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.
Current page: HD Graphics 4000: Performance In Skyrim And WoWPrev Page HD Graphics 4000: Performance In 3DMark 11 And Batman Next Page HD Graphics 4000: Native Compute Support
Stay on the Cutting Edge
Join the experts who read Tom's Hardware for the inside track on enthusiast PC tech news — and have for over 25 years. We'll send breaking news and in-depth reviews of CPUs, GPUs, AI, maker hardware and more straight to your inbox.
Nice Review Chris...Reply
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!Reply
Great and long waited review - Thanks Chris!Reply
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.Reply
it's heeearrree!!!!! lol i though intel wan't launching it, been scouring the web for an hour for some mention.Reply
Now, time to read the review. :D
It gets higher temps at lower frequencies? What the hell did Intel break?Reply
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.Reply
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;Reply
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...
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.Reply
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