Intel Says Iris and Iris Pro Graphics Can Outperform 80% of Discrete GPUs – Casual and Mainstream Users Don’t Need dGPUs

[MageTank]

Excavator is only CPU muArch. Carrizo is the whole package of unified CPU and iGPU which is itself a macro architecture.

Seems overly complicated to me. Either way, both of you were technically correct. BR is the Carrizo of AM4. Both based on the same architecture, and similar features on paper. 

[Dabombinable]

Seems overly complicated to me. Either way, both of you were technically correct. BR is the Carrizo of AM4. Both based on the same architecture, and similar features on paper. 

Just like Hawaii and Grenada.

[patrickjp93]

Just like Hawaii and Grenada.

Not the best analogue, but if that'll satisfy you...

[orangecat]

Let me just chime in here, Intel's iGPU may be getting faster and faster but support and compatibility are crap. I helped a friend of mine build a brand new Skylake system with a unlocked i5 and since he couldn't afford the GTX 970 he wanted to put in it we decided he could just use the iGPU to game for a while since my 3570K's iGPU was fast enough for medium having around 720p so I figured the newer iGPU shoudl be significantly faster and may even be capable of 1080p gaming, well i was wrong. When trying to play Battlefront the game would simply just crash when launching. it wasn't that the iGPU wasn't fast enough it was just unsupported so as great as the iGPU performance might be it's still missing all the compatibility of a dedicated GPU so if Intel expects this to be true they need to fix these issues. I've also had problems with my HD4000 graphics in the past where some applications just simply refuse to use it even if it should be fast enough and it does support DX11.

 

So in the end I still don't care about Intel's iGPU's not because they aren't fast (because they are getting there) but simply because they don't work.

[vanished]

Let me just chime in here, Intel's iGPU may be getting faster and faster but support and compatibility are crap.

Not trying to argue your story but I disagree.  I remember back to the days of integrated graphics being on the motherboard and it causing all sorts of BSODs and so on for Vista users, and games often not even supporting laptop GPUs, never mind integrated.  When I got my laptop (sandy bridge) I was really impressed by the fact that the iGPU would run everything exactly the same as the 6770M (well, less fps obviously but it all worked).  Seems we've come along way, at least in my opinion.

[patrickjp93]

Let me just chime in here, Intel's iGPU may be getting faster and faster but support and compatibility are crap. I helped a friend of mine build a brand new Skylake system with a unlocked i5 and since he couldn't afford the GTX 970 he wanted to put in it we decided he could just use the iGPU to game for a while since my 3570K's iGPU was fast enough for medium having around 720p so I figured the newer iGPU shoudl be significantly faster and may even be capable of 1080p gaming, well i was wrong. When trying to play Battlefront the game would simply just crash when launching. it wasn't that the iGPU wasn't fast enough it was just unsupported so as great as the iGPU performance might be it's still missing all the compatibility of a dedicated GPU so if Intel expects this to be true they need to fix these issues. I've also had problems with my HD4000 graphics in the past where some applications just simply refuse to use it even if it should be fast enough and it does support DX11.

So in the end I still don't care about Intel's iGPU's not because they aren't fast (because they are getting there) but simply because they don't work.

It's not Intel at fault. Game studios ship bad shader code. Nvidia's employees have confirmed this and that GPU drivers perform workarounds on released games. We exclusively used Haswell's iGPU in our graphics class, implementing an engine from the ground up in OpenGL, including lighting and sound. The entire OpenGL 4.x API is supported. Just because your game crashes doesn't mean Intel's to blame. It means the code for the game is bad. If 81 students can get code working flawlessly stretching across one of the big graphics APIs on Intel's drivers, so can anyone else. It's a matter of whether or not you're competent.

A graphics driver should in a perfect world do nothing but translate shader code to shader assembly and send it off as-is. Intel follows that philosophy just as they do with the software they write and support. Can you imagine if Nvidia and AMD had to rewrite their OpenCL and CUDA drivers to catch bad compute code? Intel isn't the issue. Incompetent games programmers are.

[Dabombinable]

Let me just chime in here, Intel's iGPU may be getting faster and faster but support and compatibility are crap. I helped a friend of mine build a brand new Skylake system with a unlocked i5 and since he couldn't afford the GTX 970 he wanted to put in it we decided he could just use the iGPU to game for a while since my 3570K's iGPU was fast enough for medium having around 720p so I figured the newer iGPU shoudl be significantly faster and may even be capable of 1080p gaming, well i was wrong. When trying to play Battlefront the game would simply just crash when launching. it wasn't that the iGPU wasn't fast enough it was just unsupported so as great as the iGPU performance might be it's still missing all the compatibility of a dedicated GPU so if Intel expects this to be true they need to fix these issues. I've also had problems with my HD4000 graphics in the past where some applications just simply refuse to use it even if it should be fast enough and it does support DX11.

