old dGPUs worse than modern iGPUs

[pythonmegapixel]

Just a random question that occurred to me.

 

How far back in time do you have to go to find a dedicated GPU which performs worse than modern integrated graphics are capable of?

 

I'm excluding the integrated graphics that come in ultra-cheap processors - think the kind of stuff you might find in a recent generation Intel i5 or i7.

[Helpful Tech Witch]

not long

gt710- about as good as a mid gen intel chip.

rx550- a bit slower than vega 11

[Kisai]

5 minutes ago, pythonmegapixel said:

Just a random question that occurred to me.

 

How far back in time do you have to go to find a dedicated GPU which performs worse than modern integrated graphics are capable of?

 

I'm excluding the integrated graphics that come in ultra-cheap processors - think the kind of stuff you might find in a recent generation Intel i5 or i7.

This is pretty easy.

 

So the Ryzen 7 Pro 4700G, Ryzen 9 4900H and Intel P630 and Intel Iris Xe are all on there. The GTX 770M (a GTX 770 Mobile GPU) a Quadro K1200 (GTX 750Ti)

 

So these values are between 2700 and 2900. Now the top of the line cards?

RX 6900 XT 26000, 9.3x the performance of the UHD P630

RTX 3090 25600, similar 9.1x performance

RTX 3080 24200, 8.6x

RTX 3060Ti 19600 7x

GTX 1080Ti 17900, 6.3x

GTX 1660 11600 4.1x

 

iGPU is nothing but pathetic

 

There is ONE exception

That Ryzen 7 4800HS is roughly on par with the laptop dGPU's from 2 years ago.

[PianoPlayer88Key]

It looks like @HelpfulTechWizard and @Kisai are comparing iGPUs to low-end GPUs.  That's a bit different than how I would have done the comparison - I would have compared the iGPU to a past-generation flagship GPU.

 

This is what I see when comparing some modern iGPUs to past flagship dGPUs:

 

For example, compare:

• Vega 11 (Ryzen 5 3400G) | UHD Graphics 730 (Core i5-11400) | Vega 8 (Ryzen 5 3200G)
  • vs. GeForce GTX 285
• UHD Graphics 750 (Core i5-11900K)
  • vs. Radeon HD 4890
• Iris Pro Graphics 6200 (Core i7-5775C) | UHD Graphics 630 (Core i9-10900K)
  • vs Radeon HD 3850 X2 | GeForce 9800 GX2 / GTX

 

However ... I'm not entirely sure about the accuracy of that site's benchmarks.  (I don't think I'm the only one who feels that way, based on comments I've read various places.)

For example, it says the UHD 750 is slower than the UHD 730, and there were some past generations that it says had much bigger performance jumps than I would expect.

The site says the GeForce FX 5950 Ultra scores 59 points, while the GeForce4 Ti 4600 scores 6.  I don't really think the GeForce FX flagship was 9.833 times faster than the GeForce4 flagship.  Also they say the GTX 480 does 4058 points, while the GTX 285 does 1556 points.  Was the 400 series flagship REALLY 2.607969 times faster than the 300 series flagship?
Also going back before the GTX 200 series, back to the GeForce 9 series (and many of the older AMD / ATI generations as well), I'm not sure what the actual ranking of some of the GPUs were.  (Like what was the equivalent of an RTX x80 Ti, vs an RTX x70, vs a GTX x50, vs a GT x10, etc, before those names were used...)  Also in some (but not all) cases, dual-GPU cards looked like they performed worse than single-GPU cards.  I'm not sure how much of that was because they were measuring performance with SLI / CrossFire turned off....

 

I wish I could find a site that had accurate, all-scenarios benchmarks, for every single CPU & GPU going all the way back to the GPUs & CPUs found in computers in the 1970s, that could be directly compared to modern systems.  

 

 

 

One way I know that it's time to upgrade my GPU is when:

 

The lowest-end iGPU or dGPU that's then available new-in-box (I think I've still seen GeForce 210's & 8400 GS's fairly recently)

gets a higher FPS in the top 3DMark benchmark (available at the time of the following)

than the flagship from my GPU's generation (in my case I have the 1060 3GB, so compare the 1080 Ti or the Pascal Titan Xp or Quadro P6000)

scores in the lowest-end 3DMark benchmark available at the time of the GPU generation being replaced.

(So, FPS in Time Spy on new low-end GPU > score in Ice Storm on old flagship GPU means it's time to upgrade. )

 

Okay, I might upgrade a little sooner than that.  However, anything less than:

old GPU: 10fps, 320x240, LowSpecGamer settings, casual / esports games

new GPU: 1% low 10x display refresh rate, 3840x2160 x 3 monitors, ultra settings, RTX/equivalent maxed, DLSS/equivalent off, most-demanding AAA titles released a year or two AFTER the GPU

is not a big upgrade.   (I've been used to making fairly sizeable upgrades growing up, usually by waiting several (6-10+) years / generations back when things were improving much faster than in recent years, I think.)

[Bitter]

I recall a few years ago I was shocked to find out that my Geforce 9800GT was WORSE than the integrated graphics on my i5 4590. That  was an eye opener!

[xg32]

the budget balance between 720p gaming on a 1080p monitor, pc and consoles is always interesting to me