add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube

cpu graphics

mattmonster

7 months ago

intel has built in graphics obviously for high gaming people buy graphics cards im curious though

each new generation do the internal graphics in the cpu get better like ina few will they like ata round a 1060 gpu or so? for say a 9th gen i5

Comments

  • 7 months ago
  • 2 points

9th Gen are out and are reusing the 6th generation integrated graphics again.

And it doesn't really end up mattering as AMD has shown with their APU.

A10-7850k was able to run low-minimum settings at 1080p in then current titles.

The newest 2400G finds itself in the same place several years later even though a massive improvement in performance over the older model.

  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

no the iGPU's around are well behind the dedicated stuff (for most the part). With each new generation you may see improvements, but usually you will be behind the dedicated stuff. the iGPU in AMD's 2400g is arguably the best performing iGPU in gaming situations and that is only trading blows with the GT1030 for most the part, so well behind a GTX 1060 in terms of performance (though not surprising):

https://www.anandtech.com/show/12425/marrying-vega-and-zen-the-amd-ryzen-5-2400g-review/5

Intel's iGPU's do do see improvements in certain workloads outside of gaming compared to the AMD stuff, but for gaming lags fairly behind.

AMD and Intel do upgrade the iGPU's on occasions, The current iGPU in the 9900k etc stretch's back to the 6700k (well the architecture as a whole does) but Intel will be doing so with there next generation of CPUs which come with iGPUs to catch up with AMD's APU's with icelake and beyond: https://www.techpowerup.com/253928/intel-gen11-architecture-and-gt2-ice-lake-igpu-detailed whitepaper with much more details: https://software.intel.com/sites/default/files/managed/db/88/The-Architecture-of-Intel-Processor-Graphics-Gen11_R1new.pdf

  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

man i guess they wont ever be good i guess makes sense since if cpus had good enough graphics people wouldnt buy gpus so they do it to help them out i guess and dont even try to increase the graphics

  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

Well this is an interesting perspective because I remember a time when (Intel) integrated graphics didn't really support any 3D gaming. In the Pentium 3 and at least the first couple of years in the Pentium 4, they were abysmal and forums had no end of people having bought a brand new prebuilt, only to discover that it only had integrated graphics and none of the games they would want to play would even launch.

So Intel's modern iGPU's are a godsend in comparison. Although the darkest days are well over a decade behind, I do suppose it's a question of what has Intel done for us lately? It sounds like they haven't updated their iGPU in a while, according to Gilroar.

I think the real problem is who do you imagine such a product would be for. Adding 1060-like performance to a CPU is going to jack up the price. But people who aren't interested in dedicated GPU's now aren't interested in a more expensive CPU with power they don't need. The existing iGPU is sufficient for most any non-gaming needs. And people who want decent gaming performance know they need to buy a GPU. Because a 1060-like solution probably isn't going to end up working nearly as well as an iGPU given the limitations current iGPU's have. It's going to have to use slower system RAM. Power draw and heat might be an issue too. A 1060 draws a lot more power than Intel's iGPU. And for as popular as OCing is an expensive, second rate solution that creates OCing impediments is not going to be popular. There's just issues to consider that go beyond Intel/AMD not wanting to cannibalize the GPU market. Or they're too dumb to do it. It's just realistically a product no one really needs or wants.

  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

i just figured with tec always improving tht=at it would get better in time

i was told that right now cpu power is better than it ever was with how fast the upgrades are besides 2001 2002 era when cpus really jumped a massive leap from 32 mb ram to 256 512 ram carts

  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

Well it is. You just have to put into perspective. IE that iGPU's are typically quite a bit more than two or three years behind a solid midrange GPU. The 1060 came out in July 2016, and the current 9th gen Intel CPU's were released in October of 2018. Even if the iGPU used in the 9th gen CPU had been updated, they'd still barely match with contemporary entry level GPUs. You're probably looking at 2024-2025 before you get something that's similar to a 1060 in performance... And you can compare the current iGPU's now to see what old flagship hardware they roughly equal too.

i was told that right now cpu power is better than it ever was with how fast the upgrades are besides 2001 2002 era when cpus really jumped a massive leap from 32 mb ram to 256 512 ram carts

Well you seem to be equating CPU power with RAM amounts which isn't really accurate. And even then discussing RAM specifically what you seem to be describing isn't accurate either.

I mean things were changing fairly rapidly 2001-2002. CPU's weren't powerful enough to meet the needs of their users for long, so newer hardware was adopted rapidly. Prices were dropping. Etc. But that was really just the status quo for the period. I bought a Pentium 3 in 2000 and by 2003 it didn't meet the minimum requirements for games. But nowdays you can still be running a 7 year old i5 2500k and play most games on at least medium settings with a decent GPU. CPU power is still increasing, but the increases are fairly small, and yet still more than most users can reasonably utilize. That's what's interesting to me, is you can use pretty dated hardware and still not be compelled to upgrade. Sure new stuff is better. But old stuff is still pretty good. So it creates some weird consumer dynamics me thinks.

  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

Well the iGPU in Intel CPUs are not for gaming. They add a video out so when someone is building a PC for non gaming use it helps save them some money where they don't have to buy a discrete GPU. Intel HD graphics is ample power for word processing, watching videos, internet usage, etc. The AMD APUs 2200g and 2400g were designed with the super budget gamer in mind so it can play a number of games albeit lower settings and/or resolutions and makes a great temporary hold out before getting an actual GPU.

When you have a seperate GPU some people may also find some use for the iGPU such as some productivity programs able to be boosted by Intel Quick Sync and other programs like OBS can use the iGPU to live encode your livestream to help alleviate processing load off the rest of your PC. It will be a very long time before igpus from either Intel or AMD competes with a GTX 1060. Right now the igpu in the 2400g only really competes with a GT 1030 at best and I strongly doubt they will try a hard push for a high end GPU being integrated for a couple of reasons. One I can see the die space taking too much room, memory bandwidth bottlenecks going to ddr4 ram as dedicated vram in GPUs is much better for that task, and even if they can do it they will cannibalize their own low end GPU market.

  • 7 months ago
  • 1 point

These posts are all correct. I'm building a 2400G and have 3733 memory so I can OC as much as I can, OC the igpu some, I should be around a 1030 gpu performance. If they made a way to plug ddr5 into the igpu it would work better, but no answers on that yet. 2400g can work nice for home theater and streaming use. You can run a rx580 with it to upgrade, but need more cpu for larger gpu cards. The 2200 is 4 core cpu, the 2400g is 4 core 8 thread and the igpu has more cores in it than the 2200. Of course the 2200 is cheaper at under 100us, many budget systems use that with a rx580 or similar.

I read the new ryzen 3xxx APU may have more gpu cores in it, but without ddr5 its unlikely to have awesome performance compared to current 2400g. Or some kind of alternate memory bus for graphics. Then you are talking about some strange mobo design to have that and maybe a strange ddr5 mem card, there is no easy answer for that and it would not be cheap...and part of of the allure of APU is they are cheap.

Sort

add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube