HD Graphics 4000: Performance In Skyrim And WoW
AMD’s A8-3850 holds onto its lead in Skyrim. Again, though, the real story isn’t a few frames per second separating integrated graphics processors. More disheartening is the fact that you have to dial down to 1280x720 and use detail settings that make five-year-old consoles look good.
While we’re anxious to see how AMD augments graphics performance with its Trinity-based APUs, there’s no reason to shy away from a discrete card on the desktop. If your budget isn’t flexible, shave off $60 from somewhere else and grab an add-in board for gaming.
World of Warcraft: Cataclysm tends to be very processor-bound. But an emphasis on graphics performance has an adverse effect on host processing, similar to what we saw in 3DMark 11’s Physics test. The result is that HD Graphics 4000 offers very little over HD Graphics 3000—despite the fact that the former enjoys additional performance from DirectX 11 mode.
A8-3850 looks comparatively strong, yielding modest performance all the way through 1920x1080 using the game’s middle-of-the-road Good quality preset.
Without question, though, an entry-level discrete card is still superior.
Related Stories :
- Deals February 14: Toshiba Core i7 Ivy Bridge Laptop $549
- Unofficial Benchmarks Show Intel Core i7-4960X Ivy Bridge-E Performing 10% Faster Than i7-3970X
- Deals April 30: HP 'Ivy Bridge' Core i7 Laptop $849.99
- Is This Even Fair? Budget Ivy Bridge Takes On Core 2 Duo And Quad
- Deals April 12: HP Core i5 Ivy Bridge Desktop $435
- Deals Nov. 21: Core i5 Ivy Bridge Slim Desktop $424
- Deals Oct 10: Loaded Ivy Bridge Core i5 Laptop $499.99
- Deals Sept 26: Loaded Core i5 Ivy Bridge Laptop $549
- Report: Intel to Replace Core i5-2380P with Ivy Bridge
- Deals July 28: Dell Core i5 Ivy Bridge Laptop $549
Nice Review Chris...
Looking forward to the further information coming out this week on Ivy Bridge, as I was initially planning on buying Ivy Bridge, but now I might turn to Sandy Bridge-E
Great review as always Chris! looks like I'm staying with my 2500k for a while!
Great and long waited review - Thanks Chris!
Temps as expected are high on the IB, but better than early ES which is very good.
Those with their SB or SB-E (K/X) should be feeling good about now
saw this just pop up on google, posted 1 min ago, anyway im probably going to update i have a core i3 2100 so this is pretty good.
it's heeearrree!!!!! lol i though intel wan't launching it, been scouring the web for an hour for some mention.
Now, time to read the review.
It gets higher temps at lower frequencies? What the hell did Intel break?
I really wish they would introduce a gaming platform between their stupidly overpriced x79esque server platform and the integrated graphics chips they are pushing mainstream. 50% more transistors should be 30% or so more performance or a much smaller chip, but gamers get nothing out of Ivy Bridge.
It makes sense Intel is making this its quickest ramp ever, as they see ARM on the horizon in today's changing market.
They're using their process to get to places they'll need to get to in the future
OK after reading most of the review and definitely studying the charts;
I have a few things on my mind.
1.) AMD - C'mon and get it together, you need to do better...
2.) imagine if Intel made an i7-2660K or something like the i5-2550K they have now.
3.) SB-E is not for gaming (too highly priced...) compared to i7 or i5 Sandy Bridge
4.) Ivy Bridge runs hot.......
5.) IB average 3.7% faster than i7 SB and only 16% over i5 SB = not worth it
6.) AMD - C'mon and get it together, you need to do better...
(moderator edit..)
Good review.
To me it shows 2 main things. 1) that Ivy didn't improve on Sandy Bridge as much as Intel was hoping it would, and 2) just how far behind AMD actually is...
It's a shame that this chip is marginally faster than 2700k. I guess it's all AMD fault. there is simply no pressure on Intel. Otherwise they would already moved to 8, 6, and 4 cores processors. Especially now when they have 4 cores under 77W.
Yea yea I know most apps won't use 8 cores, but that's only because there was no 8 cores processors in past, not the other way around
I don't know what to say... I'm not feeling jittery about upgrading and blowing $ on a new system... That is good I guess.
I would have liked to see a bigger jump in performance. I'm still very satisfied with the i5 2500K system I built last year... This may actually be bad for Intel as they simply didn't innovate as much as I thought they would...
Now I'm happy for buying 2500K instead of waiting for IB.
Good review. Overclockers = get SB, non-overclockers get IVB.
It has been rumored that Ivy Bridge will be more expensive than comparable Sandy Bridge because of limited launch supply for a while. Is that right that Intel really will set Ivy's price low?
I was more interested in the peak power consumption difference between Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge while running the processors at full load. That's where the real savings in power will be attained.
It's clear that while idling, there won't be much of a difference.
Too bad Tomshardware dropped the ball on that one.
Here is a more in-depth look at overclocking Ivy: http://www.anandtech.com/show/5763 [...] vy-bridge.
It has been rumored that Ivy Bridge will be more expensive than comparable Sandy Bridge because of limited launch supply for a while. Is that right that Intel really will set Ivy's price low?
Ivy bridge's prices are expected to be lower than the current SB prices, yes.
They have an expected pricing guide in the anandtech review.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5771 [...] k-review/2
Sry bad link, let's try again: http://www.anandtech.com/show/5763 [...] ivy-bridge
Now I'm happy for buying 2500K instead of waiting for IB.
I went with the 2500K too...but I kinda wish I'd gone with a 2700K...even if it is just for gaming. IB is beyond what I need right now...this month at least.