A Look at Intel HD 5000 GPU Performance Compared to HD 4000by Anand Lal Shimpi on June 24, 2013 6:02 PM EST
When I got my hands on a Haswell based Ultrabook, Acer's recently announced S7, I was somewhat disappointed to learn that Acer had chosen to integrate Intel's HD 4400 (Haswell GT2) instead of the full blown HD 5000 (Haswell GT3) option. I published some performance data comparing HD 4400 to the previous generation HD 4000 (Ivy Bridge GT2) but added that at some point I'd like to take a look at HD 5000 to see how much more performance that gets you. It turns out that all of Apple's 2013 MacBook Air lineup features Haswell GT3 (via the standard Core i5-4250U or the optional Core i7-4650U). Earlier today I published our review of the 2013 MBA, but for those not interested in the MBA but curious about how Haswell GT3 stacks up in a very thermally limited configuration I thought I'd do a separate post breaking out the findings.
In mobile, Haswell is presently available in five different graphics configurations:
|Intel 4th Generation Core (Haswell) Mobile GPU Configurations|
|Intel Iris Pro 5200||Intel Iris 5100||Intel HD 5000||Intel HD 4400||Intel HD 4200|
The top three configurations use a GPU with 40 EUs, while the HD 4400/4200 features half that. Intel will eventually introduce Haswell SKUs with vanilla Intel HD Graphics, which will only feature 10 EUs. We know how the Iris Pro 5200 performs, but that's with a bunch of eDRAM and a very high TDP. Iris 5100 is likely going to be used in Apple's 13-inch MacBook Pro with Retina Display as well as ASUS' Zenbook Infinity, neither of which are out yet. The third GT3 configuration operates under less than a third of the TDP of Iris Pro 5200. With such low thermal limits, just how fast can this GPU actually be?
First, let's look at what Intel told us earlier this year:
Compared to Intel's HD 4000 (Ivy Bridge/dark blue bar), Intel claimed roughly a 25% increase in performance with HD 5000 in 3DMark06 and a 50% increase in performance in 3DMark11. We now have the systems to validate Intel's claims, so how did they do?
In 3DMark 11 we're showing a 64% increase in performance if we compare Intel's HD 5000 (15W) to Intel's HD 4000 (17W). The 3DMark06 comparison yields a 21% increase in performance compared to Ivy Bridge ULV. In both cases we've basically validated Intel's claims. But neither of these benchmarks tell us much about actual 3D gaming performance. In our 2013 MBA review we ran a total of eight 3D games. I've summarized the performance advantages in the table below:
|Intel HD 5000 (Haswell ULT GT3) vs. Intel HD 4000 (Ivy Bridge ULV GT2)|
|GRID 2||Super Street Fighter IV: AE||Minecraft||Borderlands 2||Tomb Raider (2013)||Sleeping Dogs||Metro: LL||BioShock 2|
|HD 5000 Advantage||16.2%||12.4%||16.9%||3.0%||40.8%||6.5%||2.3%||24.4%|
The data ranges from a meager 2.3% advantage over Ivy Bridge ULV to as much as 40.8%. On average, Intel's HD 5000 offered a 15.3% performance advantage over Intel's HD 4000 graphics. Whether or not that's impressive really depends on your perspective. Given the sheer increase in transistor count, a 15% gain on average seems a bit underwhelming. To understand why, you have to keep in mind that the performance gains come on the same 22nm node, with a lower overall TDP. Haswell ULT GT3 has to be faster, with less thermal headroom than Ivy Bridge ULV GT2.
The range of performance improvement really depends on turbo residency. With only a 15W TDP (inclusive of the CPU and PCH), games that have more CPU activity or the right combination of GPU activity will see lower GPU clocks. In Borderlands 2 for example, I confirmed that the GT3 GPU alone was using up all of the package TDP thus forcing lower clocks:
All of this just brings us to the conclusion that increasing processor graphics performance in thermally limited conditions is very tough, particularly without a process shrink. The fact that Intel even spent as many transistors as it did just to improve GPU performance tells us a lot about Intel's thinking these days. Given how thermally limited Haswell GT3 is at 15W, it seems like Broadwell can't come soon enough for another set of big gains in GPU performance.
I also put together a little graph showing the progression of low TDP Intel GPU performance since Sandy Bridge. I used GRID 2 as it seemed to scale the most reasonably across all GPUs:
Note how the single largest gain happens with the move from 32nm to 22nm (there was also a big architectural improvement with HD 4000 so it's not all process). There's definite tapering that happens as the last three GPUs are on 22nm. The move to 14nm should help the performance curve keep its enthusiasm.
If you want more details and Intel HD 5000 numbers feel free to check out the GPU sections of our 2013 MacBook Air review.
Post Your CommentPlease log in or sign up to comment.
View All Comments
TheinsanegamerN - Saturday, July 13, 2013 - linkthis. notice that less cpu intensive games see a much higher performance boost, since the cpu cores dont have to boost as high, while more demanding games dont speed up much at all. the high temperatures also impacted the boost clocks, something else the macbook pro should remedy.
A5 - Monday, June 24, 2013 - linkCheck the battery life tests in the main article.
Roland00Address - Monday, June 24, 2013 - linkSo in other words there is very little reason for OEMS to pay the $50 extra for the hd5000 instead of the hd4400, unless they use cTDP up? cTDP would allow the maximum tdp to go up giving the graphics more headroom to high the higher turbos.
Then again if the OEMs would be okay with better cooling to use the higher cTDP chips why wouldn't they just go the for the chip with the base tdp of 28 watts instead of 15? You can even get iris 5100 in the 28w chips thus you can use the iris marketing.
Is anybody going to use the hd5000 besides apple?
ImSpartacus - Monday, June 24, 2013 - linkDo the 28W chips cTDP up? And to what TDP?
IntelUser2000 - Tuesday, June 25, 2013 - linkThere's no cTDPup in the 28W and 15W GT3 chips. The 15W GT2 does however.
Ikefu - Monday, June 24, 2013 - linkVery cool, definitely good for comparisons to Ivy Bridge. I'd really like to see those same game benchmarks for Haswell GT2 graphics as well. I'd like a Haswell convertible but I want to see how much an upgrade from HD4400 to HD5000 nets me. Thanks!
mavere - Monday, June 24, 2013 - linkThe HD5000's underwhelming performance boost really is interesting because that higher price tag seems to be doing very very little, and Apple isn't the type to cut into its profit margins just for the hell of it.
Anand, do you know if compute/openCL benchmarks perform any differently?
iwod - Monday, June 24, 2013 - linkAgain the main problem with Intel Graphics are drivers. Intel tends to stop development of previous generation graphics drivers once they have a new generation of graphics Arch out. Which is schedule to appear for Broadwell SoC. This wouldn't be much of a problem for since they develop their own graphics drivers. Sometimes i wonder if this means Apple get a much heifier discount from Intel since Intel spend less resources on the Mac Platform.
Given the performance of Intel 5000 i understand why Apple doesn't want to make the Air Retina.
ilkhan - Tuesday, June 25, 2013 - linkWhat is the program used to grab the power usage graph? Would love to be able to collect that info myself.
mikk - Tuesday, June 25, 2013 - linkThis is Intels Extreme Tuning Utility.
Btw, I miss also here some GPU frequency recordings with GPUz. It would be interesting to know how far the turbo goes up in games.