• What
    is this?
    You've landed on the AMD Portal on AnandTech. This section is sponsored by AMD. It features a collection of all of our independent AMD content, as well as Tweets & News from AMD directly. AMD will also be running a couple of huge giveaways here so check back for those.
    PRESENTED BY

Introduction

If desktop graphics hardware can be more than a little confusing, deciphering performance of mobile graphics parts can be (and has historically been) an absolute nightmare. Way back in the day it was at least fairly easy to figure out which desktop chip was hiding in which mobile kit, but both AMD and NVIDIA largely severed ties between mobile and desktop branding. They may not want to readily admit that, and in the case of certain models they still pretty heavily rely on the cachet associated with their desktop hardware, but it's by and large true. So to help you make sense of mobile graphics, we present to you the first in what will hopefully be a regular series of guides.

I started putting guides like this one together back at my alma mater NotebookReview, and they've always been pretty well-received. It's really not hard to understand why: while NVIDIA and AMD are usually pretty forthcoming with the specs of their desktop kit, they've historically been pretty cagey about their notebook graphics hardware. As a result, sites like this one have had to sift through information about different laptops, compare notes with other sites and readers, and eventually compile the data. Forums will light up with questions like "can this laptop play xyz?"

Thankfully, the advent of DirectX 11 drastically simplified my job. Whenever shader models or even entire DirectX versions were bifurcated, complication followed suit, but with DirectX 11 pretty much everybody is on board with the same fundamental feature sets, and AMD and NVIDIA both support their respective technologies across the board. Intel remains the odd man out, as you'll see.

We'll break things down into three categories. The first is integrated graphics, which interestingly has gone entirely on-package and even on-die over the past year. It's surprising how fast that change really occurred. Coupled with NVIDIA's exit from the chipset business, we're strictly looking at Intel and AMD here. The second and third are dedicated to AMD and NVIDIA's mobile lines. Wherever possible we'll also link you to a review that demonstrates the performance of the graphics hardware in question. And note that when we talk about the number of shaders, CUDA cores, or EUs on a given part, that these numbers are ONLY comparable to other parts from the same vendor; 92 of NVIDIA's CUDA cores are not comparable to, say, 160 shaders from an AMD Radeon.

Integrated Graphics

"Too Slow to Play" Class: Intel HD Graphics (Arrandale), Intel Atom IGP, AMD Radeon HD 4250
Specs aren't provided because in this case they aren't really needed: none of these integrated graphics parts are going to be good for much more than the odd game of Unreal Tournament 2004. Intel has had a devil of a time getting their IGP act together prior to the advent of Sandy Bridge, while AMD's Radeon HD 3000/3100/3200/4200/4225/4250 core (yes, it's all basically the same core) is really showing its age. Thankfully, outside of Atom's IGP, all of these are on their way out. As for gaming on Atom, there's always the original StarCraft.

Intel HD 3000 (Sandy Bridge)
12 EUs, Core Clock: Varies
With Sandy Bridge, Intel was able to produce an integrated graphics part able to rival AMD and NVIDIA's budget entries. In fact, in our own testing we found the HD 3000 able to largely keep up with AMD's dedicated Radeon HD 6450 and to a lesser extent the 6470, and NVIDIA's current mobile lineup generally doesn't extend that low (likely excepting the GT 520M and GT 520MX). That said, there are still some caveats to the HD 3000: while Intel's questionable driver quality is largely behind it, you may still experience the odd compatibility issue from time to time (when Sandy Bridge dropped, Fallout 3 had an issue), and more punishing games like Mafia II and Metro 2033 will be largely out of its reach. The clocks on the HD 3000 also vary greatly, with a starting clock of 650MHz for mainstream parts, 500MHz for low voltage parts, and just 350MHz for ultra low voltage parts. Turbo clocks get even weirder, ranging anywhere from 900MHz to 1.3GHz depending on the processor model. Still, it's nice to not have to roll your eyes anymore at the suggestion of doing some casual gaming on Intel's integrated hardware. (Sandy Bridge Review)

AMD Radeon HD 6250/6310 (Brazos)
80 Shaders, 8 TMUs, 4 ROPs, Core Clock: 280MHz (6250), 500MHz (6310)
In Brazos, AMD produced a workable netbook-level processor core and grafted last generation's Radeon HD 5450/5470 core onto it. The result is an integrated graphics processor with a decent amount of horsepower for low-end casual gaming, but in some cases it's going to be hamstrung by the comparatively slow Bobcat processor cores. That's perfectly fine, though, as Brazos is generally a more desirable alternative to Atom + NG-ION netbooks, offering more processor performance and vastly superior battery life. Just don't expect to do any but the most casual gaming on a Brazos-powered netbook. (HP dm1z Review)

AMD Radeon HD 6380G/6480G/6520G/6620G (Llano)
160/240/320/400 (6380G/6480G/6520G/6620G) Shaders, 20/16/12 (6480G/6520G/6620G) TMUs, 8/4 (6620G and 6520G/6480G) ROPs, Core Clock: 400-444MHz
Llano isn't out anywhere near in force yet, but we have a good idea of how the 6620G performs and expect the IGP performance to essentially scale down in such a way that the model numbers are fairly appropriate. The long and short of Llano is that the processor half pales in comparison to Sandy Bridge, but the graphics hardware is monstrous. Gamers on an extreme budget are likely to be well-served by picking up a notebook with one of AMD's A6 or A8 processors in it, with Llano promising near-midrange mobile graphics performance. (Llano Mobile Review)

AMD Radeon HD 6000M Graphics
POST A COMMENT

83 Comments

View All Comments

  • Imnotrichey - Wednesday, July 06, 2011 - link

    Thanks. Glad to know I can still play many of those steam games when at home without losing the mobility needed for work and school. Reply
  • seapeople - Wednesday, July 06, 2011 - link

    In comparison desktops are as portable as a concrete brick that weighs 20 pounds, a non-folding chair, and 20 feet of rope that you must tie around the chair and brick and then connect the other end to a tree every time you want to use it.

    I think I'll take my 10 pound brick, thank you very much.
    Reply
  • UMADBRO - Thursday, July 07, 2011 - link

    You seem awful full of yourself. Not everyone shares the same perspective as you, so stop acting like youre "opinion" is right and everyone else is wrong.

    And if 10 pounds is too damn heavy for you to move around, you have more serious problems to worry about then how much someone isomeone "should" spend on their system....
    Reply
  • Iketh - Thursday, July 07, 2011 - link

    what's with you and 10 lbs??? that isn't shit you pathetic weakling Reply
  • fb39ca4 - Wednesday, July 06, 2011 - link

    All of these chips (except for the gma in Atom netbooks) are faster than the quadro nvs 120m in mah laptop. ugh. Reply
  • Seikent - Wednesday, July 06, 2011 - link

    A chart comparing the graphics cards in some games would have been great. I know it is not so easy, but it is relevant. Reply
  • Drizzt321 - Wednesday, July 06, 2011 - link

    Where does the Quadro 1000m fit into here? I just bought the Lenovo w520 (still waiting to ship, arg!). I wasn't specifically looking for Quadro, however it had the rest I wanted (15", 1080p, Optimus, wide(er) gamut LCD, etc. Even a built-in color calibration sensor!) and it'd be interesting to see where it fits in here, give it's 96 cuda cores. Reply
  • Belard - Wednesday, July 06, 2011 - link

    Hey, let us know how that W520 works... the screen quality.

    Mobile graphics chips are not as powerful as their desktops, there are ways to make them run a bit cooler... such as lower clock rates and other factors.
    Reply
  • Drizzt321 - Thursday, July 07, 2011 - link

    Yea, I know, but since this was a, ya know, mobile graphics guide, I was figuring I'd ask for that since I'm not quite sure where it fits in performance-wise. But, didn't buy it for gaming, although I will probably do some, so it's not as big a deal to me.

    Well, supposedly it's pretty nice. From what I've read pretty good contrast ratio and good black/white levels. Plus 95% NTSC, at least according to specs, so I'm hopefully. Still a TN panel from what I understand, but at least it seems like a decent one. I'll try and remember to get back to the Anand forums on how it is. Hell, if Anand wants to give me some info on how to give all those wonderful graphs he has (I also have an X-Rite eyeOne USB colorimeter), I'd be more than happy to put together that info.
    Reply
  • DaveSimmons - Wednesday, July 06, 2011 - link

    It always annoys me seeing a laptop advertised with a "560m" or "6850 mobile". I have to stop and remind myself that no, these offer nothing close to the performance of the desktop cards with those model numbers that I've read about in reviews. Its just nvidia and AMD trying to play me for a sucker by selling me a mislabeled 550 or 5770. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now