Mobile IGP Comparison

I narrowed down the platforms for our mobile IGP comparison. I simulated a Core i3 350M by taking an i3-530, underclocking it (I couldn't do anything about the 4MB vs. 3MB L3 cache) and capping its GPU frequency at 667MHz. This is the best case scenario for the i3-350M, and as you'll see below, it doesn't really matter. I also paired a 2.2GHz Pentium Dual-Core with a G45 motherboard, agian simulating the cheaper mobile Pentium platform. Finally I installed Windows 7 on the 1.6GHz Core 2 Duo based 11-inch MacBook Air with its GeForce 320M to give you an idea of the upper bound for mobile performance with what might as well be a low end discrete GPU.

Updated: I've added performance results from a simulated Core i3-330UM, the E-350's competition in ultra portables.

We'll start with Modern Warfare 2:

Mobile IGP Comparison - Modern Warfare 2 - 1024 x 768 - Low Quality

The E-350 puts the i3-350M, i3-330UM and Pentium DC to shame, delivering 67% better performance. The frame rate is just shy of being totally smooth however. I found that in most modern games 1024 x 768 would result in frame rates just under 30 fps.

Mobile IGP Comparison - BioShock 2 - 1024 x 768 - Low Quality

BioShock 2 showed a similar performance advantage. Again we're not able to break 30 fps but the performance advantage is huge compared to the Intel platforms with integrated graphics.

Mobile IGP Comparison - Dragon Age: Origins - 1024 x 768 - Low Quality

Dragon Age: Origins is mostly CPU bound at low quality settings and thus there's no real advantage to the E-350's Radeon HD 6310 GPU. It's faster than the Pentium/G45 platform, but significantly slower than the i3-350M. I expect most games however to be GPU bound at these settings across the board.

Mobile IGP Comparison - World of Warcraft - 1366 x 768 - Fair Quality

World of Warcraft continued the trend. The E-350 ended up 57% faster than the i3-350M, although still fell short of a discrete GPU.

Of course I wondered how well Brazos would play Starcraft 2:

Mobile IGP Comparison - Starcraft 2 GPU Test - 1366 x 768 - Low Quality

The GPU handles SC2 just fine, however the game is very CPU dependent and thus you see a pretty big advantage from the mainstream i3 system. The comparison is a lot closer when we look at the i3-330UM. The E-350 won't be able to play SC2 as well as a $500 mainstream notebook, but it'll be comparable to an ultraportable running ULV Arrandale.

We don't have numbers for the G45 platform here because the system wouldn't run our benchmark (our tests use an older version of SC2 which apparently had issues with the G45 drivers).

Our SC2 CPU test gives you an idea of the lower end of performance in large multiplayer battles:

Mobile IGP Comparison - Starcraft 2 CPU Test - 1366 x 768 - Low Quality

The E-350 offers only 58% of the performance of the i3-350M system. The Bobcat cores do hold the platform back from time to time. Again, compared to the i3-330UM there's no performance difference at all.

Just for kicks I also ran the Civilization V benchmark, which gave us two datapoints: GPU performance and no-render/CPU performance.

Mobile IGP Comparison - Civilization V - DX10/DX11 - 1366 x 768 - Low Quality

The benchmark doesn't score well on either platform, although AMD does hold a 72% performance advantage over the i3 and G45 platforms. The CPU test puts the E-350 at about 55% of the speed of the Pentium dual core platform.

Mobile IGP Comparison - Civilization V - DX10/DX11 - 1366 x 768 - Low Quality

Civ V is one area where the Arrandale CPU advantage wins out over GPU performance.

Overall, the E-350 has no problems outperforming any of the current Intel integrated graphics offerings in 3D games. In CPU bound titles the E-350 loses out to the mainstream i3, but is competitive with ultra low voltage i3s. Just as with Atom, you'll have to sacrifice performance vs. a mainstream notebook, but compared to low voltage Arrandale the E-350 can hold its own.

Desktop IGP Comparison: Faster than Clarkdale Final Words
Comments Locked

207 Comments

View All Comments

  • Jamahl - Tuesday, November 16, 2010 - link

    Anand it's the way you write things, and the rather strange way you benchmark at what appears to be random.

    You've used the pentium dual core at 2.2ghz, making it known that Zacate is no match for it. Now you've added the i3 330um maybe you could mention it's also no match for the pentium dual core?

    I think we all realise that the Zacate system is going to thump both in power consumption as well.

    And for heavens sake, why benchmark two of the most strongly cpu-intensive games again. This just makes the intel graphics look better, falsely. Go on and find another 2 games that show them up as good as Dragon Age and SC2 does.
  • mino - Tuesday, November 16, 2010 - link

    Even better. benchamrk something that is actually PLAYABLE on these machines !

    Original Far Cry, CnC Generals, HL2 anyone ?
  • mino - Tuesday, November 16, 2010 - link

    Ah, sorry, almost forgot that Intel drivers can't handle such a demanding title as 2002 CnC Generals ... :)
  • Dark_Archonis - Tuesday, November 16, 2010 - link

    So benchmarking those games would be admitting that Zacate cannot handle modern games.
  • mino - Tuesday, November 16, 2010 - link

    No it would be REAL WORLD testing.
    Not all GPU's are made equal as well as not all game are made equal.

    That is why I actually care less about Clarkdale giving me 15FPS slideshow in Starcraft if it cannot even launch 6yrs old DX8 CnC.
    That CnC it actually has the HW power to handle but the drivers can't cope with.

    Even 5450 can't play Crysis? So what? Does it mean the card is worthless?
  • AnandThenMan - Tuesday, November 16, 2010 - link

    I think we all know why certain games and CPU benches were chosen. This site is becoming more and more transparent all the time.
  • jamyryals - Tuesday, November 16, 2010 - link

    Seriously guys? Didn't we go through this last week?

    They are benchmarks, the numbers don't lie. I guess he could segregate the numbers again so it doesn't offend some of you. More information is not a bad thing.

    The article is simply finding where the chip fits in the existing price/performance landscape. If the reality of the numbers doesn't line up with your expectations, don't shoot the messenger. I for one, think it's a neat looking product that has potential to keep improving going forward. The way some people have such an emotional response to this is baffling.
  • nitrousoxide - Tuesday, November 16, 2010 - link

    Well that's not completely true given previous tests on AMD's high-end CPUs. On Anand version even an Core i5 owned the Phenom II X6 1090T but from many non-media tests done by ordinary users, the 1090T can even outperform an i7 both in games and benchmark softwares, and its power consumption is lower than i7 instead of the skyscraper power bar in Anand version. Those results are making me suspect whether the test on Zactate is convincing enough. No offense, Anand.
  • nitrousoxide - Tuesday, November 16, 2010 - link

    I mean...I'm not questioning your test because this is only a PREVIEW. Just some dissatisfaction with tests on other AMD CPUs :)
  • Dark_Archonis - Tuesday, November 16, 2010 - link

    It's not so baffling when you begin to understand certain people are paid to post such "emotional" posts.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now