The Ivy Bridge Preview: Core i7 3770K Tested
by Anand Lal Shimpi on March 6, 2012 8:16 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
- Intel
- Core i7
- Ivy Bridge
Intel HD Graphics 4000 Performance
With respectable but still very tick-like performance gains on the CPU, our focus now turns to Ivy Bridge's GPU. Drivers play a significant role in performance here and we're still several weeks away from launch so these numbers may improve. We used the latest available drivers as of today for all other GPUs.
A huge thanks goes out to EVGA for providing us with a GeForce GT 440 and GeForce GT 520 for use in this preview.
Crysis: Warhead
We'll start with Crysis, a title that no one would have considered running on integrated graphics a few years ago. Sandy Bridge brought playable performance at low quality settings (Performance defaults) last year, but how much better does Ivy do this year?
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.
195 Comments
View All Comments
Valitri - Saturday, April 14, 2012 - link
"there's also the question of which one (CPU or GPU) approaches "good enough" first."I was worried that my A6 3420 laptop would feel sluggish in windows and general tasks, especially compared to my 2500k desktop system. However, I've been very surprised and think it works just fine in windows.
I was also very impressed that the iGPU lets me play most newer games comfortably. I was able to OC my A6 3420 on my Samsung 3 series to 2.0ghz. It runs Crysis 2 on low at 1366x768 in the 25-30 fps range. Now to me that is not really playable, but I was surprised it could even run it. Other games like SC2, Arkam Asylum, CSS, WOW, have all ran like a champ. Most of them even on medium settings!
So I think if you want a cheap laptop (mine was $399), and you want the ability to play some games while still doing general tasks well, we have already hit that "good enough" stage on the CPU department. It will be interesting to see if Windows 8/Metro does anything to change this.
p05esto - Monday, April 23, 2012 - link
You are dead wrong. I need fast CPU for my work but need or care about the gpu. You realize people do more than game, right.SquirrelPunch - Monday, April 23, 2012 - link
Could not disagree more.In fact the majority of power users do not need a powerful GPU, just lots of RAM and fast CPU.
Graphics designers: All 2D mostly, do not need powerful GPU.
Video Editors: Same as above.
Software developers (not games): same as above
Standard CAD: No intensive 3D models involved.
Most also don't care for multi-monitor setups, or the 2x that HD series will let you use.
klmccaughey - Monday, April 23, 2012 - link
Intel needs another Larrabee. It keeps cobbling together these graphics cores, which are always well short of the mark. Either Larrabee 2 or licence from Nvidia, but something has to be done about it in the long (possible mid) term. It makes perfect sense and, to me anyway, has the air of inevitability about it.Why not take the plunge?
MarkJohnson - Tuesday, August 21, 2012 - link
I find it odd the AMD A8-3870K was left out of the power consumption section, but is in the others.I ran a quick test and my kill-a-watt meter read 126Watts max x264 HD v5.0.1 which bests all of them
It also idles at 34.5 watts which blows them all away by a very large margin. The best is double what the AMD A8-3870K idles.