Haswell: 4th Gen Intel HD Graphics - All's Well for the new IGP?

Haswell Graphics Core Challenges Discrete Graphics Cards

5th June 2013 was a big day for Intel as it officially launched the fourth generation Core microprocessor architecture and a slew of processors and platforms for desktops and mobile systems alike. Popularly referred by its codename "Intel Haswell", some sharp eyed folks would be wondering what's new about these processors when it's using the same 22nm process technology with 3D Tri-Gate transistors as that used on the previous "Ivy Bridge" processors. To sum it up, the new Haswell processors are using an updated microarchitecure that see several small enhancements to push power-efficient performance in the 4th generation Core processor, including Intel's new AVX2 instruction set that has updated features to support twice the the floating point operations per second (useful only when the software is recompiled using newer compilers that support and have a need to use AVX2 extensions).

Another key improvement is the incorporation of the CPU voltage regulation phase into the Haswell architecture (a function traditionally handled by motherboards), which was aimed to provide very fine grained power management capabilities on-die and manage power efficiency like never before. While it has its advantages in the mobile platform, it's not very obvious on the desktop processors as the TDP of the top-of-the-line Intel Core i7-4770K (Haswell) is now rated at 84W, which is 7W higher than the Core i7-3770K (Ivy Bridge). However, the biggest change yet for Haswell processors is their renewed graphics core that Intel boasts quite a bit about and will be the focus of our scrutiny in this article.

What's Underneath Haswell's Graphics Engine?

New APIs Supported: DX11.1, OpenCL 1.2, OpenGL 4.0

We'll get to the Iris Graphics branding in a bit, but let's start off with application programming interface (API) support which seems to have leveled up in the graphics engine of the Intel fourth generation Core processor. A cursory glance at our own coverage of the Intel HD Graphics 4000 in our Ivy Bridge coverage confirms that Intel's marketing spiel is genuine.

However, new drivers bring new software feature support as long as the graphics engine has the necessary capabilities to address those features. Checking Intel's updated documents here shows the supported graphics API and features across older hardware too. Given that Intel has coined the graphics core on the Ivy Bridge as Gen.7 while Haswell corresponds to Gen.7.5, we've reasons to believe the previous generation graphics engines may support these new APIs too. The hardware most certainly can because there's really not much of a change. Rather, the support is really a limitation of Intel's driver support team. For example, here's an article indicating OpenGL 4.0 support on Ivy Bridge class CPUs when they officially debuted with only OpenGL 3.1 support.

Better Display Support: Triple-screen Collage Display, 4K x 2K Resolution, DisplayPort 1.2

The next eye-catching change on the Haswell graphics core is the impressive display related support - triple screen "collage" display support, enhanced 4K x 2K resolution support and DisplayPort 1.2 support - all of which are pretty major improvements to the flexibility offered by an integrated graphics engine. Take note that triple screen non-symmetric simultaneous display support was available since the Ivy Bridge processors, but Haswell processors take that up a notch to support symmetric simultaneous display across three screens and treat all the physical displays as a single logical monitor. Essentially, Collage display is nothing more than bunching monitors into a logical group and using an extra large screen resolution to span across them - something that NVIDIA's 3D Surround and AMD EyeFinity support for a long time now.

On the "enhanced" 4K x 2K resolution support - Ivy Bridge did support such resolutions, but only unofficially in custom solutions. Now with DisplayPort 1.2 allowing much higher resolution support and the era of 4K upon us with 4K content production, 4K TVs in manageable sizes and even 4K monitors, Intel's finally opening up to officially embrace Ultra HD resolution in a big way. This slide below captures all the resolution support options based on the interface used and it all boils down to whether the system/motherboard you purchase has all these video display options:-

Know Your Haswell Graphics Core Variety

Noticed the mention of Intel Iris graphics and Intel Iris Pro graphics branding in an earlier image above? So here's where we share on the segmentation of the various Haswell processor graphics engines available. Essentially, what you have to know is that there are a few variants of the new Gen.7.5 graphics engines and they differ only by the number of execution engines and their clock speeds; features seem to remain similar across the board - for now (Intel's documents are still in the process of being updated since some of these processors have yet to be made available).

Intel has broadly classified the variants in a few tiers from , but these are their internal classification ranks. The majority of Haswell Core i7 and i5 processors released use the GT2 class graphics such as the Core i7-4770K processor and its Intel HD Graphics 4600 core that we've tested in this article. The GT2 class graphics cores have 20 execution engines and have maximum dynamic frequencies of up to 1250MHz. This is slightly more processing throughput than the Intel HD Graphics 4000 on Ivy Bridge with its 16 execution units and somewhat comparable upper-range GPU clock speeds. Surprisingly though, the Haswell based graphics cores all have a much lower base GPU clock speed of 350MHz as opposed to 500 to 650MHz range for Ivy Bridge class devices. We reckon that should help when one is just browsing the internet or composing emails when the graphical workload is at its minimum.

GT3 and GT3e class graphics cores support up to 40 execution engines and even lower base clocks of just 200MHz, but they have a higher maximum dynamic clock of 1300MHz. Notice that these automatically adopt the "5000" branding. Between the 5000 and 5100 model, they differ only on clock speeds with the upper range maxing out at 1100MHz and 1300MHz respectively. At the point of writing, both the Intel HD Graphics 5000 and Intel Iris Graphics 5100 are primarily featured in notebook processors.

The best of the lot, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200, has the honor of also having on-die embedded DRAM or eDRAM (hence the reason this class is denoted as GT3e). This extra on-die RAM drastically increases graphics performance as Intel has teased us with graphics performance charts of the Core i7-4770R (with Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200) as opposed to the Core i7-4770K and helps it bring about discrete graphics level of performance thanks to lower latency and increased throughput. Furthermore, this extra memory acts as another cache that's shared across other processing cores of the CPU. What's not certain is the quantity of eDRAM, but this article suggests a 64MB "L4" for this purpose.

A couple of notes and observations: Firstly, the Iris Pro Graphics 5200 equipped CPUs are codenamed Crystal Well, but they are essentially still Haswell processors with the addition of the embedded memory. Secondly, all of the desktop class processors either sport the Intel HD Graphics 4600 or the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 graphical engines (accurate at the point of publication).

For our article today, we'll focus on the GT2 class, Intel HD Graphics 4600 built into the current top-of-the-line Intel Core i7-4770K CPU. This bodes well since the previous generation Intel Core i7-3770K is similarly clocked at 3.5GHz with a Turbo clock of 3.9GHz, thus it allows for an almost apples-to-apples comparison of the previous (Intel HD Graphics 4000) and current generation graphics engines. CPUs with the newer Iris Pro Graphics 5200 engine are unavailable at this point of time, hence we'll have to revisit this topic in the near future.

Test Setup

For our Intel Core i7-4770K test rig, we had to utilize the ASUS Z87-Deluxe board as we had technical issues with the Intel DZ87KLT-75K desktop board. For the memory modules, we use the winner from our DDR3-2133 shootout, the Corsair Dominator Platinum 8GB (2 x 4GB) memory kit. As they are rated at DDR3-2133, we ran one set of results down-clocked to DDR3-1600 (the officially supported memory speed for the Haswell processor) and another set of results at DDR3-2133 to see how graphics integrated graphics performance varies (if any) with memory bandwidth improvements.

For the third generation Intel Core i7-3770K test rig, the Gigabyte GA-Z77X-UD5H-WB WiFi board was used and we've once again set the memory to operate at the platform's officially supported DDR3-1600 to compare against the equivalent run from the Haswell platform.

The representative from AMD is the latest Accelerated Processing Unit (APU) AMD A10-6800K (Richland @ 4.1GHz with Turbo to 4.4GHz). The APU features the AMD Radeon HD 8670D graphics core which has 384 Radeon cores that are clocked at 844MHz. With the chip's native support for DDR3-2133 memory modules, the APU might have an advantage in our benchmark tests. The board used was the Socket FM2, MSI FM2-A85XA-G65 motherboard. The details of each test rig are as follows:-

 Intel Core i7-4770K Test System Configuration

• ASUS Z87-Deluxe (Intel Z87 Express chipset), BIOS version 1007
• 2 x 4GB, 1st run: DDR3-1600 (CAS 9-9-9-27), 2nd run: DDR3-2133 (set to Auto timing for best compatibility)
• Intel HD Graphics 4600 (Intel Graphics Driver 9.18.10.3165)
• ASUS ENGT440/DI/1GD5 1GB GDDR5 (ForceWare 320.18)
• Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB SATA 6Gbps hard drive (one single NTFS partition)
• Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 (64-bit) with Intel INF 9.4.0.1017

 Intel Core i7-3770K Test System Configuration

• Gigabyte GA-Z77X-UD5H-WB WiFi (Intel Z77 Express chipset), BIOS version F14
• 2 x 4GB DDR3-1600 (CAS 9-9-9-27)
• Intel HD Graphics 4000 (Intel Graphics Driver 9.18.10.3165)
• Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB SATA 6Gbps hard drive (one single NTFS partition)
• Windows 7 Ultimate SP 1 (64-bit) with Intel INF 9.4.0.1017

 AMD A10-6800K Test System Configuration

• MSI FM2-A85XA-G65 (AMD A85X chipset), BIOS version 2.3
• 2 x 4GB DDR3-2133 (set to Auto timing for best compatibility)
• AMD Radeon HD 8670D (AMD Catalyst 13.4)
• Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB SATA 6Gbps hard drive (one single NTFS partition)
• Windows 7 Ultimate SP1 (64-bit)
   

Benchmarks

We have updated the benchmark titles since our last review of the IGP performance from the Intel Core i7-3770K processor. This time round, we've included PCMark 8 and 3DMark (2013) for our artificial benchmarks. To test out the support for DirectX 11 gaming, we included a new title, Tomb Raider, to ascertain how the IGPs handle it under the game's normal quality settings. Last of all, we tested the multimedia capabilities of the chips using Handbrake video encoding software and Blu-ray playback, with an updated version of PowerDVD. The following is the full list of benchmarks used to test the integrated graphics engines:

• PCMark 8
• 3DMark (2013)
• Tomb Raider
• Handbrake Video Encoding
• Blu-ray Playback Testing (Black Snake Moan, Superman Returns) using PowerDVD 13 Ultra (ver. 2720)

So read on for the performance breakdown on the next page to find out if the updated Intel HD Graphics 4600 is any good!

Integrated Graphics Performance

3DMark (2013) Results

Given that the number of execution units on the Intel HD Graphics 4600 against that of the Intel HD Graphics 4000 is 20 vs. 16, that alone accounts for 25% improvement that one would instantly expect out of the refreshed graphics core. Thankfully on this first test, the Haswell Core i7-4770K's performance is about 22- to 31% better than the previous generation Core i7-3770K processor. Surprisingly, it's also able to outperform the NVIDIA GeForce GT 440 entry-level graphics performance at the Fire Strike Extreme sequence and was close when running the standard Fire Strike test. When we cranked up the memory bandwidth to DDR3-2133, marginal improvements were noted in the range of 2.2- to 3.7 percent, further closing the gap to the discrete graphics card.

However, it was the Richland APU that took first position with its impressive showing. This may be partly attributed to its native support for memory modules that are clocked at the operating frequency of 2133MHz. It even outclassed the discrete graphics card NVIDIA GeForce GT 440, with performance gains in the range of 26- to 58%!

PCMark 8 (Composite Results)

We decided to use the latest PCMark 8 from Futuremark and run the Creative benchmark test component as it has has mix of multimedia tasks. Alas, some of the test rigs failed to generate a complete score for some unknown technical reason. Nonetheless, the benchmark did run successfully (for the most part of it) and we extracted the composite results that make up the final Creative benchmark test score for comparison. Some of these tests are made up of two parts; hence, we combined their total scores to obtain an average result. Take note that apart from the gaming test component that measures results in FPS (which means the higher the figures, the better), the rest of the tests were timed tasks - so the small the results, the better the performance.

The new Intel HD 4600 graphics engine of the new fourth generation Intel Core processors has been touted to be as powerful as discrete graphics. From the results below,  it seems to be just a step behind the NVIDIA GeForce GT 440 discrete graphics card in some tests. But it managed to beat the NVIDIA GeForce GT 440 handily in the Video Editing and Video To Go tests by a very wide margin of 200% and  120% better respectively! For those interested, the Video To Go tests involve the following two parts; the first involves downscaling "a batch of video clips in H.264 1080p format to H264 720p", and the second part "reduces the bitrate of a batch of video clips in H.264 1080p format." Interestingly, the Intel HD Graphics 4000 is also as adept and posted similar if not better improvements over the discrete graphics card. The real reason for Intel's win here are the newer software tests that take advantage of Intel's Quick Sync technology which is a video technology incorporated into their graphics engines to really tackle video encodes and decodes very efficiently. You can read more about Intel Quick Sync here, here and here. First introduced in the days of the Sandy Bridge processors, it's only in recent times that you get to find more software that are updated to support this feature.

With the Haswell platform running its memory modules at 2133MHz, we saw some improvements in scores for the Intel Core i7-4770K processor, except for the Web Browsing and Mainstream Gaming portions. The biggest improvement, when compared to performance at DDR3-1600MHz was the Music To Go test that was completed about 20 percent faster.

It also managed to outclass the AMD A10-6800K APU by a good deal. Apparently, the Accelerated Video Transcoding (AVT) failed to shine in this series of benchmark tests. Further to that, we observed the A10-6800K performed poorly on the Music To Go test that involves transcoding "a batch of songs in WAV format to 130 kbps AAC. The test runs transcoding in parallel with the number of worker threads equal to the number of logical cores in the CPU." Hence, compared to the rest, the weakness of its CPU compute capabilities is blatantly highlighted in this test.

Tomb Raider

The test runs with the discrete NVIDIA GeForce GT 440 graphics card and the AMD A10-6800K stood out in this test. The only consolation for the Core i7-4770K was that it managed to beat its Ivy Bridge counterpart by about 30%. The margin was widened to approximately 42% after the memory modules were ran at 2133MHz. At these results, Intel's graphics engine is just 10% shy of AMD's top APU - a very commendable performance standing and those figures certainly allow some decent gameplay on the Intel camp.

Handbrake Video Encoding

We upgraded the Handbrake software to version 0.9.9 for the video encoding test. From the results, we can see that the software is skewed towards CPU performance - despite the fact that the latest version is supposed to support AMD's transcoding engine. Interestingly, we managed to shave Intel's timings by another few seconds when running the memory at 2133MHz.

Video Decoding Performance - Blu-ray Playback

In terms of CPU utilization for our Blu-ray playback, the Intel HD Graphics 4000 gave the best performance on both test videos. It only needed 4% of the CPU workload during video playback, which was about half that CPU loads required of the other competing test rigs. It's not bad given that the CPU utilization is low enough, but we didn't expect the older Intel HD Graphics 4000 to still be in the lead. Perhaps newer drivers in the future will improve things for the newcomer.

Conluding Thoughts

Intel's latest integrated graphics has certainly made notable improvements over its predecessor and as the Intel HD Graphics 4600 has shown above, it has enough features and firepower to put all entry-level discrete graphics cards out of business. This should be good news for developing countries like Indonesia or Philippines where many DIY users are very price conscious and may not even afford decent mid-range graphics cards. For this group of people, Intel has a strong proposition with their encouraging graphics performance built-in the fourth generation Core processors.

Of course for more developed countries like our own, Intel's integrated graphics still doesn't cut it and neither did it uproot the discrete graphics card as they promised. What we did notice is that Intel came close to challenging this group, if only with older discrete graphics cards like the NVIDIA GeForce GT 440 that we used for a baseline. AMD's graphics engine within their APU is often referred to as discrete-level graphics performance and by that extent, Intel's HD Graphics 4600 has a made a decent attempt to challenge it too. As seen by our performance figures, where multimedia processing is concerned, the stronger compute performance on the Intel CPU in addition to the updated graphics core seems to have a net positive effect that outshone bough the discrete graphics card and AMD's APU. Ultimately, it's a scenario based situation that we would have to judge and find out what's the better solution.

The bottom-line is that if you're into gaming, you'll still need discrete graphics cards of mid-range variety or higher. For those who would like to upgrade their system progressively, you would find Intel's built in graphics a surprisingly decent option for the masses who're not too picky about their gaming graphics quality. And for those who game sparingly but need the more power media processing power, Intel's processor has you covered - so long as you can afford the processor and motherboard combo. Users who're really on a tight budget and need an all-round solution for general usage and light gaming will find the AMD's APUs might be an interesting option depending on the combos and ongoing promotions. 

However, the show's not over yet as we've yet to evaluate the upper-tier Haswell graphics core from Intel - the Iris Pro Graphics 5200. As teased by Intel's benchmarks, this is probably the real discrete graphics card killer that could eat into mid-range discrete graphics performance. Stay tuned for another round of comparisons when we get our hands on one of those processors. Who knows, you may be surprised what the chip giant has in store for us.

Our articles may contain affiliate links. If you buy through these links, we may earn a small commission.