Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

HD Graphics 4600: Impressive OpenCL

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

These days, we think beyond 3D when someone starts talking about graphics processing. Heterogeneous computing is gaining traction, and there’s an increasingly large library of applications we’re able to test featuring OpenCL support.

Intel shipped its first OpenCL-capable drivers for the Sandy Bridge-era CPUs, though they only supported the processor. With Ivy Bridge, the company added HD Graphics 2500/4000 compatibility, allowing developers to leverage the x86 cores or symmetric execution units for general-purpose computing tasks. Haswell gets OpenCL 1.2 compliance (as does Ivy Bridge thanks to the latest driver package), along with performance improvements for OpenCL kernels running on the CPU and HD Graphics engine. What’s the result? There’s an app for that (several, actually)!

Each platform is running on integrated graphics, without interference from a discrete GPU.

Let’s start with Sony Vegas Pro 12. Because its graphics component isn’t supported, Intel’s Core i7-2700K sets our baseline with CPU-only results. Stepping up to the -3770K yields moderate gains based on architectural tweaks. But it’s not until we harness HD Graphics 4000 that the workload gets more than 50 seconds hacked out of it. Core i7-4770K furthers those gains with HD Graphics 4600.

This isn’t a story about AMD, but A10-5800K steals the show a bit by taking a relatively anemic dual-module processor and supercharging it with Radeon graphics, cutting the task by more than half. The Trinity-based APU is about as fast as Haswell without OpenCL enabled, though it’d be fairer to simply say it beats Core i7-2700K, since Sandy Bridge can’t benefit from OpenCL support.

You’ll see more of this benchmark later in the story when we drop a GeForce GTX Titan into each platform. Driven only by integrated graphics, though, Haswell smokes its predecessor through a combination of faster x86 cores and a larger graphics component. AMD’s A10-5800K finishes second, ahead of the much pricier Core i7-3770K.

Another popular general-purpose title, WinZip is mildly accelerated by OpenCL. Only certain files (those larger than 8 MB) benefit from heterogeneous computing, so the impact of OpenCL on a compression test is wholly workload-dependent. Nevertheless, we see another example of Haswell faring well against prior generations and AMD’s APU.

These thumbnails represent three mathematical models for estimating the future worth of options. I ran them all at FP32 precision. They universally show Core i7-4770K at the top of our four-contender stack, with A10-5800K and Core i7-3770K trading blows underneath.

Because SiSoftware’s Sandra 2013 lets me isolate CPU, GPU, and combined acceleration, we see that a CPU working alone in these calculations is really pretty slow. The HD Graphics engine is where it’s at. And, in some cases, adding capable x86 cores on top of that does help improve the outcome.

CPU performance makes the most significant difference in LuxMark, though combining the effects of both subsystems is pretty powerful, too. For the sake of comparison, if you have a single GeForce GTX Titan installed, you get about 1,300 K samples/sec. That’s only 60% or so faster than a Core i7-4770K and its on-die graphics.

It may not be leading the field in 3D performance, but Intel certainly deserves credit for its work with OpenCL.

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?