News AMD vs Intel Integrated Graphics: Can't We Go Any Faster?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Of course, even the fastest integrated solutions pale in comparison to a dedicated GPU, and they're not on our list of the best graphics cards for a good reason.
Click to expand...
Is it because they are not a card? : 3

The GTX 1050 is by no means one of the fastest GPUs right now, though you can pick up barebones models off eBay for a song (if you're willing to deal with shipment from China).
Click to expand...
That unbranded "GTX 1050" you linked to appears to be some other card rebadged as a 1050, seeing as the image shows a VGA D-Sub port, something 10-series cards shouldn't have.
 
Did you guys check how your graphs look like?
Text is unreadable and could read it only when full screen. Could not past screenshot but text is 1/10th of bar height. Even when graph is open numbers in graphs are hardly readable and full screen is required.
 
cryoburner said:
Is it because they are not a card? : 3
Click to expand...
Partly! And because they're slow and I don't want to saddle someone with a slow GPU and a slow CPU that only has an x8 PCIe link width for dedicated graphics.
That unbranded "GTX 1050" you linked to appears to be some other card rebadged as a 1050, seeing as the image shows a VGA D-Sub port, something 10-series cards shouldn't have.
Click to expand...
After checking a bit further, I believe you're right and these are scam cards. I found a video where a guy bought a supposed GTX 1050 Ti. It clearly has four out of six memory chips on the board, which suggests it's an older card that has a tweaked BIOS to identify it as a GTX 1050 Ti:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNTmDQdV6u4

I was thinking with the Chinese market, there could be hardware still in use that's relatively ancient. I don't think Nvidia killed off the possibility of VGA output in Pascal, and on a budget card it might actually make sense. I'm almost tempted to buy one of these, just to prove what's actually being used. But then I'd be out $70 or whatever.

I've updated the text now to remove the link. Note that there are legitimate 1050 cards available on eBay -- just don't get the non-brand fake models. :)
 
DZIrl said:
Did you guys check how your graphs look like?
Text is unreadable and could read it only when full screen. Could not past screenshot but text is 1/10th of bar height. Even when graph is open numbers in graphs are hardly readable and full screen is required.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I usually have charts with 20 GPUs listed and have to size the text small, and I forgot to bump up the font for this. We do have the full size images for a reason, but I'll see about replacing these with legible versions. (And I usually view the normal images when writing the article, not the shrunk down monstrosities our CMS forces on us.)

And now the charts are updated.
 
I'm surprised that AMD doesn't sell a similiar apu to what they put into the Xbox or PS. They should make a 100-150watt TDP apu. In the process, they would canibalize their low end market, but also in the process, they would dominate the PC gaming market.
 
mgutt said:
Why didn't you wait for Ryzen 4000 / Zen 3?!
Click to expand...
This is all prepping for the upcoming launches -- I'm trying to get a Renoir laptop in for testing, I've got an Ice Lake laptop coming apparently. And when desktop Renoir and Xe Graphics arrive, I've now got numbers I can compare them with. As for Zen 3, that's probably six months out for the CPU, never mind the APU variant that's probably at least a year off.
 
barureddy1 said:
I'm surprised that AMD doesn't sell a similiar apu to what they put into the Xbox or PS. They should make a 100-150watt TDP apu. In the process, they would canibalize their low end market, but also in the process, they would dominate the PC gaming market.
Click to expand...
That's the whole bottom section of the article -- why AMD and Intel don't make processors with much faster integrated graphics. Best bet for a custom design would be in a laptop. It would be interesting to see someone like Razer put together a laptop with something close to Xbox Series X graphics, and 16GB of GDDR6. But then you'd need driver updates for that special chip, which is a pain. I won't say it will never happen, but it's extremely unlikely to occur any time soon.
 
I see that now. For some reason, the page didn't completely load and I missed the second half of the article. Cheers!

