Monday, February 20th 2012
Core i5-3570K Graphics 67% Faster Than Core i5-2500K, 36% Slower Than GeForce GT 240
An Expreview community member ran benchmarks comparing the performance of the Intel HD 4000 graphics embedded into its upcoming 22 nm "Ivy Bridge" Core i5-3570K, comparing it to the integrated graphics of Core i5-2500K, and discrete graphics NVIDIA GeForce GT 240. These tests are endorsed by the site. The suite of benchmarks included games that aren't quite known to be very taxing on graphics hardware by today's standards, yet are extremely popular; games such as StarCraft II, Left4Dead 2, DiRT 3, Street Fighter IV. Some of the slightly more graphics-intensive benchmarks included Far Cry 2 and 3DMark Vantage. All benchmarks were run at 1280 x 720 resolution.
The Intel HD 4000 graphics core beats the HD 3000 hands down, with performance leads as high as 122% in a particular test. The chip produces more than playable frame-rates with Left4Dead 2 and Street Fighter IV, both well above 50 FPS, even DiRT 3 and Far Cry 2 run strictly OK, over 30 FPS. StarCraft II is where it produced under 30 FPS, so the chip might get bogged down in intense battles. A mainstream discrete GeForce or Radeon is a must. On average, the graphics core embedded into the Core i5-3570K was found to be 67.25% faster than the one on the Core i5-2500K.
When pitted against a 2+ year old GeForce GT 240, the Core i5-3570K struggles. In StarCraft II, it's 53.64% slower. On average, the GT 240 emerged 56.25% faster. A decent effort by Intel to cash in on the entry-level graphics. We are hearing nice things about the HD video playback and GPU acceleration capabilities of Intel's HD 4000 core, and so there's still something to look out for. Agreed, comparing the i5-3570K to the i5-2500K isn't a 100% scientific comparison since the CPU performance also factors in, but it was done purely to assess how far along Intel has come with its graphics.
Source:
Expreview
The Intel HD 4000 graphics core beats the HD 3000 hands down, with performance leads as high as 122% in a particular test. The chip produces more than playable frame-rates with Left4Dead 2 and Street Fighter IV, both well above 50 FPS, even DiRT 3 and Far Cry 2 run strictly OK, over 30 FPS. StarCraft II is where it produced under 30 FPS, so the chip might get bogged down in intense battles. A mainstream discrete GeForce or Radeon is a must. On average, the graphics core embedded into the Core i5-3570K was found to be 67.25% faster than the one on the Core i5-2500K.
62 Comments on Core i5-3570K Graphics 67% Faster Than Core i5-2500K, 36% Slower Than GeForce GT 240
Personally I sold my 2500k + 6850 awhile ago since the only games I play now are Day of Defeat Source & Guild Wars...replaced with cheapo A4-3400 and it works just fine. Intel needs to stay competitive with AMD in integrated graphics because there are a lot of people who do want to play games like League of Legends, CoD4, CS:S, and flash based games that can be GPU accelerated more efficiently (think laptop users play facebook games). There's no reason for this crowd to have a discrete card. Also, the capabilities of GPGPU have been steadily growing.
Only up to HD 6670 (if A8/A6).
www.amd.com/us/products/technologies/dual-graphics/pages/dual-graphics.aspxGood points have already been made about why this isn't done, but another thing to consider is that the FM1 socket, platform, boards, etc... was built with display output in mind (as where AM3+ was built from old AM3).
Again, Intel, I haven't run those resolutions for 10+ years except on the laptops. And we aren't comparing a mobile chip are we? So this wonderful news is just fodder for the toilet paper.
At any rate I agree the raw x86 power, and cost of the Intel chip's negate the desire for a "performance" IGP, that's AMD's job honestly. Most Intel rig's run discrete graphics, but those that don't are for work/business, so why make the IGP more powerful if all your gonna do is basic functions!
Hmmm ... ... wonder what the TDP would be on "Ivy" if they just shrunk HD 3000?
Probably the same for Ivy Bridge, but can't say until I see some benchmarks and know the pricing.
Of course an IGP that could really do something is another matter. If it's not even a GT240, then saying it's 67% faster than 2500k is just marketing talk targeted at stupid people.
Regardless, don't care how they compare in that regard at all. This information is next to useless.
However, the super high resolution capability I reported on here should be interesting.
Also how well do these in game time demo/benchmarks compare to real game play? I know usually they don't.
This is pretty awesome for a CPU with this much power. Yeah yeah I'm sure the Llanos will bet it but I guess they wanted to leave room for the GPU guys. Compare the Processing power of this chip to the Llano and these will smoke 'em. :pimp:
what I really want to know is how much faster is the quick sync feature on the Core i5-3570K than the i5 2500k?
Yeah, IGP may not be of any use to majority of gamers. but for gamers who also record and render videos, the IGP along with quick sync is very useful.
if quick sync on the Core i5-3570K Graphics is also 67% faster than Core i5-2500K, I think I might just have to upgrade.