Intel hd graphics 4000 parameters. NVIDIA considers Intel HD4000 graphics not for games
Finally, a selection from the general table of synthetic test results made for different Intel GPUs. Please note the change in position in the card performance rating: 
notebookcheck's conclusion: “Overall, we're impressed with Intel's new graphics core. Performance has improved by 30% compared to HD 3000. This difference can be even greater - up to 40% if the GPU is paired with a powerful quad-core Ivy Bridge CPU, such as the i7-3610QM.
So what should you do if your favorite game doesn't work properly on Intel HD? The advice given by www.intel.com/support/graphics/sb/cs-010486.htm at first glance looks like Captain Obvious: change the game settings, check for new patches for the game, install the latest Intel driver. But in reality these tips work. Intel engineers work closely with game developers, including creating patches for compatibility with Intel GPUs. Also, as noted by notebookcheck, “slowly but surely” Intel drivers are improving both in correctness and in performance, which leads to solving problems with games. 
At this point the post for ordinary players ends (thanks for your attention, welcome in the comments), and the
1. Correctly determine the parameters of the graphics system and its capabilities- support for shaders, DX extensions and available video memory (note that the Intel GPU does not have separate video memory; it shares system memory with the CPU).View example source code and an application binary for correct and complete determination of system parameters with Intel GPU - GPU Detect is possible.
Additionally, the Microsoft DirectX SDK (June 2010) includes a Video Memory example to determine the size of available video memory. We also recommend searching on the Internet for “Get Video Memory Via WMI”.
2. Consider Turbo Boost Features. Thanks to Turbo Boost Intel frequency The GPU can be doubled in size, giving a significant performance boost. But only if the thermal state of the system allows it. And this happens, for obvious reasons, only when it is not very busy, that is, the CPU is not very hot.
The advice that follows from this is to use the CPU state request - GetData() - as little as possible. Please note that calling GetData() in a loop waiting for a result is 100% CPU intensive. If absolutely necessary, make requests to the CPU at the beginning of the frame rendering and load the CPU with some useful work before receiving GetData results. In this case, the CPU wait will be minimal.
3. Use Intel GPU-implemented Early Z rejection. This technology makes it possible to discard in advance from further processing, i.e. without performing expensive pixel shaders, fragments that do not pass the depth test are blocked by other objects.
For effective use Early Z There are two methods:
- sorting and drawing objects from closest to farthest in depth (front to back)
- pre-pass without rendering with filling the depth buffer and masking areas that are obviously invisible in the final image.
It is clear that the first method is not suitable for scenes with (semi-)transparent objects, and the second has significant overhead.
The source code for examples of using Early Z can be viewed at
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 Required programs section. There is almost everything you need for everyday work. Start gradually giving up 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, this is the fastest and most effective way to contact 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 close 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 company 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 miniaturization that became the main driving force in integrating graphics into central processors and increasing its performance. One chip that fully replaces both the CPU and the GPU and 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 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 is necessary system component, especially in mobile computing.
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 Intel took this important step in the previous version of the microarchitecture - Sandy Bridge. The introduction of a ring intraprocessor bus that links together all CPU components (computational cores, third-level cache, graphics, system agent with a memory controller) opened up a short and progressive route for memory access for the built-in video core - through a high-speed third-level cache. In other words, the integrated graphics core along with the computing processor cores became an equal user of the L3 cache and memory controller, which significantly reduced downtime caused by waiting for graphics data to be processed. The ring bus turned out to be such a successful find from the previous design that it migrated to the new Ivy Bridge microarchitecture without any changes.
As for the internal structure of the Ivy Bridge graphics core, in general it can be considered a further development of the ideas inherent in the HD Graphics accelerators of previous generations. The architecture of the current Intel graphics core has its roots in the Clarkdale and Arrandale processors introduced in 2010, but each new reincarnation of it is not a simple copy of the previous design, but its improvement.
Ivy Bridge Generation HD Graphics Core Architecture
Thus, when moving from the Sandy Bridge microarchitecture to the Ivy Bridge, an increase in graphics performance is achieved primarily due to an increase in the number of execution units, especially since the internal structure of HD Graphics initially implied the technical possibility of their simplest addition. While the older version of graphics from Sandy Bridge, HD Graphics 3000, had 12 devices, the most productive modification of the video core built into Ivy Bridge, HD Graphics 4000, received 16 actuators. However, the matter was not limited to this; the devices themselves were also improved. They added a second texture sampler, and 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 execution 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 has finally arrived. full support 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. In Sandy Bridge processors, these software interfaces were also supported, but at the driver level, which redirected the corresponding load to the computing cores. With the release of Ivy Bridge, full-fledged GPU computing became available on systems with Intel graphics.
In light of modern realities, Intel engineers paid attention to supporting multi-monitor configurations that are becoming increasingly popular. The HD Graphics 4000 graphics core was Intel's first integrated solution capable of running three independent displays. But keep in mind that to implement this function, it was necessary to increase the width of the FDI bus, through which the image is transferred from the processor to the system logic set. So support for three monitors is only possible with new motherboards using seventh series chipsets.
In addition, there are some restrictions in resolutions and methods of connecting monitors. In a desktop platform based on processors of the Ivy Bridge family, theoretically, you can get three outputs: the first is universal (HDMI, DVI, VGA or DisplayPort) with a maximum resolution of 1920x1200, the second is DisplayPort, HDMI or DVI with a resolution of up to 1920x1200, and the third is DisplayPort with support for high resolutions up to 2560x1600. That is, the popular option of connecting WQXGA monitors via Dual-Link DVI with Intel HD Graphics 4000 is still impossible to implement. But the version HDMI protocol 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, resulting in the theoretical possibility of simultaneous playback of several streams with high resolution, up to 4096x4096.
Considerable progress has also been made Quick technology Sync, designed for fast hardware video encoding into 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 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 a third-party company, LucidLogix, which has developed the Virtu graphic virtualization technology.
Nevertheless, Quick Sync remains a unique technology for the market. A highly specialized hardware codec implemented within its framework turns out to be significantly better in all respects than encoding using the power of shader processors of modern video cards. 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.
|
|
|
|
Intel HD Graphics 4000 |
Intel HD Graphics 2500 |
At the same time, the “full-fledged” HD Graphics 4000 core can be found not in all representatives of the Ivy Bridge generation, but mainly only in mobile devices, where graphics integrated into the CPU are most in demand. In desktop models, HD Graphics 4000 is present either in Core i7 series processors or in overclocking Core i5 series processors (with the K suffix in the model number) with the only exception to this rule - the Core i5-3475S processor. In all other cases, desktop users have to either deal with HD Graphics 2500 or resort to the services of external graphics accelerators.
Fortunately, the widening gap between 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 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.
| CPU | Cores/threads | L3 cache, MB | Clock frequency, GHz | TDP, W | Model HD Graphics | Execute devices | Max. graphics frequency, GHz | Min. graphics frequency, MHz |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Desktop processors | ||||||||
| Core i7-3770K | 4/8 | 8 | Up to 3.9 | 77 | 4000 | 16 | 1,15 | 650 |
| Core i7-3770 | 4/8 | 8 | Up to 3.9 | 77 | 4000 | 16 | 1,15 | 650 |
| Core i7-3770S | 4/8 | 8 | Up to 3.9 | 65 | 4000 | 16 | 1,15 | 650 |
| Core i7-3770T | 4/8 | 8 | Up to 3.7 | 45 | 4000 | 16 | 1,15 | 650 |
| Core i5-3570K | 4/4 | 6 | Up to 3.8 | 77 | 4000 | 16 | 1,15 | 650 |
| Core i5-3570 | 4/4 | 6 | Up to 3.8 | 77 | 2500 | 6 | 1,15 | 650 |
| Core i5-3570S | 4/4 | 6 | Up to 3.8 | 65 | 2500 | 6 | 1,15 | 650 |
| Core i5-3570T | 4/4 | 6 | Up to 3.3 | 45 | 2500 | 6 | 1,15 | 650 |
| Core i5-3550 | 4/4 | 6 | Up to 3.7 | 77 | 2500 | 6 | 1,15 | 650 |
| Core i5-3550S | 4/4 | 6 | Up to 3.7 | 65 | 2500 | 6 | 1,15 | 650 |
| Core i5-3475S | 4/4 | 6 | Up to 3.6 | 65 | 4000 | 16 | 1,1 | 650 |
| Core i5-3470 | 4/4 | 6 | Up to 3.6 | 77 | 2500 | 6 | 1,1 | 650 |
| Core i5-3470S | 4/4 | 6 | Up to 3.6 | 65 | 2500 | 6 | 1,1 | 650 |
| Core i5-3470T | 2/4 | 4 | Up to 3.6 | 35 | 2500 | 6 | 1,1 | 650 |
| Core i5-3450 | 4/4 | 6 | Up to 3.5 | 77 | 2500 | 6 | 1,1 | 650 |
| Core i5-3450S | 4/4 | 6 | Up to 3.5 | 65 | 2500 | 6 | 1,1 | 650 |
| Mobile processors | ||||||||
| Core i7-3920XM | 4/8 | 8 | Up to 3.8 | 55 | 4000 | 16 | 1,3 | 650 |
| Core i7-3820QM | 4/8 | 8 | Up to 3.7 | 45 | 4000 | 16 | 1,25 | 650 |
| Core i7-3720QM | 4/8 | 6 | Up to 3.6 | 45 | 4000 | 16 | 1,25 | 650 |
| Core i7-3667U | 2/4 | 4 | Up to 3.2 | 17 | 4000 | 16 | 1,15 | 350 |
| Core i7-3615QM | 4/8 | 6 | Up to 3.3 | 45 | 4000 | 16 | 1,2 | 650 |
| Core i7-3612QM | 4/8 | 6 | Up to 3.1 | 35 | 4000 | 16 | 1,1 | 650 |
| Core i7-3610QM | 4/8 | 6 | Up to 3.3 | 45 | 4000 | 16 | 1,1 | 650 |
| Core i7-3520M | 2/4 | 4 | Up to 3.6 | 35 | 4000 | 16 | 1,25 | 650 |
| Core i7-3517U | 2/4 | 4 | Up to 3.0 | 17 | 4000 | 16 | 1,15 | 350 |
