Intel hd graphics 4000 specifications. Graphics: fast, slow and integrated

Today, the 4400 model is one of the best graphics accelerators for creating an entry-level multimedia station or office personal computer. Belongs this model 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 most simple toys. IN 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 This list also includes outdated applications of this plan.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 video card was part of the Corei3 CPU fourth generation. 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. For comfortable work this will be quite enough.

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 is different low level energy 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 standards of the 22 nm technological process. The maximum number of connected monitors in this case is three.

Intel HD Graphics 4000: memory

All video cards Intel series HD Graphics are designed for RAM, which meets the specifications of the DDR3 standard. Owners of the device indicate in their reviews that part of the installed part is allocated for the needs of the accelerator. computer system random access memory. 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 about the video card indicate that without installing drivers it turns into standard card VGA with 1024×768 resolution best case scenario. 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. Frequency range 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, however large quantity information processing units provides greater productivity.

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 tasks that are aimed at solving this decision, 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 something more opportunities of this product won't 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. For normal startup Photoshop and computer games you will have to buy an external accelerator. In other cases, the difference between integrated products is not so noticeable.

Intel HD 4000 – integrated graphics installed in Intel processors Core i3, Core i5 and Core i7 generations Ivy Bridge, which appeared in 2011. The video card is already quite old and cannot boast of decent characteristics and performance.

Graphics card specifications

The characteristics of the HD 4000 are incredibly modest even at the time the graphics chip was released; at the moment they look truly ridiculous.

The device can provide 16 unified processors. The highest clock frequency of the graphics chip can reach 1350MHz. The actual frequency depends on many factors, among which are the model of the processor into which the chip will be integrated, as well as the type of device. Laptops and other unproductive devices are often reduced in the frequency of operation of the video card.

The amount of memory available for the needs of the video adapter will depend on two factors: BIOS settings and the amount of RAM installed on the computer. If you are seriously going to use this particular graphics chip, you should fork out for good RAM sticks with higher frequencies.

The memory bus width reaches 128 bits (in dual-channel RAM mode, single-channel mode will allow you to get only 64 bits).

Intel HD 4000 has support for DirectX 11.1, OpenGL 4.1 and Quick Sync. You can’t even dream of any DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.5, OpenCL and Vulcan with this video card, it doesn’t support them.

What tasks is the Intel HD 4000 suitable for?

First of all - office work in undemanding applications or ensuring the browser works. Almost any more or less current video card can cope with such tasks, and the Intel HD 4000 is no exception.

It’s better not to use it for watching movies. It will perfectly play movies and other videos in HD or FullHD resolution, but it won’t cope with the increasingly popular UltraHD (4K), it simply won’t have enough performance. If you don't have a monitor or TV that supports UltraHD, then the Intel HD 4000 is quite enough for watching movies. Owners of modern 4K panels are better off looking at a graphics card that has better performance than the HD 4000.

With games, the HD 4000 is even worse. Even at the time of release (in 2011), the video card could not run absolutely all current games with sufficient performance; at the moment everything is very bad, you are unlikely to find which games will come from modern projects.

The Intel HD 4000 will handle games from 2010 or earlier very well, although not perfectly. Some projects fundamentally refuse to run normally on older integrated video cards, which can result in some rather strange problems.

The Intel HD 4000 is practically unsuitable for working with specific software. The video card only supports Intel Quick Sync technology, which cannot be called particularly widespread. The more common OpenCL on this graphics chip not supported. Even the right application allows you to use Quick Sync capabilities, the Intel HD 4000 does not have sufficient performance to run such software.

Drivers

Drivers for older Intel video cards cannot boast of special quality, which is why various problems and malfunctions may arise in the operation of the video adapter.

Installing a driver on Windows is quite simple; all you need to do is download it and run the installation package; nothing more is required from you. The update can be done in two ways. The first is to take advantage Intel settings or automatic update programs. The second is to manually download the new driver version and reinstall it.

In operating systems Linux family it's all quite sad. Proprietary driver (developed by by Intel) is available only on newer models of Intel HD video cards; this video adapter is not supported. Therefore, under Linux, you can only use a free driver, which is inferior in almost all aspects to the driver on Windows. The proprietary driver is updated automatically along with the operating system, but if you want to install a version that is not available on your distribution, you will need to update the Mesa 3D kernel and libraries.

