AMD's Richland vs. Intel's Haswell GPU on the Desktop: Radeon HD 8670D vs. Intel HD 4600
by Anand Lal Shimpi on June 6, 2013 12:00 PM ESTFinal Words
Despite Haswell's arrival on the desktop, AMD is in no trouble at all from a graphics perspective. At the high end, Richland maintains a 17 - 50% GPU performance advantage (~30% on average) over Intel's HD 4600 (Haswell GT2). All things equal, even Trinity is good enough to maintain this performance advantage - a clear downside of Intel not bringing its Iris or Iris Pro graphics to any socketed desktop parts.
While there isn't a substantial increase in GPU performance between Richland and Trinity, AMD's GPU performance lead over Ivy Bridge was big enough to withstand Haswell's arrival. Note that although we're comparing performance to Haswell here, Richland exists in a lower price bracket. If you want the best desktop solution with processor graphics, AMD remains your best bet.
Later this year we'll see the arrival of Kaveri, which will be AMD's true response to Iris as well as its first HSA enabled APU. For as long as I can remember, integrated graphics was one of the most frustrating aspects of PC hardware to test. It looks like that's finally about to change.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
102 Comments
View All Comments
BSMonitor - Thursday, June 6, 2013 - link
No, the comparison is absolutely meaningless. You are saying that someone's decision to buy a Core i7 4770 is influenced by the iGPU. It is not.Ortanon - Thursday, June 6, 2013 - link
The comparison isn't for people buying Core i7 lol. You wouldn't need a comparison if you were already going to buy it. The comparison is exactly what it says: Radeon HD 8670D vs. Intel HD 4600.BSMonitor - Thursday, June 6, 2013 - link
That's what I said. He is saying the price between the two should also matter. And as you say, people buying a Core i7 are not comparing iGPUs.BSMonitor - Thursday, June 6, 2013 - link
The comparison in question is not the article... It's the price comparison, go back to the beginning of the thread.silverblue - Thursday, June 6, 2013 - link
Unless you're very much interested in QuickSync, that is.jjj - Thursday, June 6, 2013 - link
1080p monitors can be found even bellow 100$ ,there isn't really a point in reviewing desktop anything bellow 1080p. going lower to find where a game becomes playeble is fine but the review should have 1080p tests even if the products are not good enough.Would be nice if Kaveri would double the SP count but AMD might be going for a smaller die to cut costs given their difficult financial situation. Wouldn't quite match the Xbox in perf but would be close enough and could do a decent job at playing console ports for the next few years.
DigitalFreak - Thursday, June 6, 2013 - link
Why test at a resolution where you're not going to get playable frame rates? If you can only get playable frame rates @ 768p by running medium quality, I'm pretty sure it's going to be unplayable at anything other than low / minimum @ 1080p.jjj - Thursday, June 6, 2013 - link
that's one of the points ,"you are pretty sure" not sure because the review doesn't do it's job to show you for sure and if you want a clear picture you need to look elsewhere.Death666Angel - Thursday, June 6, 2013 - link
Considering that nothing here is playable at 900p, it is quite possible to extrapolate that 1080p won't be playable either. So I'm pretty fine with them not testing it. If you get a $150 APU to play the latest games at 1080p (a resolution much larger than current consoles support in gaming, might I add), you are deluded.britjh22 - Thursday, June 6, 2013 - link
Are the tests currently set up to show higher res but lower detail settings? I know there is a set benchmark settings that they use to normalize, which is fine for high end CPU/mid to high end GPU testing. If I remember correctly the setting, as they climb in "quality" (low, medium, high) increase both resolution and detail concurrently. With Trinity/Richland and eventually Kaveri, it would be interesting to see if these APU's can handle recent games at higher resolution, but lower detail settings. Essentially can you get any recent games to play at common resolutions, even if you have to crank down settings.