Graphics 4000 with shader support. Graphics: fast, slow and integrated

Problems registering on the site? CLICK HERE ! Do not pass by a very interesting section of our website - visitor projects. There you will always find the latest news, jokes, weather forecast (in an ADSL newspaper), TV program of terrestrial and ADSL-TV channels, the latest and most interesting news from the world of high technology, the most original and amazing pictures from the Internet, a large archive of magazines from recent years , delicious recipes in pictures, informative. The section is updated daily. Always the latest versions of the best free programs for everyday use in the Essential Programs section. There is almost everything you need for everyday work. Start gradually abandoning pirated versions in favor of more convenient and functional free analogues. If you still do not use our chat, we highly recommend that you get acquainted with it. There you will find many new friends. In addition, it is the fastest and effective way contact the project administrators. The Antivirus Updates section continues to work - always up-to-date free updates for Dr Web and NOD. Didn't have time to read something? The full contents of the ticker can be found at this link.

Video card for load: review of Intel HD Graphics 4000 and Intel HD Graphics 2500 graphics accelerators

Announcement: Ivy Bridge processors didn't impress us too much because they weren't much better than their predecessors. But until now we have ignored their graphics core, which is actually affected by significant changes. It's time to eliminate this gap and test their graphics; what if, based on the results of such a study, the new Intel CPUs will receive a completely different final score?

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: the 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 tablet computers and ultra-compact solutions that Intel calls ultrabooks. And it was precisely this desire for lightness and miniature that became the main driving force in the integration of graphics into central processing units and in increasing its productivity. One chip that fully replaces both the CPU and the GPU and at the same time has low heat dissipation is exactly the basis that is needed to create something that will entice modern users mobile solutions. That is why we are seeing rapid development 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 with previous version microarchitecture, Sandy Bridge, the changes have taken place dramatically, 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 looking at on-chip graphics as a complement to computing, hoping that flexible programmable shader processors can help increase overall performance solutions. Intel same opportunity widespread use graphics for calculations are not taken into account: 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

The increase in performance of integrated graphics cores is far from the same simple 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 this one important step Intel implemented 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 further development ideas embedded in previous generations of HD Graphics accelerators. 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 technical feasibility 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 beat.

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 noticeable naked eye 3D performance increase, estimated by Intel itself as double. 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, the operation of HD Graphics 4000 in the upcoming Windows 8 operating system will not be a problem - 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. Sandy Bridge processors also supported these software interfaces, 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. On this 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 the system uses an external graphics card, which generally disables integrated graphics, makes it impossible to use Quick Sync. True, a solution to this problem can be offered by third party company LucidLogix, which developed the Virtu graphics virtualization technology.

And yet Quick Sync remains 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. The implementation of a similar utilitarian hardware solution For coding, after Intel, only NVIDIA was able to master it. 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.

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 special technology Intel HD Graphics Dynamic Frequency, which interactively controls the frequency of the video core depending on the load on the processor 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, the second is the target frequency to which the graphics core seeks to accelerate, if current power consumption and heat dissipation allows, under load.

How we tested

As part of the testing, we set ourselves the goal of comparing the performance of the new Intel HD Graphics 4000 and Intel HD Graphics 2500 graphics accelerators built into Ivy Bridge processors with the speed of previous and competing integrated GPUs and junior video cards price range. This comparison was carried out using desktop systems as an example, although the results obtained can easily be extended to mobile systems.

There are currently two current processors for desktop computers with integrated graphics that make sense to compare with Ivy Bridge: AMD Vision A8/A6 series and Intel's Sandy Bridge. It was with them that we compared the system, which was based on third-generation Core i5 processors equipped with Intel HD Graphics 2500 and Intel HD Graphics 4000 graphics cores. In addition, cheap discrete AMD video cards of the six thousandth series Radeon HD 6450 and Radeon took part in the tests HD 6570.

Unfortunately, when comparing built-in video cores, we cannot ensure complete equality of other system characteristics. Different cores are accessories different processors, differing not only in clock frequency, but also in microarchitecture. Therefore, we had to limit ourselves to the selection of similar, but not identical configurations. In the case of LGA1155 platforms, we chose exclusively processors of the Core i5 series, and used older ones for comparison with them AMD processors Vision of the Llano family. Discrete video cards were tested as part of a system with an Ivy Bridge processor.

As a result, the following hardware and software components were used in the tests:

Processors:

• Intel Core i5-3570K (Ivy Bridge, 4 cores, 3.4-3.8 GHz, 6 MB L3, HD Graphics 4000);
• Intel Core i5-3550 (Ivy Bridge, 4 cores, 3.3-3.7 GHz, 6 MB L3, HD Graphics 2500);
• Intel Core i5-2500K (Sandy Bridge, 4 cores, 3.3-3.7 GHz, 6 MB L3, HD Graphics 3000);
• Intel Core i5-2400 (Sandy Bridge, 4 cores, 3.1-3.4 GHz, 6 MB L3, HD Graphics 2000);
• AMD A8-3870K (Llano, 4 cores, 3.0 GHz, 4 MB L2, Radeon HD 6550D);
• AMD A6-3650 (Llano, 4 cores, 2.6 GHz, 4 MB L2, Radeon HD 6530D).

motherboards:

• ASUS P8Z77-V Deluxe (LGA1155, Intel Z77 Express);
• Gigabyte GA-A75-UD4H (Socket FM1, AMD A75).

Video cards:

• AMD Radeon HD 6570 1 GB GDDR5 128-bit;
• AMD Radeon HD 6450 512 MB GDDR5 64-bit.

Memory: 2x4 GB, DDR3-1866 SDRAM, 9-11-9-27 (Kingston KHX1866C9D3K2/8GX).

Disk subsystem: Crucial m4 256 GB (CT256M4SSD2).

Power unit: Tagan TG880-U33II (880 W).

Operating system: Microsoft Windows 7 SP1 Ultimate x64.

Drivers:

• AMD Catalyst 12.4 Driver;
• AMD Chipset Driver 12.4;
• Intel Chipset Driver 9.3.0.1019;
• Intel Graphics Media Accelerator Driver 15.28.0.64.2729;
• Intel Rapid Storage Technology 10.8.0.1003.

The main emphasis in this testing was quite naturally placed on gaming applications of the integrated processor graphics. Therefore, the bulk of the benchmarks we used were games or specialized gaming tests. Moreover, to date, the power of integrated video accelerators has grown so much that it allowed us to conduct performance research not only in the low resolution of 1366x768, but also in the Full HD resolution of 1980x1080, which has become the de facto standard for desktop systems. True, in the latter case we were limited to choosing low quality settings.

3D performance

In anticipation of the results of performance testing, it is necessary to say a few words about the compatibility of HD Graphics 4000/2500 graphics accelerators with various games. Previously, it was quite a typical situation when some games with Intel graphics worked incorrectly or did not work at all. However, progress is obvious: slowly but surely the situation is changing for the better. With each new version of the accelerator and driver, the list of fully compatible gaming applications expands, and in the case of HD Graphics 4000/2500 it is already quite difficult to encounter any critical problems. However, if you are still skeptical about the capabilities of Intel graphics cores, then on the Intel website there is an extensive list (,) of new and popular games tested for compatibility with HD Graphics, which are guaranteed to have no problems and in which an acceptable level of performance is observed.

3DMark Vantage

3DMark family test results are a very popular metric for assessing the weighted average gaming performance of video cards. That's why we turned to 3DMark first. The choice of the Vantage version is due to the fact that it uses DirectX version ten, which is supported by all video accelerators participating in the tests.

The first diagrams very clearly show the huge leap in performance that the graphics cores of the HD Graphics family have made. HD Graphics 4000 demonstrates a more than twofold advantage over HD Graphics 3000. The younger version of the new Intel graphics does not lose face either. HD Graphics 2500 is almost twice as fast as HD Graphics 2000, even though both of these accelerators have the same number of execution units.

3DMark 11

The more recent version of 3DMark is focused on measuring DirectX 11 performance. Therefore, integrated graphics accelerators of second-generation Core processors are excluded from this test.

The graphics core of Ivy Bridge processors was the first of Intel's accelerators to pass the test in 3DMark 11, and we did not notice any complaints about image quality when running this DirectX 11 test. The performance of HD Graphics 4000 is also quite good. It outperforms the entry-level discrete video card Radeon HD 6450 and the Radeon HD 6530D accelerator built into the AMD A6-3650 processor, second only to the older version of the integrated core of AMD Llano processors and the Radeon HD 6570 video card, which costs about $60-70. The younger modification of modern Intel graphics, HD Graphics 2500, is in last place. Obviously, the ruthless reduction in the number of actuators that has befallen it has a significant impact on game performance.

Batman Arkham City

The group of real game tests opens with the relatively new game Batman Arkham City, built on the Unreal Engine 3.

As can be seen from the results, the performance of integrated Intel graphics has increased so much that it allows you to play fairly modern games at full Full HD resolution. And although there is no talk of good image quality and a completely comfortable number of frames per second, this is still a strong leap forward, perfectly illustrated by the 55 percent advantage of HD Graphics 4000 over HD Graphics 3000. In general, HD Graphics 4000 overtakes what is integrated into AMD The A6-3650 core Radeon HD 6530D and discrete Radeon HD 6450 graphics card are slightly behind the AMD A8-3850K with its Radeon HD 6550D GPU. True, the younger version of the integrated Ivy Bridge core, HD Graphics 2500, cannot boast of such significant achievements in performance. Although its result exceeds the HD Graphics 2000 by 40-45 percent, the graphics of quad-core Llano processors, like $40 video cards, are noticeably faster.

Battlefield 3

The most popular first-person shooter on the graphics built into Ivy Bridge processors does not turn fast enough. In addition, during testing we encountered some problems with the display of the game menu. However, the overall performance assessment of the new generation of HD Graphics solutions remains unchanged. The four thousandth accelerator is slightly faster than AMD A6-3650 graphics and the Radeon HD 6450 video card, but is inferior to the older modification of the video core of Llano processors and miserably loses to the discrete Radeon HD 6570 video card.

Civilization V

The popular turn-based strategy favors graphics solutions with AMD architecture; they take first place here. The results of Intel graphics are not very good, even the HD Graphics 4000 lags significantly behind both the internal Radeon HD 6530D and the external Radeon HD 6450.

Crysis 2

Crysis 2 can easily be considered one of the most difficult computer games for video accelerators. And this, as we see, affects the correlation of results. Even taking into account the fact that during testing we did not enable DirectX 11 mode, the Intel HD Graphics 4000 in the Core i5-3750K processor performed poorly and lost to both the A6-3650 processor graphics and the discrete Radeon HD 6450 graphics card. In fairness, it should be noted that The advantage of Ivy Bridge over Sandy Bridge remains more than significant, and it is observed both on the example of older versions of accelerators and with younger ones. In other words, the strength of the new graphics core is based only partly on the increase in the number of execution units. Even without this, HD Graphics 2500 is about 30 percent superior to HD Graphics 2000.

Dirt 3

In Dirt 3 the situation is typical. HD Graphics 4000 is about 80 percent faster than the older version of the graphics core from Sandy Bridge processors, and HD Graphics 2500 is 40 percent faster than the built-in video accelerator HD Graphics 2000. The result of this progress is that in terms of speed, a system based on the Core i5-3750K without an external video card is in the middle between integrated systems with AMD A8-3870K and AMD A6-3650 processors. Discrete video cards can compete with the new and fast version of HD Graphics, but only starting with the Radeon HD 6570: slower budget solutions are inferior to Intel's four thousandth accelerator.

Far Cry 2

Look: in a popular four-year-old shooter, the performance of modern integrated graphics developed by Intel is already quite sufficient for a comfortable game. True, so far with low image quality. Nevertheless, the diagram clearly shows how rapidly the speed of integrated Intel solutions grows with the change in processor generations. If we assume that with the advent of Haswell processors this pace will be maintained, then we can expect that next year discrete video cards of the Radeon HD 6570 level will become unnecessary.

Mafia II

In Mafia II built into the processors AMD graphics looks stronger than even the HD Graphics 4000. And this applies to both the Radeon HD 6550D and the slower version of the integrated accelerator from the Vision class APU, the Radeon HD 6530D. So once again we are forced to state that AMD Llano has a more advanced video core than Ivy Bridge. And the new processors of the Vision family with the Trinity design coming out soon will, of course, be able to push HD Graphics even further away from the leading position. Nevertheless, it is impossible to deny the improvement of Intel graphics that is taking place by leaps and bounds. Even the younger version of the accelerator built into Ivy Bridge, HD Graphics 2500, looks very impressive compared to its predecessors. With only six actuators, it is almost as fast as the HD Graphics 3000 from Sandy Bridge, which has twelve actuators.

War Thunder: World of Planes

War Thunder is a new multiplayer combat aviation simulator that is expected to be released in the near future. But even in this newest game, the integrated graphics cores, if you don’t turn up the quality settings, offer quite acceptable performance. Of course, discrete video cards in the mid-price range will allow you to get more pleasure from the gaming process, but modern Intel graphics cannot be called unsuitable for new games. This is especially true for the four-thousandth version of HD Graphics, which once again confidently outperformed the budget, but quite relevant discrete video card Radeon HD 6450. The younger graphics from Ivy Bridge look much worse, its performance is about half as low, and as a result it is significantly inferior in speed not only to discrete graphics accelerators, but also to integrated video accelerators built into quad-core Socket FM1 processors from AMD.

Cinebench R11.5

All of the games we tested were applications that used the DirectX programming interface. However, we also wanted to see how the new Intel accelerators cope with working in OpenGL. Therefore, to the purely gaming tests, we added a small study of performance when working in a professional environment. graphics package Cinema 4D.

As the results show, no fundamental differences in the relative performance of HD Graphics are observed in OpenGL applications. True, HD Graphics 4000 still lags behind any variants of integrated and discrete AMD accelerators, which, however, is quite natural and is explained by better optimization of their driver.

Video performance

There are two concepts involved in working with video in the case of HD Graphics graphics cores. On the one hand, this is the playback (decoding) of high-resolution video content, and on the other, its transcoding (that is, decoding followed by encoding) using Quick Sync technology.

As for decoding, the characteristics of the new generation of graphics cores are no different from what came before. HD Graphics 4000/2500 supports full hardware video decoding in AVC/H.264, VC-1 and MPEG-2 formats via the DXVA (DirectX Video Acceleration) interface. This means that when playing video using DXVA-compatible software players, the load on the processor's computing resources and its power consumption remain minimal, and the work of decoding the content is performed by a specialized unit that is part of the graphics core.

However, exactly the same thing was promised in Sandy Bridge processors, but in practice in a number of cases (when using certain players and when playing certain formats) we encountered unpleasant artifacts. It is clear that this was not due to any hardware flaws in the decoder built into the graphics core, but rather to software flaws, but end user It doesn't make it any easier. By now, it seems that all childhood illnesses have already gone away, and modern versions players cope with video playback in systems with new generation HD Graphics without any complaints about image quality. At least, on our test set of videos of various formats, we were not able to notice any image defects in either the freely distributed Media Player Classic Home Cinema 1.6.2.4902 or VLC media player 2.0.1, nor the commercial Cyberlink PowerDVD 12 build 1618.

When playing video content, the processor load is also expectedly low, because the main work falls not on the computing cores, but on the video engine located in the depths of the graphics core. For example, playing Full HD video with subtitles turned on loads the Core i5-3550 with the HD Graphics 2500 accelerator, on which we tested it, by no more than 10%. Moreover, the processor remains in an energy-saving state, that is, it operates at a frequency reduced to 1.6 GHz.

It must be said that the performance of the hardware decoder is easily enough for simultaneous playback of several Full HD video streams at once, and for playback of “heavy” 1080p videos encoded with a bitrate of about 100 Mbit/s. However, it is still possible to “bring the decoder to its knees”. For example, when playing an H.264 video encoded in a resolution of 3840x2160 with a bitrate of about 275 Mbps, we were able to observe frame drops and stuttering, despite the fact that Intel promises support for hardware video decoding in large formats. However, the specified QFHD resolution is used very, very rarely at the moment.

We also checked the operation of the second version of Quick Sync technology, implemented in Ivy Bridge processors. Since Intel promises increased transcoding speeds with the new graphics cores, our primary focus was on performance testing. During our hands-on testing, we measured the transcoding time of one 40-minute episode of a popular TV series encoded in 1080p H.264 at 10 Mbps for viewing on Apple iPad 2 (H.264, 1280x720, 4Mbps). For tests, we used two utilities that support Quick Sync technology: Arcsoft Media Converter 7.5.15.108 and Cyberlink Media Espresso 6.5.2830.

The increase in transcoding speed is impossible not to notice. The Ivy Bridge processor, equipped with the HD Graphics 4000 graphics core, copes with the test task almost 75 percent faster than the previous generation processor with the HD Graphics 3000 core. However, the stunning increase in performance seems to have occurred only with the older version of the Intel graphics core. At least, when comparing the transcoding speed of the HD Graphics 2500 and HD Graphics 2000 graphics cores, no such striking gap is observed. Quick Sync in the younger version of Ivy Bridge graphics works significantly slower than in the older one, as a result of which processors with HD Graphics 2500 and HD Graphics 2000 produce performance that differs by about 10 percent when transcoding video. However, there is no need to grieve over this. Even the slowest version of Quick Sync is so fast that it leaves far behind not only software decoding, but also all the Radeon HD options that speed up video encoding with its programmable shaders.

Separately, I would like to touch upon the issue of video transcoding quality. Previously, there was an opinion that Quick Sync technology gives significantly worse results than accurate software recoding. Intel didn't deny this fact, emphasizing that Quick Sync is a tool for quickly obtaining results, and is by no means for professional mastering. However, in the new version of the technology, according to the developers, the quality has been improved due to changes in the media sampler. Was it possible to achieve the quality level of software decoding? Let's look at the screenshots that show the result of transcoding the original Full HD video for viewing on the Apple iPad 2.

Software transcoding, x264 codec:

Transcoding using Quick Sync technology, HD Graphics 3000:

Transcoding using Quick Sync 2.0 technology, HD Graphics 4000:

To be honest, no fundamental qualitative improvements are visible. Moreover, it seems that the first version of Quick Sync even gives best result— the image is less blurry and small details are visible more clearly. On the other hand, the excessive clarity of the picture on HD Graphics 3000 adds noise, which is also an undesirable effect. One way or another, to achieve the ideal, we are again forced to advise turning to software transcoding, which can offer higher-quality conversion of video content at least due to more flexible settings. However, if you plan to play the video on any mobile device with a small screen, using Quick Sync of both the first and second versions is quite reasonable.

conclusions

The pace taken by Intel in improving its own integrated graphics cores is impressive. It would seem that just recently we admired the fact that Sandy Bridge graphics suddenly became capable of competing with entry-level video cards, but in the new generation of Ivy Bridge processor design its performance and functionality made another qualitative leap. This progress looks especially striking given the fact that the Ivy Bridge microarchitecture is presented by the manufacturer not as a fundamentally new development, but as a transfer of an old design to a new technological framework, accompanied by minor modifications. But nevertheless, with the release of Ivy Bridge, the new version of the integrated HD Graphics graphics cores received not only higher performance, but also support for DirectX 11, and improved Quick Sync technology, and the ability to perform general-purpose calculations.

However, in fact, there are two options for the new graphics core, and they differ significantly from each other. The older modification, HD Graphics 4000, is exactly what makes us so excited. Its 3D performance compared to that in HD Graphics 3000 has increased by an average of about 70 percent, which means that the speed of HD Graphics 4000 is somewhere between the performance of modern discrete video accelerators Radeon HD 6450 and Radeon HD 6570. Of course, for integrated graphics are not a record, the video accelerators built into older processors of the AMD Llano family still work faster, but the Radeon HD 6530D from the processors of the AMD A6 family is already defeated. And if we add to this the Quick Sync technology, which now works 75 percent faster than before, it turns out that the HD Graphics 4000 accelerator has no analogues and may well become a desirable option for both mobile computers and non-gaming desktops.

The second modification of Intel's new graphics core, HD Graphics 2500, is noticeably worse. Although it also gained support for DirectX 11, this is actually more of a formal improvement. Its performance is almost always lower than the speed of HD Graphics 3000, and there is no talk of any competition with discrete accelerators. Strictly speaking, HD Graphics 2500 looks like a solution in which full-fledged 3D functionality is left just for show, but in fact no one is seriously considering it. That is, HD Graphics 2500 is a good option for media players and HTPCs, since no video encoding and decoding functions are cut off in it, but not an entry-level 3D accelerator in modern understanding this term. Although, of course, many games of previous generations can run quite well on HD Graphics 2500.