Comparison with discrete video cards

If we compare with, then the Intel HD 4000 can compete only with the weakest video adapters, such as the GT 620. More powerful graphics adapters already more powerful than HD 4000.

In general, the Intel HD 4000 can provide only the most basic functionality of a video card and serve instead of the weakest plug.

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 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 has been changed in better side, then Intel felt that this would not reduce its performance, which is 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). Set of characteristics new graphics such that it is almost on par with 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 content beyond high resolution- 4096×2304.

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)

How we tested

As part of our 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 graphics cards in the lower price range. This comparison was carried out using desktop systems as an example, although the results obtained can easily be extended to mobile systems.

Current processors for desktop computers with integrated graphics, which make sense to compare with Ivy Bridge, there are currently two on the market: 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 belong to different processors, differing not only in clock speed, 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 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 the Intel website has an extensive list (,) of new and tested compatibility with HD Graphics popular games, with which there are guaranteed to be 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 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

A relatively new game opens the group of real game tests Batman Arkham City, built on the engine 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 A6-3650 core Radeon HD 6530D and discrete Radeon video card HD 6450, 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 somewhat faster graphics AMD A6-3650 and Radeon HD 6450 video cards, however, are inferior to the older modification of the video core of Llano processors and miserably lose to the discrete Radeon HD 6570 video card.

⇡ Civilization V

Popular step-by-step 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 the newest game 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 would handle work 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 The relative performance of HD Graphics is not observed in OpenGL applications either. 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 of 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 could not notice any image defects in any freely distributed Media Player Classic Home Cinema 1.6.2.4902 or VLC media player 2.0.1, nor in 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. In 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 an Apple iPad2 (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 technology Sync gives significantly worse results than careful software transcoding. 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 gives even better results - the image is less blurry and fine 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 the video is planned to be played on any mobile device With a small screen, using both Quick Sync versions 1 and 2 makes perfect sense.

⇡ 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 against the background of the fact that the Ivy Bridge microarchitecture is not presented by the manufacturer as fundamentally new development, but as a translation of the old design onto new technological tracks, accompanied by minor modifications. But nevertheless, with the release of Ivy Bridge a new version integrated graphics cores HD Graphics received not only higher performance, but also support for DirectX 11, and improved Quick Sync technology, and the ability to perform general-purpose computing.

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 the modern sense of the term. Although, of course, many games of previous generations can run quite well on HD Graphics 2500.

Judging by how Intel arranged the placement of HD Graphics 4000/2500 graphics cores in its processors 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 embedded graphic 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.

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, to 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 integral part 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 quite 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 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 with previous version 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 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 a serious engineering work. The main problem here is that integrated graphics accelerators cannot take advantage of dedicated high-speed video memory, but share regular video memory with the computing cores. system memory with a fairly low bandwidth 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. Introduction of a ring intraprocessor bus that links everything together CPU components(computational cores, third-level cache, graphics, system agent with a memory controller), opened 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 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 an increase in 3D performance 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 work of HD Graphics 4000 in the upcoming operating room will not be a problem Windows system 8 — 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 maximum resolution 1920x1200, the second is DisplayPort, HDMI or DVI with resolutions 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 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, resulting 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, within the framework of the technology, the quality of the video produced by the codec has also improved, and ultra-high resolutions of video content, up to 4096x4096, have become supported.

However, Quick Sync still has weak sides. 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 that disables general case integrated graphics, Quick Sync cannot be used. 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 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. Fast version The video core has sixteen actuators, but in the younger one 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 the 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 processors The third generation Core graphics core can operate at different frequencies. For example, Intel cares more about integrated graphics performance when it comes to mobile solutions, and this is reflected in the frequencies. In general, Ivy Bridge mobile processors have an HD Graphics 4000 core running at slightly more high frequency than in the case of their desktop modifications. In addition, the difference in the frequency of integrated graphics may also be due to limitations in heat dissipation different models CPU.

In addition, the frequency of graphics operation is variable. Ivy Bridge processors implement a special Intel technology 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.