I gave Intel’s approach to integrated graphics on the desktop a real smack-down in Intel’s Second-Gen Core CPUs: The Sandy Bridge Review (specifically on page seven). The fact that the K-series SKUs come with HD Graphics 3000 was puzzling to me. Nobody spending extra cash on an unlocked processor cares if it includes integrated graphics. Meanwhile, the locked Core i3, i5, and i7 models are all handicapped with HD Graphics 2000, limited to six execution units (rather than 12).
Fortunately, the company’s workstation group doesn’t follow suit. All four Xeon E3-12x5s employ a form of the GT2 solution differentiated with a P, which turns into HD Graphics P3000. Hardware-wise, there is no difference between HD Graphics 3000 and P3000. So, why bother with the prefix? Intel says it’s making special changes to its graphics driver to give the P3000 solution optimized performance in workstations apps.
AMD and Nvidia do something similar. Both companies focus on a unified graphics architecture that serves desktop, mobile, and professional markets. Then they tweak the hardware and software for each application. The FirePro and Quadro drivers are what make those workstation solutions unique. Now Intel is dedicating a driver team to doing the same thing.
As a result, Intel’s representatives say that a workstation armed with a Xeon E3-12x5 processor should have the chops to contend with an entry-level discrete graphics card, like Nvidia’s $150 Quadro FX 580. If that’s true, Intel’s integrated graphics could be an enormous value, helping mitigate the higher cost of true business-class hardware.
HD Graphics P3000 enables Advanced Settings, though add-in cards offer even more options here.
Here’s our main concern: AMD and Nvidia have a lot of experience here. They know that it’s important to be transparent when it comes to the apps that get accelerated and the software for which the graphics hardware is validated. Both companies maintain explicit lists of ISV partners. If you’re a professional working in, say, Maya, you can hit up Nvidia’s site or AMD’s site and download the driver approved by Autodesk.
In comparison, this is Intel’s first time at the rodeo. It doesn’t host a list on its site (that I can find) with the optimized apps. And the most specificity I could get out of the company was that it had optimizations for Autodesk AutoCAD 2011, Bentley MicroStation, and Adobe Photoshop. Apparently, there are other titles being worked on, but none that it was willing to call out for our story.
Without a solid list of validations and optimizations, it’s impossible for a professional to know whether HD Graphics P3000 offers anything beyond Intel’s desktop solution. And as you’ll see in the benchmarks, the Core i7 and Xeon hardware performs identically in any title not explicitly targeted by Intel’s driver team.
| Bentley Microstation Benchmark | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Intel HD Graphics P3000 | Intel HD Graphics 3000 | Nvidia Quadro FX 580 | |
| Drawing Test Name | |||
| B-Spline Surfaces | 97.3 | 96.6 | 103.6 |
| Filled Hidden Line | 26.1 | 25.4 | 121.2 |
| Geometric Primitives | 56.5 | 57.2 | 88.7 |
| Geometric Primitives (Anti-Aliased) | 48.2 | 48.6 | 52.9 |
| Pattern Fill | 45.9 | 42.8 | 75.7 |
| Raster | 19.1 | 19.0 | 44.4 |
| Shaded Mesh | 36.8 | 23.9 | 36.3 |
| Text | 102.7 | 103.0 | 111.3 |
| Shadows Comparison | |||
| Shadows Disabled | 321.8 | 323.1 | 977.7 |
| Shadows Enabled | 86.3 | 85.9 | 172.4 |
| Buffer Tests | |||
| Copy Buffer | 348.4 | 350.8 | 1607.8 |
| Element Dynamics | 8760.5 | 8639.3 | 14 812.4 |
| Walkthrough Diagnostic | |||
| Occlusion Testing Disabled | 24.2 | 17.0 | 38.9 |
| Occlusion Testing Enabled | 29.9 | 17.8 | 34.9 |
Here’s the Bentley Microstation benchmark, tested on three configurations. As you can see, there are only a handful of subtests where the P3000 implementation outshines the desktop-class HD Graphics 3000.
Until Intel starts taking cues from its competition in the workstation graphics space, I don’t see professionals taking HD Graphics P3000 seriously. The same folks who spend extra on a system with ECC memory want assurance that saving $150 on an add-in graphics card won’t end up costing thousands in lost work down the road.
- Intel's Xeon E3 Processors Look Familiar
- Intel’s Xeon E3-1200-Series Family
- Platforms: The C200 Chipsets
- Graphics: Meet HD Graphics P3000
- Test Setup And Benchmarks
- Benchmark Results: SPECapc And SPECopc Testing
- Benchmark Results: Adobe CS5 Suite
- Benchmark Results: Media
- Benchmark Results: Rendering
- Benchmark Results: Productivity
- Power Consumption
- Conclusion
Sandy Bridge-E, LGA 2011 X79, Q4 2011.
I've worked with many small businesses, and every one that used a desktop chip for a server or a discount chip (Celeron, Duron, etc) for their desktop computers all performed very poorly. Some seemed to hang on by the sheer will of the owner, and in a couple cases, when the owner got sick for more than a week, the businesses folded like lawn chairs.
I've also seen an Engineering shop of ~30 engineers invest nicely into a real server and real workstations, and had me set up their entire network with SBS. their business ramped up so fast and well that they had to hire several more engineers and outgrew SBS (limited to 50 users at the time) within the next 2 years, and I had to go back and rebuild their domain with full enterprise level software, and add another server specifically for email. the owner said the investment in that SBS system was the best thing he'd invested in the business since he hired his first engineer.
Business owners who do not invest in their IT infrastructure fail at business. It's pretty plain and simple. While investing in good IT gear and software doesn't mean you'll ramp up your business to unheard of heights, it does give you a major leg up on the competition.
Thats a very bold statement, not all companies require top of the range computer equipment
I think you're wrong. I spend most of my day at work making and compiling code. For me the HD graphics work really well and getting anything more powerful than that, as evidenced from the tests, would be a waste of money. I also don't think I'm in the 10% group.
Are you going to do a follow-up to compare to current Xeons?
how many folks compile codes the size of which require a Xeon? im pretty sure your in the 10% group, IMHO for the majority of cases if your not pairing the Xeon with a discreet GFX card then chances are Xeon would be overkill
Geek,
Intel says the Xeons support Quick Sync (at least that's the case on the ark.intel.com site). However, I suspect that current apps do not recognize the Xeons, and consequently cannot yet take advantage of the hardware. Perhaps it'll be enabled in upcoming app revisions. Until then, I still recommend the desktop CPUs if Quick Sync is important to you.
Chris
Then the market will get more interesting, to be sure! We still need to see them do this on the desktop, though. I'd be surprised if they didn't end up releasing a FirePro-branded integrated solution at some point!
You're very welcome Huron, and thanks for the feedback.
Which Xeons would you like to see compared? And in which workloads? I'm happy to field ideas on this if it's something you can use!
Best,
Chris
LGA1155
LGA1156
LGA1366
LGA2011
LGA1356