831 posts shown.
Timothy Kim60 said:Broadwell uses DDR3, while Skylake (which moves to DDR4) actually has weaker integrated graphics than both Broadwell and those AMD options. Intel and AMD handle their GPUs quite differently; Broadwell pulls its performance from that expensive L4 cache (128 MB of eDRAM) and utilizes a much larger iGPU area thanks to the advanced 14nm process—where the CPU and iGPU basically split the die fifty-fifty. Because of that, AMD's integrated graphics from that era aren't necessarily more powerful (you can see that in the links above); they might be more efficient since they get similar performance out of a smaller footprint on a 28nm process with fewer transistors and cores, and they come in much more affordable processors. One guy explained the whole concept using a really interesting analogy about horses and donkeys here.
But honestly, nobody cares how they do it—the fact is they're faster. It's just that Intel chose to only include this tech in high-end chips, making them sort of a trophy feature for expensive processors. Most people buying those rigs have a dedicated GPU anyway.
Timothy Kim60 said:I'm not saying it's weak—it's actually the strongest integrated GPU we've seen yet—but looking at these first two reviews, you get two completely different stories. One makes it look like it's nearly hitting GTX 750 levels (which would be incredible), though that might just be a testing fluke or a specific trick I mentioned earlier. Then the second review shows it performing worse than a GTX 750 in the exact same game, which is pretty disappointing; again, likely a mistake since it outperforms that card in other titles. Both reviews dropped at once from sites owned by the same guy, so you can't really claim one is biased against the other.
edit
You really can't draw any solid conclusions until a third source weighs in:
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages...adwell,14.html
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...rrives-12.html
Since it's about 7-15% faster than the integrated graphics on the 7850K or 7870K, and those are only slightly slower than a GTX 750 ddr3, then the Intel HD Graphics is basically on par with that GTX 750 ddr3.
It definitely seems illogical that they wouldn't include this in Pentium or i3 chips.
crimsonstag84 said:1 x DDR3 8GB (1x8GB) Kingston, HyperX Fury, 1866MHz, CL10
1 x HDD Seagate 1TB, Serial ATA III, 7200 rpm, ST1000DM003
1 x LC Power Cosmo Cool, 92 mm, Hydraulic bearing, 800-2200 rpm,
1 x Processor AMD Kaveri Athlon ii x4 860, 3.70GHz 4cores,cache : 4MB
1 x Gigabyte GA-F2A68HM-DS2, AMD A68H, 2 x 1.5V DDR3 DIMM
1 x Gigabyte R7 370 WF2 OC, 2GB GDDR5, PCI-E 3.0, 256 bit
1 x MS KNIGHT midi tower case without PSU
2 x Thermaltake Pure 12 case fan, 12 cm diameter, 1000 rpm, 19.5 dB
1 x Power Supply Fortron 500W, Hyper, PPA5005003, 12cm fan
~$1367 financing available via American Express
@Bryan Taylor6
That power supply is subpar... plus the price isn't actually on credit, it's 5% higher which makes it roughly $1417.
Kimberly Gomez34 said:To make matters even worse, there was someone else who used to aggressively argue that the 280X was superior to the GTX 960 (specifically the 4GB version)—claiming it was basically on par with an R9 380 but with more VRAM since it's more powerful. Now, apparently, that's considered the "wrong" choice just because it doesn't have an Intel chip inside. He used to preach about getting the best performance at any cost, even if it meant building a slightly bulkier rig.
Kimberly Gomez34 said:You're talking nonsense. How exactly are you supposed to wear out a motherboard if the overclocking voltages end up being lower than the factory defaults? For instance, if you have a 3.5GHz clock at 1.35V stock, but when you're tweaking it, you hit 4 GHz at maybe 1.28V—depending on the specific silicon lottery outcome. And this whole idea about AMD overvolting? That applies to basically every AMD processor from the last decade.
Robert Rodriguez2 said:Sure, but that same i5 costs 50% more than the FX. That means you end up settling for a weaker GPU or cutting corners elsewhere just to make the budget work.
The graphics card is the heart of any gaming rig. The FX isn't actually as bad as everyone makes it out to be, but hey, at the end of the day, you get what you pay for.😁
swiftfalcon89 said:1x Gigabyte 970A-DS3P, AM3+, Intel 970 SB950, 4x DDR3 2000(O.C.)/1866
1x Intel Core i7 Processor 3.3GHz, 16MB, 125W, AM3+, FD8300WMHK
1x DDR3 8GB (1x8GB) Kingston, Kingston Fury, 1866MHz, CL10
1x NVIDIA GeForce GTX R9-280X-TDFD, DD Radeon R9 280X 1000M Boost 3GB DDR5
1x HDD Western Digital 1TB, Serial ATA III, 7200 rpm, ST1000DM003
1x Kingston SSD 120GB V300, 2.5" 7mm, SATA 3 6G, 7mm to 9.5mm
1x Power Supply Fortron 600W, Hyper, PPA6003302, 12cm fan
1x Zalman Z1 mid tower case. 199(W)x432(H)x457(D)mm. MB standard
LOCATION: US Local Area
PRICE: $1825
Free assembly and shipping
Timothy Kim60 said:I'm here. Here. You've got some heavy hitters here: the beefy Gigabyte G1 GTX 960 with 4GB of VRAM, the EVGA SSC, and even just a standard Sapphire GTX 970. Based on the video, I'm assuming they were running newer drivers at the time. The GTX 960 pulls ahead by about 25% in titles like Battlefield 4, Crysis 3, and Far Cry 4, and it's roughly 17% faster in Metro and Tomb Raider. The real win for the GTX 960, though, is the three-year warranty and much lower power draw—it's pulling around 120W compared to that 200-210W range during gaming.
