Integrated GPU Performance: Sleeping Dogs

Sleeping Dogs is a benchmarking wet dream – a highly complex benchmark that can bring the toughest setup and high resolutions down into single figures. Having an extreme SSAO setting can do that, but at the right settings Sleeping Dogs is highly playable and enjoyable. We run the basic benchmark program laid out in the Adrenaline benchmark tool, and their three default settings of Performance (1280x1024, Low), Quality (1680x1050, Medium/High) and Xtreme (1920x1080, Maximum) noting down the average frame rates and the minimum frame rates.

Sleeping Dogs, Performance Settings

Sleeping Dogs: Performance

All the AMD APUs tested for this review manage to go above 30 FPS for Sleeping Dogs, with the top end APU nudging at the door of 60 FPS average.

Sleeping Dogs, Quality Settings

Sleeping Dogs: Quality

The GCN based Kaveri take the top two IGP spots, and Iris Pro is moving down the list by comparison.

Sleeping Dogs, Xtreme Settings

Sleeping Dogs: Xtreme

Iris Pro struggles a lot at 1080p in Sleeping Dogs.

Integrated GPU Performance: Company of Heroes 2

The final gaming benchmark is another humdinger. Company of Heroes 2 also can bring the house down, even at very basic benchmark settings. To get an average 30 FPS at any settings using integrated graphics is a challenge, let alone a minimum frame rate of 30 FPS. For this benchmark I use modified versions of Ryan’s batch files more suited for integrated graphics: 1280x1024 on minimum; 1680x1050 on Low and 1920x1080 on Medium.

Company of Heroes 2, Performance Settings

Company of Heroes 2: Performance

COH2 is demanding enough that even at 1280x1024 and low settings, no platform we tested today can hit 30 FPS average. The 95W Kaveri part does however outshine Richland by almost 25%.

Company of Heroes 2, Quality Settings

F1 2013: Quality

Company of Heroes 2, Xtreme Settings

Company of Heroes 2: Xtreme

With COH2 extreme settings, the Intel solutions are moving up the minimum FPS ranks to beat AMD.

Processor Graphics: Bioshock Infinite, Tomb Raider, F1 2013 Processor Graphics: Compute and Synthetics
Comments Locked

380 Comments

View All Comments

  • HanzNFranzen - Saturday, January 18, 2014 - link

    Yea, 90% of people use Battlefield 4 90% of their time on the PC... You missed the question.
  • keveazy - Saturday, January 18, 2014 - link

    Doesn't matter.
    If you buy a PC, it's better to make sure it's solid and ready to handle applications that require strong physical cpu performance unless your still living the 90s dude.

    My point is, AMD's highest end kaveri 7850k chip today is priced at the same range as Intel's low end i5 cpus. From here, you take your pic. If you wanna have a system that has worse graphics than ps4, go AMD.
  • kmi187 - Sunday, January 19, 2014 - link

    If you've actually lived in the 90's you would know that cpu power was a lot more important back then than it is now. You didn't have hardware (gpu) acceleration for video and all that jazz to put less stress on the cpu.

    Also you do realize the PS4 runs on AMD hardware right?
  • medi02 - Tuesday, January 28, 2014 - link

    What on earth are you talking about? What is a "solid PC"? One that fails at games?
  • cryptik - Monday, March 30, 2015 - link

    Today (30 Mar 2015) the AMD A8-7600 is the same price ($99) as the Intel Pentium G3460. The "lowest end" i5 CPU is $189. You're simply a liar who has no idea what he's talking about.
  • vAngz - Sunday, January 26, 2014 - link

    I believe you and others are missing the point. Can you play Battlefield 4 on medium settings @ 1080p using only the i5 4430, without using a discrete graphics card, and it still be playable above 30fps?

    Even though the chips are the same price (at most places), you can actually play BF4 using only the A10 7850K, which is not possible with the i5 4430. I bring this up mainly because you brought up BF4. When, rather if, Mantle is ever activated on BF4, things will change and we will see even better performance on the A10-7850K and later gen AMD APUs.

    So, yes, you can get better performance out of the i5 4430, but you will need to spend more money on a discrete graphics card to use it for gaming, such as for BF4. I believe this what sets the AMD APUs apart from Intel offerings at the moment. We need to compare apples to apples.

    I could be wrong, but I haven't seen anywhere in my research where anyone is getting that kind of performance out of i5 4430 without a discrete graphics card added into the mix. If you have a link on such info please share it with us. Thanks.
  • keveazy - Friday, February 7, 2014 - link

    Your not getting it either. My mistake in my previous post is I didn't mention Battlefield 4 Multiplayer.
    That's where the APU will fail. It will fail in both the Cpu performance and Gpu performance. The APU is still the better choice at light gaming.
  • theduckofdeath - Wednesday, January 15, 2014 - link

    I think he's referencing that processor simply because it's a pretty powerful, fairly low-priced processor for all of those who can live without all of those over-clocker tweaks...
  • just4U - Tuesday, January 14, 2014 - link

    You talk about 2500K performance and yet the majority of people I come across are not even working with that. The vast majority are still in the C2D/8800 like performance arena. What would be nice to see from some of these review sites in their performance analysis is if stuff like this makes sense to finally bite the bullet and get rid of the old dog..
  • just4U - Tuesday, January 14, 2014 - link

    Ian .. that's something I think you should look at btw.. we do get a fair number of lurkers /w some posting up questions like that about how it compares to the old warhorses their on. Hell even for those of us with old parts kicking around it's something to consider. Do we scrounge up some cheap ddr2 psu.. hand me down hard drives and pair it up for that box in front of the television or do we say no.. this makes far more sense and it's new.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now