JarredWaltonGPU said:
That's the whole bottom section of the article -- why AMD and Intel don't make processors with much faster integrated graphics. Best bet for a custom design would be in a laptop. It would be interesting to see someone like Razer put together a laptop with something close to Xbox Series X graphics, and 16GB of GDDR6. But then you'd need driver updates for that special chip, which is a pain. I won't say it will never happen, but it's extremely unlikely to occur any time soon.
Click to expand...
 
So HighBandwidth DDR5 will make the world of difference for iGPU's on Desktop & Mobile.

That's going to be a interesting sea change once it happens on top of all current improvements that Renoir has already included, this is not counting the fact that they don't even have Navi iGPU's yet.
 
NightHawkRMX said:
About the results I expected.


Intel HD/UHD still sucks. AMD's iGPUs are better, but still not good and only on par with an ultra low-end card like a GT1030.
Click to expand...
That's before the IPC improvements to Vega 8/11 series from Renoir.
They haven't even moved to Navi 8/11 series for their APU's.
Don't forget that these GPU's are Bandwidth starved by using normal DDR due to lack of GDDR.

DDR5 should close that gap significantly, so realistically, we should see a huge leap in performance by the time APU's use GDDR5, they should be on Navi and have the IPC performance ported over to Navi + DDR5 to fill in the bandwidth issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: msroadkill612 and King_V
JarredWaltonGPU said:
This is all prepping for the upcoming launches -- I'm trying to get a Renoir laptop in for testing, I've got an Ice Lake laptop coming apparently. And when desktop Renoir and Xe Graphics arrive, I've now got numbers I can compare them with. As for Zen 3, that's probably six months out for the CPU, never mind the APU variant that's probably at least a year off.
Click to expand...

Renoir's competitor is not ice lake. It will be Tiger Lake.
 
barureddy1 said:
I'm surprised that AMD doesn't sell a similiar apu to what they put into the Xbox or PS. They should make a 100-150watt TDP apu. In the process, they would canibalize their low end market, but also in the process, they would dominate the PC gaming market.
Click to expand...

because it would be terribly expensive... would you pay $1500 for Xbox Style performance? That you can not upgrade,,, no... there is reason why companies does not make that powerfull products. They cost too much!
 
Kamen Rider Blade said:
DDR5 should close that gap significantly, so realistically, we should see a huge leap in performance by the time APU's use GDDR5, they should be on Navi and have the IPC performance ported over to Navi + DDR5 to fill in the bandwidth issue.
Click to expand...
It might still be a couple years before APUs are utilizing DDR5 though. And DDR5 will likely only open up around a doubling of performance of the current models, putting them around the performance level of a GTX 1050, at best.

And of course, the new games getting released a couple years from now will be more demanding, as most big releases will likely be focusing on the next-generation of consoles and more powerful dedicated cards by then.

So sure, maybe APUs using DDR5 will be able to offer up to GTX 1050-like performance, but that's a low-end card that launched at a $110 MSRP the better part of 4 years ago (though most were priced a bit higher). It's been possible to find some RX 570s priced around $130 for a while too, and those are nearly twice as fast as a GTX 1050. And a current-generation GTX 1650 SUPER or RX 5500 XT for as little as $160 will be more than twice as fast as a 1050. And in a couple years, those will likely be replaced by even faster cards in their price range, so integrated graphics won't likely be catching up with lower-end dedicated gaming cards any time soon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: barryv88, TJ Hooker and JarredWaltonGPU
JarredWaltonGPU said:
But Renoir mobile is here now, and Tiger Lake is coming -- and Tiger Lake is Xe Graphics, which will be in both discrete as well as integrated solutions. My intent is to test TGL GPU as well, and RCL GPU when that comes out.
Click to expand...
Renoir has very limited availability now. By the time it is widely available Tiger lake will also be available. On the other hand Ice Lake is here for a year now. Not a good idea to compare a new limited availability product with competitor's last gen product when the launch of their new gen is imminent.
 
I totally disagree with the Article about the reasons behind the lack of faster integrated GPU.

It is all about the Money and I think that Microsoft made a deal with AMD not to release similar hardware for desktops so their console wont get a huge hit in the market share and to make AMD Agree they just gave them better volume orders than the desktop market will ever give them. thats all about it.

GDDR5 expensive ? not THAT expensive .... 8GB of GDDR5 costs around $50 , $100 for 16GB of GDDR5 ... and I dont see this a problem at all ...

HBM2 is double the price of GDDR5 so 4GB HBM2 will be around $50 and I think this is not bad price at all .. and will find a market for it in APU's ...
 
cryoburner said:
It might still be a couple years before APUs are utilizing DDR5 though. And DDR5 will likely only open up around a doubling of performance of the current models, putting them around the performance level of a GTX 1050, at best.

And of course, the new games getting released a couple years from now will be more demanding, as most big releases will likely be focusing on the next-generation of consoles and more powerful dedicated cards by then.

So sure, maybe APUs using DDR5 will be able to offer up to GTX 1050-like performance, but that's a low-end card that launched at a $110 MSRP the better part of 4 years ago (though most were priced a bit higher). It's been possible to find some RX 570s priced around $130 for a while too, and those are nearly twice as fast as a GTX 1050. And a current-generation GTX 1650 SUPER or RX 5500 XT for as little as $160 will be more than twice as fast as a 1050. And in a couple years, those will likely be replaced by even faster cards in their price range, so integrated graphics won't likely be catching up with lower-end dedicated gaming cards any time soon.
Click to expand...
That's fine, as long as the min bar gets raised significantly.
 
nofanneeded said:
I totally disagree with the Article about the reasons behind the lack of faster integrated GPU.

It is all about the Money and I think that Microsoft made a deal with AMD not to release similar hardware for desktops so their console wont get a huge hit in the market share and to make AMD Agree they just gave them better volume orders than the desktop market will ever give them. thats all about it.

GDDR5 expensive ? not THAT expensive .... 8GB of GDDR5 costs around $50 , $100 for 16GB of GDDR5 ... and I dont see this a problem at all ...

HBM2 is double the price of GDDR5 so 4GB HBM2 will be around $50 and I think this is not bad price at all .. and will find a market for it in APU's ...
Click to expand...
It's all about money for sure -- but not the way you're suggesting. No one has successfully made a fast iGPU solution for PCs. You're saying Microsoft paid off not just AMD, but every other company that might think about doing such a thing. Not a chance. And equally unlikely MS was able to pay AMD off.

Easiest way to disprove that assertion: If MS could pay AMD to not make a faster iGPU for PC ... wouldn't it make far more sense to pay AMD to not make such a thing for Sony? Microsoft isn't worried about competition from PCs killing the market for Xbox at all. It hasn't been a problem since the original Xbox; why would things change now?

And $50 for 4GB of HBM2 is extremely expensive on a component level. I gave math earlier, but basically a chip like Picasso costs AMD around $35 to make, and Renoir is maybe $50-$60. So if AMD put a $60 chip with $100 of HBM2, it would need to either sell tens of millions of the chips at around $200 each, or else price would have to be much, much higher -- like $500+.

There simply isn't enough demand or profit potential in making an extreme performance integrated graphics solution right now. Only custom designs that are basically guaranteed to sells tens of millions of units over time (Xbox, PlayStation, or Apple) can justify the cost.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hannibal and TJ Hooker
Are we forgetting who the APU market is? These are people on a budget, that just need a computer, they don't need the bleeding edge. I have built, or upgraded, a number of computers over the years for people with very basic needs. The most demanding games that they play is the variations of solitaire, or an updated version of minesweep. Sorry, but playing solitaire at 144 fps on a 52 inch 4k monitor is not something the target market of these APUs are interested in. Post to Facebook, read ads on Craigslist, respond to emails, fire up a spreadsheet or word processor in Microsoft Works (yes, Works, not Office), maybe watch a puppy or kitten video on YouTube because their grandchild sent them a link in an email (after you explain how to click on that link in the email to be able to view that video).

So, who is up to playing Spider Solitaire on the 72" 240 Hz 8K monitor with the $200 computer I will custom build for you with these thrilling APUs?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ManDaddio
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom