops, this product threatened to take away most of the market share from competitors. These plans could be hindered by the promotion of AMD Trinity with the new Fusion core.
Prospect for Mobile Applications
Users were impressed not so much by the characteristics of the Intel HD 4000 as by the new prospects for using the processor.
At the same time, those wishing to create a media computer or a small cheap PC for whom graphics performance was important preferred the cheaper FM1 chip, which outperformed the HD 4000 i5-3570K in all tests. Even a reduction in the class of the video card did not allow the price to be equal, since the GPU was supplied only with i5-3570K and i7-3770K, and all other chipsets in the line were equipped with cut-down HD 2500 cores.
This may be a bit of an unfair comparison - Intel launched the HD 4000 in desktop chips, but the GPU's real place is in mobile processors. This is where the device could excel thanks to its good performance and low power consumption. The same can't be said for the A8-3870K, as its high heat levels mean it can only be used on desktop systems.
Another concession
The HD 4000 video processor might have received a higher rating if the manufacturer had paid more attention to its product. In the meantime, AMD could enjoy its status as the highest-performing integrated graphics card for some time to come.
Part 18: Intel HD Graphics 4000 in different environments and the impact of the latter on the performance of the former
Processors based on the Ivy Bridge microarchitecture appeared a year ago, so everyone who follows this topic even a little knows the name of the older video core built into desktop Core i7s. That's right - Intel HD Graphics 4000. And if we go down a little lower in the ranking table to somewhere like the Core i3 level, then what will we find there? Most models have Intel HD Graphics 2500, but the i3-3225 and the recently announced 3245 still have the same HDG 4000. Laptop models also have it, and in all of them (with the exception of Celeron and Pentium, which are considered separately from the Core categories) : from the extreme i7-3940XM (four cores with a frequency of up to 3.9 GHz, TDP 55 W), to the tablet i3-3229Y (two cores with a frequency of 1.4 GHz, TDP 13 W). But is this video core the same? In the case of discrete video cards, the question would be meaningless: one can be installed in a computer with any processor (at least theoretically). With an integrated solution, everything is more complicated. Firstly, even at a quick glance, the difference in the maximum operating frequency of the GPU is noticeable, and the range is extremely wide - from 850 MHz (just i3-3229Y) to 1.35 GHz (i7-3940XM), i.e. it differs by more than one and a half times. Secondly, we are not talking about some fixed frequencies - even in the first generation of Core GPU mobile processors they began to use Turbo Boost technology, and it is also used for processor cores. What does this lead to? The frequency of both changes dynamically, and depends both on the load on the CPU and GPU, and on which heat package ultimately needs to be “fitted”. In general, everything is unpredictable in advance, but there is an assumption that mobile graphics, although they have the same name as desktop graphics, work slower.
The discrepancy in end systems is not limited to GPU frequency alone. Even in the market for entry-level discrete video cards, their final characteristics are left to the manufacturers, and are not controlled in any way by the developer of the video processor itself. The discrepancy with the official performance characteristics can be significant, as we recently observed: four (!) out of five Palit video cards were somewhat (to put it mildly) different from what NVIDIA intended. Moreover, it is easy to notice that the main differences did not even concern the frequencies of the chip, but the memory system. However, this is quite possible in the case of integrated graphics, especially since in this case the memory is rarely soldered on the board. Accordingly, options are possible. For example, the “official” DDR3-1600 or the slower DDR-1333 - whichever modules the manufacturer (or user) decides to use will be the same. But this, at least, is somehow amenable to manual adjustment, but if the manufacturer decides to install only one SO-DIMM slot (inexpensive ultrabook models most often suffer from this, but not only them), we will get a completely different level of graphics core performance , despite the fact that the computer's specifications will still indicate "Intel HD Graphics 4000".
