Intel "Tiger Lake" Beats AMD "Renoir" in Graphics Tests under 3D Mark

[Raevenlord]

Now, take that title with the customary grain of salt, and remember: most mobile configurations aren't directly comparable due to different components, speed of the memory subsystem, and so on. Putting that salt aside, though, one thing remains: Intel beats AMD in the latest purported 3DMark benchmarks - and on the red team's home-field, so to speak: graphics performance. A benchmark posted by renowned leaker and benchmark scavenger rogame on twitter has turned up an Intel Tiger Lake-U (i7-1165G7) scoring 11879 (99.68%) in the Physics and 6912 (112.92%) in the Graphics score compared to AMD's R7 4800U 11917 Physics score and 6121 Graphics score.

For context, this pits a 4-core, 8-thread Intel Willow Cove design paired with Gen12 Xe graphics tech (2.8 GHz base, 4.4 GHz boost) against 8 of AMD's Zen 2 cores and Vega graphics. Also for context, it's expected that Intel's i7-1165G7 runs with a 28 W TDP, compared to AMD's R7 4800U 15 W envelope. Also of note is that 3D Mark isn't exactly the poster-child for CPU parallelization performance, as the benchmark scales up rather poorly as more cores are added. Perhaps more interesting as a comparison, these scores from Intel's Tiger Lake are comparable to the company's current i5-10300H (4C/8T 2.5 GHz base 4.5 GHz boost), which scores 10817 on the Physics side (making the i7-1165G7 9.8% faster with a 200 MHz slower base clock, 100 MHz higher boost & 17 W less TDP (28 W for the Tier Lake and 45 W for the i5-10300H).



View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[Fourstaff]

Exciting. AMD has been slacking in the graphics dept of their APUs, this should be a good wake up call.

 

[Tom Yum]

Exciting. AMD has been slacking in the graphics dept of their APUs, this should be a good wake up call.

With nearly double the power consumption (28W versus 15W) I should expect it beats Renoir just from clock speed alone. Intel GPU's also have a long history of benching well but performing badly in actual games, so for me Intel doesn't get the benefit of the doubt until reviews come in.

 

[ratirt]

4900U is supposed to be faster than the one they've used as a reference. Also you have these 35-45W models. Wonder how these would perform.

 

[fynxer]

The CPU performance is not as important as the iGPU, problem is AMD have been using the VEGA as iGPU way to long in their cpu's.

RDNA or even better RDNA2 iGPU should have been here already in AMD's cpu's, AMD have the tech to keep Intel eating dust in the laptop segment BUT are very slow using it.

They have already done iGPU with RDNA2 for both SONY and Microsoft consoles, a SoC that actually are in production right now so it is not like they do not have the tech ready for release.

Very weird decision making by AMD. If they are to strike hard at Intel's laptop business the time is NOW before Intel get more competitive.

AMD Laptop cpu@5nm with Ryzen 3 and RDNA2 would send Intel back to the stone age and they should release that at soon as posible, preferably Q1 2021.

If AMD does not take a major step forward in the laptop segment now they will lose the window of opportunity with all the setback Intel had lately and that will probably never will come back.

When Intel get it's duck in a row and catches up it will be too late, just saying.

 

[R0H1T]

Exciting. AMD has been slacking in the graphics dept of their APUs, this should be a good wake up call.

You could say that, it's at least partially true, though you also have to remember there's very little incentive or indeed RoI on heavy/beefier APUs.

Basically if AMD goes any higher, they'd end up with this & not many customers!

Another Nail on Intel Kaby Lake-G Coffin as AMD Pulls Graphics Driver Support

Kaby Lake-G was the result of one of the strangest collaborations in the industry - though that may not be a just way of looking at it. It made total sense at the time - a product that combined the world's best CPU design with one of the foremost graphics architectures seems a recipe for...

www.techpowerup.com

 

[Sykobee]

Remember this is old 3DMark11.

The Physics test in this runs between 5 and 10 seconds only - this means the CPU will likely be at full turbo for the full time. The combined test runs longer, but is still pretty light for a modern system.

Additionally, there are suggestions that the threading of the physics test in this version of the benchmark is pretty poor - you certainly wouldn't gain from adding more threads, so the 4C8T Tiger Lake is not going to be handicapped against 8C competitors.

Thirdly, 3DMark is one benchmark that Intel does well in.

Also, 28W TDP versus 15W (maybe 25W cTDP) - but again, the benchmark run is so short even a 15W Ryzen APU might still be at full turbo the full run.

Let's wait for real world gaming reviews. Certainly TigerLake is going to be better than IceLake 4C8T, and maybe considerably so (~25%).

Certainly the integrated GPU is far better than previous to beat an AMD iGPU in anything, so that's a massive stride forward. I'm sure AMD have bigger iGPU APUs in the pipeline, but they'll need more memory bandwidth to really shine.

 

[AnarchoPrimitiv]

You could say that, it's at least partially true, though you also have to remember there's very little incentive or indeed RoI on heavy/beefier APUs.

Basically if AMD goes any higher, they'd end up with this & not many customers!

Another Nail on Intel Kaby Lake-G Coffin as AMD Pulls Graphics Driver Support

Kaby Lake-G was the result of one of the strangest collaborations in the industry - though that may not be a just way of looking at it. It made total sense at the time - a product that combined the world's best CPU design with one of the foremost graphics architectures seems a recipe for...

www.techpowerup.com

You're definitely correct about the bad ROI for beffier APUs.... Although personally, I'd absolutely love to have an AMD APU with 8 Zen3 cores, 40 RDNA2 CUs and 4GB - 8GB of embedded HBM2e... but here's the thing, anyone who cares about graphics performance when purchasing a mobile device will probably go for a discrete option, and any consumer not informed enough to know that, and just buys any old laptop won't care about integrated gpu benchmarks that they'll never see. I guess what I'm saying is I feel like Intel is doing a lot of work for a demographic of consumers that won't even care about it.

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

With nearly double the power consumption (28W versus 15W) I should expect it beats Renoir just from clock speed alone. Intel GPU's also have a long history of benching well but performing badly in actual games, so for me Intel doesn't get the benefit of the doubt until reviews come in.

Except that Renoir has a much higher iGPU clock speed (2100mhz according to techradar) VS intel (cant find tiger lake clocks yet, but intel iGPUs typically hit up to 1350 on the most powerful SKUs).

So its likely NOT clock rate, its graphical architectural improvements. I agree we should wait for real world benchmarks first for the same reason as you, but Intel's GPU department hasnt been as sleepy as their CPU department.

 

[Bones]

I'll take it with the suggested grain of salt since it looks to be just one bencher doing it here with one set of results to show it.

It's worth noting as pointed out, it scales poorly when cores are added meaning it's largely based on single core performance but it does illustrate stronger single core performance with the Intel, as expected with the following taken into consideration.

It's only fair to mention 3D Mark 11 is also a legacy bench as indicated on their own site: Futuremark Legacy Benchmarks - UL Benchmarks and was made back when Intel firmly held the lead in 2011 and single core performance was the emphasis at that time.
How this older bench reacts to a newer OS, newer hardware and drivers could be an issue because that bench is almost 10 years old anyway.

To the point:
It's relevant and yet not so much since games simply aren't the same as they were back in 2011. With more emphasis on multi cored performance vs what was made in 2011 it would take a modern game/bench running a modern OS with modern drivers and so on to truly reveal the performance of each respective to each other as you'd expect to see in a typical modern build.

 

[TheGuruStud]

With nearly double the power consumption (28W versus 15W) I should expect it beats Renoir just from clock speed alone. Intel GPU's also have a long history of benching well but performing badly in actual games, so for me Intel doesn't get the benefit of the doubt until reviews come in.

You mean triple. They can use 90W boosting lol
And you damn well know this was rigged to be boosting at a solid 45W.

 

[Daven]

Intel said we have to stop paying attention to benchmarks.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

Intel said we have to stop paying attention to benchmarks.

Even the ones from Principled Technologies?

 

[SL2]

Mmm yeah.

AMD already has the fastest IGPU for now, they have bigger fish to fry with products that actually makes more money, which is pretty much any other product, and you cry because an unreleased 28 W part beats a 15 W part. AMD has limited resources, just like every other company, and still definitely less so than Intel.

Such drama.

 

[Pumper]

And just like that Intel likes benchmarks once again.

 

[medi01]

This is more of a concern for NV, rather than AMD.

 

[Vayra86]

Just stahp... do we REALLY care about 10% extra IGP performance? That's like 10% more of nothing.

It wasn't ever relevant for AMD's APUs and its not relevant now. The baseline perf is fine for ultra casual gaming and basic usage. It won't get bigger than that, unless you like 20 FPS gameplay at low. So now you get 22 FPS. Wooptiedoo. IGPs are lucky if they get enough speed over time to grow along with that bottom line they could once achieve. Games are getting heavier to run much faster than IGPs develop.

Especially now with RT gaining ground, the IGP won't cut it for gaming. And for everything else it just needs to adhere to new standards, like a 4K output.

 

[SL2]

Just stahp... do we REALLY care about 10% extra IGP performance? That's like 10% more of nothing.

The thing is, what these people doesn't understand is how few they are.
Yes, APU's is an important product as they go into pretty much every laptop, and there are more laptops sold than desktops.
But of all those AMD APU laptops, how many of them are running on IGP only, while still pushing that IGP to the max? I'd guess it's less than 0.1 % of all laptops.

So, putting a lot of R&D into something that will make those 0,1 % happy (budget buyers), instead of server CPU's ($$$$$) or any kind of graphics cards (gaming/work/compute) makes zero sense.

 

[Bee9]

The CPU performance is not as important as the iGPU, problem is AMD have been using the VEGA as iGPU way to long in their cpu's.

RDNA or even better RDNA2 iGPU should have been here already in AMD's cpu's, AMD have the tech to keep Intel eating dust in the laptop segment BUT are very slow using it.

They have already done iGPU with RDNA2 for both SONY and Microsoft consoles, a SoC that actually are in production right now so it is not like they do not have the tech ready for release.

Very weird decision making by AMD. If they are to strike hard at Intel's laptop business the time is NOW before Intel get more competitive.

AMD Laptop cpu@5nm with Ryzen 3 and RDNA2 would send Intel back to the stone age and they should release that at soon as posible, preferably Q1 2021.

If AMD does not take a major step forward in the laptop segment now they will lose the window of opportunity with all the setback Intel had lately and that will probably never will come back.

When Intel get it's duck in a row and catches up it will be too late, just saying.

When you make business decision, you will need to calculate the cost vs benefits. The cost of added the new igpu doesn’t justify the benefit (mostly decrease yield and increase production cost from the silicons. RDNA2 is a nightmare to make and inspect). They have made a major step forward in CPU performance and already put Intel at a disadvantage. Intel marketing team has to pull off some wins and they chose to rely on benchmark that favor their architecture.

 

[Mistral]

Wait... are they both running at the same resolution?

 

[SL2]

Wait... are they both running at the same resolution?

Who knows. This isn't a fair comparison, as numbers are pulled from left and right. Things to consider: RAM speed, resolution, TDP, not using the 4900U (9 % faster graphics clock speed)...

Don't get me wrong, Intel can take my money if they have a great product, and maybe they have, but this isn't a good comparison.

 

[Imsochobo]

The thing is, what these people doesn't understand is how few they are.
Yes, APU's is an important product as they go into pretty much every laptop, and there are more laptops sold than desktops.
But of all those AMD APU laptops, how many of them are running on IGP only, while still pushing that IGP to the max? I'd guess it's less than 0.1 % of all laptops.

So, putting a lot of R&D into something that will make those 0,1 % happy (budget buyers), instead of server CPU's ($$$$$) or any kind of graphics cards (gaming/work/compute) makes zero sense.

IGP's matter a lot!
you can game Valorant, League of legends, overwatch etc on these, you can do a lot of production stuff on them and a lot of people buy laptops with MX250 style gpu but they are now redundant, you know why?
Cause IGP's now beat em.

On the other hand, making every IGP as fast as a RX570 or GTX1060 3gb is not much point either as 70% doesn't care.
So it's a larger portion than you expect but not enough to warrant big fat designs for the masses, and renoir is just that - Budget chip that just happens to be blazing fast and the fastest laptop cpu out there!

 

[SL2]

IGP's matter a lot!

It's still a tiny market, with buyers that doesn't pay much for it. For every maximum IGP pusher there are 10000 business HP Probooks doing MS Office (= not pushing the IGP).

AMD has to prioritize, and IGP isn't where the money is.

and renoir is just that - Budget chip that just happens to be blazing fast and the fastest laptop cpu out there!

What makes it a budget chip? Compared to what??? Have you seen any review?

 

[Dante Uchiha]

I'm pretty sure that's the 28W version vs 15w Renoir.

The thing is, what these people doesn't understand is how few they are.
Yes, APU's is an important product as they go into pretty much every laptop, and there are more laptops sold than desktops.
But of all those AMD APU laptops, how many of them are running on IGP only, while still pushing that IGP to the max? I'd guess it's less than 0.1 % of all laptops.

So, putting a lot of R&D into something that will make those 0,1 % happy (budget buyers), instead of server CPU's ($$$$$) or any kind of graphics cards (gaming/work/compute) makes zero sense.

Nop, APUS are the future of computing. As soon as the era of fully modular SOCs gain traction we will see increasingly powerful and complex APUs. Even now, they are more relevant than you pointed out, those APUs are an efficient and inexpensive way to play games and basic 3D render(A 3TF IGPU helps a lot). Plus, some of the most popular games run very well on APUs.

 

[Lindatje]

IGP's matter a lot!
you can game Valorant, League of legends, overwatch etc on these, you can do a lot of production stuff on them and a lot of people buy laptops with MX250 style gpu but they are now redundant, you know why?
Cause IGP's now beat em.

On the other hand, making every IGP as fast as a RX570 or GTX1060 3gb is not much point either as 70% doesn't care.
So it's a larger portion than you expect but not enough to warrant big fat designs for the masses, and renoir is just that - Budget chip that just happens to be blazing fast and the fastest laptop cpu out there!

The fasted laptop CPU is a budget CPU....?