News AMD's latest integrated graphics perform like an eight-year-old Nvidia midrange GPU — Radeon 890M achieves GTX 1070 performance in Geekbench and la...

[Admin]

AMD's latest Radeon 890M RDNA 3.5 flagship posted identical results to a GTX 1070 in Geekbench's Vulkan benchmark.

AMD's latest integrated graphics perform like an eight-year-old Nvidia midrange GPU — Radeon 890M achieves GTX 1070 performance in Geekbench and la... : Read more

 

[-Fran-]

The 1070 laptop performed the same as the desktop counterpart. That is the one and only generation when nVidia actually named the parts correctly by not distinguishing between mobile and desktop.

So, saying the iGPU is at 1070 levels is quite impressive.

Regards.

 

[Heiro78]

I don't have or foresee a need for mobile chips in my use but this still excites me for the future of PC handhelds like the Steam Deck and Lenovo Legion GO! The Asus Ally too but it didn't seem to do anything unique.

 

[ezst036]

AMD's latest integrated graphics perform like an eight-year-old Nvidia midrange GPU​

This statement perhaps has some truth in it at any time, doesn't it?

How fast is an AMD Kaveri compared to a Geforce 8 8600 GS?

 

[Lucky_SLS]

This is the best showing any iGPU had till now. And they title it in a negative way. SMH...

 

[logainofhades]

If it is matching a 1070, that would put it in line with a 1660ti. Not bad at all for an IGP.

 

[Warrior24_7]

Intel all the way!

 

[salgado18]

And it's not just performance, it means a lot more battery life than a discrete card.

 

[Rouxenator]

The graphics cartel (nvidia+lazy devs) needs to be killed off. You can't expect gamers with more money than brains to do this, so evolving hardware is the only way.

 

[Dntknwitall]

This is great news indeed. I have honestly been waiting for this for a few years, kind of wondering why it has not been done sooner. I still do not know why AMD is still behind, it seems they are ahead in all sectors. Lots of questions here.

 

[thestryker]

These results have next to nothing to do with actual 3D performance so I wouldn't expect anything close to this. Keep in mind the 780M cannot keep up with the 6500XT the majority of the time and the 6500XT is 35% slower than a 1660S.

 

[watzupken]

I find the results quite odd. A laptop GTX 1070 performing that closely to a laptop GTX 1650 Ti? The former had 2x the CUDA cores and memory bus. Even with lower memory speed, i.e. GDDR5 vs GDDR6, I don't think the performance delta is that small.

 

[KyaraM]

I find the results quite odd. A laptop GTX 1070 performing that closely to a laptop GTX 1650 Ti? The former had 2x the CUDA cores and memory bus. Even with lower memory speed, i.e. GDDR5 vs GDDR6, I don't think the performance delta is that small.

I wondered that, too. My desktop 1070 definitely was much better, and from what I have seen, the mobile part wasn't that far behind. It's likely that the theoretical performance is much higher than the actual performance, especially in games. I don't know what exactly those benchmarks measure. A Timespy score would be a lot more helpful I think, but as we know, even that isn't always conclusive (see ARC cards scoring much higher there than what their gaming performance suggested at the start).

 

[usertests]

Doesn't correspond to gaming performance I think, more like compute.

Would be nice to see Strix Point hit GTX 970 desktop level but it might not.

 

[cknobman]

Sure would have been nice to include its direct predecessor the 780, you know for comparison purposes.

 

[CmdrShepard]

Last time I had an AMD iGPU was in a Sony VAIO laptop (it was still called ATI).

Never again.

You could only get drivers from Sony (it was the same for other laptop vendors), and ATI didn't want to provide generic drivers for those iGPUs. Since laptop vendors almost never updated those drivers iGPU ended pretty much useless for anything except showing 2D image in the OS.

 

[thestryker]

You could only get drivers from Sony (it was the same for other laptop vendors), and ATI didn't want to provide generic drivers for those iGPUs. Since laptop vendors almost never updated those drivers iGPU ended pretty much useless for anything except showing 2D image in the OS.

This was true for nvidia in that era as well which is why I never bought a new laptop when I got rid of mine (probably around 2011 or so). It was atrocious that they let the OEMs have control like that and fortunately both AMD and nvidia support mobile GPUs with mainline drivers now.

 

[skyflakes]

This is the most offhanded, passive-aggressive way I've seen something being "praised". Like, are you saying it's a good iGPU because it's on par with the 1070? Or are you saying it's bad because it's on par with an 8-year old technology?

 

[CmdrShepard]

This was true for nvidia in that era as well which is why I never bought a new laptop when I got rid of mine (probably around 2011 or so). It was atrocious that they let the OEMs have control like that and fortunately both AMD and nvidia support mobile GPUs with mainline drivers now.

If I am not misremembering, NVIDIA at least allowed you to download generic mobile drivers while instructing you that they might not work and you should seek OEM drivers instead. ATI didn't even have mobile drivers for those chips on the site.

That was a horrible period, and Intel was also guilty of letting vendors lock(!) CPU functionality in BIOS -- my Sony VAIO FW190 had a CPU with VT, VT which I couldn't use because it was disabled with no option in BIOS to enable it. Imagine paying full price for full-featured CPU only to get part of it locked by OEM.