Intel Integrated Graphics Benchmark: 12900K UHD 770 vs. AMD R7 5700G & More
video description
Date: 2021-11-18
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 9
Ryl
I was recently doing some preliminary blender 3.0 (beta) cycles x testing (cpus vs A6000 on cuda / optix vs 6900XT on HIP). In the course of this testing I found that intel igpus are nolonger supported by cycles x due to the deprecation of opencl, and at the moment, cpu + gpu combined rendering which worked on previous versions of cycles does not seem to work correctly on cycles x, or at least there is no performance gain to be had (tried with both a 3990X + 6900XT and a 5950X + A6000). The deprecation of opencl also impacts pre-RDNA cards too. Brought it up here since I know some people render on igpu + cpu, so I figured it was a relevant point on evaluating the igpus. According to Phoronix, blender will be bringing support for intel gpus to cycles x at some point, but there was no timeline suggested, let alone committed to.
(Bit more off-topic, but these were my findings: - bear in mind they were conducted with substantially less rigor than a proper review outlet since it was just some quick testing last night)
HIP in cycles x provided the 6900XT with a massive performance increase, in my test scene it was 10x over the original cycles renderer with opencl, however, it was still being underutilized (drawing a paltry 155W on average vs 340W for the A6000 - reported power draw for the gpu only, ram, vrm inefficiency, etc draw additional power, and the reported power is not as accurate as measuring the slot + cable, but I dont have that kind of test equipment) - just not anywhere as badly as before with openCL. It was also around 3x slower than the A6000 when the A6000 was running on Cuda.
Cycles x in general provided zen2 and zen3 based chips decent uplifts of around +30-40% in my test scenes.
Cuda and optix on the A6000 provided similar during-render performance, though the initial kernel compilation time for optix was long enough that for short renders it made optix much slower.
reply
I was recently doing some preliminary blender 3.0 (beta) cycles x testing (cpus vs A6000 on cuda / optix vs 6900XT on HIP). In the course of this testing I found that intel igpus are nolonger supported by cycles x due to the deprecation of opencl, and at the moment, cpu + gpu combined rendering which worked on previous versions of cycles does not seem to work correctly on cycles x, or at least there is no performance gain to be had (tried with both a 3990X + 6900XT and a 5950X + A6000). The deprecation of opencl also impacts pre-RDNA cards too. Brought it up here since I know some people render on igpu + cpu, so I figured it was a relevant point on evaluating the igpus. According to Phoronix, blender will be bringing support for intel gpus to cycles x at some point, but there was no timeline suggested, let alone committed to.
(Bit more off-topic, but these were my findings: - bear in mind they were conducted with substantially less rigor than a proper review outlet since it was just some quick testing last night)
HIP in cycles x provided the 6900XT with a massive performance increase, in my test scene it was 10x over the original cycles renderer with opencl, however, it was still being underutilized (drawing a paltry 155W on average vs 340W for the A6000 - reported power draw for the gpu only, ram, vrm inefficiency, etc draw additional power, and the reported power is not as accurate as measuring the slot + cable, but I dont have that kind of test equipment) - just not anywhere as badly as before with openCL. It was also around 3x slower than the A6000 when the A6000 was running on Cuda.
Cycles x in general provided zen2 and zen3 based chips decent uplifts of around +30-40% in my test scenes.
Cuda and optix on the A6000 provided similar during-render performance, though the initial kernel compilation time for optix was long enough that for short renders it made optix much slower.
reply
AutoGamesNation
So glad you guys did this! Just build a system in the XPROTO mini case and currently am using my 5700g I got on sale at newegg with the iGPU for now while I wait for a decent deal on a rx6600 hopefully (have a deal I m hoping works out soon. The best I can do with the flex size power supply I m required to use in this tiny case lol!)
It s getting me by but I just started playing blade and soul and the iGPU runs it but the settings have to be turned wayyyyyyyyyy down so it doesn t look good at all kinda looks like ps2 graphics but hey at least it gets the job done haha. I read the game engine got updated this year may be why I m struggling to run it properly.
Managed to overclock the iGPU on my 5700g to 2350mhz 1.3v. 2400 worked but I got random artifacts every now and then. This is also with PBO enabled. The 2350 seems to be solid. Running a ASRock b550 phantom gaming itx/ax for anyone who cares this board came with the updated bios (v2.20) for the 5600g/5700g when I purchase it from Newegg two weeks ago. So it worked out of the box surprisingly. First time trying an ASRock board so I was pleasantly surprised
reply
So glad you guys did this! Just build a system in the XPROTO mini case and currently am using my 5700g I got on sale at newegg with the iGPU for now while I wait for a decent deal on a rx6600 hopefully (have a deal I m hoping works out soon. The best I can do with the flex size power supply I m required to use in this tiny case lol!)
It s getting me by but I just started playing blade and soul and the iGPU runs it but the settings have to be turned wayyyyyyyyyy down so it doesn t look good at all kinda looks like ps2 graphics but hey at least it gets the job done haha. I read the game engine got updated this year may be why I m struggling to run it properly.
Managed to overclock the iGPU on my 5700g to 2350mhz 1.3v. 2400 worked but I got random artifacts every now and then. This is also with PBO enabled. The 2350 seems to be solid. Running a ASRock b550 phantom gaming itx/ax for anyone who cares this board came with the updated bios (v2.20) for the 5600g/5700g when I purchase it from Newegg two weeks ago. So it worked out of the box surprisingly. First time trying an ASRock board so I was pleasantly surprised
reply
Darren
So for Intel then DDR4 is good enough don't waste money on DDR5 even if using the iGPU on the highest SKU i9 12900K and if you need Integrated graphics, AMD slaughters Intel iGPU and puts their dedicated card Xe DG1 to shame. I must admit it's not what i was expecting, i was expecting there to be a gap from DDR4 to DDR5 with more raw bandwidth but it seems iGPU on Intel is just downright pathetic and the DG1 has horrid frame times even if it's average fps is close to the AMD iGPU's. Make you wonder if the DG1 is just poorly designed or if the drivers are still garbage.
Doesn't bode well for Intels higher-end GPU's on their way
reply
So for Intel then DDR4 is good enough don't waste money on DDR5 even if using the iGPU on the highest SKU i9 12900K and if you need Integrated graphics, AMD slaughters Intel iGPU and puts their dedicated card Xe DG1 to shame. I must admit it's not what i was expecting, i was expecting there to be a gap from DDR4 to DDR5 with more raw bandwidth but it seems iGPU on Intel is just downright pathetic and the DG1 has horrid frame times even if it's average fps is close to the AMD iGPU's. Make you wonder if the DG1 is just poorly designed or if the drivers are still garbage.
Doesn't bode well for Intels higher-end GPU's on their way
reply
Clement
The biggest reason to go with the 12600K over the 5600G if you ultimately intend to game with a discrete GPU is the 5600G has scuppered performance vs the 5600X, while the 12600K has no such compromise vs the KF. Your CPU will have legs for a bit longer and you won't be stuck without a functional PC if your GPU has issues.
An iGPU's greatest benefit IMO is as a backup for troubleshooting if something goes wrong with your GPU or somewhere else on the board which only effects the dGPU. That's easily worth the 20 over the KF models IMO if you don't have a spare GPU laying around.
reply
The biggest reason to go with the 12600K over the 5600G if you ultimately intend to game with a discrete GPU is the 5600G has scuppered performance vs the 5600X, while the 12600K has no such compromise vs the KF. Your CPU will have legs for a bit longer and you won't be stuck without a functional PC if your GPU has issues.
An iGPU's greatest benefit IMO is as a backup for troubleshooting if something goes wrong with your GPU or somewhere else on the board which only effects the dGPU. That's easily worth the 20 over the KF models IMO if you don't have a spare GPU laying around.
reply
KajurN
It's disappointing that Intel has not worked on providing iGPs that could at least compete with the 3yr old VEGA, instead we get something that can barely run several year old esports titles. They're releasing GPUs soon and i feel it's a missed opportunity to both show that they mean business in the GPU space with a competitive iGP and also to show future customers they've been working on their drivers, the same ones that will be running on their dedicated GPUs and historically have ranged to be from bad to unplayable on most games.
reply
It's disappointing that Intel has not worked on providing iGPs that could at least compete with the 3yr old VEGA, instead we get something that can barely run several year old esports titles. They're releasing GPUs soon and i feel it's a missed opportunity to both show that they mean business in the GPU space with a competitive iGP and also to show future customers they've been working on their drivers, the same ones that will be running on their dedicated GPUs and historically have ranged to be from bad to unplayable on most games.
reply
Rick
If we could ever get to a point where integrated graphics can play current games at 1080p 60 FPS 1% lows, I imagine it would greatly change the landscape. Maybe when eight cores become the new four cores(and assuming programmers don't find ways to thread the hell out of every workload so everything just scales with more cores), it will leave enough die space and power budget after a few more die shrinks to have 16-24 CUs, or the interconnects will get so efficient that a chiplet can be used for the GPU portion instead.
reply
If we could ever get to a point where integrated graphics can play current games at 1080p 60 FPS 1% lows, I imagine it would greatly change the landscape. Maybe when eight cores become the new four cores(and assuming programmers don't find ways to thread the hell out of every workload so everything just scales with more cores), it will leave enough die space and power budget after a few more die shrinks to have 16-24 CUs, or the interconnects will get so efficient that a chiplet can be used for the GPU portion instead.
reply
Aditya
Bottom Line :
Intel : Here's our newest Intel 7 top of the line CPU, WITH integrated graphics. IN the day and age where GPU prices are through the roof, apart from that, you need to Pay for the CPU, a motherboard upgrade, a RAM upgrade, and decide if you want to deal with a Windows upgrade at the same time.
AMD : Here's an APU. Pop it into any AM4 motherboard you have, update the BIOS and you're good :D
reply
Bottom Line :
Intel : Here's our newest Intel 7 top of the line CPU, WITH integrated graphics. IN the day and age where GPU prices are through the roof, apart from that, you need to Pay for the CPU, a motherboard upgrade, a RAM upgrade, and decide if you want to deal with a Windows upgrade at the same time.
AMD : Here's an APU. Pop it into any AM4 motherboard you have, update the BIOS and you're good :D
reply
Sean
I know this will be controversial as everything is online these days, but I'd be interested if there are any production workload optimisations on the intel IGPs such as rendering, video encoding etc instead of just games. I honestly dont think intel target gamers with the IGPs and just aim at a usable low end workstation for productivity.
Not an intel fanboy btw, I have 3 AMD systems at home with AMD gpu's.
reply
I know this will be controversial as everything is online these days, but I'd be interested if there are any production workload optimisations on the intel IGPs such as rendering, video encoding etc instead of just games. I honestly dont think intel target gamers with the IGPs and just aim at a usable low end workstation for productivity.
Not an intel fanboy btw, I have 3 AMD systems at home with AMD gpu's.
reply
Rushtallica
The thing about intel chips is that they don't take up PCI lanes, and quicksync is a huge advantage for video decoding for applications such as Plex, Envy, and Handbrake. Still, I have and like a 5800x setup and may upgrade to a 5950x setup someday. I just wish I could combine one of those types of processors with Intel's quicksync igpu ability in a single processor. :D
reply
The thing about intel chips is that they don't take up PCI lanes, and quicksync is a huge advantage for video decoding for applications such as Plex, Envy, and Handbrake. Still, I have and like a 5800x setup and may upgrade to a 5950x setup someday. I just wish I could combine one of those types of processors with Intel's quicksync igpu ability in a single processor. :D
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