| Core i5-3427U | 2/4 | 3 | Up to 2.8 | 17 | 4000 | 16 | 1,15 | 350 |
| Core i5-3360M | 2/4 | 3 | Up to 3.5 | 35 | 4000 | 16 | 1,2 | 650 |
| Core i5-3320M | 2/4 | 3 | Up to 3.3 | 35 | 4000 | 16 | 1,2 | 650 |
| Core i5-3317U | 2/4 | 3 | Up to 2.6 | 17 | 4000 | 16 | 1,05 | 350 |
| Core i5-3210M | 2/4 | 3 | Up to 3.1 | 35 | 4000 | 16 | 1,1 | 650 |
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.
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 ones also took part in the tests discrete video cards AMD six thousandth series Radeon HD 6450 and Radeon 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).
- 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 what has become the de facto standard for desktop systems Full HD resolution 1980x1080. 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 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
More latest version 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 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
The popular turn-based strategy favors graphical solutions with AMD architecture, they are the ones who 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 cope with working in OpenGL. Therefore, to the purely gaming tests, we added a small study of performance when working in the professional 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 can be explained better optimization their drivers.
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 this does not make it any easier for the end user. 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. 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 transcoding. Intel did not deny this fact, emphasizing that Quick Sync is a tool for quick receipt result, and not at all 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 parts are seen 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 small screen, using Quick Sync 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 the modern sense of the 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 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.
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 them unplayable. best games 2011. 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 lawyers for Intel, and let's listen to how this attack will be commented on by a representative of the microprocessor company, to whom journalists from the KitGuru site showed this NVIDIA slide.
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 for the DirectX API, which later moved into Microsoft company(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. The respected 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 you really want to, then you can.”
Intel HD 4000 – integrated graphics installed in Intel Core i3, Core i5 and Core i7 processors of the Ivy Bridge generation, 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 video adapter's needs 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 two-channel mode RAM operation, 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 use Intel settings or automatic update programs. The second is to manually download the new driver version and reinstall it.
In operating systems of the Linux family, everything is quite sad. The proprietary driver (developed 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 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.
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 computer equipment manufacturers. 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 software package McAfee Anti-Theft for remotely blocking a stolen device and protecting information stored on the drive. At the same time, almost main feature 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 active development 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 incredible compact body, 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 customizing the configuration. However, not everything is so happy in the mini-computer and already at the first acquaintance a number of complaints are revealed.
Ultrabook review and testing Lenovo ThinkPad T431s
A bright representative of Lenovo T-series ultrabooks, in the lineup which includes only premium devices. And this means that this model, according to the company, 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 of its kind flip-flopping laptop, the Dell Inspiron Duo, with a 10" display rotating around its axis. An original and very reliable design aroused quite a lot of interest in the device, but it did not become particularly popular due to its small diagonal and not very convenient for touch Windows mode 7.
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 12.5" diagonal display, perfect for a touch interface Windows 8. However, no matter how bitter it may sound, it was not without a fly in the ointment. We will find out which one.
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 comparative testing of the processor. Intel Xeon E3-1275 v3 (Intel HD Graphics 4600) with its predecessor Intel Xeon E3-1275 v2 (Intel HD Graphics 4000) and two entry-level discrete graphics cards in the SPECaps PTC Creo 2.0 benchmark. 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 per model with solid state drive 128 GB capacity
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 Gorilla Glass and SuperBright backlighting, an Intel Core i7-3517U processor, 4 GB of RAM, a card reader, SoundAlive HD Audio stereo speakers, a 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:
|
Manufacturer |
|
|
Series 9 Premium Ultrabook (NP900X3E-A02US) |
|
|
operating system |
Windows 8 Pro (64 bit) |
|
SuperBright backlight (300 nits) |
|
|
CPU |
Intel Core i7-3517U |
|
Intel HD Graphics 4000 |
|
|
RAM |
|
|
Memory expansion |
|
|
SoundAlive HD Audio |
|
|
Webcam |
|
|
Wireless connection |
Wi-Fi 802.11b/g/n |
|
Network Controller |
|
|
Connection interfaces |
Card reader 3.5mm audio jack for headphones and microphone |
|
Autonomy |
Up to 8 hours |
|
Additionally |
Backlit keyboard Aluminium case |
|
Products webpage |
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 a 128 GB SATA SSD drive and a 500 GB HDD drive.
ASUS specialists were also concerned about high quality playback of multimedia content by completing the mobile ASUS computer ZENBOOK U500VZ-CN097H with Full HD IPS touch display, mobile video card NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M and 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 Windows system 8. Its estimated price is €1699. The summary technical specifications of the ASUS ZENBOOK U500VZ-CN097H ultrabook are presented in the following table:
|
Touch 15.6” Full HD IPS (1920 x 1080) with LED backlighting |
|
|
operating system |
|
|
CPU |
Intel Core i7-3632QM (4 x 2.2 GHz) |
|
RAM |
6 GB SO-DIMM DDR3-1600 (8 GB maximum) |
|
Storage device |
128 GB SSD + 500 HDD (5400 rpm) |
|
Video subsystem |
Mobile graphics card NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M (2 GB GDDR5) + integrated graphics core Intel HD Graphics 4000 |
|
Audio subsystem |
2.1 channel Bang & Olufsen IcePower speakers with Sonic Master support, microphone |
|
Network interfaces |
Gigabit Ethernet, 802.11 b/g/n Wi-Fi, Bluetooth 4.0 |
|
External interfaces |
1 x Combo audio output |
|
Webcam |
|
|
Card reader |
|
|
8-cell lithium polymer (70 Wh, 4750 mAh) |
|
|
Battery life |
|
|
DimensionsIntel Core i5-3230M, the nominal clock speed of which is 2.6 GHz. The basic configuration also includes 4/8 GB of RAM and a 128 GB mSATA SSD drive. Optionally, the amount of RAM can be increased to 16 GB, and instead of a 128 GB mSATA drive, use a 256 GB version or a hybrid configuration with SSD and HDD solutions.
The multimedia capabilities of the GIGABYTE U2442T ultrabook are implemented based on: 14-inch HD touch display with support for Multi-Touch technology; mobile NVIDIA video cards GeForce GT 730M, which is equipped with its own 2 GB of DDR3 memory and supports NVIDIA Optimus technology; two built-in speakers with a total power of 4 W with support for THX TruStudio Pro technology; 1.3 megapixel webcam with built-in microphone. Note that the GIGABYTE U2442T model is also characterized by support for all necessary network modules and external interfaces, including Gigabit Ethernet, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, USB 3.0, HDMI and D-Sub. The new product will go on sale with the operating system installed. Windows family 8. More detailed technical specifications of the GIGABYTE U2442T ultrabook are presented in the following table: New NVIDIA GeForce 700M line of mobile GPUs with GPU Boost 2.0 supportNVIDIA introduced an expanded line of mobile graphics NVIDIA processors GeForce 700M. Five new solutions have been added to the NVIDIA GeForce 710M and GeForce GT 730M models already on the market: NVIDIA GeForce GT 720M, GeForce GT 735M, GeForce GT 740M, GeForce GT 745M and GeForce GT 750M. Moreover, the first two GPUs are aimed at use in Mainstream laptops, and the other three – in Performance-class mobile computers.
Details technical specification new mobile GPUs of the NVIDIA GeForce 700M series have not been officially disclosed. It is only known that they are created on the basis of the NVIDIA Kepler microarchitecture and are characterized by support for: internal PCI buses Express 3.0 (except for the NVIDIA GeForce GT 720M model, which is tied to the PCI Express 2.0 standard); DDR3 video memory (all models) or optional GDDR5 (NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M, GeForce GT 745M and GeForce GT 750M only) NVIDIA GPU Boost 2.0 technology to automatically increase the maximum clock frequency as the load level increases;
NVIDIA Optimus technology, which allows the system to automatically select a source for processing video data (a mobile video card or a graphics core integrated into the processor), taking into account the current load level and battery charge;
instructions OpenGL 4.3, OpenCL 1.2, DirectX 11; Blu-Ray 3D, 3D Vision, FXAA technologies.
Relative performance levels of the new NVIDIA GeForce series GPUs700M compared to Intel HD Graphics 4000 in Crysis 2 benchmark |
