Our first graphics test is Crysis: Warhead, which in spite of its relatively high system requirements is the oldest game in our test suite. Crysis was the first game to really make use of DX10, and set a very high bar for modern games that still hasn't been completely cleared. And while its age means it's not heavily played these days, it's a great reference for how far GPU performance has come since 2008. For an iGPU to even run Crysis at a playable framerate is a significant accomplishment, and even more so if it can do so at better than performance (low) quality settings.

In our highest quality benchmark (Mainstream) settings, Intel's HD Graphics 4000 is 55% faster than the 3000 series graphics in Sandy Bridge. While still tangibly slower than AMD's Llano (Radeon HD 6550D), Ivy Bridge is a significant step forward. Drop the quality down a bit and playability improves significantly:

Over 50 fps at 1680 x 1050 from Intel integrated graphics is pretty impressive. Here we're showing a 41% increase in performance compared to Sandy Bridge, with Llano maintaining a 33% advantage over Ivy. I would've liked to have seen an outright doubling of performance, but this is a big enough step forward to be noticeable on systems with no discrete GPU.

Intel's HD 4000 Explored Intel HD 4000 Performance: Metro 2033
POST A COMMENT

173 Comments

View All Comments

  • Tujan - Tuesday, April 24, 2012 - link

    cause how I see it :
    " If you're constantly transcoding movies to get them onto your smartphone or tablet, you need Ivy Bridge. In less than 7 minutes, and with no impact to CPU usage, I was able to transcode a complete 130 minute 1080p video to an iPad friendly format—that's over 15x real time."

    The majority of trancoding is going the other way- from an ipad friendly format to another friendly type format (device or not). Cell phone to pc,ipad to youtube etc.
    I like the concept of the transcode,encode,but as much as with the bandwidth necesary to utilize them they are as they are 'bandwidth hungry'. And here is the first I have noticed that of telling there is hardware to facilitate the h.264 type encoding. "Hardware" to do this.
    The screens from all of those cell phones in high resolution 'still'require bandwidth to utilize them. .. and so on.

    I dont understand it completely but I'll attempt to stay tuned.
    Reply
  • androticus - Tuesday, April 24, 2012 - link

    I find this review enormously confusing. You mix IB and SB parts/sku's throughout, without clearly highlighting which is which. On page 2, at first I thought the chart was of IB CPUs, but then realized it was a mishmash of both. Likewise on all the benchmark charts, and I couldn't even distinguish various SB/IB/core counts apart.

    Was this article written solely for people who have a PhD in Intel sku's ???
    Reply
  • Dudenell - Tuesday, April 24, 2012 - link

    Could we actually see comparison with the i7-920 or i7-950 in there? Reply
  • Pjotr - Wednesday, April 25, 2012 - link

    Thanks for the Compile test, this is all I look at to decide purchases at work. Reply
  • sld - Wednesday, April 25, 2012 - link

    The A8 is conspicuously missing from the 2 charts showing idle and load system consumption. Why is this so? Reply
  • greggm2000 - Wednesday, April 25, 2012 - link

    Anand/Ryan,

    According to the article linked below from today, it seems that Intel may be using TIM paste instead of fluxless solder in the IB chips, and if so, does this seem like a reasonable explanation for the high temperatures that people are seeing?

    I'm interested in your thoughts on this... and if it's true, and if the article is correct, then Intel deliberately handicapping their chips (to possibly preserve SB-E sales?) is quite troubling to me.

    http://www.overclockers.com/ivy-bridge-temperature...
    Reply
  • slickr - Thursday, April 26, 2012 - link

    Hi, is this good enough of an upgrade over a Pentium 4 for office, internet and movies?

    And will the HD4000 beat a ATI x1650XT?
    Reply
  • Death666Angel - Friday, April 27, 2012 - link

    Hey guys!
    Good review overall, thanks for that!
    But the Quicksync section was kinda strange. No way that an x86 software solution generates worse IQ than any accelerated stuff. Unless you were comparing IQ with settings that have the x86 do recode the file in the same time it takes the other solutions. Anyway, I don't understand what you did in that section. :-)
    Reply
  • kevith - Friday, April 27, 2012 - link

    Great review.

    Would it be interesting to see how it fared in a series 6 motherboard, now that it actually is backwards compatible?
    Reply
  • pwnsweet - Saturday, April 28, 2012 - link

    The only thing I care about is how much faster this new slab of silicon will power though my x264 encoding and that's the one part of the review that was left out!

    Why anand, why!?
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now