Ivy rocks! The integrated HD 4000 has become Intel's new backbone in the integrated GPU market. Not only does the new GPU trump the HD 3000 of yesteryear, entry-level GPUs from Nvidia and AMD may have a lot to fear as well. In this review, we go in detail with our initial gaming benchmarks of the Intel HD 4000.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-4000-benchmarked.73567.0.html
"Intel has the upper hand by about 15 percent or more compared to AMD's Fusion Llano offerings." It's wrong, you always underestimate Llanos, HD4000 just only on A6 Llano level or slightly below that:
(http://www.guru3d.com/imageview.php?image=38141)
Sure, but those are desktop chips. Laptop Llanos as far slower.
Llano is faster in desktop configs (600MHz), but the mobile parts operate slower (443MHz).
The strongest mobile Llano with DDR3 1600MHz can make P894 points, which still lot more than desktop Ivy Bridge. http://3dmark.com/3dm11/3184019;jsessionid=1uge7da2zv79g1u3abt15rdqhm
Quote from: DavidC1 on April 24, 2012, 21:14:56
Sure, but those are desktop chips. Laptop Llanos as far slower.
Intel Mobiles are also slower than desktop version, so makes similar races:
i7 3920XM Extreme E. HD 4000 IGP: 615 Point http://amdfx.blogspot.com/2012/04/3dmark-11-trinity-a10-4600m-updated.html (http://amdfx.blogspot.com/2012/04/3dmark-11-trinity-a10-4600m-updated.html)
A6-3400M with 6520G: 701 Point (own test)
A8-3500M with 6620G: 830 Point (own test)
A10-4600M with 7760D: 1135 Point http://amdfx.blogspot.com/2012/04/3dmark-11-trinity-a10-4600m-updated.html (http://amdfx.blogspot.com/2012/04/3dmark-11-trinity-a10-4600m-updated.html)
Is there any manufacturer planning to build a subnotebook with these quads? Cooling a 45W chip wont be so hard i think...
Oh, COME ON!
How dare you tell that "The high specs ensure that we will not be bottlenecking the integrated GPU in any way." while you used 11-11-11 RAM!! And even more! It had 2T cycle time! The RAM itself is the video memory for integrated GPU! Why couldn't you use Corsair Vengeance 1600 RAM (cheap enough besides) and ensure that it works as specs say?
I suggest to retest
Intel HD graphics. Even though changes should be minimal, every percent of performance must be on count.
These tests are heavily biased towrds the HD 4000 which is using 1600 MHz memory. When Llano uses 1600 Mhz memory it's 15% faster on average than when using 1333 MHz memory. It's 20% faster when using 1866 MHz.
So no, mobile Ivy Bridge still isn't faster than Llano, and a fair test wouldhave shown this.
I am disappointed in NotebookCheck.
So you compare the 35W AMD A8-3520M and call it the most powerful integrated GPU with 6620G? (What about the 45W A8-3550MX which you have listed on your website 2.0Ghz to 2.7Ghz).
And you compare the 35W AMD with a 55W Intel. Do you think this is a fair comparison?
Could the low clock speed of the power efficient A8-3520M be hurting its performance?
Please compare the top ends with the top ends so I can get a real understanding of the power of the HD4000. I don't want to be guessing when buying. How can I know how well the 45W A8-3550MX performs in comparison to the HD4000???
I've also just realized notebookcheck tests are suck; "HD Graphics 4000 was able to beat the HD 6620G in a fast Core i7-3820QM by about 15%" Ha ha ha ha....
Maybe Intel's dream, but if you want make fair test, than next time use A8-35x0MX with DDR3 1600MHz and use latest AMD driver. HD4000 nowhere will be faster!
Activision made Battlefield 3? Well that's news to me... and here I thought that it was a DICE/EA production. Silly me.
A few words about the article:
1) Unfortunately, there wasn´t much time to write it. I made it in two days between the Asus G75 and the MSI GT70 review. You can see that a little i guess ;)
2) The verdict is updated since a couple of days (indeed, the sentence concerning Llano wasn´t really correct). And the translation from german to other languages can take a while.
3) The A8-3520M was the strongest Llano-CPU with enough gaming-benchmarks in our database. Of course, a MX-model would be more fair, but with Intels market-domination there are not a lot of AMD-notebooks coming to use.
Small update, we checked the smaller issues again with an Asus N56 sample provided by Intel and did not find any stutterings with Deus Ex. However, Black Ops still breaks down to 22fps even in the lowest detail settings. Fifa 12 and Metro also showed no problems (but we only noticed them with early dual-core samples).
As always all benchmarks for the HD 4000 can be found on the corresponding GPU page:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-4000.69168.0.html
You are so biased towards Intel. You put desktop quad i7s with 1600Mhz RAM in the HD 4000 comp. You then can't compare it to the "top of the line Llano" when the Llano chips are lower power consumption laptop chips with 1333Mhz RAM. I guarantee you if you upgraded the Llano to a desktop version with faster clocked RAM it would do better than the HD 4000. I'm not sure what kind of comparison this is.
Apple is using the HD 4000 in it's newest macbook airs and it's able to drive an external 27" display very well plus play mongo mongo all day with daytime.NBC
AMD's just plain suck, get over it!
Agree with the rest of the above. very dissapointed by notebookcheck. Intel > Amd on raw power but Amd APU's are by far the best Integrated Graphics for now
Intel... Please buy NVDIA or AMD so you can improve your graphics chip. Come on!
These tests are just showing not to expect much from Intel HD Graphics 4000. If you look at all the test results all the Intel HD Graphics 4000 computers had Intel Core i7 processor which not many go for because of how expensive it is and the other computers had i5 and lower and produced results near or better than the 4000 with i7.
I'm amused by many of the comments here. Some people are talking about LOW END graphics solutions as if they are bleeding edge card competitions. The difference between 17 and 24 fps is significant, but come on, neither are really acceptable if you are a real gamer.
Having said that, I have a new MacBook Pro with a dual core i7 HD4000 chip (4MB L3 cache) and I did not plan on doing any gaming on it, but after doing some trials in Mountain Lion and Windows 7, I find that I can run Wow, LoTRO, Civ5, STO, Dragons Age, and other games not just adequately, but beautifully. Of course, none of the these are especially demanding games, but again, it isn't my gaming system, and I knew what I was getting in video when I bought it.
On top of it all, unlike the gaming laptops I've owned, the whole system remains cool and quiet during the most demanding gaming I've thrown at it. Much different than past systems that almost burned my hands on the wrist rests.
My conclusion based on my 3 month usage experience with this system is that, if you are a person that does moderate gaming and need a laptop or all-in-one system without a discrete graphics card for moderate gaming you can do a lot worse, and based on the content of the article, getting a quad core version of this i7 will grant an even better graphics experience.
I have 2 full HD screens connected to my Intel HD 2500 (i3 3220T) - LCD 23" / DVI and Plasma TV / HDMI. Would you believe that full HD video on one screen is not fluent while I'm browsing internet on the other one? (or even while it's just on?) quite wondering why??? (cpu is at 20% so nothing really much happening here). If i only use 1 screen it's ok (using xbmc). Could you recommend Intel HD 4000 to improve this???
Your benchmarks are SERIOUSLY SKEWED. You mostly used very much slower processors with the video cards, thus giving inaccurate benchmark results. If you look closely at your "bar graph" you see that an i3 processor system with an entry level video card will consistently outperform an i7 processor system with the "Intel HD 4000". This only proves that "integrated video" is still crap.
- Rashid
Quote from: Hony on January 20, 2013, 23:18:17
I have 2 full HD screens connected to my Intel HD 2500 (i3 3220T) - LCD 23" / DVI and Plasma TV / HDMI. Would you believe that full HD video on one screen is not fluent while I'm browsing internet on the other one? (or even while it's just on?) quite wondering why??? (cpu is at 20% so nothing really much happening here). If i only use 1 screen it's ok (using xbmc). Could you recommend Intel HD 4000 to improve this???
My HD4000 handels 2 displays quiet good. Only playing movies on both screens make it a bit laging, but not too bad.
This is total crap you cant even oc the igpu a ati 6410D oced to 1200 mhz will beat that crap any time of day.And you compare the strongest mobile cpu to some low and middle end ones lets copmare that to a desktop with a amd fx 4150,6 GB of ram at 1600 and nvidia 520/610GT the performance would be 10x better then the intel igpu crap.Face it intel fanboys intel is to lazy to make any normal drivers so if you want budget pc go with amd apu or nvidia loewer end
hey bud, great article, though it's one year old i got what what i needed out of it. just needed to understand where about the hd 4000 fits in the "ballpark". nice detail,appreciate the updates. thanks for taking the time to write it. MrSqueezeMe.
Why only test against the A-6 and A-8 APU's and leave out the A-10 APU's?
How much is Mobile Intel HD 4000's graphics memory? 64MB?
If you are a "gamer" play with a system with a dedicated powerful videocard or with a expensive laptop for gaming, and stop bictching about igps, apus, or whatever. Some people do not bother the sawtooth (just see some games in PS3 and Xbox360 lol), low resolution, or mid/low details. Get over it!
HD 4000 is a decent IGP for CASUAL gamers, as stated in article. Maybe the benchmarks aren't accurate, but you can have an idea about the igp
I agree with Sudamericano, i don't why most of the folks here had to make a big commotion over intel hd 4000 performance or notebookcheck's benchmark test. Let's use the common principle here: discrete (dedicated graphics cards) = high level gaming, integrated cards = low gaming, that's how we know it.
I use to own a system with a Intel Pentium dual-core T4200 processor and the dreaded 4500m of the GMA series and it was poor in gaming. I'm already make plans to obtain a laptop with a more powerful i3-3120m 3rd gen dual core processor and hd 4000 in it and expect this system to do better than my old system on any level even on games.
But since both 4500m and hd 4000 are integrated cards i didn't expect any to play high level games but on the contrary, hd 4000 is faster and better. Not that i want to be a hardcore gamer but more on casual level so i make no regrets choosing the latter system, i just want it for more performance. And i did this without complaining but researching more about computer specs.