3DMark and GFXBench

Although we don't draw any conclusions based on 3DMark and GFXBench, I ran this data on Richland as well since I had Trinity, Ivy Bridge and Haswell comparison points.

3DMark: Ice Storm

3DMark: Ice Storm Extreme

3DMark: Cloud Gate

3DMark: Fire Strike

3DMark: Fire Strike Extreme

3DMark 11 - Performance Defaults

3DMark 06

GFXBenchmark 2.7 T-Rex HD

GFXBenchmark 2.7 T-Rex HD - 4X MSAA

Compute Performance Final Words


View All Comments

  • taltamir - Thursday, June 06, 2013 - link

    "Richland maintains a 17 - 50% GPU performance advantage (~30% on average) over Intel's HD 4600 (Haswell GT2)"
    And yet consumes more then 2x the power according to your own charts.
    And what about the CPU performance? These are desktop parts not laptop parts, their iGPU performance is meaningless
  • silverblue - Thursday, June 06, 2013 - link

    Did you skip just to the conclusion? The reason as to a lack of CPU benchmarks is on the first page.

    How much power would a 4770K with a GT640 use, incidentally? And at the other end of the scale, what about that 4600M which is rated at 35W yet in a couple of tests beat even the 4770K with its HD 4600? You're asking for results that Anand hasn't managed to grab just yet for reasons as stated on the first page.

    There's some strange results in here. In the 3DMark: Fire Strike Extreme test, all three APUs have the same result, but in 3DMark06, the 6800K significantly beats everything else. However, regardless of one or two oddities, the 6800K isn't a real progression over the 5800K... but it was never really made out nor expected to be.
  • FriendlyUser - Thursday, June 06, 2013 - link

    Who cares about power on the desktop? What are you running, a server farm? We're not talking about a 200W part here. The Richland is easy enough to cool as it is. Just because intel based its strategy around a mobile part doesn't mean we have to run behind absolute power/performance ratios. Price/performance makes more sense for the average user.

    Also, iGPU is very important at that price point. If a $150 CPU saves you a $80 GPU, it's quite attractive. USA readers probably can afford to spend $200 for a dGPU, but struggling european economies and the developing world are a big part of the international market.
  • ChoadNamath - Thursday, June 06, 2013 - link

    "iGPU performance is meaningless" ...except in an APU, where it's pretty much the whole point. Reply
  • shing3232 - Sunday, June 09, 2013 - link

    it would not be meaningless for low end desktop. and it is not 2x power consumption in real world. they also have A10-6700 65W TDP Reply
  • whyso - Thursday, June 06, 2013 - link

    Well I think this also shows how close mobile will be. Gt2 at slightly lower speeds than the 4770k (say 1200 mhz 3MB cache for an i5/i3 vs 1300 mhz 8MB cache for 4770k) will be about 10-15% slower. Mobile trinity is going to be approximately equal to haswell mobile gt2 and richland may be slightly ahead but the gap is largely gone. Reply
  • FriendlyUser - Thursday, June 06, 2013 - link

    I have always wondered why would anyone paying $330 for a high-end CPU care for a barely adequate iGPU. It's much more reasonable to expect that people looking at the $150 price point will appreciate an iGPU, especially one that is quite decent. The cheapest GT640 I could find was ~$85 (local price), which is no small change. And don't think that the GT640 will get the same scores if paired with the i3... Reply
  • whyso - Thursday, June 06, 2013 - link

    yes it will, 640 is way to weak to be bottlenecked by an i3. Reply
  • Spunjji - Friday, June 07, 2013 - link

    Indeed. It'll still cost more, though! Reply
  • BSMonitor - Thursday, June 06, 2013 - link

    The vast majority of these CPUs do not go to gamers... Their performance is more than acceptable for a large number of use cases if an OEM doesn't want to include a dGPU. However for $330 you get CPU performance that AMD cannot touch at ANY price point or performance/watt.. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now