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

  • ABR - Thursday, January 16, 2014 - link

    Kind of funny to hear "Iris" mentioned here given that the SGI O2 was an early example of a workstation with HUMA back in the mid-90's. :) There was no such thing as GPGPU back then (it might have helped save SGI if there was), but it provided a big help for memory-intensive things like texture-mapping.
  • vinayshivakumar - Thursday, January 16, 2014 - link

    Why are the iGPU codenames mentioned in the CPU benchmark and the CPU is in brackets ?? What is the reason to mention the GPU at all in a CPU test ? To the untrained eye , it might look as is HD3000 is faster than the AMD R7... Which is obviously not true...
  • vinayshivakumar - Thursday, January 16, 2014 - link

    Am I missing something here , apart from a bias ?
  • Th-z - Thursday, January 16, 2014 - link

    I agree the labels can be misleading, in CPU benchmarks other than the second table "Agisoft PS v1.0 Mapping IGP" on page 10, all other are done with CPU only. Some tables got it right while some have iGPU names leading the labels and model names in the brackets. What should be in the brackets are iGPUs. Consistency in labelling is needed. It's probably not intentional, just a result of messing up the labels and get the review out ASAP.
  • ryrynz - Thursday, January 16, 2014 - link

    You should be listing the GPU first in the Winrar results. The GPU is obviously not important in this benchmark and really shouldn't be specified at all.
  • sonofsanta - Thursday, January 16, 2014 - link

    "...the benchmark follows Jenson Button in the McLaren who starts on the grid in 22nd place, with the field made up of 11 Williams cars, 5 Marussia and 5 Caterham in that order."

    You sure a 2013 McLaren could make it through that field? I reckon it'd still fail to make the podium.
  • HaryHr - Thursday, January 16, 2014 - link

    What's the story with Iris Pro and huge difference between average FPS and minimum FPS?

    In BI performance test: 78 average and 6 minimum, quality test: 20 average and 1 minimum.
    If this is happening during gameplay this makes game almost unplayable. AMDs lineup has much smaller variance.

    It would be nice to see time frame tests.
  • synce - Thursday, January 16, 2014 - link

    What a disappointment... I thought the 7850K would be the first rig I've built in years but it's barely an improvement over the 6800 and still no match for an i5 :(
  • Rogatti - Thursday, January 16, 2014 - link

    Drivers still immature ... I will wait to form an opinion
  • SolMiester - Thursday, January 16, 2014 - link

    WOW, looks to me that the A10 6800k is the better bang. I saw only 1 game where the R7 bettered the 6800K where any of them were playable....

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now