home » Questions » Why does a processor need a graphics core. The graphics core in the processor - what is it and how does it work? Performance in common tasks

Why does a processor need a graphics core. The graphics core in the processor - what is it and how does it work? Performance in common tasks

Perhaps the key advantage of a personal computer as a platform is its impressive flexibility and customization capabilities, which today, thanks to the emergence of new standards and types of components, seem almost limitless. If ten years ago, pronouncing the abbreviation "PC", one could confidently imagine a white iron box, entangled with wires and buzzing somewhere under the table, today there are no such unambiguous associations and cannot be.

Today's PC can be a powerful workstation focused on computing performance or a designer's workstation geared towards 2D quality and fast data handling. It could be a top-end gaming machine or a humble multimedia system living under the TV ...

In other words, each PC today has its own tasks, which correspond to one or another set of hardware. But how do you choose the right one?

You should start with the central processor. The graphics card will determine the performance of the system in games (and a number of work applications that use GPU computing). Motherboard - the format of the system, its functionality "out of the box" and the ability to connect components and peripherals. However, it is the processor that will determine the capabilities of the system in everyday household tasks and work.

Let's take a look at what is important when choosing a processor and what is not.

What you should NEVER pay attention to

Processor manufacturer

As is the case with video cards (yes, indeed, with many other devices), our compatriots are always happy to turn an ordinary consumer product into something that can be raised to the standards and go to war with the supporters of the opposite camp. Can you imagine a situation in which lovers of pickled cucumbers and canned tomatoes have divided the store with a barricade, cover each other with the last words and often resort to assault? Agree, it sounds like complete nonsense ... but in the field of computer components this happens all the time!

If you choose a processor for absolutely new system, you should pay attention to the actual sockets:

AM1 is an AMD platform designed for nettops, embedded systems and entry-level multimedia PCs. Like all APUs, it has relatively powerful integrated graphics, which is the main advantage.

AM4 - AMD's universal platform for the mainstream segment. Combines desktop APUs with powerful Ryzen CPUs to build PCs for virtually any budget and user need.

TR4 is AMD's flagship platform for Threadripper processors. This is a product for professionals and enthusiasts: 16 physical cores, 32 computing threads, a four-channel memory controller and other impressive numbers that give a serious performance boost in work tasks, but are practically not in demand in the home segment.

LGA 1151_v2 - a socket, which should not be confused with the usual LGA 1151 (!!!). It is the current generation of Intel's mainstream platform, and is finally bringing processors with six physical cores to the consumer segment - and this is what is valuable. However, be sure to remember that processors Coffee lake cannot be installed in motherboards with 200 and 100 series chipsets, and older Skylake and Kaby Lake processors cannot be installed in motherboards with 300 series chipsets.

LGA 2066 is the latest generation of the Intel platform for professionals. It can also be interesting as a platform for a gradual upgrade. Junior core processors i3 and Core i5 practically do not differ from their counterparts under the LGA 1151 of the first version and are relatively affordable, but later they can be replaced with Core i7 and Core i9.

Number of Cores

This parameter requires a lot of caveats, and it should be used with caution, but it is this parameter that allows you to more or less logically build and differentiate central processors.

Models with two computing coresand also with two physical cores and four virtual threads regardless of the clock frequency, the degree of dynamic overclocking, architectural advantages and fan mantras, today they are firmly established in the segment of office PCs, and even there - not in the most critical places. We don't have to seriously talk about using such CPUs in gaming machines, and even more so in workstations.

Processors with four computing cores look a little more relevant, and can satisfy the needs of both office workers and not the most demanding home users. It is quite possible to build a budget gaming PC on them, although in modern titles the performance will be limited, and the simultaneous execution of several operations - for example, recording a game video - will be impossible or will lead to a noticeable drop in FPS.

The best option for home - six-core processors... They are capable of providing high performance in games, do not faint when performing several resource-intensive tasks at the same time, allow you to use a PC as a home workstation, and with all this, they keep quite an affordable cost.

Eight-core processors - the choice of those who are busy with more serious tasks than games. While they can handle entertainment without any problems, their benefits are most noticeable in work applications. If you are engaged in video processing and editing, draw complex layouts for printing, design houses or other complex structures, then these CPUs should be chosen. You will not notice the excess performance, but the fast processing and the absence of freezes at the most crucial moment will definitely delight you.

Processors with 10 and 16 cores - this is already a server segment and very specific workstations, which differ from the previous version approximately like the work of a special effects designer for a big movie from the work of a video editor on youtube (in fact, they are used there approximately). It is difficult to recommend unambiguously or vice versa, to discourage them from buying. If you really need such performance, you already know how and where you will apply it.

Recommendation # 8: The number of cores is not the clearest parameter, and it does not always allow us to assign processors with similar characteristics to the same group. Nevertheless, when choosing a processor, you should focus on this parameter.

Performance

The final and most important parameter, which, alas, cannot be found in any store catalog. Nevertheless, in the end, it is he who determines whether this or that processor is right for you, and how much the operation of a PC based on it will meet your initial expectations.

