Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Report: Haswell Included GT3e IGP Will Perform Like GT640

Last response: in News comments
Share
May 1, 2013 2:37:01 PM

Since there is a 4770R with GT3e does that mean my 4770K with GT2 will be significantly cheaper? No?
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
a c 138 à CPUs
May 1, 2013 2:52:06 PM

ssdpro said:
Since there is a 4770R with GT3e does that mean my 4770K with GT2 will be significantly cheaper? No?

Since -R models are non-overclockable and will likely be BGAs soldered on motherboards, it skips the socket and dumps warranty liability costs on the motherboard manufacturers' shoulders so I would actually expect the -Rs to be a fair bit cheaper than -Ks and possibly even non-K models.
Score
3
a b U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
May 1, 2013 3:12:52 PM

Shame they don't have GT3e available in a cheaper dual core model. Be ideal for a Media Centre PC with MadVR.
Score
8
May 1, 2013 3:14:29 PM

How does this stack up against AMD's APU's?
Score
5
a b U Graphics card
a c 138 à CPUs
May 1, 2013 3:26:44 PM

Meanbob said:
How does this stack up against AMD's APU's?

If you look at Intel's slides, Intel compares GT3e to AMD's HD6670 and Nvidia's GT640, which should put it at least on par with AMD's most powerful APUs for 2013.
Score
1
Anonymous
May 1, 2013 3:32:09 PM

When integrated graphics surpass my 2 680s or next gen 780 when it comes this will interest me a gt640 is subpar in my book. So this isnt news. I game at 2560 x 1600, only top end. But a Haswell 4770k will be my next CPU.
Score
-25
May 1, 2013 4:09:10 PM

Anonymous said:
When integrated graphics surpass my 2 680s or next gen 780 when it comes this will interest me a gt640 is subpar in my book. So this isnt news. I game at 2560 x 1600, only top end. But a Haswell 4770k will be my next CPU.

Just because you aren't the intended market doesn't mean this isn't newsworthy. A lot of Nvidia and AMD's sales come from low-end GPUs; while the profit margins are much lower, they probably make more money overall on the 640s and 6670s of the world. Intel becoming an increasing threat in that market segment is newsworthy.
Score
13
a c 365 U Graphics card
a c 480 à CPUs
May 1, 2013 4:13:05 PM

I would take that slide with a large grain of salt.. or just chug down all the salt in a salt shaker.

While the Intel HD 4000 more powerful than the Radeon HD 5450 (Intel HD 3000 equivalent), it is less powerful than a Radeon HD 5550. It probably has around 90% the performance of the Radeon HD 5550 on average. The last I've heard, the HD 4600 is estimated to be 20% more powerful than the HD 4000. However, that still means it is less powerful than a Radeon HD 5570. I would place the Intel HD 4600 about half way in between the Radeon HD 5550 and HD 5570. Maybe a little closer to the Radeon HD 5570, but not by very much.

The Radeon HD 6570 is roughly 35% more powerful than the Radeon HD 5570. Therefore, attempting to compare the Intel HD 4600 to a Radeon HD 6570 is misleading to say the least. This is assuming the estimated 20% increase in performance is true. However, in order for the Intel HD 4600 to be comparable to the Radeon HD 6570, the increase in performance from the HD 4000 will have to be significant.

Let's just say that the Intel HD 4000 is equal to the Radeon HD 5550 for argument sake... The difference in performance between a Radeon HD 5550 to the Radeon HD 6570 is probably about 60% - 65%. Naturally, since the Intel HD 4000 is slower than the Radeon HD 5550, the increase in performance will need to be more than 65%.

While not in this article, Intel had another slide stating that the iGPU in Haswell is up to 2x more powerful than Ivy Bridge (meaning 100% more powerful than the Intel HD 4000), then that means Intel's HD 5200 GT3e (HD 5200 + eDRAM = Crystalwell) with double the number of shaders compared to the Intel HD 4600, plus up to 128MB of eDRAM will only be a minor improvement over the Intel HD 4600. If the Intel HD 4600 has to have over a 65% performance increase to match a Radeon HD 6570, then there is not much more room for a performance increase if the Intel HD 5200 GT3e is supposed to be up to 100% more powerful than Ivy Bridge's HD 4000.
Score
2
May 1, 2013 4:19:49 PM

Well, certainly welcome news. Good to see that Intel is finally offering competition against AMD in the integrated graphics sector, assuming the report is true.
Score
1
a b U Graphics card
a c 138 à CPUs
May 1, 2013 5:03:26 PM

Zagen30 said:
Just because you aren't the intended market doesn't mean this isn't newsworthy. A lot of Nvidia and AMD's sales come from low-end GPUs; while the profit margins are much lower, they probably make more money overall on the 640s and 6670s of the world. Intel becoming an increasing threat in that market segment is newsworthy.

Exactly.

GT3e is not intended to replace over-powered multi-GPU setups - as a BGA chip, it will most likely end up in devices where discrete GPUs are not even possible such as NUC, pico-ITX and embedded form factors. It is intended to vastly increase the number of situations where IGPs provide more than sufficient performance.

The high-performance gaming/professional GPU market is less than 10% of consumer PC sales. IGPs are intended for the other 90+%.
Score
6
May 1, 2013 5:07:25 PM

Can it max out Minecraft? Someone better test this out! :p  :D 
Score
0
May 1, 2013 5:07:33 PM

What about Quick Sync 3.0? Does anyone think Core i7-4770R will work faster than Core i7-4770K?
Score
0
May 1, 2013 5:09:56 PM

What about Quick Sync 3.0? Does anyone think Core i7-4770R will work faster than Core i7-4770K?
Score
0
May 1, 2013 5:51:27 PM

Anonymous said:
When integrated graphics surpass my 2 680s or next gen 780 when it comes this will interest me a gt640 is subpar in my book. So this isnt news. I game at 2560 x 1600, only top end. But a Haswell 4770k will be my next CPU.

Wow, your e-peen must be gigantic.

No one ever said integrated graphics are aimed at high end gaming builds. Take your boasting elsewhere.
Score
0
May 1, 2013 5:52:21 PM

This sounds amazing, but it really sounds too good to be true. All of a sudden intel goes from having iGPU's that are only as good as amd's low end integrated graphics to having discrete class performance in one generation? I know if anyone can pull of something as crazy as this, it's probably intel, but still....
Score
0
May 1, 2013 6:18:59 PM

AMD needs to step up its game or intel CPUs are going to get insanely expensive.
Score
0
May 1, 2013 6:30:04 PM

So, intel likely made changes to the eus to improve efficiency, added more of them, plus vastly increased bandwidth/working memory.
At a minimum we should see more than a 100% improvement over IVB, and probably closer to 200% for many cases. The importance of that extra bandwidth from the edram can't be overstated.
Score
0
May 1, 2013 6:56:06 PM

Whats been left out is even though the fps in benchmarks looks similar to amd and nvidia, I don't think the picture quality will be the same as the descrete cards. Plus intel and good video drivers with constant updates for release day games don't belong in the same sentence.
Score
0
May 1, 2013 6:57:37 PM

Whats been left out is even though the fps in benchmarks looks similar to amd and nvidia, I don't think the picture quality will be the same as the descrete cards. Plus intel and good video drivers with constant updates for release day games don't belong in the same sentence.
Score
0
May 1, 2013 7:56:18 PM

This is bad. The Hype it, they thought they could do it. I hope this isn't coming straight from Intel and Only News misinterpreted them.
They first said GT3e will perform similar or even outperform a GT650M.
They then revise it GT3e will perform close to GT650M
Now it is might actually slightly outperform the GT640.
There is up to 30% difference in GT640 and GT650....
Score
0
a c 80 U Graphics card
a c 83 à CPUs
May 1, 2013 10:51:09 PM

Core i3-4158U, Core i5-4250U, Core i5-4258U, Core i5-4288U - seem to be promising laptop/nettop/sff/ultrabook skus..... only if intel prices them right. if intel overprices these like they do with core i7 skus, they won't improve sales.
Score
0
May 1, 2013 11:51:07 PM

If you buy an core i7, would you not also buy a high tier graphics card with it?
Why are they pairing high tier CPU with a decently good IGP, when few will use it anyway.
Why not pair the decently good IGP with Pentium/Celeron or Core i3.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
May 2, 2013 4:55:29 AM

its certainly good news although i would've appreciated if the GT3e igpu was used on core i3 as well as with core i5 and core i7. would have helped alot of poor kids to play modern games with low to medium settings with deceen Frame rate......
Score
0
a b à CPUs
May 2, 2013 5:27:17 AM

I've heard this all before, with Ivy Bridge and Sandy Bridge. Neither measured up. While the GT3e is a much better step forward compared to the last couple generations, they're still WAY behind the curve.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
a c 138 à CPUs
May 2, 2013 6:19:50 AM

digiex said:
If you buy an core i7, would you not also buy a high tier graphics card with it?
Why are they pairing high tier CPU with a decently good IGP, when few will use it anyway.

Not everybody who buys an i7 does so for gaming - in fact, i7 provides little to no advantage in most games so it does not even make sense for most gaming-oriented builds.

Enthusiasts are grossly under-estimating the number of PCs shipping to end-users and businesses without discrete graphics. IIRC, more than 40% of Intel-based pre-built systems were already shipping without discrete GPUs 4-5 years ago, back when IGPs were integrated in the chipset rather than CPU, had much more laughable performance and were actually optional.

With Haswell and all the diminutive form factors concepts floating around lately, I would not be surprised if IGPs passed the 70% mark next year.
Score
0
May 2, 2013 6:23:38 AM

While I do not use the HD4000 graphics in my 3770, I did for a two week stretch while upgrading video cards. I only played Starcraft 2 on it, but it was not that bad. I had to turn the details down a bit, but overall, it was tolerable. If the newest IGP is 2X better or close, that sort of performance PLUS your CPU at 65W? This seems pretty good from a performance per watt basis.
Score
0
May 2, 2013 12:39:37 PM

Intel may be beefing up it's hardware but in any Windows machine it's not just the hardware that makes a GPU. The drivers are a huge part of it. That's always been Intel's greatest weakness and I haven't run across any indication that they've improved in this area. Who cares if their GPU is competitive performance wise if it will only run a handful of games without throwing obscure errors or glitches. That's exactly what I got with every Intel GPU I have ever had. Some games would run okay but others would either refuse to run or would display rendering glitches. AMD and nVidia put a lot of resources behind making sure their drivers are as compatible and configurable as possible. @Toms Hardware - If you want me to give a crap about Intel's GPU's then i challenge you to show me they actually work on a huge variety of new and old games.
Score
0
a b U Graphics card
a c 138 à CPUs
May 2, 2013 3:19:00 PM

Thorfkin said:
@Toms Hardware - If you want me to give a crap about Intel's GPU's then i challenge you to show me they actually work on a huge variety of new and old games.

I'm pretty confident Intel's primary market for IGPs is the non-gaming public so there would be nothing surprising about gaming support being limited to WHQL certification requirements.

If games have problems with WHQL-certified hardware+drivers, it means either Microsoft failed to do its job right (fudged up something in the OS/API or granted a WHQL certification to hardware/drivers they shouldn't have) or the game developer tried to be clever and broke it.
Score
0
a c 365 U Graphics card
a c 480 à CPUs
May 2, 2013 4:10:09 PM

Thorfkin said:
@Toms Hardware - If you want me to give a crap about Intel's GPU's then i challenge you to show me they actually work on a huge variety of new and old games.


Why would THG care if you give a crap (or not) about Intel's GPU?

THG is not affiliated with Intel.
Score
0
!