Characteristics of the intel hd graphics 4000 card. Graphics: fast, slow and integrated. Threat to budget video cards

In the previous article we told you about the new processors from the Ivy Bridge line, today we will touch on one of the components of these processors - the integrated Intel HD 4000 graphics, codenamed Carlow.

The graphics, like its previous version, Intel HD 3000, has four processor cores, but the new version also has support for DirectX 11. However, it’s too early to rejoice. DirectX 11 can only be found in the latest games, which are so demanding on system resources that our built-in video card will probably be left behind their system requirements. And this is even despite the fact that compared to the graphics in Sandy Bridge, our 4000 has tripled its performance (at least, that’s what Intel claims). And in general, there are so many changes in the graphics core that this is a clear big step forward compared to the previous options.

It is now possible to connect as many as three monitors to the graphics at the same time (although this may require DisplayPort). If you need to open many windows for work, and they all need to be in front of your eyes, then this function will certainly be useful to you. In addition, a powerful processor will make it possible to run demanding graphics programs if you are a designer. In general, a rather bright prospect emerges here in terms of using a laptop or ultrabook on Ivy Bridge. When you need mobility, you take it and go where you need to go. When you need to work at a stationary place, you connect a large monitor (or even several) to your mobile computer and work.

The base clock speed of this graphics can be increased because Turbo Boost technology is built into the processor chip. Depending on the processor model, the base frequency and overclocking frequency may vary. For example, its performance on low-power processors will be 30% below average. In general, it can operate at clock frequencies from 350 to 1350 MHz.

The clock frequency here is lower than in previous versions, which makes it possible to reduce power consumption. Since the microarchitecture of the graphics core was changed for the better, Intel felt that this would not reduce its performance, which was already quite sufficient.

Intel HD 4000 graphics includes 16 execution units, or unified shaders, while Intel HD 3000 could boast only 12. In addition, there is support for OpenGL 3.1 and OpenCL 1.1 (the latter using shader processors). The totality of the characteristics of the new graphics is such that it is almost equal to a very productive development from AMD - Llano. In terms of performance, the HD 4000 is on par with the discrete Nvidia GeForce GT 330M and exceeds the performance of the integrated Radeon HD 6620G (though only when paired with a quad-core processor).

The encoding quality has also improved, and the video encoding speed has doubled. By the way, the hardware video encoder can play back at least 16 video streams, all in high definition. It can also play ultra-high resolution content of 4096x2304.

However, although we wrote that it is unlikely that you will be able to play the latest games on this graphics, some will still run on it - unless, of course, they are too demanding of graphic resources. The gaming performance of the Intel HD 4000 is 50% higher than that of the 3000. Among the games you can play on it are Left 4 Dead 2, DiRT 3, Street Fighter 4 and others. If you have run games on the Intel HD 4000, write in the comments what works on it and what doesn’t. We will make an update later.

Here is a short table for now (click on the picture to enlarge):

Also playable:
FIFA 11 (2010)
Battlefield: Bad Company 2 (2010)
F.E.A.R. 2 (2009)
Counter-Strike Source (2004)

Part 18: Intel HD Graphics 4000 in different environments and the impact of the latter on the performance of the former

Processors based on the Ivy Bridge microarchitecture appeared a year ago, so everyone who follows this topic even a little knows the name of the older video core built into desktop Core i7s. That's right - Intel HD Graphics 4000. And if we go down a little lower in the ranking table to somewhere like the Core i3 level, then what will we find there? Most models have Intel HD Graphics 2500, but the i3-3225 and the recently announced 3245 still have the same HDG 4000. Laptop models have it too, and in all of them (with the exception of Celeron and Pentium, which are considered separately from the Core categories) : from the extreme i7-3940XM (four cores with a frequency of up to 3.9 GHz, TDP 55 W), to the tablet i3-3229Y (two cores with a frequency of 1.4 GHz, TDP 13 W). But is this video core the same? In the case of discrete video cards, the question would be meaningless: one can be installed in a computer with any processor (at least theoretically). With an integrated solution, everything is more complicated. Firstly, even at a quick glance, the difference in the maximum operating frequency of the GPU is noticeable, and the range is extremely wide - from 850 MHz (just i3-3229Y) to 1.35 GHz (i7-3940XM), i.e. it differs by more than one and a half times. Secondly, we are not talking about some fixed frequencies - even in the first generation of Core GPU mobile processors they began to use Turbo Boost technology, and it is also used for processor cores. What does this lead to? The frequency of both changes dynamically, and depends both on the load on the CPU and GPU, and on which heat package ultimately needs to be “fitted”. In general, everything is unpredictable in advance, but there is an assumption that mobile graphics, although they have the same name as desktop graphics, work slower.

The discrepancy in end systems is not limited to GPU frequency alone. Even in the market for entry-level discrete video cards, their final characteristics are left to the manufacturers, and are not controlled in any way by the developer of the video processor itself. The discrepancy with the official performance characteristics can be significant, as we recently observed: four (!) out of five Palit video cards were somewhat (to put it mildly) different from what NVIDIA intended. Moreover, it is easy to notice that the main differences did not even concern the frequencies of the chip, but the memory system. However, this is quite possible in the case of integrated graphics, especially since in this case the memory is rarely soldered on the board. Accordingly, options are possible. For example, the “official” DDR3-1600 or the slower DDR-1333 - whichever modules the manufacturer (or user) decides to use will be the same. But this, at least, is somehow amenable to manual adjustment, but if the manufacturer decides to install only one SO-DIMM slot (inexpensive ultrabook models most often suffer from this, but not only them), we will get a completely different level of graphics core performance , despite the fact that the computer's specifications will still indicate "Intel HD Graphics 4000".

Is it possible to test all the options and give a clear answer: what does each of them represent? It is possible, but difficult - the number of possible configurations is finite, but large. And it’s not very interesting to do this: it has long been known that the HDG 4000, even in its “best form,” is not a full-fledged gaming solution, but to solve most other problems, as a rule, older and weaker GPUs are enough - up to HD Graphics processors Celeron on Sandy Bridge core. On the other hand, you can try to estimate the approximate range where most solutions should fall - this is not so difficult. And in the process of a variety of testing, we have accumulated a certain set of useful information. In any case, it turned out that recently, using the same version of drivers (which is relevant in this case), we have tested for different purposes five different computer configurations that have exactly the desired graphics subsystem. Thus, in this article we will simply put the results together and try to evaluate the influence of various factors on the performance of the Intel HD Graphics 4000 graphics core.

Test bench configuration

We have already indicated the range of potential clock frequencies above - from 850 MHz in Y-series processors to 1350 MHz in Core i7 Extreme Mobile. Thus, the most correct approach from a theoretical point of view would be to take two systems: a Core i3-3229Y (nowhere lower) and a Core i7-3940XM (no higher) and test them with different memory configurations - at least one and two channels , and at most also with different frequencies. Which is not feasible in practice. Firstly, it’s still difficult to find something with a Y-processor: such models have appeared quite recently, so most tablets in retail chains are equipped with the more familiar U or even M Core. Secondly, there is still no point in searching: the design of the tablet does not imply flexible configuration of the memory system - here you can “run into” memory modules soldered on the board and/or unavoidable single-channel. Thirdly, and at the top end, not everything is smooth - top-end laptops are free of the problems described above, however, processors of both the XM and QM families (where the maximum graphics frequency is 1.3 GHz) are usually found on sale exclusively in pairs with discrete video cards , which cannot always be turned off. On the other hand, this also leads to the fact that there is simply no need to test extreme options - since the probability of encountering them in practice is zero or (in the case of Y) there are no options for choice anyway.

But the range of 1.05-1.15 GHz, on the contrary, is extremely interesting because most of the possible options fit into it. It’s easy to see that three of the five configurations have already been tested by us - today the simply video-related results will be “expanded”. And supplemented by two more implementations - in Core i7-3770S and i7-3770K processors. The clock speed of the video core is 1.15 GHz, typical for many Core i7s, but there are two different memory frequencies. Plus there is a huge variation in terms of processor performance - let's see how it can affect the graphics results. And for comparison, we added the results of one processor with HDG 2500, but a powerful processor part - it suddenly turns out that ultramobile solutions, despite top-end (formally) graphics, are still significantly slower. If the processor part is equal, this, of course, is not observed, but with such a difference, anything can happen.

And an important point is the different TDP levels of the tested processors; fortunately, five out of six support Turbo Boost technology for processor cores and all for GPUs. Why is this important? You may recall that in our power consumption tests, applying a load to the GPU increased it for the Core i7-3770K by 17 W. Naturally, a lot depends on the specific instance of the processor, especially since different series are subject to selection of different degrees of rigidity for this parameter - we also saw 20 W from the HDG 2500 in the budget i5-3450. But the order of magnitude itself is understandable and, in general, not small - dual-core U-series processors are limited to the same 17 W for the entire processor. And the 12 W official difference between the 3770S and 3770K is also bound to affect the operation of Turbo Boost when using the entire processor, and, therefore, performance.

Aliens vs. Predator

As we have written more than once, no integrated graphics can handle this game in this mode, so we get a pure stress test of the video core working at the limit of its capabilities. Moreover, anything can be a limiter on these capabilities: the equality of the results of the Core i3-3217U and i7-3517U is very significant - despite the potential differences, both models hit the same TDP. But two qualitative effects are clearly visible - firstly, single-channel memory is like death even for U-family processors (we have already seen that this is true for top models), and secondly, even in this mode the HDG 4000 is still faster, than 2500.

In low-quality mode, you can even try and play, and on any of the subjects. But in different ways: a low-frequency dual-core processor with single-channel DDR3-1333, but with HDG 4000, as it turns out, is suitable for this almost to the same extent as one of the older desktop models with HDG 2500! Despite the fact that the processor also works in this mode, it is not for nothing that two quad-core Core i7s are in first place. The difference between them is already relatively small, despite the fact that one model is generally top-end and works with faster memory, and the second is energy efficient. 3217U and 3517U are much slower, although in their case there is some performance reserve that can slightly improve picture quality.

Batman: Arkham Asylum GOTY Edition

The relatively old and “light” graphics engine “loads” the GPU to a lesser extent, but has increased requirements for the processor component due to good multi-threaded optimization. As a result, desktop Core i7s already “pull out” the high-quality mode, and ultramobile processors are only close to this level. But they are very close, so with a slight decrease in quality they can reach a “playable” level. Unless, of course, you “press” the memory system - in single-channel mode, HDG 4000 is reduced to almost the level of 2500. But, by the way, not lower - the i5-3570S overtook the i5-3317U only due to the “full” four cores at a higher clock frequency and twice the amount of L3 cache.

With minimal quality, everything turns into a competition between processors. What is worth noting here is that such settings, as we see, still cannot be called completely irrelevant - for top processors with integrated graphics, the frame rate begins to “go off scale” beyond the threshold of sufficiency, but it is not only them that needs to be tested. On models for nettops and ultrabooks, the FPS is high, but not “excessive”.

Crysis: Warhead x64

Another stress test, where it is clearly visible, firstly, the complete incompetence of both systems with single-channel memory, such as the HDG 2500, and secondly, that the processor component, even in such conditions, still matters, affecting the final performance. On the other hand, first of all, still, the GPU, and then everything else.

Including in video modes that are potentially suitable for practical use (if, of course, someone enjoys looking at such a picture). In any case, the Core i7-3517U managed to overtake the Core i5-3570S due to its advantage in the graphics component, despite the fundamentally different processor.

F1 2010

As we have written more than once, the same frame rate in this game does not mean anything if it is equal to 12.5 FPS - a feature of the game engine, which tries to keep it at this level, discarding what is not essential (in its opinion).

In low quality, you can sometimes play on the HDG 4000, however, as we see, for this you need at least a Core i7-3517U (not the worst in its class, to put it mildly, and not cheap), and equipped with dual-channel memory with a frequency of 1600 MHz. Failure to comply with any of these conditions will result in consequences. Excess will change the picture to a lesser extent than the size of the excess :)

Far Cry 2

The performance of the HDG 4000 is still not enough for this old game (which is no longer news), but to a lesser extent than for Crysis or AvP, of course. It’s no wonder that the performance of the older and younger of the tested processors differs by one and a half times. On the other hand, from the point of view of worldly wisdom, we would not be surprised at a greater difference - after all, the CPU parts differ too much. One might even say, fundamentally and in all respects.

And in the minimum quality mode it comes to the fore. And the most curious result is that the Core i3-3217U, even in this case, could not reach the comfort threshold. That is, this game, almost five years old, still in no way lends itself not only to Atom or Brazos, but also to many high-efficiency platforms in general. And it doesn’t matter whether it’s with integrated video or with any discrete video: the performance of the processor part itself is not enough. So progress is progress, and a certain minimum of system requirements must be provided. Which, as we see, older CULV processors can cope with without much safety margin, while younger ones cannot cope at all (it will be interesting to see how Kabini and younger Haswell fare with this). In general, a “fresh” tablet or budget ultrabook will not necessarily allow you to play even very old games and even at minimum settings.

Metro 2033

Let's return to the origins in the form of the first diagram - it is clear that not a single one of the subjects is enough for a high-quality mode of this game, and fundamentally not enough. But the influence of performance characteristics on performance is very clear, so we will not describe everything in detail - it’s easy to draw all the conclusions yourself.

Metro 2033 appeared a year and a half later than FC2, so the minimum hardware requirements for the game are higher. To be fair, the “baseboard” quality mode itself has a much higher quality :) The minimum for it is Core i3-3225, i.e., to somehow play this game, we need a processor with a frequency higher than 3 GHz and HDG 4000, both conditions being significant. The HDG 2500 won't run the game even with these settings, regardless of the processor. And weak models with any graphics will not cope with it precisely because they are weak.

We advise many laptop buyers to think about the latter;) Firstly, in light of these trends, the attempts of some manufacturers to equip their products with CULV processors with discrete video cards are beginning to look somewhat strange. In particular, we came across models with a Core i3-3217U paired with a GeForce GT 740M. The latest video card is another example of renaming and optimization, since it is practically the same 640M that has long been familiar to many, but with slightly increased frequencies. Not God knows what, of course, but potentially a couple of times faster than the same HDG 4000. However, as we see, the “processor independence” of games has its limit, especially when it comes to more or less modern projects, i.e. for Metro 2033 is already short of low-voltage dual-core models. Thus, a configuration similar to the one indicated will allow the user, perhaps, to increase the picture quality in old games, but not to play (at least somehow) new ones - you must agree, this is not an achievement for which it makes sense to pay for discrete graphics.

The second problem is from the same area: AMD never tires of repeating that, although its APU has lower processor performance, its graphics are more powerful than Intel's. As you can see, there are limits to everything - including the weak dependence of the results on the processor. And then the partners add fuel to the fire by adding to some A8-4555M (which at least feeds the built-in GPU) a discrete video card on something like Radeon HD 7550M/8550M. There is no doubt - Dual Graphics is sometimes the only way to increase the performance of the graphics subsystem, but this is only relevant when it is precisely insufficient. As you can see, not only this is possible in the low-consumption segment.

Summary results

Let's try to assess the situation in general, and also look not only at games, for which we will use diagrams with average results for a group of tests/applications (you can find out more about the full testing methodology in a separate article). The results in the diagrams are given in points, per 100 points in this article The performance of the Core i3-3217U is accepted as the slowest of the four processors tested. Those who are interested in more detailed information are again traditionally invited to download a table in Microsoft Excel format, in which all the results are presented both converted into points and in “natural” form.

So let's start with games. It is immediately clear that the single-channel memory mode instantly relegates HDG 4000 to the level of 2500 and other similar solutions, so it is not very relevant for practical use. Under normal conditions, the difference in results is 33%. On the one hand, there is a lot, on the other, everything is different. Even TDP is 4.5 times different. But if such freedom is not given, and memory of the DDR3-1333 type is used the same, then even 15% will not be gained. Which is easily explained - after all, the video core itself is the same (adjusted for the influence of the thermal package on its actual clock frequency), and taking into account its power, heavy gaming applications are the stress test for it in the first place.

But in practice, as we have already seen, in such conditions the frame rate is almost universally too low to be used, so modes with reduced graphics quality are more relevant. For many solutions - reduced to a minimum: this mode is too easy for top solutions, but CULV processors, as we see, do not always cope with it. And here the dependence of the results on the processor part is visible to the naked eye, so that 33% turns into 128% - no comments necessary. Moreover, we note that a “normal desktop” processor with an HDG 2500 outperforms even the CULV Core i7 (3517U, of course, is a junior model, but the older 3687U only differs by a 10% increase in maximum clock frequency, which may not be enough), but by one and a half times behind a “normal desktop” processor with HDG 4000.

If this load were multi-threaded, most likely we would get a spread of results as in the previous case, but “only” 1.87 times. But the situation inside is different: there is practically no difference between HDG 2500 and 4000. It is not surprising that the memory operating mode has an effect, but only weakly - the higher clock frequency of the processor more than covers this difference.

At the time of GMA and the first versions of HDG, these results also depended on the video core, but now, as we see, they have stopped. Well, we will take this into account when developing the next versions of test methods :)

Total

So, as you would expect, we have confirmed the dependence of the performance of integrated graphics solutions on the processors into which they are integrated. However, we note that it is not always so strong. As one would expect, when the load falls on the GPU, a large scatter of results can only be detected when comparing processors with fundamentally different thermal packages, since it also affects the frequencies of the graphics core. But such modes are guaranteed to be too “heavy” not only for IGP, but also for younger models of discrete video cards, so in order to play on them in practice (and not just watch a slide show), you have to reduce the picture quality, i.e. i.e. reduce the load on the GPU and increase it on the CPU. While the latter belong to the same class, the determining factor continues to be the power of the graphics core itself (which we have already seen in the example of desktop solutions, where a pair of high-frequency cores and a TDP margin allowed the same HDG 4000 to deploy to the full extent of its weak strengths and paired with different processors ), but you should no longer expect the same level of performance from ultrabook and desktop processors. In principle, it would be difficult to assume the opposite, but it is never superfluous to make sure that this is exactly the state of affairs. The love of giving the same name to solutions that are similar in architecture but different in performance did not, of course, begin with Intel, but in most cases, manufacturers still at least somehow hint at the existence of a difference. Yes, the company itself adheres to the same practice in the system of naming processors - giving them non-overlapping numbers and not forgetting to add the letter “M” or “U” at the end, sometimes dramatically affecting the family number (a hackneyed example: the vast majority of desktop Core i5s are to quad-core processors, but all Core i5-M are only dual-core). But with graphics there is not even such clarity: one can judge only by indirect signs - such as the name of the processor in which it is built.

Is there any hope of stopping the resulting mess in the future? Maybe in a distant, but definitely not in the next generation of processors. That is, we, of course, have no doubt that the Iris 5100 is a more powerful GPU than the HDG 4600. However, will this allow playing on the Core i7-4558U (dual-core SoC with a TDP of 15 W) with greater comfort than on the Core i7-4700HQ? not to mention the older desktop Core i7-4770K (quad-core processors, which are also faster than the 4558U in clock frequency and less “squeezed” by the thermal package) - the question is open. And the complete equality of processors with the so-called equally integrated GPU is even more doubtful. However, it is impossible to accurately understand these issues without direct testing, and this is a topic for completely different testing.

Intel's spirit in promoting the HD 4000 was decisive. The integrated graphics processor was located on the same chip with four Ivy Bridge cores of each Core i5-3570K and Core i7 3770 (K). For this reason, the move to 22nm Ivy Bridge from 32nm Sandy Bridge was more than just a tick in the manufacturer's famous "tick-tock" strategy, and indicated that US marketers are indeed very happy with what they go to market.

However, a presentation alone is not enough to convince one of the significant improvements in performance of the Intel HD 4000 graphics card, since the manufacturer's integrated graphics offerings often fall short of what is desired. Testing the integrated GPU became even more relevant after the appearance of the competing AMD FM1 hybrid processor on the market, the performance of which significantly exceeded the capabilities of the HD 3000 installed on most chips with Sandy Bridge architecture.

Intel (R) HD Graphics 4000: graphics card specifications

So, what did the manufacturing company do that caused such a fuss about the HD 4000? First of all, DirectX 11 support has been added. This means the HD 4000 can take advantage of all the great API features like tessellation and high-definition diffuse shading. No less important was the increase in the number of shader cores (or, as Intel calls them, execution units) by 30% - from 12 to 16.

To ensure that additional computing capabilities are fully utilized, the manufacturer has increased the number of texture pipelines from one to two. The pipelines are largely unchanged from the HD 3000 cores, but the increase in their number means each is shared by 8 rather than 12 cores, hence increasing theoretical throughput.

It's interesting to note that by adding one pipeline, Intel was forced to dedicate part of the L3 cache specifically to the GPU, since it makes no sense to double the number of texture processing units and leave the bandwidth unchanged. 256 KB are available, although the GPU will of course also require some of the system DDR3 RAM.

Intel HD Graphics 4000 Specifications: Memory

Since the GPU does not have a dedicated RAM, the processor must work in conjunction with the main memory and its clock speed. Typically, RAM operates at 1333 MHz, but a slightly higher speed of 1600 MHz is also common.

The integrated GPU now has a larger cache shared with the L3 CPU, which determines which one is allocated to the graphics card. Dual-core and quad-core Ivy Bridge chips have 3-4 MB and 6-8 MB of L3 cache, respectively, which determines the theoretical impact of memory size on the performance of the Intel HD Graphics 4000.

Energy efficiency

In addition to architectural changes, the characteristics of the Intel HD 4000 are due to the transition to a new 22-nm process, which, according to the company, allows it to provide the same level of performance with half the power consumption. In idle mode, the GPU consumes 54.3 W of energy, and under load - 113 W (as part of the i7-3770K processor).

However, it was not without side effects. According to user reviews, chips based on Ivy Bridge have high thermal density. This means they can run hotter than their technically weaker predecessors.

Test configuration

Users tested the Intel HD 4000 Graphics in the i5-2570K and compared the results to the GPU it replaces, the HD 3000 integrated into the i5-2500k, as well as the AMD A8-3870K chipset, which offers tough competition at the low end of the market thanks to integrated Radeon HD 6550D graphics processor and discrete graphics card Comparisons are not so easy, since the HD 650 boasts 512 MB of internal memory and modern architecture of the Northern Islands GPU family.

Selecting appropriate synthetic graphics performance testing procedures is a challenging task. Windows 7 Experience Index and CineBench R10/11 scores aren't as accurate as we'd like, and 3DMark tests tend to be more optimized and favor Intel.

According to user reviews, a good option is the DirectX11 Unigen Heaven 2.1 test.

Synthetic Performance

Unigen Heaven is one of the HD 4000's toughest endurance tests, so it's no surprise that the integrated Intel GPU struggles even at low settings. The resolution is 1280 x 1024 pixels and the usual tessellation settings allow you to get an average frame rate of 13 fps. However, the HD 4000 is nearly 2x faster than some low-end dedicated GPUs such as the Radeon HD 7450 and GeForce 610M, both of which achieve frame rates as low as 7 fps in the same tests and settings. The GeForce 630M video card is in the lead with 14 fps.

Left 4 Dead 2

According to user reviews, the i5-3570K processor consistently demonstrates a minimum of 26 fps in the game Left 4 Dead 2 at 720p resolution. This result surpasses the AMD Radeon HD 6550D integrated into the A8-3870K, which shows performance of 31 fps, which is well above the 25 fps that is considered the threshold. The same story repeats itself when increasing the resolution to 1920 x 1080 pixels - AMD's offering again emerges as the winner. But it's not all bad: the HD 4000 integrated into the i5-3570K is far ahead of the old HD 3000 included in the i5-2500k. This confirms the manufacturer's claims that the graphics part of the Ivy Bridge architecture is "more than teak."

Dirt 3

Users note that the impressive characteristics of the Intel HD Graphics 4000 video card are confirmed by the game Dirt 3, in which the GPU is again ahead of the HD 3000 by 40%. This huge advantage is enough to take over the discrete graphics card in the test. This was another nail in the coffin for base-level discrete graphics cards.

Again, the HD 4000 trails the HD 6550D by a margin at 720p, but it's important to note the AMD processor's higher thermal design power. This isn't a major problem for a desktop PC (although testing the Intel chip spins the fan at a noticeably slower speed, so a system built around it should be much quieter than one based on the A8-3870K), but it is a serious challenge for mobile computing, where power and cooling capabilities are significantly limited.

Diablo III

Surprisingly, things weren't all rosy for the GPU at Diablo III's launch, with the Intel HD 4000's specs not being sufficient to handle the game, according to owners. This was not observed when using the onboard graphics of the A8-3870K or the discrete HD 6450. The HD 4000 and HD6450 cards swapped places here - the latter outperformed the former, although neither of them was able to demonstrate normal operation even at 720p resolution.

This result may be due to the fact that Diablo III was a fairly new game at the time and Intel had yet to optimize its driver. However, this cannot be an excuse for the rather poor performance, especially since the AMD driver did not have a serious performance hit.

Known Issues

Intel GPUs have been notorious for poor driver support in the past. Users have reported artifacts and other glitches in a wide range of games that are not typically seen on Nvidia and AMD GPUs.

Users who tested the Intel HD 4000's performance found that the manufacturer has begun to slowly but surely improve its drivers. For example, the game Alan Wake had compatibility issues with HD 3000, but can run correctly on HD 4000. However, incompatibility with a number of games remained unresolved.

In Black Ops, users are experiencing intermittent freezing issues regardless of graphical settings. The problem occurs even at the lowest settings. At the same time, the frame rate drops to 22 fps. FIFA 12 has unusually long loading times (using a dual-core Core i5-3xxx). Metro 2033 with certain settings freezes during startup (only true for dual-core Core i5-3xxx).

Threat to budget video cards

Overall, users are impressed with the integrated Intel HD 4000 GPU. GPU performance has improved over the HD 3000 by an average of 30%. This difference increases to 40% when pairing integrated graphics with a powerful quad-core Ivy Bridge processor such as the i7-3610QM. Even the best AMD Llano chips can't compete with the HD 4000. Intel has about a 15% advantage over the Fusion Llano offerings.

What's even more impressive is that the processor outperforms the Radeon HD 7450, suggesting that entry-level discrete graphics cards from AMD or Nvidia are no longer viable alternatives.

Casual gamers who can live with low resolutions, disabled full-screen anti-aliasing, and muted graphical effects may find the HD 4000 processor a great option.

The manufacturing company has done an excellent job, at least in terms of integrated graphics. The Intel(R) HD Graphics 4000's performance wasn't a threat to mid- and high-end discrete graphics cards, but the base models from Nvidia and AMD had serious competition. Since integrated graphics processors were used in the vast majority of laptops, this product threatened to take away most of the market share from competitors. These plans could be hindered by the promotion of AMD Trinity with the new Fusion core.

Prospect for Mobile Applications

Users were impressed not so much by the characteristics of the Intel HD 4000 as by the new prospects for using the processor.

At the same time, those wishing to create a media computer or a small cheap PC for whom graphics performance was important preferred the cheaper FM1 chip, which outperformed the HD 4000 i5-3570K in all tests. Even a reduction in the class of the video card did not allow the price to be equal, since the GPU was supplied only with i5-3570K and i7-3770K, and all other chipsets in the line were equipped with cut-down HD 2500 cores.

This may be a bit of an unfair comparison - Intel launched the HD 4000 in desktop chips, but the GPU's real place is in mobile processors. This is where the device could excel thanks to its good performance and low power consumption. The same can't be said for the A8-3870K, as its high heat levels mean it can only be used on desktop systems.

Another concession

The HD 4000 video processor might have received a higher rating if the manufacturer had paid more attention to its product. In the meantime, AMD could enjoy its status as the highest-performing integrated graphics card for some time to come.

The emergence of the Windows 8 operating system has become a kind of “engine of progress” for a huge number of computer equipment manufacturers. The new OS, which has two types of control (touch and classic), gave an additional impetus to the creation of devices of a new form factor that combine a tablet and a laptop. We have already introduced you to one of the representatives of this class, namely a laptop. In this material, we will look in as much detail as possible at the next new product in the “transformers” line, which you have probably already heard about.

Review of the Impression X70.02 ultrabook

August of this year was marked by the fact that the company “ Navigator"presented to the public its first ultrabook, which will be produced under its own brand Impression Computer, and this, one might say, is a rather significant event for the domestic IT market. After all, it is known that the production of the new product, like all other devices of this brand, is carried out on the territory of our country.

Model ImpressionX70 is positioned by the manufacturer as a solution for the corporate segment of users, which is emphasized by an extended warranty of up to 24 or 36 months and support for Intel Anti-Theft technology with the McAfee Anti-Theft software package for remotely blocking a stolen device and protecting information stored on the drive. At the same time, almost the main feature of the ultrabook, in addition to the compact dimensions inherent in this class of solutions, is the use of a high-capacity battery - 7800 mAh.

GIGABYTE BRIX GB-XM12-3227 mini computer review

Thanks to the active development of the computer field and the constant transition to more technologically advanced and much more energy-efficient processes for creating components, among which processors play the largest and most important role, equipment manufacturers are given the opportunity to turn into reality rather unusual devices, characterized by the most compact dimensions while maintaining the maximum number of capabilities. This is precisely what became the decisive factor in the emergence of such a class of desktop solutions as mini-computers, which are now actively promoted not only by manufacturing companies, for example, ZOTAC with its model ZBOX nano XS, but also Intel itself in the form of a conceptual device NUC (Next Unit of Computer), equipped with “full-fledged” processors of the Intel Core line.

Not long ago, the Taiwanese GIGABYTE joined these companies, which brought to the market a series of very compact mini-computers under the laconic name GIGABYTE BRIX, and is now actively expanding the model range of this line. At the moment, the “bricks” are available both in the basic version and in a very unique version with a built-in mini-projector with a brightness of 75 lumens, capable of displaying an image measuring from 7 to 85 inches diagonally at a resolution of 864 by 480 pixels. The gaming GIGABYTE BRIX II, which is said to be capable of playing games at the level of Crysis 3, should also go on sale soon. It is important to note that the manufacturer gives preference not only to solutions from Intel, but also to accelerated processors from AMD.

In this material we will dwell in more detail on one of the models of the starting line, namely GIGABYTE BRIX (GB-XM12-3227). Its main feature, undoubtedly, is the incredibly compact case, in which the manufacturer managed to fit an energy-efficient dual-core Intel Core i3-3227U processor with integrated Intel HD Graphics 4000. At the same time, the choice and installation of RAM and storage is left to the discretion of the consumer, which expands the possibilities for configuration settings. However, not everything is so happy in the mini-computer and already at the first acquaintance a number of complaints are revealed.

Review and testing of the Lenovo ThinkPad T431s ultrabook

A bright representative of Lenovo T-series ultrabooks, the model range of which includes only premium-class devices. This means that this model, according to the company’s plan, is the embodiment of functionality, the highest quality workmanship and stylish design.

At first glance, it is clear that the Lenovo ThinkPad T431s was developed not just as another “laptop” squeezed into an ultrabook form factor, but as a device with its own, unique look, as evidenced by its appearance and software and hardware capabilities. A reinforced carbon case, a waterproof keyboard, and advanced security features are not a complete list of the distinguishing features of this ultrabook. Lenovo ThinkPad T431s is produced in various configurations, differing primarily in processor models, as well as the volume and type of drives. We received a sample for testing based on the Intel Core i5-3337U.

Intel Core i3/Core i5 (Haswell) processors for embedded systems coming in Q4 2013

Review and testing of the Dell XPS 12 ultrabook

Thanks to the release of the latest operating system from Microsoft, namely Windows 8, which is quite focused on touch control, almost every manufacturer has presented its vision of new devices that would simultaneously offer an equally convenient way to use both in classic mode and in tablet mode. Some of them began to develop completely new form factors for devices. For example, Lenovo introduced the Lenovo Yoga ultrabook with an innovative display unit hinge design that opens 360°, thereby transforming the laptop into a tablet. Other companies decided to go the proven route and use the concept of a laptop with a detachable display, which was originally developed by ASUS and initially used for its Android tablets.

Dell, keeping up with its competitors, decided to use its early developments, especially since one of these developments had already been used to produce the first of its kind flip-flopping laptop, the Dell Inspiron Duo, with a 10" display rotating around its axis. An original and very reliable design aroused quite a lot of interest in the device, but it did not become particularly popular due to its small diagonal and Windows 7, which is not very convenient in touch mode.

The second changeover was the ultrabook, which should attract much more public attention, because the new product is not only made in the same unique premium style that Dell XPS 13, but is also equipped with an excellent Full HD display with a diagonal of 12.5", perfectly suitable for the touch interface of Windows 8. However, no matter how bitter it may sound, it was not without a fly in the ointment. We will find out what exactly it is later.

Fujitsu LIFEBOOK E743 - a reliable and productive business class laptop

It is noted that this generation of Intel GPUs will support a number of new APIs (DirectX 11.1, OpenCL 1.2, OpenGL 3.2), will provide improved work with content, will allow the use of multi-screen configurations and will guarantee support for the DisplayPort 1.2 interface.

As for the performance level of the Intel HD Graphics 4600 GPU, Intel claims that in the class of server solutions this graphics processor can replace discrete video cards costing up to $150. The basis for these conclusions was the comparative testing of the Intel Xeon E3-1275 v3 processor (Intel HD Graphics 4600 graphics core) with its predecessor Intel Xeon E3-1275 v2 (Intel HD Graphics 4000 graphics core) and two entry-level discrete video cards in the SPECaps PTC Creo benchmark 2.0. Increasing the number of computing units in the Intel HD Graphics 4600 model and optimizing its driver allowed the new product to demonstrate better results than unnamed budget discrete video cards in three out of five test sets. And the gap between the previous generation graphics core and the new product based on testing results averaged 26%.

Ultrabook Samsung Series 9 Premium Ultrabook is cheaper

Good news for everyone who was planning to purchase an ultrabook SamsungSeries 9 Premium Ultrabook, but was stopped by its original recommended price of $1900, which announced late last month. Today, some online stores are accepting pre-orders for the new product at prices starting from $1,350 for a model with a 128 GB solid-state drive.

Despite the considerable cost SamsungSeries 9 Premium Ultrabook looks like a very attractive purchase. The ultrabook is equipped with a 13.3-inch display with a resolution of 1920 x 1080 pixels, protective Gorilla Glass and SuperBright backlighting, an Intel Core i7-3517U processor, 4 GB of RAM, a card reader, SoundAlive HD Audio stereo speakers, a wireless communication module Wi-Fi and a wide range of connection interfaces. The stated battery life is about 8 hours.

The ultrabook body is made of aluminum, and its total weight is 1150 g.

Specifications:

Ultrabook ASUS ZENBOOK U500VZ-CN097H with 15.6-inch touch display

For everyone who wants to purchase a high-performance and elegant ultrabook, ASUS has developed and introduced the ASUS ZENBOOK U500VZ-CN097H model. This 15.6-inch new product is equipped with a quad-core standard mobile processor Intel Core i7-3632QM, six gigabytes of DDR3-1600 RAM and a hybrid disk subsystem. The latter consists of a 128 GB SATA SSD drive and a 500 GB HDD drive.

ASUS specialists also took care of the high quality of multimedia content playback, equipping the ASUS ZENBOOK U500VZ-CN097H mobile computer with a Full HD IPS touch display, an NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M mobile video card and a 2.1-channel Bang & Olufsen IcePower audio subsystem with support for Sonic Master technology. And for video communication, the new product features an HD (720p) webcam with an integrated microphone.

The new product went on sale with an 8-cell battery and the Windows 8 operating system installed. Its estimated price is €1,699. The summary technical specifications of the ASUS ZENBOOK U500VZ-CN097H ultrabook are presented in the following table: