Ivy Bridge: 3rd Gen Intel HD Graphics - Does It Really Matter?

Third Generation Intel HD Graphics - Intel HD 4000 Scrutinized

Made up of about one-third of the 1.4 billion transistors found on the Ivy Bridge processor, the third generation Intel HD Graphics engine has more horsepower than its predecessors ever had. In fact, the integrated graphics upgrade is a big focus of Intel's new Ivy Bridge processors as these new 22nm process fabricated CPUs are geared towards the mainstream market where there is a rising need in decent graphics capabilities to enjoy multimedia experiences in proper. With AMD's Fusion momentum still going strong and casual/online gaming placing greater demand and attracting ever more people to participate in these recreational activities, Intel cannot afford to neglect the need to beef up its integrated graphics engine.

The new third generation Core processor family of processor will feature two grades of integrated graphics - Intel HD Graphics 4000 and 2500. If you haven't yet read much about the new processors, which GPU engine is used on the various CPU models and all its other features and performance aspects, here are some relevant articles:- 

• What's New in Ivy Bridge CPUs and the Z77 Motherboard Platform?
• Intel Core i7-3770K - A Performance Analysis
• What Ivy Bridge Means for Mobile Computing

The new integrated graphics engines are finally DirectX 11 compliant and can now handle hardware-based tessellation (a core feature of DX11) and accelerate DirectCompute APIs to support general purpose computing through GPUs. If you're a programmer who's interested in the details, Intel has written a comprehensive document on their DirectCompute capabilities on Intel Ivy Bridge CPU's graphics engine. In terms of the graphics engine's overall design, not a whole lot has changed from the previous generation's implementation, but Intel has equipped them with more firepower and improved their capabilities.

Taking the Intel HD Graphics 4000, it features 16 execution units (EUs) - four more than the older HD Graphics 3000 on Sandy Bridge processors. These EUs are touted to be much more efficient than its predecessor because a single EU on Ivy Bridge can perform two MADs (multiply + add operation) per clock - twice that of the EU on Sandy Bridge. Simply put, the HD Graphics 4000 will have more than twice the compute power of the HD Graphics 3000. As such, Ivy Bridge is expected to dramatically improve graphics performance. Since each current EU is more capable, even the HD Graphics 2500, which has the same number of EUs as the older HD Graphics 2000, is expected to offer noticeably more graphics performance. In this article, we put the on-die Intel HD Graphics 4000 to the test to ascertain the significance of the upgrade.

Test Setup

Using our Intel Core i7-3770K CPU, we can only test its Intel HD Graphics 4000 engine, but that should be good enough to make our point known if the third generation Intel HD Graphics can deliver some decent performance numbers. For comparisons, we've put together integrated graphics performance that we've gathered previously from the Intel Core i7-2600K and Core i5-2500 that feature the Intel HD Graphics 3000 engine. From the previous testing, we've also got results with a NVIDIA GeForce GT 220 (512MB) discrete graphics card to ascertain just how close or far off are the integrated GPU's capabilities against a low-end graphics card.

Of course, a GeForce GT 220 is only DirectX 10 capable, so we dug out a couple of low-end DirectX 11 graphics cards such as NVIDIA GeForce GT 520 (courtesy of an MSI N520GT-MD1GD3/LP with 1GB DDR3) and an NVIDIA GeForce GT 440 (using an ASUS ENGT440/DI/1GD5 with 1GB of GDDR5) to run with the new processor. Why two cards? Mostly because a GeForce GT 520 is one of the worst performing GPUs in many years that it grossly loses out to even the GeForce GT 220. As such, we brought something a step ahead of the old DX10 card which happened to be a GeForce GT 440. All in, this would be an interesting match-up to see how the Intel HD 4000 performs.

We also tried downclocked the Intel Core i7-3770K to the level of the Intel Core i7-2600K in order to create a level playing field of comparison for the integrated graphics performance comparison. However as we found out, all of our tests are so GPU constrained that the difference in CPU speeds didn't matter one bit - the differences were too negligible. As such, the results shown are with the default CPU clock speed.

Intel Core i7-3770K Test System Configuration

• Intel Desktop Board DZ77GA-70K (Intel Z77 Express chipset), BIOS version 3000
• 2 x 2GB Kingston HyperX DDR3-1600 (CAS 9-9-9-27)
• Intel HD Graphics 4000 (Intel Graphics Driver 8.15.10.2696)
• MSI N520GT-MD1GD3/LP 1GB DDR3 (ForceWare 285.62)
• ASUS ENGT440/DI/1GD5 1GB GDDR5 (ForceWare 285.62)
• Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB SATA 6Gbps hard drive (one single NTFS partition)
• Windows 7 Ultimate (64-bit) with Intel INF 9.3.0.1020

The details of the older comparative test setups for the Intel Core i7-2600K and Core i5-2500 systems are found in our original review of the Sandy Bridge processors. Just for kicks, we've even included results from the first generation Core processor's original Intel HD Graphics engine. Note that for all three generations of Intel HD Graphics engines tested, we've set aside 256MB graphics frame buffer. There is no other granular option available other than to select maximum system memory, but it didn't make much of an impact..

To spice things up further, we we even included AMD's desktop Llano APU - the A8-3850 processor which has a built-in Radeon HD 6550D GPU engine. The AMD A8-3850 is definitely doesn't have the same amount of compute power as the Core i7 processors even though both are targeted at the mainstream user group - in fact they cater to two different spectrums of mainstream DIY needs. Despite their compute discrepancies, we thought it would be great to see how its stronger discrete-class integrated GPU stacks up against the brand new Intel HD Graphics 4000. You can find the test setup of this system here and note that it too was using a 256MB frame buffer.

Benchmarks

With the promise of DirectX 11 support on the new IGP, we wanted to include Futuremark's 3DMark11 as part of the benchmarking test suite. However, the Intel HD 4000 failed to complete running 3DMark11 and we had to exclude it from our test runs, which is quite a disappointing start. In any case, Battlefield: Bad Company 2 was patched with the DX11 update and this should give us some insights to its basic DX11 performance. The following is the full list of benchmarks used to test the integrated graphics:

• PCMark Vantage
• 3DMark Vantage
• Far Cry 2
• Battlefield: Bad Company 2
• Blu-ray Playback Testing (Black Snake Moan, Superman Returns) using PowerDVD 10 (ver 2308)

So read on for the performance breakdown on the next page to find out if Intel's HD Graphics 4000 is any good!

Integrated Graphics Performance

Futuremark PCMark Vantage

For the Gaming suite of the PCMark Vantage benchmark, Intel HD 4000's scores were stellar and pulled ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520 by a marginal amount. Against the older DX10 GeForce GT 220, it was just a hair behind it with a 4% differential. With the more powerful GeForce GT 440, it beat the Intel HD 4000 by a margin of about 23%. Compared to the Intel HD Graphics 3000, the new Intel HD Graphics 4000 pulled ahead by margins in the range of roughly 15%. Take note that PCMark's gaming score doesn't really tax the graphics engine much and is still primarily a CPU dominant benchmark. The other graphics tests should prove to be more accurate of the GPU's capabilities.

Futuremark 3DMark Vantage

Moving on to a more intensive DX10 benchmark with 3DMark Vantage, the Intel HD Graphics 4000 managed to beat the old NVIDIA GT 220 by a margin of about 15% and was nearly double the performance when pitted against Intel HD Graphics 3000!  Even the discrete NVIDIA GeForce GT 520 was trailing by a shameful 50%. Needless to say, the GeForce GT 440 was overpowering the rest, but at least it's good to see Intel HD Graphics 4000 faring reasonably and fulfilling low-end discrete graphics capabilities.

The Intel HD Graphics 4000 even bested AMD's Fusion concept based AMD A8-3850's results but that's only because 3DMark Vantage also factors in the CPU's capabilities in computing the overall score. Given that the Intel Core i7-3770K has much better general compute performance, 3D Mark Vantage score for the Intel camp came a little ahead of the AMD processor.

Far Cry 2

Having seen the theoretical graphics performance numbers in 3DMark Vantage, it's time to follow-up with a DX10 gaming title with Far Cry 2 to find out how it really translates in an actual game. In this benchmarking test, the frame rates churned out by the on-die Intel HD Graphics 4000 was fairly impressive as it finally broke past the absolute minimum average of 30fps and delivered average frame rate of 37.27! This came up to be 11% better than the discrete GeForce GT 520 graphics card and up 91% improvement over the last generation Intel HD Graphics 3000!

AMD's A8-3850's internal Radeon HD 6550D managed just over 40fps and thus it's only a tad better than the Intel HD Graphics 4000. Not bad at all for integrated graphics coming from Intel.