Before heading to the store for a processor that seems to suit you, do not be too lazy to study its detailed tests. Moreover, "detailed" are not vidos on YouTube, showing you what you should see as intended by their author. Detailed tests are a large-scale comparison of a processor in synthetic benchmarks, professional software and games, carried out according to a clear methodology with the participation of all or most of the competing solutions.

As is the case with video cards, reading and analyzing such materials will help you determine whether a particular processor is worth your money, and what, if possible, you can replace it with.

Recommendation # 9: Spending a couple of evenings reading and comparing information from different sources (it is important that they are reputable, and highly desirable - foreign), you will make an informed choice and save yourself a lot of problems in the future. Trust me, it's more than worth it.

Selection criteria and options:

According to the above criteria, the CPUs from the DNS directory can be allocated as follows:

Processors AMD Sempron and Athlon under socket AM1 suitable for assembling budget multimedia PCs, embedded systems and similar tasks. For example, if you want to install a full-fledged PC with a desktop operating system or assemble a small nettop that will secretly live in the bowels of a country house or garage - you should pay attention to this platform.

For office PCs fit dual core processors Intel Celeron, Pentium and Core i3... Their advantage in this case will be the presence of an integrated graphics core. The performance of the latter is sufficient to display the necessary information and speed up browsers, but completely insufficient for games, which should not be in the workplace anyway.

For home multimedia pc the best choice there will be APUs from AMD, designed for the current socket AM4. Representatives of the A8, A10 and A12 lines combine a quad-core processor and very good graphics under one cover, which can confidently compete with budget video cards. A PC based on this platform can be made very compact, but its performance is sufficient to play any content, as well as a number of work tasks and a considerable list of games.

For budget gaming PC quad-core processors will do AMD Ryzen 3 and quad-core Core i3 for socket LGA 1151_v2 ( do not confuse with dual-core Core i3 for the LGA 1151 socket !!!). The performance of these processors is sufficient for any home tasks and most games, but it's still not worth loading them with serious work or trying to perform several resource-intensive tasks at the same time.

For budget workstation a compromise option could be aMD Ryzen 5 Quad-Core Processors... In addition to physical cores, they also offer virtual threads of computing, which ultimately allows operations to be performed in eight threads. Of course, this is not as efficient as physical cores, but the probability of seeing 100% CPU load and a drop in FPS below playable when recording or streaming gameplay is much lower here than in the previous two options. And the subsequent editing of this video will be faster.

The best choice for home gaming pc - six-core processors AMD Ryzen 5 and Intel Core i5 for the LGA 1151_v2 socket (not to be confused with their four-core predecessors !!!). The cost of these CPUs is quite humane, they can even be called relatively affordable, in contrast to the top lines of Ryzen 7 and Core i7. But the performance is quite enough to play any games interesting to the user and work from home. And even at the same time, if there is such a desire.

For top-end gaming PCs or workstations processors will do without pretensions to being chosen and elitist AMD Ryzen 7 and Intel Core i7having, respectively, 8 cores / 16 threads and 6 cores / 12 threads. As a mainstream platform, these processors are still relatively affordable and do not require expensive motherboards, power supplies or coolers. However, their performance is sufficient for almost all tasks that an ordinary user can put before a PC.

If it is still not enough - for high-performance workstations processors intended AMD Ryzen Threadripperdesigned for installation in the TR4 socket, and top models of Intel processors for the LGA 2066 socket - Core i7 and Core i9having 8, 10, 12 or more physical nuclei. In addition, the processors offer a four-channel memory controller, which is important for a number of professional tasks, and up to 44 PCI-express lines, allowing you to connect a lot of peripherals without losing data exchange speed. It is impossible to recommend these CPUs for home use both due to their price and due to their "sharpening" for multithreading and professional tasks. But in operation, processors for top-end platforms can literally outpace their desktop counterparts by several times.

Socket: AM4
Number of cores / threads: 4/4
Number of graphics cores: 6
Base frequency: 3.8 GHz
Graphics:Radeon R7
Graphics frequency: 1 GHz
Overclocking: Yes
TDP power: 65 watts

Opening our list is the A10-9700 A-series. This series is an integrated graphics processor with low power consumption, which is usually found in the base and is cheaper than all other APUs. The A10-9700 is based on the predecessor Zen Excavator architecture and uses the legacy Radeon R7 graphics, albeit AM4 socket compatible.

Overall, the A10-9700 can hardly be called the preferred option, since it is seriously inferior to the newer and better Zen architecture processors with Vega graphics. Indeed, this is a 3.5 GHz quad-core processor with an unlocked multiplier and not very high power consumption, although the 28 nm architecture and the relatively high price of about $ 80 may present a certain problem. It cannot compete with the new Zen architecture processors in terms of performance, and in this price range there are enough models with and without integrated graphics that significantly outperform it.

In general, it was a decent model for its time, but it can hardly be recommended for purchase. Unless you buy a used one or at a discount on a very limited budget.

pros

Decent performance

Minuses

Outdated architecture
Poor value for money

AMD Athlon 200GE

Specifications

Socket: AM4
Number of cores / threads: 2/4
Number of graphics cores: 3
Base frequency: 3.2 GHz
Graphics:Vega 3
Graphics frequency: 1 GHz
Overclocking: no
TDP power: 35 watts

If you are looking for affordability, you can hardly find a better model than the new Athlon 200GE. AMD has been producing decent budget solutions under this brand since 1999. It has survived to this day, and even in the Ryzen era is poised to present a range of reliable and affordable processors.

The highlight of the Athlon 200GE is the latest Vega graphics. Of course, there are only three cores, but in any case, this is a decent entry-level gaming processor with integrated graphics, especially considering its price. Sure, it can't compete with the more powerful Ryzen processors or most Intel models in terms of processing power, but at a cost of just $ 50, it significantly outperforms similarly priced Intel Celeron processors. Moreover, it surpasses even the A10 discussed above, although it costs almost half the price.

All of this makes the 200GE the ideal entry-level gaming APU, and with the AM4 socket, upgrades with more powerful processors are easy. If you want the cheapest processor with integrated graphics to play 720p and this Athlon won't disappoint.

pros

Decent performance for the money
Good value for money
Very low power consumption

Minuses

Multiplier not unlocked
Not the most powerful processor overall

AMD Ryzen 3 2200G

Specifications

Socket: AM4
Number of cores / threads: 4/4
Number of graphics cores: 8
Base frequency: 3.5 GHz
Graphics:Vega 8
Graphics frequency: 1.1 GHz
Overclocking: Yes
TDP power: 65 watts

Want something more serious? Then take a look at the Ryzen 3 2200G. With 8 graphics cores, Vega is the second most powerful integrated graphics processor in existence, and in terms of price-performance ratio it is perhaps the best.

Basically, the Ryzen 3 2200G has everything we love Ryzen so much for: low cost, good value for money, an unlocked multiplier, and a compact but quiet enough Wraith Stealth cooler. And of course, the integrated Vega graphics. How does he show himself in relation to competitors? Leaves them practically no chance. Compared to the slightly more expensive Intel i3-8100, it lags slightly behind in terms of computational tasks, but a cut above in terms of graphics. Take a look at the video below:

As you can see, Intel's integrated graphics can't match the Vega: the 2200G is twice as good as the i3-8100 in most games. Considering that this processor is cheaper than Intel's budget solution, it becomes the leader in our rating in terms of price-quality ratio.

pros

Excellent graphics performance
Cheaper than competitors
Excellent value for money

Minuses

Not as fast in computing tasks
A small stock cooler is not suitable for overclocking

AMD Ryzen 5 2400G

Specifications

Socket: AM4
Number of cores / threads: 4/8
Number of graphics cores: 11
Base frequency: 3.6 GHz
Graphics:Vega 11
Graphics frequency: 1.2 GHz
Overclocking: Yes
TDP power: 65 watts

Finally, if the Ryzen 3 2200G is not good enough for you and you want the best integrated graphics processor available, that is, the Ryzen 5 2400 G. It surpasses the aforementioned model in every way, but a little more expensive.

The main advantages of the Ryzen 5 model over the Ryzen 3 2200G are multithreading (the number of threads increased to 8) and three additional Vega graphics cores. All these contribute to the overall performance of this processor. In terms of graphics, you've seen what 8 Vega cores are capable of, so you can roughly imagine what 11 will allow you to achieve. Needless to say, this most powerful APU at the moment surpasses even some budget discrete ones in performance. Of course, it falls short of RX 560 or GTX 1050, but it allows you to play even in 1080p resolution.

In addition, with 8 threads, it handles multitasking better than the previous Ryzen 3 model, although it is inferior to Intel in tasks where only one thread is involved. As before, Intel provides a lot of processing power, but it's the graphics that give Ryzen 5 the edge.

Overall, the Ryzen 5 2400G is questionable in terms of value for money. It's definitely a step forward in terms of graphics and multitasking, but whether it's worth the extra $ 50 is an open question.

pros

Most powerful APU at the moment
Best Integrated Graphics

Minuses

Limited performance in single threaded tasks
Questionable price-performance ratio

Should you buy a GPU with a GPU?

So, we already mentioned that the abbreviation APU stands for "accelerated processing unit" and was introduced by AMD as a designation for a processor in which the main and graphics cores are located on one chip. AMD is the only manufacturer of gaming APUs, and while Intel's Core series processors have integrated graphics, they can't compete with the new Vega-based APUs in performance.

But, as you know, it is impossible to be a jack of all trades, and for APU this problem is also characteristic. They are not as fast in computing tasks as conventional processors in the same price range, and in terms of graphics performance, most of them are inferior to even the cheapest discrete graphics cards.

Nevertheless, APUs remain unbeatable in terms of price-performance ratio. Why spend $ 200 on an entry-level processor and graphics card when a GPU-accelerated processor can handle them for half the money? On the other hand, if you need 3-digit frame rates, or are running CPU-intensive applications, look for something more powerful.

Our choice

So, which processor with a graphics accelerator from the ones discussed above can we recommend and to whom?

Best Budget Model - AMD Athlon 200GE

The humble Athlon does not attract enthusiastic looks and does not go off scale in benchmarks, but at the very bottom of the entry-level 200GE simply dominates. It's incredibly cheap and the performance is more than adequate for the money. In addition, thanks to the use of the standard AM4 socket, which is not yet out of fashion, future upgrades will be much easier.

Best value for money - AMD Ryzen 3 2200G

There is little to say about this Ryzen model that hasn't already been said. It has decent processing power and 8 Vega cores deliver graphics performance unattainable for Intel integrated graphics. Considering the cost, it can give odds even to some discrete graphics cards. Overall, we can say that this is the preferred option for most gamers on a budget.

Overall Best - AMD Ryzen 5 2400G

As we said, the Ryzen 5 2400G is simply the best GPU-powered processor out there. With a combination of four processor cores with eight threads and 11 Vega cores, it really looks like a jack of all trades. Of course, the downside is the slightly higher price tag than the 2200G, which is already good enough for the entry-level performance.

For an office, home or gaming computer, it is not that difficult to choose the right processor. You just need to determine the needs, navigate a little in the characteristics and price ranges. It makes no sense to thoroughly study the smallest nuances, if you are not a "geek", but you need to understand what to look for.

For example, you can look for a processor with a higher frequency and cache memory, but without paying attention to the chip core, you can get into a mess. The core, in fact, is the main factor of performance, and the rest of the characteristics are plus or minus. In general terms, I can say that the more expensive a product in the line of one manufacturer is, the better, more powerful and faster it is. But AMD processors are cheaper than Intel's.

The processor should be chosen depending on the tasks at hand. If in normal mode you have about two resource-intensive programs running, then it is better to buy a dual-core "stone" with high frequency... If more threads are used, it is better to opt for a multi-core of the same architecture, even if with a lower frequency.
Hybrid processors (with an integrated video card) will save you money on buying a video card, provided that you do not need to play fancy games. This is almost everything modern processors Intel and AMD A4-A12 series, but AMD has a stronger graphics core.
Along with all processors marked "BOX", a cooler should be supplied (of course, a simple model, which will not be enough for high loads, but that is what you need to work in nominal mode). If you need a cool cooler, then.
The OEM processors are covered by a one-year warranty, and the BOX is covered by a three-year warranty. If the warranty period provided by the store is shorter, it is better to think about looking for another distributor.
In some cases, it makes sense to buy percent off hand, so you can save about 30% of the amount. True, this method of buying is associated with a certain risk, so you need to pay attention to the availability of a guarantee and the seller's reputation.

Main technical characteristics of processors

Now about some of the characteristics that are still worth mentioning. It is not necessary to delve into, but it will be useful to understand my recommendations for specific models.

Each processor has its own socket (platform), i.e. name of the connector on the motherboard for which it is intended. Whichever processor you choose, be sure to look at socket matching. There are several platforms at the moment.

LGA1150 - not for top-end processors, used for office computers, gaming and home media center. Entry-level integrated graphics except Intel Iris / Iris Pro. Already out of circulation.
LGA1151 is a modern platform, recommended for future upgrade to newer "stones". The processors themselves are not much faster than the previous platform, that is, there is really no point in upgrading to it. But on the other hand, there is a more powerful integrated graphics core of the Intel Graphics series, DDR4 memory is supported, but it does not give a strong performance gain.
LGA2011-v3 is a top platform designed for building high-performance desktop systems based on system logic Intel X299, expensive, outdated.
LGA 2066 (Socket R4) - socket for HEDT (Hi-End) Intel Skylake-X and Kaby Lake-X processors, replaced 2011-3.

AM1 for weak, energy efficient processors
AM3 + common socket, suitable for most AMD processors, incl. for high-performance processors without an integrated video core
AM4 is designed for microprocessors with Zen microarchitecture (Ryzen brand) with and without integrated graphics and all subsequent ones. Added support for DDR4 memory.
FM2 / FM2 + for budget Athlon X2 / X4 variants without integrated graphics.
sTR4 is a connector type for the HEDT family of Ryzen Threadripper microprocessors. Similar to server sockets, the most massive and for desktops.

There are outdated platforms that you can buy in order to save money, but you need to take into account that new processors for them will no longer be made: LGA1155, AM3, LGA2011, AM2 / +, LGA775 and others that are not in the lists.

Kernel name. Each line of prots has its own kernel name. For example, Intel now has Sky Lake, Kaby Lake and the newest eighth generation Coffee Lake. AMD has Richland, Bulldozer, Zen. The higher the generation, the more high-performance chip, with lower power consumption, and the more technologies are introduced.

Number of Cores: from 2 to 18 pieces. The bigger, the better. But there is such a moment: programs that do not know how to distribute the load among the cores will run faster on a dual-core with a higher clock frequency than on a 4-core, but with a lower frequency. In short, if there is no clear technical task, then the rule works: more is better, and the further, the more correct it will be.

Technical process, measured in nanometers, for example - 14nm. Doesn't affect performance, but it does affect CPU heating. Each new generation of processors is manufactured using a new process technology with a lower nm. This means that if you take a processor of the previous generation and about the same new one, the latter will heat up less. But, since new products are made faster, they heat up in about the same way. That is, improving the technical process allows manufacturers to make faster processors.

Clock frequency, is measured in gigahertz, for example - 3.5 GHz. Always the more, the better, but only within the same series. If we take an old Pentium with a frequency of 3.5 GHz and a new one, the old one will be many times slower. This is because they have completely different kernels.

Almost all "stones" are capable of accelerating, i.e. operate at a higher frequency than that indicated in the characteristics. But this is a topic for those who understand, tk. you can burn the processor or get a non-working system!

Cache size 1, 2 and 3 levels, one of the key characteristics, the more the faster. The first level is the most important, the third is less important. Directly depends on the kernel and series.

TDP - dissipated thermal power, well, or how much at maximum load. A lower number means less heating. Without clear personal preferences, you can ignore this. Powerful processors consume 110-220 watts of electricity per load. You can see the diagram of the approximate power consumption of Intel and AMD processors under normal load, the less the better:

Model, series: does not apply to the characteristics, but nevertheless I want to tell you how to understand which processor is better within the same series, without delving into the characteristics. A processor name such as "Intel i3-8100" consists of the "Core i3" series and the model number "8100". The first number means the line of processors on some core, and the next one is its "performance index", roughly speaking. So, we can estimate that:

Core i3-8300 is faster than i3-8100
i3-8100 is faster than i3-7100
But the i3-7300 will be faster than the i3-8100, despite the younger series, because the 300 strong more than 100. I think you get the point.

The same goes for AMD.

Will you play on the computer?

The next point that needs to be decided in advance: the gaming future of the computer. For Farm Frenzy and other simple online games, any built-in graphics will do. If buying an expensive video card is not included in the plans, but you want to play, then you need to take a processor with a normal graphics core Intel Graphics 530/630 / Iris Pro, AMD Radeon RX Vega Series. Even modern games will run in Full HD 1080p resolution at minimum and medium graphics quality settings. You can play World of Tanks, GTA, Dota and others.

Comments (233)
In contact with

Minsk Repairman

Alexey Vinogradov

Reply
- Reply
  
  Reply

BRedScorpius

aleksandrzdor

Elena Malysheva

Reply
- Alexey Vinogradov
  
  Reply

Dmitriy

Alexey Vinogradov

Reply

Basil
Feb 25, 2020

Reply

Alexey Vinogradov

Reply
- iUnhead
  Feb 10, 2020
  
  Reply

Alexey Vinogradov

Reply

Alexey Vinogradov

Reply

Leonid

Alexey Vinogradov

Reply

Leonid

Alexey Vinogradov

Reply

Sergei

Alexey Vinogradov

Reply
- Sergei
  
  Reply
  - Alexey Vinogradov
    
    Reply

Alexey Vinogradov

Reply

Stanislav

Alexey Vinogradov

Reply

Vladislav

Alexey Vinogradov

Reply

Alexey Vinogradov

Reply

Alexander

Alexey Vinogradov

Reply

Alexander

Alexey Vinogradov

Reply

Igor Novozhilov

Alexey Vinogradov

Reply

Alexey Vinogradov

Reply
- Reply
  - Alexey Vinogradov
    
    Reply

Alexey Vinogradov

Reply

Alexander S.

Alexey Vinogradov

Reply

Alexander S.

Reply
- Reply

Alexey Vinogradov

Alexey Vinogradov

Reply

Alexey Vinogradov

Reply

Alexey Vinogradov

Reply

Alexander S.

Alexander S.

Reply

Alexander S.

Vyacheslav

Alexey Vinogradov

Reply

Dmitriy

Alexey Vinogradov

Reply

Alexey Vinogradov

Reply

Alexander S.

Reply

Konstantin

Alexander S.

Reply

Vitaly

Alexey Vinogradov

Reply

Alexander S.

Reply

Alexey Vinogradov

Reply

Alexander S.

Reply

Gregory

Reply

Dmitriy

Alexey Vinogradov

Reply

Alexander S.

Reply

Alexander S.

Reply
- Reply

Alexander S.

Alexey Vinogradov

Reply

Alexander S.

Reply

Leonid

Alexander S.

Reply
- Leonid
  
  Reply

Vladimir

Alexander S.

Reply

earring

Alexey Vinogradov

Reply

Alexander S.

Reply

Alexander S.

Reply
- Reply

Leonid

Alexey Vinogradov

Reply

Alexander S.

Reply

Natalia

Alexey Vinogradov

Reply

Andrew

Alexey Vinogradov

Reply

Alexander S.

Reply

Andrew

Alexey Vinogradov

Reply
- Alexey Vinogradov
  
  Reply

Andrew

Alexey Vinogradov

Reply

Andrew

Alexey Vinogradov

Reply

Alexander S.

Reply

Andrew

Alexander S.

Reply

Andrew

Alexander S.

Reply

Alexander S.

Alexey Vinogradov

Reply

Andrew

Alexander S.

Andrew

Alexander S.

Andrew

Alexander S.

Andrew

Alexey Vinogradov

Reply

Andrew

Alexander

Alexey Vinogradov

Reply

Alexander S.

Reply
- Alexander
  
  Reply
  - Alexander S.
    
    Reply

Alexey Vinogradov

Reply

Alexey Vinogradov

Reply

Maksim

Alexander S.

Reply

Andrew

Alexey Vinogradov

Reply

Andrew

Alexey Vinogradov

Reply

Reply
- Andrew
  
  Reply
  
  Alexander S.
  
  Reply

Alexey Vinogradov

Dmitriy

Alexey Vinogradov

Reply

Alexander S.

Reply

Alexander S.

Reply

Maksim

Alexander S.

Reply

Alexander

Alexander S.

Reply
- Alexander
  
  Reply

Alexander S.

Alexander S.

Reply

Alexander S.

Reply

Dmitriy

Alexander S.

Reply

Alexey Vinogradov

Reply

Alexander S.

Alexander S.

Reply

Alexander S.

Reply

Alexey Vinogradov

Reply
- Reply
  - Alexey Vinogradov
    
    Reply
  - Alexander S.
    
    Reply

a little dukalis

Newbie

Alexander S.

Reply
- Newbie
  
  Reply

Newbie

Reply
- Reply
  - Newbie
    
    Reply

Konstantin

Alexander S.

Reply

Reply
- Alexander S.
  
  Reply
  - Reply
    - Alexander S.

Iskandar

Vladimir

Alexander S.

Reply

Andrew

Alexey Vinogradov

Reply

Sergei

Leonid

Alexey Vinogradov

Reply
- Leonid
  
  Reply
  - Alexey Vinogradov
    
    Reply

Victor

Victor

Reply
- Alexander S.
  
  Reply

Tatyana
Jan 04, 2019

Victor
Apr 19, 2019

Alexey Vinogradov
Apr 19, 2019

Reply

A
Jul 12, 2019

Integrated GPUs

Main article: Integrated GPU

Built-in graphics allow you to build a computer without separate video adapters, which reduces the cost and power consumption of systems. This solution is commonly used in laptops and desktops underneath price categoryas well as for business computers that do not require high level graphics performance. 90% of all personal computerssold in North America have an integrated graphics card. These graphics systems use the computer's RAM as video memory, which leads to performance limitations since both the CPU and GPU use the same bus to access memory.

Like "stationary" video cards, mobile video adapters are divided into 3 main types, depending on the way the video core and video memory are communicated:

Shared memory graphics (Shared graphics, Shared Memory Architecture). There is no video memory in the form of specialized cells as such; instead, an area of \u200b\u200bthe computer's main memory is dynamically allocated for the needs of the video adapter. This method of addressing memory is almost exclusively used by the so-called. integrated video cards (that is, they are not made in the form of a separate microcircuit, but are part of one large chip - the north bridge). Benefits this decision - low price and low power consumption. Disadvantages - low performance in 3D graphics and negative impact on memory bandwidth. The largest manufacturer of integrated graphics is intel, whose video solutions are currently exclusively integrated; this kind of graphics is also produced by ATI (Radeon, IGP), in much smaller volumes by SiS and NVidia.
Discrete graphics (Dedicated graphics). A video chip and one or several video memory modules are soldered on the motherboard or (less often) on a separate module. Only discrete graphics provide the highest performance in 3D graphics. Disadvantages: higher price (very high for high-performance processors) and higher power consumption. The main manufacturers of discrete video adapters, as well as in the market of stationary video cards, are AMD-ATI and NVidia, which offer the widest range of solutions.
Hybrid discrete graphics (Hybrid graphics). As the name suggests, it is a combination of the above methods, which became possible with the advent of the PCI Express bus. There is a small amount of video memory physically soldered on the board, which can be virtually expanded by using the main random access memory... A compromise solution that, with varying degrees of success, tries to neutralize the disadvantages of the above two types, but does not completely eliminate them.

Notes

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

See what "Integrated graphics processor" is in other dictionaries:

Video card of the GeForce 4 family, with a cooler A video card (also known as a graphics card, graphics card, video adapter) is a device that converts an image in the computer's memory into a video signal for a monitor. ... ... Wikipedia

The PC speaker is the simplest sound reproduction device used in IBM PC computers. Before specialized sound cards was the main device for sound reproduction. The current PC speaker remains standard ... ... Wikipedia

For a long time, the integrated systems market was completely under the rule of Intel, while the level of performance of integrated graphics in 3D applications was below any criticism. However, it was originally intended for the corporate sector of the market and fully satisfied its needs.

ATI and NVIDIA also produced integrated chipsets with a video core of their own design, but their market share was small, since the main focus of these companies is the release of discrete graphics solutions. At one time, the performance of Intel integrated graphics was in no way inferior to competitors, but the speed and functionality of ATI and NVIDIA products grew much faster. And since the advent of AMD 780G and NVIDIA GeForce 9300 chipsets, the difference in 3D performance has become quite significant, not to mention support for hardware HD video decoding. Intel responded to the emergence of these products with the release of the G4x series chipsets, but they did not close the performance gap. Then Intel seriously thought about it and ... prepared a local revolution.

So, in early 2010, Intel introduced a number of new chipsets H55, H57 and Q57, as well as several Clarkdale processors with an integrated graphics core. The latter is called Intel HD Graphics and is a logical continuation of the Intel GMA X4x00 family, which is an integral part of Intel G41-G45 chipsets. The new processors are made in the LGA1156 form factor and are divided into three families - Core i5, Core i3 and Pentium, which have some differences in operating frequencies and functionality.

What systems are the new products designed for? First, these are mid-range computers intel chipset P55, whose owners are looking to save some money and purchase an inexpensive processor. The cheapest models today are the Core i3-530 and Pentium G6950 processors, which are offered in stores for about 3800 and 3000 rubles. respectively. This is a very good offer, but the owner of such a system should be prepared for the fact that he will not be able to use the integrated graphics core, and the performance of the memory subsystem will be slightly lower than that of systems with Intel Core i5 processors on the Lynnfield core. The fact is that the P55 chipset does not support the Intel FDI (Flexible Display Interface; modified DisplayPort protocol) bus, which carries the video signal from the graphics core. Note that the memory controller for Lynnfield processors is integrated into the processor core, while in Clarkdale processors it is part of the graphics core. The latter is a separate crystal, which, moreover, is made according to a different 45 nm process technology (the processor core has 32 nm). Roughly speaking, Intel engineers have combined the Clarkdale processor core and the improved G45 northbridge in one package. Thus, we can make a preliminary conclusion that the popularity of the Intel P55 + Clarkdale bundle will be directly proportional to the number of users who want to save 3000-4000 rubles. (the difference between the cheapest Clarkdale (Core i3-530, Pentium G6950) and Lynnfield (Core i5-750) models.

The second group of users plans to use Clarkdale processors for their intended purpose, namely in conjunction with the H55, H57 and Q57 chipsets, with which it becomes possible to use the integrated graphics core. It is worth noting here that the speed and functionality of the Intel HD Graphics core of the Clarkdale processors significantly surpasses the corresponding parameters of the graphics cores of the G4x family of chipsets and, moreover, the G3x chipsets. However, motherboards based on "outdated" chipsets do not disappear from store shelves at all. The reason is quite simple - HD Graphics is not currently intended to replace budget graphics. This is confirmed by the price level: if a bundle of a Clarkdale processor and a motherboard on the H55 chipset costs more than 7000 rubles. (3500 + 4000), then a system based on the G45 chipset with an almost identical LGA775 processor costs a couple of thousand rubles cheaper. At the same time, the use of motherboards based on G41, G31 chipsets, as well as super-cheap Intel Celeron processors, allows you to assemble a system for about 3300 rubles, which is more than half the price of an integrated LGA1156 platform. And needless to say that the productivity of an accountant or an office worker will be exactly the same on any of the listed computers.

However, the future of systems with integrated graphics is clearly associated with the LGA1156 platform. The fact is that Intel plans to release new line Celeron processors with integrated graphics, and at very competitive prices relative to the current Celeron models. In addition, it can be assumed that motherboards for such processors will also be significantly cheaper. The reason is that the ICH10 "south bridge" costs about $ 3, and the "south bridges" previous generations - and even cheaper. At the same time, motherboard manufacturers manage to create products on chipsets G41, G31 worth 1500-1800 rubles. and get some kind of profit. As for the Intel H55 chipset, at present the "official" price for it is $ 40, but in terms of functionality this chip fully corresponds to the "south bridge" ICH10, with the exception of support for the Intel FDI protocol. Accordingly, Intel has a significant price reduction reserve, using which the company can regulate the speed of user transition from the LGA775 platform (G31, G41-G45) to the LGA1156 platform. Simply put, Intel can create a situation even tomorrow when the cost of a bundle of an integrated Celeron LGA1156 processor and a motherboard on the H55 chipset will amount to the already mentioned 3300 rubles.

Summing up the preliminary results, we can say that at the moment the combination of the Clarkdale processor and the Intel H55 chipset is intended for home computers whose users are not fond of video games, but actively use PCs for multimedia, including playback of HD content. By the way, in our materials, we have already said that Intel has significantly modified the blocks of the graphics core responsible for hardware decoding of video in MPEG2, VC-1 and H.264 formats. Recall that in addition, the Intel HD Graphics core can decode two independent video streams simultaneously, as well as transmit data in Dolby TrueHD / DTS-HD Master Audio formats in their original form.

Returning to video games, we note that any built-in video core cannot be compared in speed with discrete high-end and mid-range graphics cards. However, do not forget about the mass of old, as well as relatively simple ("casual") games that are quite undemanding to the speed of the graphics subsystem, but have a certain popularity among users. However, in testing we will use modern games, since they most accurately reflect the difference in speed between different systems.

But before proceeding directly to testing, let's look at the subject of today's review - an Intel Core i3-530 processor.

The CPU-Z utility reports the following information:

Here is a table of specifications for Intel processors based on the Clarkdale core:

Series
Core
Bclk, MHz
Memory
L3, Mb
Technical process	32 nm (45 nm video core)	32 nm (45 nm video core)	32 nm (45 nm video core)
TurboBoost support
TDP, W

⇡ Performance

In almost all reviews of Clarkdale processors, the performance of its graphics core was compared to integrated systems based on Intel G45 and AMD 785G chipsets. In the first pair, Clarkdale's superiority is quite understandable, while the second is causing the eternal debate "AMD versus Intel". Therefore, to make this test as interesting as possible, we compared the speed of Intel HD Graphics to the best integrated chipset for Intel processors. The last one is NVIDIA GeForce 9300, which was released more than a year ago and is intended for processors in the LGA775 form factor (we will not dwell on the friction between NVIDIA and Intel in terms of licensing products for LGA1156 / LGA1366). Thus, we will look at the progress of integrated graphics performance within the Intel platform. In addition, we carried out an additional series of tests in which we equalized clock frequency Intel Core i3-530 and Core 2 Duo E7200 processors, which will allow you to estimate the "pure" difference in the speeds of graphics cores different manufacturers... And finally, to this comparison was as complete and useful as possible, we added the performance results of the latest AMD 890G chipset, as well as a kind of starting point - the results of the Intel G41 chipset.

The following equipment was used in the test system:

Test Equipment
Processors	Intel Core 2 Duo E7200 on the Wolfdale core Intel Core i3-530 based on Clarkdale core AMD Phenom II X3 720
Motherboard	ASUS P7H55-M Pro on Intel H55 chipset ASUS P5N7A-VM on NVIDIA GeForce 9300
Cooler	Gigabyte g-power Intel LGA1156 BOX
Video card	Integrated graphics NVIDIA GeForce 9300 Integrated Intel HD Graphics Integrated ATI Radeon HD4290 graphics Intel Integrated Graphics GMA X4500
HDD	Samsung HD160JJ
Memory	2x 1024 MB DDR3 A-Data AD31600X001GU 2x 1024 MB GoodRAM DDR2 GP1066D264L5 / 2GDC
Power Supply	Floston Energetix E2FP-1000W
OS	MS Windows 7

First, let's look at the results of synthetic tests.

Application software tests

SuperPI result is measured in seconds, i.e. less is better.

Data compression (WinRAR) was measured in kb / s, i.e. more is better.

Game software tests

As far as speed is concerned, the HD Graphics core has shown itself to be the best when compared with the NVIDIA GeForce 9300 core. However, Intel graphics have certain architectural weaknesses, which, however, are more than compensated for by the high-speed processor core. As for the AMD platform, it is understandable that it won in most tests due to the combination of the latest generation of the graphics core and a rather powerful processor (moreover, not cheap - it is 500 rubles more expensive than Intel Core i3-530). Note that the range of Intel has processors with integrated graphics more powerful than the Core i3-530, and the difference in platform speed can be much less (or disappear altogether).

It should be noted that if there was a motherboard based on the NVIDIA GeForce 9300 chipset with support for Intel Core i3 processors, then the performance of such a platform would be much higher than the Intel Core i3 + Intel H55 bundle. This is supported by two facts. First, the performance of the Clarkdale processor core is noticeably higher than the speed of the Wolfdale core when operating at the same frequency. This can be seen in both synthetic benchmarks and real-world applications. Secondly, as the speed of the Intel Core i3 processor core increases, the overall 3D graphics performance does not increase. At the same time, the NVIDIA chipset has a significant headroom in terms of scaling 3D performance depending on processor speed. However, Intel did not renew the licensing cooperation with NVIDIA (moreover, it made it share the SLI technology), which makes the appearance of new NVIDIA chipsets for the LGA1156 platform an unlikely event. Accordingly, in the near future, Intel systems with integrated graphics will be based exclusively on their own chipsets.

Now let's touch on the cost of Intel Core i3 processors. There is a certain paradox here - this processor is both expensive and cheap. For the buyer of a system with motherboard based on the Intel P55 chipset and a discrete graphics card, this processor is definitely cheap and allows you to save 3000-4000 rubles. This is a significant amount that can be spent on a more powerful video card and, as a result, get a faster system. As for the buyer of an office or home system with integrated graphics, this family of processors is very expensive and, moreover, requires quite expensive motherboard based on Intel H55 chipset. Therefore, perhaps the only users for whom the purchase of a bundle of an Intel Core i3 processor and a motherboard on the H55 chipset is justified are those who make high demands on the processor speed, and their requirements for the graphics subsystem are limited to playing HD content.

Type