Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

HD Graphics 4600: 3D And Quick Sync

The Core i7-4770K Review: Haswell Is Faster; Desktop Enthusiasts Yawn
By

Last month, Intel made a lot of noise about its new Iris Pro and Iris Graphics branding, warranted, it said, by a tremendous leap forward in performance. Core i7-4770K doesn’t get any of that. Instead, it features HD Graphics 4600, an evolution of Sandy Bridge’s HD Graphics 3000 and Ivy Bridge’s HD Graphics 4000.

Back when Intel introduced us to Sandy Bridge, fellow Tom Piazza described the work that went into modularizing different components of the graphics engine. In fact, in my Core i7-3770K coverage, I created the following numbered image to illustrate the company’s targeted approach to augmenting its partitioned design:

Here's the version that Tom used at IDF last year to illustrate Haswell. Note that there's a sixth domain, since the architecture has a video quality engine now.

Haswell maintains the same architectural partitioning, and adds more resources. Yes, there’s DirectX 11.1, OpenCL 1.2, and OpenGL 4.0 support, but performance is mostly affected by a shift from 16 to 20 programmable execution units in Haswell’s GT2 implementation. Across the next five pages, we’ll explore the impact of a more powerful graphics subsystem using average frame rates, frame rates over time, and frame time variance between consecutive frames.

The outcome, though, sounds a lot like what we said last year and the year before. Mainly, as it pertains to HD Graphics 4600, on-die graphics is fine for mainstream titles with light 3D workloads, but is quickly overwhelmed by common desktop resolutions in more taxing games. AMD isn’t much better off in this regard, but Intel still hasn’t caught up.

I’m at least happy to see the company using HD Graphics 4600 across its product line, where it previously armed lower-end chips with stripped-down graphics engines.

Improved Quick Sync

There’s quite a bit to discuss when it comes to Intel’s Quick Sync feature, which I introduced on this page in Intel’s Second-Gen Core CPUs: The Sandy Bridge Review. Intel followed up with an improved version of Quick Sync on Ivy Bridge (discussed here) that seemed to introduce mostly performance-oriented enhancements. Haswell’s implementation mixes in more speed and configurable quality dials.

For example, previous versions of Quick Sync exposed three pre-defined blends of performance and quality that Intel calls target usages. This time around, there are seven. Really, the intricacies deserve a story of their own. But at the highest-quality TU1 setting, HD Graphics 4600 is significantly better looking than 4000. Meanwhile, the fastest TU7 should be faster, higher-quality, and more battery-friendly for mobile devices on HD Graphics 4600 than 4000.

We did have a chance to run the latest beta of HandBrake, which is now available in Quick Sync- and OpenCL-optimized trim, on Intel’s Core i7s and AMD’s A10-5800K.

By no means is this meant as a slight to AMD. After all, the same task takes 226 seconds to run on the APU’s x86 cores alone, so there’s certainly an advantage to turning on OpenCL. However, Quick Sync drops a Core i7-4770K from 113 seconds (using the x86 cores-only) to 14. I had to ask Intel’s François Piednoël if there was any way this could be correct. Apparently, this is the expected behavior.

Each generation behind Haswell takes a second longer to finish the task. Just imagine if this were a full-length, Blu-ray-quality video, though.

Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the UK Article comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

Display all 20 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 1 Hide
    phil_livesey , 1 June 2013 16:56
    Yet another competition not open to UK residents, despite this being on the UK site. Thankyou Tomshardware!!!!
  • 0 Hide
    Pailin , 1 June 2013 18:06
    Sounds... disappointing after hearing about the Uber high LN OCs.
    Also thought I recently heard somewhere of others getting Nice 5GHz+ OC's on water and Very low vcore's - perhaps you guys have a Poor batch?
  • 0 Hide
    das_stig , 1 June 2013 19:46
    So once again, the UK site publicises a competition as part of a review and once again, it's limited to the US readers. Come on TH tis just sucks and shows that you don't give a toss about the rest of the world. The internet is a global community, it doesn't stop at the US border. Surely your programming monkies can code a conditional statement to blockout content if outside the U.S of Ass or are they to busy coding up more ad boxes ????
  • 0 Hide
    daglesj , 1 June 2013 21:01
    Guys, you are posting this on the useless and superfluous UK version.
    No one will be reading it.
  • 0 Hide
    mi1ez , 2 June 2013 11:01
    Quote:
    the only arrangement emerging today is the quad-core SoC

    SoC is pushing it a bit given it doesn't contain RAM, USB, network, etc.
  • 0 Hide
    bwrlane , 2 June 2013 14:08
    Great article, but what a let down. Ivy Bridge was already a disappointment, but Haswell is far more disappointing even than that. My 2700k based PC can manage 4.84GHz under full load, while remaining stable. My 3770k PC can do 4.74GHz. The IPC improvements are almost exactly compensated for by the lower attainable clock speed.
    But with Haswell, the world has gone backwards. Apparently, a 4770k can be pushed to 4.4GHz and that's it. That's a 7% reduction in clock speed. Since most benchmarks don't show a 7% improvement at stock, Haswell is slower than the Ivy Bridge that it replaced.
    For years we've been hearing that the answer to all our tech questions is "you have to wait for Haswell for that". But as this article shows, that was a lot of hot air.
  • 0 Hide
    doive1231 , 2 June 2013 19:33
    What a load of baloney we were spun about Haswell graphics. I read it would be a real step change and we should expect something special. Well, the comparisons between HD4000 and HD4600 are a real kick in the teeth. Nothing more that a few frames per second in most tests. Bah, Intel. And not I won't be getting Crystalwell.
  • 0 Hide
    selfmade_exe , 2 June 2013 21:45
    amd trinity gets bottlenecked by 1600 ram!!!
  • 0 Hide
    JRAtk94 , 2 June 2013 23:42
    Yay for AMD.
    Finally, AMD wins on price AND performance.
  • 0 Hide
    selfmade_exe , 3 June 2013 22:22
    TO ALL THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS TEST: I DARE YOU "CLEVER" TESTERS TO TEST AMD TRINITY WITH 1866 RAM OR ABOVE, AND ALSO COMPARE WITH RICHLANT FLAGSHIP. ALSO, PLZ RUN GPU_CAPS_VIEWER -> THE JULIA SET WITH GPU OPENCL AND COMPARE WITH TRINITY! PERIOD!
  • 0 Hide
    Tedfoo25 , 5 June 2013 08:34
    I'm quite impressed actually. With a decent overclock, you are essentially getting a 3930k on the cheap with a socket that will have CPUs developed for it in the future.
  • 0 Hide
    mateau , 11 June 2013 15:22
    Haswell is old tech already. AMD just rekeased FX-9590 a 5 ghz 8 core MONSTER that is sure to stomp all over Hasbeen. And the FX-950 is unlocked for overclocking!!!!!
  • 0 Hide
    Alps , 11 June 2013 19:26
    "several strides behind"?? I'll but an AMD FX-8350 and overclock it, thanks for the usual biased review!!
  • 0 Hide
    Alps , 11 June 2013 19:26
    "several strides behind"?? I'll but an AMD FX-8350 and overclock it, thanks for the usual biased review!!
  • 0 Hide
    Alps , 11 June 2013 19:26
    "several strides behind"?? I'll but an AMD FX-8350 and overclock it, thanks for the usual biased review!!
  • 0 Hide
    Alps , 11 June 2013 19:26
    "several strides behind"?? I'll but an AMD FX-8350 and overclock it, thanks for the usual biased review!!
  • 0 Hide
    Alps , 11 June 2013 19:29
    "several strides behind"?? I'll but an AMD FX-8350 and overclock it, THANKS for the usual BIASED review!!
  • -1 Hide
    genz , 16 June 2013 19:49
    Why are we comparing a dual module CPU to a quad core/8 thread one? Shouldn't you be using the quad module/8 core AMD chip?
  • 0 Hide
    genz , 16 June 2013 19:49
    Why are we comparing a dual module CPU to a quad core/8 thread one? Shouldn't you be using the quad module/8 core AMD chip?
  • -1 Hide
    genz , 16 June 2013 19:51
    Why are we comparing a dual module CPU to a quad core/8 thread one? Shouldn't you be using the quad module/8 core AMD chip?