 

So in the end I still don't care about Intel's iGPU's not because they aren't fast (because they are getting there) but simply because they don't work.

You sure your using the correct driver? Because the iGPU in my i5 4440 and 4790K launch games just fine-you'd only be seeing issues if the iGPU didn't supported the required version of DirectX, or the wrong display driver was installed.

[King_Tuna]

But my old HD 4850 is still a beast

Before you shouting to me I want to say that I only play TF2, COD MW2 and Agar.io. So it is a beast card for me

[GoodBytes]

Let me just chime in here, Intel's iGPU may be getting faster and faster but support and compatibility are crap. I helped a friend of mine build a brand new Skylake system with a unlocked i5 and since he couldn't afford the GTX 970 he wanted to put in it we decided he could just use the iGPU to game for a while since my 3570K's iGPU was fast enough for medium having around 720p so I figured the newer iGPU shoudl be significantly faster and may even be capable of 1080p gaming, well i was wrong. When trying to play Battlefront the game would simply just crash when launching. it wasn't that the iGPU wasn't fast enough it was just unsupported so as great as the iGPU performance might be it's still missing all the compatibility of a dedicated GPU so if Intel expects this to be true they need to fix these issues. I've also had problems with my HD4000 graphics in the past where some applications just simply refuse to use it even if it should be fast enough and it does support DX11.

 

So in the end I still don't care about Intel's iGPU's not because they aren't fast (because they are getting there) but simply because they don't work.

Yup, because despite Intel claims, like I said, it doesn't actually fully support DirectX, OpenGL, OpenCL and DirectCompute, crashing games and hardware accelerated programs.

[Tomsen]

Not trying to jump into yall's argument, but I think there might be a slight misunderstanding.

 

Technically speaking, Carrizo and BR are both Excavator APU's. Meaning they use the same architecture. However, both differ in that their platforms are not the same. BR is in fact, the desktop version of Carrizo, but a different platform. Spiritual successor, if you will. Both sides are technically correct here, so I don't understand where the problem is, but yeah.. That's my insight on the subject. Gonna go retreat while I still have limbs.

Bingo!

Excavator is only CPU muArch. Carrizo is the whole package of unified CPU and iGPU which is itself a macro architecture.

Excavator is AMDs x86 microarchitecture. Carrizo is a codename, not a 'macro architecture'. Do AMD use carrizo codename for the embedded R-series products?

[patrickjp93]

Bingo!

Excavator is AMDs x86 microarchitecture. Carrizo is a codename, not a 'macro architecture'. Do AMD use carrizo codename for the embedded R-series products?

Since some of Carrizo-L is given in embedded options, yes.

[Tomsen]

Since some of Carrizo-L is given in embedded options, yes.

Carrizo-L is another codename based on puma+ microarchitecture.

I haven't seen any embedded processors going with carrizo or carrizo-L codename.

[patrickjp93]

Carrizo-L is another codename based on puma+ microarchitecture.

I haven't seen any embedded processors going with carrizo or carrizo-L codename.

It's not all Puma+. Only a couple of 5W options are Puma+

[Tomsen]

It's not all Puma+. Only a couple of 5W options are Puma+

What other microarchitecture is used under the codename carrizo-l?

Again, I have trouble finding any embedded processors going with the codename carrizo or carrizo-l. Have you recently gotten a haircut?

[patrickjp93]

What other microarchitecture is used under the codename carrizo-l?

Again, I have trouble finding any embedded processors going with the codename carrizo or carrizo-l. Have you recently gotten a haircut?

Excavator is the muArch.

[Tomsen]

Excavator is the muArch.

I can't fint any excavator design going with carrizo-l codename.

Pretty sure carrizo-l is for puma+ exclusive.

[orangecat]

Not trying to argue your story but I disagree.  I remember back to the days of integrated graphics being on the motherboard and it causing all sorts of BSODs and so on for Vista users, and games often not even supporting laptop GPUs, never mind integrated.  When I got my laptop (sandy bridge) I was really impressed by the fact that the iGPU would run everything exactly the same as the 6770M (well, less fps obviously but it all worked).  Seems we've come along way, at least in my opinion.

I'm not saying everything doesn't work but there are still many many compatibility problems with intel's iGPU and maybe it's not the hardware it's probably a driver problem but game devs aren't designing games to run on iGPUs and intel doesn't really pout as much work as nvidia or AMD does intot heir drivers and it really holds them back.

[vanished]

I'm not saying everything doesn't work but there are still many many compatibility problems with intel's iGPU and maybe it's not the hardware it's probably a driver problem but game devs aren't designing games to run on iGPUs and intel doesn't really pout as much work as nvidia or AMD does intot heir drivers and it really holds them back.

Huh.  Well, all I can say is I've had a very different experience so hopefully things start working better for you soon

[Stadiz]

K, will wait for AMD.