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

  • extremesheep49 - Friday, February 21, 2014 - link

    I don't know if anyone will even see this now but...

    "The reality is quite clear by now: AMD isn't going to solve its CPU performance issues with anything from the Bulldozer family. What we need is a replacement architecture, one that I suspect we'll get after Excavator concludes the line in 2015."

    I don't know that this conclusion is very fair considering this statement if you compare it to a previous article linked below. The linked article recommends a (currently) $100 100W A8-5600K. The Kaveri equivalent is a $120 45W CPU of approximately the same performance.

    Doesn't the linked article's recommendations contradict your Kaveri conclusion at least for some cases? Kaveri's CPU performance probably is sufficient for many discrete GPU setups.

    http://anandtech.com/show/6934/choosing-a-gaming-c...

    Quote from link:
    "Recommendations for the Games Tested at 1440p/Max Settings
    A CPU for Single GPU Gaming: A8-5600K + Core Parking updates"
  • Novaguy - Sunday, February 23, 2014 - link

    Gaming performance is usually (but not always) GPU bottlenecked, not CPU bottlenecked.

    The reason why a trinity was getting recommended in a lot of gaming boxes was that in dollar limited scenarios, you'll often get better gaming performance mating a $120 quad core trinity with a $300 gpu, versus a $220 i5 with a $200 gpu.

    For even better results, mate an $80 Athlon II X4 750K if you're going discrete gpu, but I don't think the gpu-less trinity chip was available then.
  • PG - Monday, February 24, 2014 - link

    I wanted to compare Kaveri to some other cpus not in this review. Bench would be perfect for that, but the Kaveri cpus are not listed there. Why? Can they be be added?
  • Cptn_Slo - Tuesday, April 1, 2014 - link

    Well at least this shows that AMD is able to increase performance significantly given the appropriate die shrink. I'm a big Intel fan but a healthy company/market needs competition, and looks like AMD is able to offer that in at least some areas.
  • zobisch - Wednesday, April 2, 2014 - link

    I have an h60 cooler on my 7850k with 2400mhz ram OC'd to 4.4ghz and I love it... I think the corner for APU's will really turn when DDR4 boards come out. I also would like to see an 8core, 24 compute gpu as well but that's probably a die shrink or more away.
  • vickfan104 - Tuesday, May 6, 2014 - link

    An Xbox One/PS4-like APU is what I'm still looking for from AMD. To me, that seems like the point where an APU becomes truly compelling as opposed to CPU + discreet GPU.
  • P39Airacobra - Thursday, January 1, 2015 - link

    I still can't understand why anyone would be insane enough to pay the outrages high price for a AMD APU simply because it has a built in GPU that can play some games! When for the same price you can get a high end i5 CPU and mid range GPU for a few dollars more! Or for the exact same price you can get a AMD quad and a mid range GPU. Either choice would bloaw any AMD APU out of the water! Yes you can crossfire the APU, But you can also crossfire and SLI regular GPU's. Besides by the time you paid the money for a AMD APU and a GPU to crossfire with it you could have got a nice i3 or FX 6300 or even a last gen IVY i5 with a GPU like a R9 270 or a GTX 660. And either one of those would blow away a APU/Crossfire setup! What are you people thinking? I swear people today would not only buy the Brooklyn bridge once but more than once!
  • P39Airacobra - Thursday, January 1, 2015 - link

    Most logical thing to do is buy FX-6300 for $119 and a Motherboard for $60 and then buy a GTX 660 or a R9 270 and buy a 1600x900 resolution monitor and then you will be able to max out anything.
  • P39Airacobra - Thursday, January 1, 2015 - link

    Besides 60fps on Medium/High at only 1280x1024 is a laugh! A GT 740 and a R7 250 can do better than that!
  • kzac - Monday, February 16, 2015 - link

    After living with the processor on a gigabyte main board for the past several months, I can honestly say its bested both the core i3 and i5 systems (some quad core) I have used in the past. What it might not score on benchmarks for all out throughput it makes up for in its multitasking capability. What normally crashes my i3 and makes my i5 struggle while multitasking (many things open and operating at the same time), doesn’t tend to effect the A10 APU. The core i3 i am using is the later 3220 chip which completely chokes with anything above average multitasking under W7pro, even though it has 12 gig of 1600 ram. The core i5 was better at multitasking than the core i3 but still not near as effective at multitasking as the AMD A10 7850. Where I cannot speak to the performance of the AMD A10 for gaming, for multitasking is very effective.
    For gaming I have used the FX series AMD processors, both Quad Core and 8 core.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now