[citation][nom]TruthStalkerIV[/nom]Actually, blazorthorn, you said CPU, not GPU. You did not mention the GPU clockrates at all so you are the one who is wrong. I mean, shall I quote you: "It's different for different CPUs". You then further go on to say I don't know what the performance will be for the i5 and i3, yet you are the one saying they will be SO MUCH slower. Apparently, you should follow your own statements and get a clue. You have no idea what the GPUs are clocked at in those series either. It is irrelevant as it is since we are talking about the i7. Lastly while talking completely out the side of your mouth, you drop one last donut and say that the Llano far outperforms both the HD4000 and the A8 without a single REAL benchmark situation to prove it. You are easily the biggest hypocrite on these sites and you have no idea what you are even writing. You contradict yourself time and time again. Next time, read what you post. I'll summarize since you have trouble with basic comprehension. No i5, i3, nor Trinity have been tested so no one knows the true metrics including blazorthorn. I'm sure you'll find a way to contradict yourself again of course.[/citation]
Let me simply this into terms that I hope that you can understand. The clock frequency for the HD 4000 IGP of a mobile i7 is higher than the clock frequency of the HD 4000 that would be in an i5. The same is true with the i5 compared to the i3. Intel does this to differentiate the graphics performance of it's chips and Intel does it with most of their chips that have the HD graphics IGPs.
The i7's HD graphics is generally far faster than the i3s and a good deal faster than the i5. I knew this and you didn't seem to know it. Also worth mentioning that some processors within each family have differing IGP frequencies even if they have the same IGP hardware, so even two different i7s for the same platform could have different frequencies.
Generally speaking, Intel does this with their mobile chips more than their desktop chips. However, it's the mobile chips that we wanted to speak about first, so we'll talk about them.
http://ark.intel.com/products/64889/Intel-Core-i7-3820QM-Processor-(8M-Cache-up-to-3_70-GHz)
Here, we can see what will probably be the top clock frequency for Intel's mobile i7 HD 4000. Other chips will have lower clock frequencies.
There's also another problem that I brought up; some notebook manufacturers write their own drivers for Intel's HD graphics and they often don't do well and pretty much never update it. This is a big reason for many Intel IGP based systems having trouble running some programs (usually some games).
When I said that Llano outperforms the HD 4000 greatly, I was referring to the desktop versions, in which case HD 4000 doesn't even come close to an A8. That is why I specifically mentioned the FM1 Llano APUs and the 6530D (the model name for the FM1 Llano A6 graphics IGP).
The reason for the discrepancy between the differences of desktop HD 4000 versus desktop Llano and mobile HD4000 versus mobile Llano is that the mobile Llano processors are weaker in both CPU and GPU performance than the desktop versions (socket FM1), but the mobile HD 4000 is not slower than the desktop HD 4000.
You want benchmarks proving me right? go strait through the Tom's articles and you'll see it right in front of you.
Yet another thing to consider is this little tidbit that I pulled from Tom's latest article on Ivy:
This time around, Intel divides up 3D alacrity a little differently. All mobile and desktop Core i7s get HD Graphics 4000, and all but one (Core i5-3570K) mobile and desktop Core i5s get HD Graphics 2500.
huh... Looks like those Llano APUs are looking real good on the mobile front despite them not hammering the HD 4000 IGP like their desktop variants do if they get to compete with HD 2500 instead of 4000. Sorry, no news on exactly how much slower the i3s will be yet, but they will be, at the best, no faster than the i5s. Looks like AMD is winning greatly on the mobile and desktop IGPs for their specific markets and the HD 4000 will be trumped greatly by Trinity A8s and/or A10s, possibly the Trinity A6s too, but that one I can't accurately confirm.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-benchmark-core-i7-3770k,3181-4.html
Here, we can clearly see that the desktop HD 4000 can't touch the 6550D of the FM1 A8s, let alone even a $60 Radeon 6570 that has roughly double the HD 4000's performance and is only 40% faster than the 6550D.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-benchmark-core-i7-3770k,3181-5.html
We move on to see that the i7-3770K with the HD 4000 comes fairly close to the A8-3850 with the 6550D in gaming for some games, but not in others (WoW has the A8 between 50% and 100% faster than the i7).
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-benchmark-core-i7-3770k,3181-6.html
Here we see the compute comparisons of the 6550D and the i7's HD 4000. The HD 4000 comes close to the 6550D in double precision work, but is hammered by the 6550D in single precision work. Trinity will do FAR better with it's GCN cores that are designed specifically for high compute and gaming performance. However, the extremely impressive quick sync remains something that Intel wins against all others in encoding/transcoding. Intel seems unshakable for this.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-HD-Graphics-4000-Benchmarked.73567.0.html
Pulled right from this link:
So no, mobile Ivy Bridge still isn't faster than Llano, and a fair test
Also, a notable thing from the article about the differences in performance between different CPU families that have the same IGP (IE, the i5-3570K that has HD 4000 and the desktop i7s) is that it also states that the smaller cache of the i5 will decrease it's performance even if it's IGP runs at the same frequency as the i7 HD 4000 (which in this case, seems to be true from Intel's specifications site, although this is an exception rather than a rule because of it being the only i5 with HD 4000).
The integrated GPU now has a larger cache as well that is shared with the CPU L3, but how much cache it has will be dependent on the Ivy Bridge CPU. Dual-core and quad-core Ivy Bridge CPUs will have 3MB-4MB and 6MB-8MB of L3 cache, respectively, so the HD 4000 in quad-core processors should theoretically outperform its dual-core counterparts.
This link also clearly shows the mobile HD 4000 outperforming the mobile A6, but it doesn't show the mobile A8. However, if, like me, you know the difference between the A8 and the A6 graphics, then you know that the HD 4000 is somewhat similar to the A8, if a little behind (especially in WoW and probably other such games, although at that point yes, it is speculation, even if it's educated speculation) the A8s. However, the A8s are far cheaper than the i7s and the i5s (excluding the LGA 1155 i5-3570K) have HD 2500 instead of HD 4000, so the cheaper A6s and A8s still hammer Intel in their budget ranges.
I apologize for taking so long to respond, I just wanted to make sure that I had a thorough-enough post to explain why what I said is correct.
[citation][nom]TruthStalkerV[/nom]Truth glenricky. I also believe iOS has already been ported over to x86. Whether or not Apple uses an x86 CPU or not is another question, but they have it running on x86 in their labs natively. It was a much easier port than putting MacOS on x86 from PowerPC word is. Just reading over blazorthorn's post again, what a mess that thing was. "just the top i7 HD 4000 that comes close to the A6's 6530D " ... completely wrong and just plain made up. I haven't seen anyone test the i7 HD4000 in it's top form (XM series clocked at 1300). It's lesser variants beat A8. Also the statement about AMD winning the low/mid end enthusiast market. What market is that again? I mean... complete oxymoron. Low end != enthusiast. Low end = low end. He must have meant low end gamer market as in cheap desktops and laptops built for gaming. He would be completely wrong in that case. Most low end gaming rigs run i3 processors. Beoza, don't know who voted you down, but I agree. There is uses for both. One is cheaper and one is higher end.[/citation]
You people can't even keep up with news from a few days ago.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-benchmark-core-i7-3770k,3181-4.html
Oh, but go ahead and keep bashing me for being right. The top HD 4000 can't even beat the older Llano A8s for desktops and Tom's proved it themselves. Oh, but keep bashing me for being right. I guess we can't all know what we're talking about.
Low end enthusiast market is the entry level gaming market. Any gamer should know that. This includes pretty much every graphics solution better than the Radeon 6450 and below the 6750 on the desktop side. The 6750 to the 6870 are the mid-end market. At least, that is how it is for today. They will change and the minimum/maximum cards in each respective market will increase. The 6870 has already been almost completely kicked out of the high end.
I just don't understand why I need to go into such detail as this to prove myself right. It's ridiculous that you people don't know this stuff already, yet claim to either have something of an understanding of the topic, or claim that I don't. No, I'm not an AMD fanboy... I'll be the first to admit that as of late, AMD has not done well with their CPU performance. AMD's advantage over Intel is the graphics. Intel made a great leap with HD 4000 and that is quite commendable. However, AMD was already ahead and is still ahead with Trinity. AMD's problem is that Trinity isn't yet in the consumer market. Let's not forget that Llano uses a modified Redwood GPU from the Radeon 5000 series to compete today. That's some old tech it uses there, yet it has been supreme for it's entire lifetime in comparison to other integrated solutions. It's only now that Intel has HD 4000 on the mobile side that Intel is truly competing in graphics performance.
However, the Llano notebooks can still come with a discrete card that is running in conjunction with the IGP, so as of yet, they still can win easily and at a low price point for their performance.
I hope that this post clears everything up. I fixed the few mistakes that I made in my previous posts and most especially, I think that I explained everything properly. I also managed to finally eat something before this post
food helps.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram