Ivy Bridge Benchmarks Show Integrated Graphics Might Not Suck (As Much)

We've been hearing for years that integrated graphics -- meaning your computer doesn't have its own, separate graphics card -- won't catch up to the beefier cards, but it'll be good enough some day soon. Hasn't happened yet. But these reported benchmarks of Intel's new Ivy Bridge processors from CPU World look pretty promising.

The benchmarks compare a new i5-3570K with an HD 4000 (Ivy Bridge) with an i5-2500K/HD 3000 (Sandy Bridge). Ivy Bridge dominated. The new processor beat the current-generation Sandy Bridge i5 in 3DMark Vantage (an industry-standard tool to test such things) scores easily, and by far more than the 3 per cent clockspeed advantage the new CPU has over last generation. It was 30.2 per cent faster on StarCraft 2, 84.5 per cent faster on Far Cry 2, and on average came out to around 50 per cent faster across all games.

It's still really early to make any kind of sweeping generalizations about Ivy Bridge. But we've been hearing all along that the biggest gains made this generation will be in integrated graphics performance and battery life. Let's hope these synthetic benchmarks are real, first of all, but also that they hold water in the real world. [CPU World via CNET]


    When you consider how crap the onboard video of the sandybridge CPU's is for 3d graphics, this 50% increase still means that you have a chunky crap framerate that's going to end up in you doing a trip to your local pc shop for a graphics card after the first time trying to play a 3d game.

      I've used the integrated graphic on their first gen i3. While its definitely not for gaming, it'll do just fine for HTPC/officework... its not that bad

      I guess if you expect to play Crysis 2 at full quality setting @60fps on integrated graphic, something seriously wrong with you!

        I don't expect to play Crysis at full quality from integrated graphics, but unfortunately I don't seem to be presented an option that does allow me to, not unless I want to get one of those stupid humongous Alienware laptops. I'd be happy with a smallish laptop that can play games nicely, these smallish laptops don't seem to want to include dedicated graphics, so if integrated graphics can get me where I want to be I'm all for it.

          So, if you want integrated graphics that can do gaming reasonably, why even consider Intel, the A8-3520 does a much better job. Of course, there is a CPU tradeoff but thgat is what we have to do isn't it? There are no 'perfect' CPUs for everybody

    Yeah, 85% more than 5 is still giving you frame rates of under 10.... Look at this shit! Now look at this new version, with 85% less shit! Still shit though!

    I have already found the Sandy Bridge HD3000 graphics to be a massive step up from anything that has gone before. For the first time in my life I have been able to buy a machine with no dedicated graphics that can run my 2D and 3D software. One of my go-to applications, Autodesk Combustion, has a built-in OpenGL based particle system that is very sensitive to graphics performance and on my Zenbook I get real-time performance in HD, something that used to require expensive QuadroFX cards to achieve. If Ivy Bridge is 50% better than that, bring it on!

    It definitely has to do with your perspective and what you are trying to play. I have an Intel Core i5 CPU running at 2.67 GHz with integrated graphics and I was able to Emulate Darkcloud, Darkcloud 2, Final Fantasy X, and Dragon Ball Z Budukai without any loss of speed. I had to keep my laptop plugged in the whole time because the games would really drain my battery. I know that this is no where near as graphic intensive as a game like Skyrim though.

    Awesome! Starcraft is the most graphically challenging game I play, and even it runs at a reasonable rate - I assume if I turn the settings down (as I do now) performance will reach into the eminently-playable range of 40+ FPS. Everything else I play is either older or simpler - bring on i7 Ivy Bridge in a Lenovo Yoga running Win8!

    For anyone who is actually playing games, a discrete video card will usually always be necessary. Intel's integrated graphics has always been "barely adequate," and compared to what is on the market I can say with absolute confidence you won't be buying an IVB for the iGPU if you're a gamer.

    Honestly, If you wanted to game on a laptop, You should always consider your best options, The AMD Fusion cores currently shit all over (And will continue to do so for some time) in terms of graphics, The CPU difference for games is barely noticable unless your going to run the core like a desktop (Multiple programs running). So basically, For Non-Descrete Graphics cards, All Rounder core = AMD, Gamers APU or integrated graphics = AMD, Higher end Gaming and speed = Intel + AMD or Nvidia.
    Nuff said

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now