Battlefield: Bad Company 2

So DirectX 10 performance is looking decent for Intel's third-generation HD Graphics engine. What about DirectX 11? With the failure of Intel's new HD Graphics 4000 to run 3DMark 11, we jumped directly to a game supporting it - Battlefield Bad Company 2. Take note that in this game, the results should be taken in with care - there's a mix of DX10 and DX11 capable GPUs for which the latter will run the game utilizing DX11 routines. As such, the scores aren't exactly comparable.

The Intel HD Graphics 4000 was outpaced by the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520 card as it trailed by a margin of about 22%. Needless to say, it was also beaten by the GeForce GT 220 (though this ran at DX10) and GeForce GT 440. Compared to the previous generation Intel HD 3000, it led by margins in the range of  about 20% but the gap should actually be wider because the new IGP is using DX11, whereas the old one is running on the DX10 code path. Lastly and most importantly, the HD Graphics 4000 was thoroughly outpaced by the AMD A8-3850's Radeon HD 6550D as the latter generated nearly double the frame rates!

This implies that the DirectX 11 performance of the new Intel IGP has a long way to go to compete effectively. We can only hope that perhaps Intel's software engineers can squeeze more performance out of it with better drivers in the future, but the margin of difference against the competition is very wide.

Video Decoding Performance - Blu-ray Playback

In terms of CPU utilization for our Blu-ray playback, the Intel HD Graphics 4000 saw its performance slightly improve over the Intel HD Graphics 3000. It improved most (about 25% better) when handling our more complex and higher bitrate H.264 encoded movie title. While it couldn't best the discrete graphics solutions, at these levels of utilization, there's not much to be concerned about in normal usage. AMD's A8-3850's integrated GPU did manage much better CPU utilization rates (up to 75% better than Intel) that can very well be classified as true discrete level of video decoding performance.

Final Thoughts

The Intel HD Graphics 4000 is an improvement in terms of its new features that include support for DirectX 11, DirectCompute and hardware tessellation support. In also sports 16 EUs, four more over the Intel HD Graphics 3000. In terms of performance scores, the new IGP is a marked improvement over the previous generation - so much so that it managed to double its scores for DirectX 10 based titles to catapult it close to that of AMD's A8-3850 Llano APU. To say that Intel's integrated graphics can come close to that of AMD's own integrated graphics solution is a really big leap for the Intel graphics core.

Despite improvements, the Intel HD Graphics 4000 is still underwhelming for most  of the latest gaming titles, especially if you want to capitalize on high quality settings to really immerse yourself with a graphical environment that the game designers intended to recreate. With frame rates under 40fps for our DX10 gaming benchmark on rather undemanding settings, it leaves little options for gamers who want a better gaming experience. Furthermore DirectX 11 performance leaves much to be desired when compared to AMD's Fusion platform. The inability run Futuremark's 3DMark 11 could also be a sign of things where certain games may still refuse to run, as has been the case in the past where games compatibility was a big concern due to inadequate hardware capabilities and the state of its drivers. As such, a discrete graphics card is a must when playing more demanding games on high quality settings, resolution and when you need full compatibility.

While the Intel HD Graphics 4000 does mark a big step forward for on-die integrated GPU performance, it's still probably adequate only for some casual and online games where lower quality graphics options are normally used in favor of smoother gameplay. However, its shortcomings showed up in terms of its ability to generate acceptable frame rates for more demanding gaming benchmarks at low settings. Video decoding performance is however better handled and reduces CPU utilization. Understanding its shortcomings means accepting the integrated GPU's inevitable symbiotic relationship with the requisite discrete graphics card. With this understanding, adopters of the Ivy Bridge CPUs; in particular the higher SKUs that feature on-die Intel HD Graphics 4000, will be ready to embrace it knowing its capabilities in proper.

New multimedia notebooks featuring the Core i7 variants of the Ivy Bridge processors will feature the Intel HD Graphics 4000 graphics engine and as such, this article should come in handy for the mobile road warriors. Expect certain dual-core Ivy Bridge processors to also feature this integrated GPU, which will likely make its way into slimmer and compact notebook form factors (such as Ultrabooks) where discrete graphics processors may not be an option. In such situations, it's ideal to know what the new integrated graphics can tackle and we hope this Ivy Bridge graphics update article comes in handy.

Intel has done a decent job, but we still wish they had done better. AMD's Llano APUs can still claim better performance and compatibility, while their soon-to-be released AMD Trinity APUs is expected to deliver far better with mid-level discrete graphics performance out of the on-die graphics engine on the CPU! Taking in all of what we've said, it seems that Intel's latest integrated graphics efforts has just raised the entry-level standard to keep up with times (somewhat) and not much else.

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