Judging by the way Intel disposed of the placement of HD Graphics 4000/2500 graphics cores in the processors of its model range, the company’s own opinion about them is very close to ours. The older, four-thousandth version is aimed mainly at laptops, where the use of discrete graphics causes a serious blow to mobility, and the need for integrated and productive solutions is very high. In desktop processors, HD Graphics 4000 can only be obtained as part of rare special offers or as part of expensive CPUs, in which it is somehow “not comme il faut” to place stripped-down versions of something. Therefore, most Ivy Bridge processors for desktop systems are equipped with an HD Graphics 2500 graphics core, which has not yet exerted serious pressure on the discrete video card market from below.

However, Intel is making it clear that the development of integrated graphics solutions , like the competitor,— one of the most important priorities of the company. And if now processors with integrated graphics can have a significant impact only on the market of mobile solutions, then in the near future integrated graphics cores may take the place of discrete desktop video accelerators. However, time will tell how it will actually turn out.

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 HDG 4000 even in “ at its best"is not a full-fledged gaming solution, but to solve most other tasks, as a rule, older and weaker GPUs are sufficient - 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 a certain set useful information accumulated In any case, it turned out that Lately Using the same driver version (which is relevant in this case), we tested five different computer configurations for different purposes, having 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, not everything is smooth on the upper edge - top laptops the problems described above are free, however, processors of the XM and QM families (where maximum frequency graphics is 1.3 GHz) as a rule, are found on sale exclusively in pairs with discrete video cards, which cannot always be disabled. 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.

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 different level TDP 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. Yes, and the 12 W official difference between the 3770S and 3770K is also bound to affect work Turbo Boost when using the entire processor, and, therefore, on 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 turn out to be a limiter on these capabilities: the equality of results between the Core i3-3217U and i7-3517U is very significant - despite potential differences, both models hit the same TDP. But two are clearly visible quality effect- 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, 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: 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 no longer news), 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, but a certain minimum system requirements need to 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 there are already few 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 have stopped. Well - we will take this into account when developing next versions 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 the load 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.

Review of the transformable ultrabook Lenovo IdeaPad Yoga 13

The emergence of the Windows 8 operating system has become a kind of “engine of progress” for a huge number of manufacturers computer equipment. The new OS, which has two types of control (touch and classic), gave an additional impetus to the creation of devices of a new form factor that combine a tablet and a laptop. We have already introduced you to one of the representatives of this class, namely a laptop. In this material, we will look in as much detail as possible at the next new product in the “transformers” line, which you have probably already heard about.

Review of the Impression X70.02 ultrabook

August of this year was marked by the fact that the company “ Navigator"presented to the public its first ultrabook, which will be produced under its own brand Impression Computer, and this, one might say, is a rather significant event for the domestic IT market. After all, it is known that the production of the new product, like all other devices of this brand, is carried out on the territory of our country.

Model ImpressionX70 is positioned by the manufacturer as a solution for the corporate segment of users, which is emphasized by an extended warranty of up to 24 or 36 months and support for Intel Anti-Theft technology with the McAfee Anti-Theft software package for remotely blocking a stolen device and protecting information stored on the drive. At the same time, almost the main feature of an ultrabook, in addition to the compact dimensions inherent in this class of solutions, is the use of a battery increased capacity- 7800 mAh.

GIGABYTE BRIX GB-XM12-3227 mini computer review

Thanks to the active development of the computer sphere and the constant transition to more technologically advanced and much more energy-efficient processes for creating components, among which processors play the largest and most important role, equipment manufacturers are given the opportunity to turn into reality quite unusual devices, characterized by the most compact dimensions while maintaining maximum quantity opportunities. This was precisely the decisive factor in the emergence of such a class of desktop solutions as mini-computers, which are now actively promoted not only by manufacturing companies, for example, ZOTAC with its ZBOX nano XS model, but also by Intel itself in the form of a conceptual device NUC (Next Unit of Computer), equipped with “full-fledged” processors of the Intel Core line.

Not long ago, the Taiwanese GIGABYTE joined these companies, which brought to the market a series of very compact mini-computers under the laconic name GIGABYTE BRIX, and is now actively expanding the model range of this line. At the moment, the “bricks” are available both in the basic version and in a very unique version with a built-in mini-projector with a brightness of 75 lumens, capable of displaying an image measuring from 7 to 85 inches diagonally at a resolution of 864 by 480 pixels. The gaming GIGABYTE BRIX II, which is said to be capable of playing games at the level of Crysis 3, should also go on sale soon. It is important to note that the manufacturer gives preference not only to solutions from Intel, but also to accelerated processors from AMD.

In this material we will dwell in more detail on one of the models of the starting line, namely GIGABYTE BRIX (GB-XM12-3227). Its main feature, undoubtedly, is the incredibly compact case, in which the manufacturer managed to fit an energy-efficient dual-core Intel Core i3-3227U processor with integrated Intel HD Graphics 4000. At the same time, the choice and installation of RAM and storage is left to the discretion of the consumer, which expands the possibilities for configuration settings. However, not everything is so happy in the mini-computer and already at the first acquaintance a number of complaints are revealed.

Review and testing of the Lenovo ThinkPad T431s ultrabook

A bright representative of Lenovo T-series ultrabooks, the model range of which includes only premium-class devices. This means that this model, according to the company’s plan, is the embodiment of functionality, the highest quality workmanship and stylish design.

At first glance, it is clear that the Lenovo ThinkPad T431s was developed not just as another “laptop” squeezed into an ultrabook form factor, but as a device with its own, unique look, as evidenced by its appearance and software and hardware capabilities. A reinforced carbon case, a waterproof keyboard, and advanced security features are not a complete list of the distinguishing features of this ultrabook. Lenovo ThinkPad T431s is produced in various configurations, differing primarily in processor models, as well as the volume and type of drives. We received a sample for testing based on the Intel Core i5-3337U.

Intel Core i3/Core i5 (Haswell) processors for embedded systems coming in Q4 2013

Review and testing of the Dell XPS 12 ultrabook

Thanks to the release of the latest operating system from Microsoft, namely Windows 8, which is quite focused on touch control, almost each of the manufacturers presented their vision of new devices that would simultaneously offer the same convenient way use both in classic mode and in tablet mode. Some of them began to develop completely new form factors for devices. For example, Lenovo introduced the Lenovo Yoga ultrabook with an innovative display unit hinge design that opens 360°, thereby transforming the laptop into a tablet. Other companies decided to go the proven route and use the concept of a laptop with a detachable display, which was originally developed by ASUS and initially used for its Android tablets.

Dell, keeping up with its competitors, decided to use its early developments, especially since one of these developments had already been used to produce the first flip laptop of its kind Dell Inspiron Duo with a 10" display rotating around its axis. The original and very reliable design aroused quite a lot of interest in the device, but it did not become particularly popular due to the small diagonal and Windows 7 not very convenient in touch mode.

The second changeover was the ultrabook, which should attract much more public attention, because the new product is not only made in the same unique premium style as the Dell XPS 13, but is also equipped with an excellent Full HD display with a diagonal of 12.5", perfect for touch Windows interface 8. However, no matter how bitter it may sound, there was a fly in the ointment. We'll find out which one later.

Fujitsu LIFEBOOK E743 - a reliable and productive business class laptop

It is noted that this generation of Intel GPUs will support a number of new APIs (DirectX 11.1, OpenCL 1.2, OpenGL 3.2), will provide improved work with content, will allow the use of multi-screen configurations and will guarantee support for the DisplayPort 1.2 interface.

As for the performance level of the Intel HD Graphics 4600 GPU, Intel claims that in the class of server solutions this graphics processor can replace discrete video cards costing up to $150. The basis for these conclusions was the comparative testing of the Intel Xeon E3-1275 v3 processor (Intel HD Graphics 4600 graphics core) with its predecessor Intel Xeon E3-1275 v2 (Intel HD Graphics 4000 graphics core) and two entry-level discrete video cards in the SPECaps PTC Creo benchmark 2.0. Increasing the number of computing units in Intel models HD Graphics 4600 and optimization of its driver allowed the new product to demonstrate better results than unnamed budget discrete video cards in three out of five test sets. And the gap between the previous generation graphics core and the new product based on testing results averaged 26%.

Ultrabook Samsung Series 9 Premium Ultrabook is cheaper

Good news for everyone who was planning to purchase an ultrabook SamsungSeries 9 Premium Ultrabook, but was stopped by its original recommended price of $1900, which announced late last month. Today, some online stores are accepting pre-orders for the new product at prices starting from $1,350 for a model with a 128 GB solid-state drive

Despite the considerable cost SamsungSeries 9 Premium Ultrabook looks like a very attractive purchase. The ultrabook is equipped with a 13.3-inch display with a resolution of 1920 x 1080 pixels, protective glass Gorilla Glass and SuperBright backlighting, Intel Core i7-3517U processor, 4 GB of RAM, card reader, SoundAlive HD Audio stereo speakers, wireless module Wi-Fi connection and a wide range of connection interfaces. Stated time battery life- about 8 hours.

The ultrabook body is made of aluminum, and its total weight is 1150 g.

Specifications:

Ultrabook ASUS ZENBOOK U500VZ-CN097H with 15.6-inch touch display

For everyone who wants to purchase a high-performance and elegant ultrabook, ASUS has developed and introduced the ASUS ZENBOOK U500VZ-CN097H model. This 15.6-inch new product is equipped with a quad-core standard mobile processor Intel Core i7-3632QM, six gigabytes of DDR3-1600 RAM and a hybrid disk subsystem. The latter consists of SATA SSD drive with a capacity of 128 GB and a HDD with a capacity of 500 GB.

ASUS specialists were also concerned about high quality playback of multimedia content by equipping the ASUS ZENBOOK U500VZ-CN097H mobile computer with a Full HD IPS touch display, an NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M mobile video card and a 2.1-channel Bang & Olufsen IcePower audio subsystem with support for Sonic Master technology. And for video communication, the new product features an HD (720p) webcam with an integrated microphone.

The new product went on sale with an 8-cell battery and an installed operating system Windows 8. Its estimated price is €1699. The summary technical specifications of the ASUS ZENBOOK U500VZ-CN097H ultrabook are presented in the following table:

During the last meeting of NVIDIA management with analysts, a slide was shown during the report on which the developer of graphics solutions literally trampled on the graphics integrated into Ivy Bridge processors - the HD4000 core.

According to NVIDIA experts, HD4000-level graphics make over half of the best games of 2011 “unplayable”. In order for the game to be playable, we emphasize that NVIDIA puts forward, in general, reasonable requirements: this is at least 30 frames per second, a resolution higher than 1366x768 pixels (or 720p), no artifacts, settings higher than basic or minimal. At the same time, one cannot help but admit that the company is going a bit too far. With the settings stated above, you can already play without experiencing much discomfort; if the game were interesting, the graphics would fade into the background. But let's not be Intel's lawyers, and let's listen to how a representative of the microprocessor company, to whom journalists from the KitGuru website showed this NVIDIA slide, will comment on this attack.

By the way, Richard Huddy answered our colleagues’ questions. We ourselves were somewhat unaware, but Mr. Huddy, as it turned out, has been working at Intel for about two years and is closely involved in developments related to the company’s graphics cores. Let us briefly recall that Richard was once on the team that came up with the idea of ​​the DirectX API, which later moved to Microsoft (we are talking about the development team, as well as the idea). Then this graphics specialist worked for NVIDIA, then for ATI and, finally, for AMD. In 2010, he was still responsible for the development of graphics cores as part of a competitor company, Intel. As you can see, some time ago AMD suffered another loss, which it tried not to advertise. Obviously, the word of such a specialist means something. And his verdict is clear: what is shown on the NVIDIA slide is not true.

Intel, according to Huddy, works closely with game developers and is doing everything possible to ensure that the vast majority of users are able to play games out of the box, which means a computer or laptop with a processor with an integrated video core. At the same time, the specialist admits that today it is impossible to focus, for example, on the number of reproduced frames. The problem is that laptops "start and win" - they dominate and will dominate, so increasing the FPS by half means draining the battery twice as fast.

In addition, the gaming graphics (accelerator) market has transformed from a horizontal one, where video processor developers competed in every niche (mobile and desktop) to a vertical one, where the game should run approximately the same on a smartphone, tablet, ultrabook and desktop PC. Dear developer forgot to mention consoles, which best reveals the problem. “Game makers” today are concerned with exactly one thing - to maximize platform independence for their games. So Intel is playing in their vein - it will not strive for the heights of desktop graphics, improving integrated video cores while maintaining a balance in power consumption. But to say that “this” cannot be played, as NVIDIA did, is also unfair. In any case, let us recall the well-known saying: “If you can’t, but really want to, then you can.”

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 built-in Intel graphics HD 4000, 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 reproduce at least 16 video streams, and all in high resolution. 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. Gaming Performance Intel HD 4000 is 50% higher than 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)