Is it possible to test all the options and give a clear answer: what does each of them represent? It is possible, but difficult - the number of possible configurations is finite, but large. And it’s not very interesting to do this: it has long been known that the HDG 4000, even in its “best form,” is not a full-fledged gaming solution, but to solve most other problems, as a rule, older and weaker GPUs are enough - up to HD Graphics processors Celeron on Sandy Bridge core. On the other hand, you can try to estimate the approximate range where most solutions should fall - this is not so difficult. And in the process of a variety of testing, we have accumulated a certain set of useful information. In any case, it turned out that recently, using the same version of drivers (which is relevant in this case), we have tested for different purposes five different computer configurations that have exactly the desired graphics subsystem. Thus, in this article we will simply put the results together and try to evaluate the influence of various factors on the performance of the Intel HD Graphics 4000 graphics core.
Test bench configuration
We have already indicated the range of potential clock frequencies above - from 850 MHz in Y-series processors to 1350 MHz in Core i7 Extreme Mobile. Thus, the most correct approach from a theoretical point of view would be to take two systems: a Core i3-3229Y (nowhere lower) and a Core i7-3940XM (no higher) and test them with different memory configurations - at least one and two channels , and at most also with different frequencies. Which is not feasible in practice. Firstly, it’s still difficult to find something with a Y-processor: such models have appeared quite recently, so most tablets in retail chains are equipped with the more familiar U or even M Core. Secondly, there is still no point in searching: the design of the tablet does not imply flexible configuration of the memory system - here you can “run into” memory modules soldered on the board and/or unavoidable single-channel. Thirdly, and at the top end, not everything is smooth - top-end laptops are free of the problems described above, however, processors of both the XM and QM families (where the maximum graphics frequency is 1.3 GHz) are usually found on sale exclusively in pairs with discrete video cards , which cannot always be turned off. On the other hand, this also leads to the fact that there is simply no need to test extreme options - since the probability of encountering them in practice is zero or (in the case of Y) there are no options for choice anyway.
| CPU | Core i3-3217U | Core i5-3317U | Core i7-3517U | Core i7-3770S | Core i7-3770K | Core i5-3570S |
| Kernel name | Ivy Bridge DC | Ivy Bridge DC | Ivy Bridge DC | Ivy Bridge QC | Ivy Bridge QC | Ivy Bridge QC |
| Number of cores/threads | 2/4 | 2/4 | 2/4 | 4/8 | 4/8 | 4/4 |
| Core frequency (std/max), GHz | 1,8 | 1,7/2,6 | 1,9/3,0 | 3,1/3,9 | 3,5/3,9 | 3,1/3,8 |
| L3 cache, MiB | 3 | 3 | 4 | 8 | 8 | 6 |
| RAM | 2×DDR3-1333 | 1×DDR3-1333 | 2×DDR3-1600 | 2×DDR3-1333 | 2×DDR3-1600 | 2×DDR3-1333 |
| Video frequency (std/max), MHz | 350/1050 | 350/1050 | 350/1150 | 650/1150 | 650/1150 | 650/1150 |
| TDP, W | 17 | 17 | 17 | 65 | 77 | 65 |
But the range of 1.05-1.15 GHz, on the contrary, is extremely interesting because most of the possible options fit into it. It’s easy to see that three of the five configurations have already been tested by us - today the simply video-related results will be “expanded”. And supplemented by two more implementations - in Core i7-3770S and i7-3770K processors. The clock speed of the video core is 1.15 GHz, typical for many Core i7s, but there are two different memory frequencies. Plus there is a huge dispersion in terms of processor performance - let's see how it can affect the graphics results. And for comparison, we added the results of one processor with HDG 2500, but a powerful processor part - it suddenly turns out that ultramobile solutions, despite top-end (formally) graphics, are still significantly slower. If the processor part is equal, this, of course, is not observed, but with such a difference, anything can happen.
And an important point is the different TDP levels of the tested processors; fortunately, five out of six support Turbo Boost technology for processor cores and all for GPUs. Why is it important? You may recall that in our power consumption tests, applying a load to the GPU increased it for the Core i7-3770K by 17 W. Naturally, a lot depends on the specific instance of the processor, especially since different series are subject to selection of different degrees of rigidity for this parameter - we also saw 20 W from the HDG 2500 in the budget i5-3450. But the order of magnitude itself is understandable and, in general, not small - dual-core U-series processors are limited to the same 17 W for the entire processor. And the 12 W official difference between the 3770S and 3770K is also bound to affect the operation of Turbo Boost when using the entire processor, and, therefore, performance.
Aliens vs. Predator
As we have written more than once, no integrated graphics can handle this game in this mode, so we get a pure stress test of the video core working at the limit of its capabilities. Moreover, anything can be a limiter on these capabilities: the equality of the results of the Core i3-3217U and i7-3517U is very significant - despite the potential differences, both models “rested” at the same TDP. But two qualitative effects are clearly visible - firstly, single-channel memory is like death even for U-family processors (we have already seen that this is true for top models), and secondly, even in this mode the HDG 4000 is still faster, than 2500.
In low-quality mode, you can even try and play, and on any of the subjects. But in different ways: a low-frequency dual-core processor with single-channel DDR3-1333, but with HDG 4000, as it turns out, is suitable for this almost to the same extent as one of the older desktop models with HDG 2500! Despite the fact that the processor also works in this mode, it is not for nothing that two quad-core Core i7s are in first place. The difference between them is already relatively small, despite the fact that one model is generally top-end and works with faster memory, and the second is energy efficient. 3217U and 3517U are much slower, although in their case there is some performance reserve that can slightly improve picture quality.
Batman: Arkham Asylum GOTY Edition
The relatively old and “light” graphics engine “loads” the GPU to a lesser extent, but has increased requirements for the processor component due to good multi-threaded optimization. As a result, desktop Core i7s already “pull out” the high-quality mode, and ultramobile processors are only close to this level. But they are very close, so with a slight decrease in quality they can reach a “playable” level. Unless, of course, you “squeeze” the memory system - in single-channel mode the HDG 4000 is reduced to almost the level of 2500. But, by the way, not lower - the i5-3570S overtook the i5-3317U only due to the “full” four cores at a higher clock frequency and twice the amount of L3 cache.
With minimal quality, everything turns into a competition between processors. What is worth noting here is that such settings, as we see, still cannot be called completely irrelevant - for top processors with integrated graphics, the frame rate begins to go “off scale” beyond the threshold of sufficiency, but it is not only them that needs to be tested. On models for nettops and ultrabooks, the FPS is high, but not to say “excessive”.
Crysis: Warhead x64
Another stress test, where it is clearly visible, firstly, the complete incompetence of both systems with single-channel memory, such as the HDG 2500, and secondly, that the processor component, even in such conditions, still matters, affecting the final performance. On the other hand, first of all, still, the GPU, and then everything else.
Including in video modes that are potentially suitable for practical use (if, of course, someone enjoys looking at such a picture). In any case, the Core i7-3517U managed to overtake the Core i5-3570S due to its advantage in the graphics component, despite the fundamentally different processor.
F1 2010
As we have written more than once, the same frame rate in this game does not mean anything if it is equal to 12.5 FPS - a feature of the game engine, which tries to keep it at this level, discarding what is not essential (in its opinion).
In low quality, you can sometimes play on the HDG 4000, however, as we see, for this you need at least a Core i7-3517U (not the worst in its class, to put it mildly, and not cheap), and equipped with dual-channel memory with a frequency of 1600 MHz. Failure to comply with any of these conditions will result in consequences. Excess will change the picture to a lesser extent than the size of the excess :)
Far Cry 2
The performance of the HDG 4000 is still not enough for this old game (which is not news for a long time), but to a lesser extent than for Crysis or AvP, of course. It’s no wonder that the performance of the older and younger of the tested processors differs by one and a half times. On the other hand, from the point of view of worldly wisdom, we would not be surprised at a greater difference - after all, the CPU parts differ too much. One might even say, fundamentally and in all respects.
And in the minimum quality mode it comes to the fore. And the most curious result is that the Core i3-3217U, even in this case, could not reach the comfort threshold. That is, this game, almost five years old, still in no way lends itself not only to Atom or Brazos, but also to many high-efficiency platforms in general. And it doesn’t matter whether it’s with integrated video or with any discrete video: the performance of the processor part itself is not enough. So progress is progress, and a certain minimum of system requirements must be provided. Which, as we see, older CULV processors can cope with without much safety margin, while younger ones cannot cope at all (it will be interesting to see how Kabini and younger Haswell fare with this). In general, a “fresh” tablet or budget ultrabook will not necessarily allow you to play even very old games and even at minimum settings.
Metro 2033
Let's return to the origins in the form of the first diagram - it is clear that not a single one of the subjects is enough for a high-quality mode of this game, and fundamentally not enough. But the influence of performance characteristics on performance is very clear, so we will not describe everything in detail - it’s easy to draw all the conclusions yourself.
Metro 2033 appeared a year and a half later than FC2, so the minimum hardware requirements for the game are higher. To be fair, the “baseboard” quality mode itself has a much higher quality :) The minimum for it is Core i3-3225, i.e., to somehow play this game, we need a processor with a frequency higher than 3 GHz and HDG 4000, both conditions being significant. The HDG 2500 won't run the game even with these settings, regardless of the processor. And weak models with any graphics will not cope with it precisely because they are weak.
We advise many laptop buyers to think about the latter;) Firstly, in light of these trends, the attempts of some manufacturers to equip their products with CULV processors with discrete video cards are beginning to look somewhat strange. In particular, we came across models with a Core i3-3217U paired with a GeForce GT 740M. The latest video card is another example of renaming and optimization, since it is practically the same 640M that has long been familiar to many, but with slightly increased frequencies. Not God knows what, of course, but potentially a couple of times faster than the same HDG 4000. However, as we see, the “processor independence” of games has its limit, especially when it comes to more or less modern projects, i.e. for Metro 2033 is already short of low-voltage dual-core models. Thus, a configuration similar to the one indicated will allow the user, perhaps, to increase the picture quality in old games, but not to play (at least somehow) new ones - you must agree, this is not an achievement for which it makes sense to pay for discrete graphics.
The second problem is from the same area: AMD never tires of repeating that, although its APU has lower processor performance, its graphics are more powerful than Intel's. As you can see, there are limits to everything - including the weak dependence of the results on the processor. And then the partners add fuel to the fire by adding to some A8-4555M (which at least feeds the built-in GPU) a discrete video card on something like Radeon HD 7550M/8550M. There is no doubt - Dual Graphics is sometimes the only way to increase the performance of the graphics subsystem, but this is only relevant when it is precisely insufficient. As you can see, not only this is possible in the low-consumption segment.
Summary results
Let's try to assess the situation in general, and also look not only at games, for which we will use diagrams with average results for a group of tests/applications (you can find out more about the full testing methodology in a separate article). The results in the diagrams are given in points, per 100 points in this article The performance of the Core i3-3217U is accepted as the slowest of the four processors tested. Those who are interested in more detailed information are again traditionally invited to download a table in Microsoft Excel format, in which all the results are presented both converted into points and in “natural” form.
So let's start with games. It is immediately clear that the single-channel memory mode instantly relegates HDG 4000 to the level of 2500 and other similar solutions, so it is not very relevant for practical use. Under normal conditions, the difference in results is 33%. On the one hand, there is a lot, on the other, everything is different. Even TDP is 4.5 times different. But if such freedom is not given, and memory of the DDR3-1333 type is used the same, then even 15% will not be gained. Which is easily explained - after all, the video core itself is the same (adjusted for the influence of the thermal package on its actual clock frequency), and taking into account its power, heavy gaming applications are the stress test for it in the first place.
But in practice, as we have already seen, in such conditions the frame rate is almost universally too low to be used, so modes with reduced graphics quality are more relevant. For many solutions - reduced to a minimum: this mode is too easy for top solutions, but CULV processors, as we see, do not always cope with it. And here the dependence of the results on the processor part is visible to the naked eye, so that 33% turns into 128% - no comments necessary. Moreover, we note that a “normal desktop” processor with an HDG 2500 outperforms even the CULV Core i7 (3517U, of course, is a junior model, but the older 3687U only differs by a 10% higher maximum clock frequency, which may not be enough), but by one and a half times behind a “normal desktop” processor with HDG 4000.
If this load were multi-threaded, most likely we would get a spread of results as in the previous case, but “only” 1.87 times. But the situation inside is different: there is practically no difference between HDG 2500 and 4000. It is not surprising that the memory operating mode has an effect, but only weakly - the higher clock frequency of the processor more than covers this difference.
At the time of GMA and the first versions of HDG, these results also depended on the video core, but now, as we see, they no longer do. Well, we will take this into account when developing the next versions of test methods :)
Total
So, as you would expect, we have confirmed the dependence of the performance of integrated graphics solutions on the processors into which they are integrated. However, we note that it is not always so strong. As one would expect, when the load falls on the GPU, a large scatter of results can only be detected when comparing processors with fundamentally different thermal packages, since it also affects the frequencies of the graphics core. But such modes are guaranteed to be too “heavy” not only for IGP, but also for younger models of discrete video cards, so in order to play on them in practice (and not just watch a slide show), you have to reduce the picture quality, i.e. i.e. reduce the load on the GPU and increase it on the CPU. While the latter belong to the same class, the determining factor continues to be the power of the graphics core itself (which we have already seen in the example of desktop solutions, where a pair of high-frequency cores and a TDP margin allowed the same HDG 4000 to deploy to the full extent of its weak strengths and paired with different processors ), but you should no longer expect the same level of performance from ultrabook and desktop processors. In principle, it would be difficult to assume the opposite, but it is never superfluous to make sure that this is exactly the state of affairs. The love of naming solutions that are similar in architecture but different in performance began, of course, not with Intel, but in most cases, manufacturers still at least somehow hint at the existence of a difference. Yes, the company itself adheres to the same practice in the system of naming processors - giving them non-overlapping numbers and not forgetting to add the letter “M” or “U” at the end, sometimes dramatically affecting the family number (a hackneyed example: the vast majority of desktop Core i5s are to quad-core processors, but all Core i5-M are only dual-core). But with graphics there is not even such clarity: one can judge only by indirect signs - such as the name of the processor in which it is built.
Is there any hope of stopping the resulting mess in the future? Maybe in a distant, but definitely not in the next generation of processors. That is, we, of course, have no doubt that the Iris 5100 is a more powerful GPU than the HDG 4600. However, will this allow playing on the Core i7-4558U (dual-core SoC with a TDP of 15 W) with greater comfort than on the Core i7-4700HQ? not to mention the older desktop Core i7-4770K (quad-core processors, which are also faster than the 4558U in clock frequency and less “squeezed” by the thermal package) - the question is open. And the complete equality of processors with the so-called equally integrated GPU is even more doubtful. However, it is impossible to accurately understand these issues without direct testing, and this is a topic for completely different testing.
Today, the 4400 model is one of the best graphics accelerators for creating an entry-level multimedia station or office personal computer. This model belongs to the Intel HD Graphics line. Reviews of this product, its specifications and capabilities will be discussed in some detail.
Intel HD Graphics 4000: reasons for its appearance
Intel HD Graphics 4000 was released to reduce the cost of entry-level PCs. In reviews of this device, users note an extremely low level of performance. This is an integrated solution that is designed to implement simpler tasks. This list includes video playback, office applications and the most simple toys. In this case, the cost reduction is achieved due to the fact that there is no need to purchase an entry-level discrete video card. If we compare this accelerator with earlier integrated graphics solutions, the transfer of a central processing unit to a semiconductor chip has a beneficial effect on the level of performance. At the same time, the layout of the motherboard is significantly simplified. This significantly reduces its cost.
Intel HD Graphics 4000: the market segment this accelerator is aimed at
Intel HD Graphics 4000 is aimed at solving the most simple tasks. Users confirm this information in their reviews. This accelerator copes well with office applications such as Excel and Word. The adapter also allows you to display images on a TV or monitor in HD quality. It will also play the simplest computer games. This list also includes outdated applications of this plan. So, for example, HeroesIII will definitely work in any version. For more demanding computer games, you will need to buy a discrete graphics adapter.
Intel HD Graphics 4000: processors with this accelerator
The Intel HD Graphics 4000 graphics card was part of the fourth generation Corei3 CPU. These chips belonged to the middle price category. They included two cores, and data could be processed in four software threads.
Intel HD Graphics 4000: operating mode
Intel HD Graphics 4000 supports an impressive list of image output modes. In their reviews, device owners indicate that this list contains all currently existing monitor resolutions. The accelerator can operate in modes with lower resolution, but the frequency will still be limited to 60 Hz. This will be quite enough for comfortable work.
Intel HD Graphics 4000: technical specifications
For the Intel HD Graphics 4000 model, clock speeds are limited to 350 MHz and 1.1 GHz. Based on user reviews, we can conclude that the device has low power consumption. The video chip can dynamically change its clock frequency depending on the load. This indicator also affects the degree of heating of the semiconductor crystal. The higher the temperature, the lower the frequency, which means the lower the performance of the graphics system. In this case, the crystal itself is manufactured according to the 22 nm technological process. The maximum number of connected monitors in this case is three.
Intel HD Graphics 4000: memory
All video cards in the Intel HD Graphics series are designed for RAM, which meets the specifications of the DDR3 standard. Owners of the device indicate in their reviews that part of the RAM installed in the computer system is allocated for the needs of the accelerator. For the hero of this review, the maximum amount of RAM is 2 GB. It should be separately noted that the frequencies of conventional RAM modules are lower than those used in discrete video cards. As a result, any accelerator will be inferior in performance to an external one. This does not take into account the frequency formulas of the chip itself and some architectural features.
Intel HD Graphics 4000: drivers
It will be impossible to unlock the full potential of any IntelHDGraphics accelerator without specially installed drivers. User reviews of the video card indicate that without installing drivers, it turns into a standard VGA card with a resolution of 1024x768 at best. If you install an operating system, you will definitely need to install special video accelerator drivers in the control panel. In this case, the picture will be displayed on the monitor screen with a resolution of up to 4096×2304.
Intel HD Graphics 4000: increased performance and overclocking
This video card model has the ability to overclock. However, this manipulation, at best, will allow you to achieve an additional 5% of productivity. The computer will still be an entry-level solution. In such a situation, the requirements for the configuration of a personal computer increase significantly. In this case, you will need a power supply with power reserves, an improved crystal cooling system and an advanced motherboard.
Intel HD Graphics 4000: Competing Solutions
Intel HD Graphics 4000 was recognized as the most powerful graphics accelerator of the previous generation. This accelerator was part of chips based on the third generation Core architecture. It had an improved frequency formula. This graphic solution could operate in the frequency range 650 MHz-1.15 GHz. The frequency range of Intel HD Graphics 4400, in turn, is – 350 MHz – 1.1 GHz. In their reviews, users highlight the higher level of performance of the latest solution. In this case, the answer lies in a large number of execution units. The Intel HD Graphics 4600 accelerator provided a slightly higher level of performance. These video cards have an identical frequency formula, but a larger number of information processing units provides greater performance.
Intel HD Graphics 4000: reviews
The hero of our today's review has a performance level lower than that of the same Intel HD Graphics 4600. In turn, reviews from owners indicate that in terms of performance the difference between the integrated solutions is not so noticeable. For the tasks that this solution is aimed at, the level of performance is quite sufficient. If you need to run more demanding applications, then you cannot do without using a full-fledged discrete video card.
Conclusion
The Intel HD Graphics 4000 can rightfully be called one of the best integrated graphics accelerators. In user reviews you can find the opinion that this model has a high level of energy efficiency and good performance when solving simple problems. But for anything more, the capabilities of this product will not be enough. This is not what it is intended for. Today, sixth-generation chips based on the Core architecture with faster integrated video accelerators have already appeared. However, even their capabilities will not be enough. To run Photoshop and computer games normally, you will have to purchase an external accelerator. In other cases, the difference between integrated products is not so noticeable.