• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

IceLake iGPU marketing vs reality

humbug

humbug

humbug

Caporegime
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
50,176
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
Intel has always had a problem getting anywhere near AMD's iGPU performance, while AMD can get <60 FPS on low settings at 720P or 1080P with less demanding games, even on their mobile chips, Intel would struggle to get 30 FPS at 720P with any game other than CS:GO.

Recently Intel made some bold claims, that their Ice Lake Mobile chips would have iGPU's faster than those found in AMD current Ryzen 3000 series APU's.

That would require a MASSIVE hike in performance over their previous generation, because Intel are now developing their brand new GPU architecture many people thought; well maybe, AMD's iGPU's are actually quite old now, 3'rd time re-branded Vega, not Navi.

So Intel put out slides like this and no one questioned it.
Notice Fortnight on the left side?

I3yZ8Jb.jpg.png


What a load of old Ryan Shrout marketing that is, its complete and utter barefaced BS.

Reality. AMD's old Vega iGPU is still twice as fast.


 
Not surprising, Intel is mostly a marketing company, marketing comes first, and we all know marketing is, mostly, lies.. Ryan Shrout fits right in I bet :)

What I mean by that is you try and talk to Intel technical guys and you can't, more and more you just have to talk to the marketing tossers - it totally sucks.
 
NinjaCool said:
I see good old Intel marketing is at it again...
Click to expand...
That Intel marketing was always there. Did you forgot the release of the new HEDT CPUs showing impressive performance per $?
And then just lower price? :D

And lets not forget Ryan Shrout wrote this week "adding core-count just because you can… doesn’t result in better performance."

Ryan Shrout is the Intel Chief Performance Strategist.
 
Last edited:
snips86x said:
I've seen benchmarks of the 3700x outperforming the 9900k. This is a joke lol
Click to expand...

Yep. Even on the 9900KS benchmarks on some sites which used 3600C16 ram, the 3700X/3800X are both very close to the 9900KS even pre 1004 AGESA.

@4K8KW10 no is the CPU. Those new Intel 10000 laptop CPUs, lose 23% of their performance after 2-3 minutes on all core load. like eg Gaming.
The Intel benchmarks and most reviews are within that 2-3 minutes gap before the CPU loses quarter of it's performance and tanks. Thats why on prolong videos like this one, the performance is so sht.
It also shows that the new 10nm IGP is still behind the 2 year old Vega & Zen+ APU at 12nm.

The upcoming Zen2/Navi APUs will run circles around it.
 
Panos said:
@4K8KW10 no is the CPU. Those new Intel 10000 laptop CPUs, lose 23% of their performance after 2-3 minutes on all core load.
Click to expand...

In my experience not the CPU so much but the laptop firmware throttling the life out of it. Certainly some odd results when it comes to AMD vs Intel, for instance between IceStorm and FireStrike comparing top results of an old Haswell mobile to Vega 10
ZmXYJm0.png


AOHXYE8.png


I have not liked Intel marketing from when they launched the first core-m processors where the comparison was by throttling a 15W mobile to 5W. Not sure which was worse, the way the comparison was done or the way so many people sucked it up.
 
Panos said:
Yep. Even on the 9900KS benchmarks on some sites which used 3600C16 ram, the 3700X/3800X are both very close to the 9900KS even pre 1004 AGESA.

@4K8KW10 no is the CPU. Those new Intel 10000 laptop CPUs, lose 23% of their performance after 2-3 minutes on all core load. like eg Gaming.
The Intel benchmarks and most reviews are within that 2-3 minutes gap before the CPU loses quarter of it's performance and tanks. Thats why on prolong videos like this one, the performance is so sht.
It also shows that the new 10nm IGP is still behind the 2 year old Vega & Zen+ APU at 12nm.

The upcoming Zen2/Navi APUs will run circles around it.
Click to expand...

What makes me laugh is that the 3700x isn't even their top tier and already outperforms intels top tier. Up until this point, I've advocated for Intel but you can deny the leaps and bounds that AMD have made recently and where the money should be spent. Their business model is crumbling.
 
I just got myself a 2400G and have been very impressed with the GPU performance for the money, though it is Vega 11 mobile rather than 10, so a touch more powerful.

It was a close run thing between this and a intel chip + 1030 for my daughter but I managed to get a good deal on secondhand Ryzen bits, pretty chuffed with it.

Makes me eager to try a Ryzen ultrabook in the future as my current 14" Zenbook Pro (UX480) whilst small and well featured is a bit bigger than what I was used to and I want small and lightweight laptop with tent mode again. HP do an x360 with a Ryzen 2/3700u.

But of course I was waiting for Ice Lake and looking at it with interest as that will be in similar chassis and reckon that with some time it could be a better option that Ryzen, it is a new architecture after all so there will be some driver roughness I am sure.

Also Intel run higher memory speed than AMD so I would imagine in an equally matched laptop running at manufacturer memory defaults 2400 for AMD and 3773 for Ice Lake, Ice lake will probably perform better. 2400Mhz memory on my 2400G hits performance hard, obviously mine being a desktop I can run 3400.

2400 vs 3400 memory with Vega 11 Mobile, > 30% difference in CPU score and 40% in graphics

The Intel mobile chips do throttle hard but lets be honest when you have such a low end GPU even 2Ghz is enough in most titles, my i7 8565 in the ZBP will clock down to 2Ghz but even still its 1050 is pegged at 100% so zero impact and infact I would rather that as when I set high performance for more CPU clock the laptop cooling solution can't handle the GPU speed and CPU speed together, so it is better to trade off the CPU speed for more GPU.

looking at notebookcheck reviews of Ryzen chips, they throttle hard also.

AMD have released a 2800H APU with 3.3 CPU base a vega 11 and 3200 memory but I have not seen it in any machines probably because at 45w you are probably better off with a dedicated GPU, but this would be the pick of APUs performing similarly to a desktop APU.

The Surface edition is perhaps the next best one but again 2400 memory.
 
Last edited:
Oh its pretty clear how Intel achieved those results.

Take an AMD APU, throttle it at 25W and then downclock until you get stability. Job done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom