Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intel Haswell-Based Apple MacBook Air, HD 5000 Benchmarks

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    The same constraints apply to Intel mobile cpus, which are also slower than the Intel desktop versions. Or do you mean mobile trinity loses to mobile haswell (non-iris pro, since that can't be bought anywhere currently)?

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by curaga View Post
      The same constraints apply to Intel mobile cpus, which are also slower than the Intel desktop versions. Or do you mean mobile trinity loses to mobile haswell (non-iris pro, since that can't be bought anywhere currently)?
      Mobile trinity has radeon 7660G. In notebookcheck it's usually little faster or as fast than hd5000.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by curaga View Post
        The same constraints apply to Intel mobile cpus, which are also slower than the Intel desktop versions. Or do you mean mobile trinity loses to mobile haswell (non-iris pro, since that can't be bought anywhere currently)?
        Seriously, guys, it was 1 throwaway line, not a detailed exacting benchmark run.

        I was comparing mobile haswell (5000 gpu) to the A10 5800, or whatever that top line desktop trinity was. I see now that the 7660G is actually mobile trinity, so i was wrong there. That's what i was comparing it to.

        I stand by everything else - it seems to be about the same level gpu wise, at least on the 1 or 2 tests i bothered looking at. It's way, way ahead on cpu speed. I'm sure it's more expensive, too. What you care about will obviously differ based on your personal circumstances, i wasn't trying to recommend anything. Just trying to get a rough handle on the type of graphics performance we can expect from this hd 5000 part.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
          I was speaking about performance only, obviously. And Trinity, not Richland.

          I'd also argue that the CPU performance is vastly better, not marginally. Whether that matters to you depends a lot on what kind of tasks you plan to use your machine for.

          And further, Trinity/Richland are desktop cpus, while this intel 5000 is only available on laptops/mobile. So they aren't exactly direct competitors.
          Not at the same price point. Sure, you can pay substantially more but in real terms, unless you are a editing large amounts of HD quality video or are a deranged Gentoo user compiling all of your software 24/7/365 the appreciable differences in a human time scale. A few seconds here or there don't make and real difference.

          However, more cores make a better user experience since the system stays more responsive, while I rarely have much to do that will max out the CPU I do almost always have several dozen things running at once. Currently I've got:
          Firefox open with 386 tabs across 5 windows
          Thunderbird following 6 email addresses
          Pidgin with 20 chats open across AIM, YIM, MSN, Jabber and IRC
          Vuze open seeding 10 torrents
          Desura open with Monster RPG2 on pause
          Steam open with Psychonauts running, on pause
          Dungeons Of Dredmor open on pause
          Pithos open on pause
          Songbird open listening to a Shoutcast station
          Calibre with 2 eBooks open
          VirtualBox with ReactOS and HaikuOS VMs open, thoguh I don't have anything running in them currently, I just have them auto open when I log in.


          All of this running, has been running since I last updated the kernel a week ago with no impact on performance that isn't network related from the torrents. heres enough overhead to open up GIMP and start editing my 12mp photos or even start up Lightworks and start editing 1080p video.


          Originally posted by Calinou View Post
          However, the mobile APUs are really slow (TDP constraints).
          AMD mobile GPUs
          Designed to be used with DDR3 1600 http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Rad...G.69830.0.html
          Designed to be used with DDR3 1866 http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Rad...G.87916.0.html
          Note that AMD's APUs can be crossfired as well http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Rad...s.81173.0.html

          As well as AMD has a Bumblebee/Optimus dual graphics system that allows them to pair the HD7970m with the Trinity and Richland based APUs, you can find this in the MSI 15.6" GX60 and GX70 17.3" laptops.

          Intel mobile GPUs
          http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-H...0.86106.0.html
          http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-H...0.91978.0.html
          http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-I...0.91977.0.html
          http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-I...0.90965.0.html
          Only the 5200 has the eDRAM to try and boost the performance past pitiful levels for the cost of the chip.

          So it looks like Intel can barely keep up with a minor speed bump in AMD's GPUs, so lets now start the hype campaign that was around for a year for the Haswell GPU disappointment for AMD's Kaveri series due out later this year. They are adding GDDR5 support to the memory controller and are allowing the CPU and GPU to have full access to both the DDR3 system ram and the GDDR5 VRam.
          Last edited by Kivada; 06-18-2013, 05:48 PM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Kivada View Post
            Not at the same price point.
            Seriously? I just said the intel part is more expensive but with about the same gpu performance, and you quote me and reply with that?

            /smh

            Sure, you can pay substantially more but in real terms, unless you are a editing large amounts of HD quality video or are a deranged Gentoo user compiling all of your software 24/7/365 the appreciable differences in a human time scale. A few seconds here or there don't make and real difference.
            I don't particularly care about cpu performance today, but i tend to buy fast ones so they can last longer. In 4 years, that bit of speed starts mattering a lot more than it does now.

            It's just a different way of buying things i suppose, rather than buying cheaper but more often. I have the money, so i don't really worry about it. I'd probably buy cheaper if it did matter to me.

            However, more cores make a better user experience since the system stays more responsive, while I rarely have much to do that will max out the CPU I do almost always have several dozen things running at once. Currently I've got:
            Firefox open with 386 tabs across 5 windows
            Thunderbird following 6 email addresses
            Pidgin with 20 chats open across AIM, YIM, MSN, Jabber and IRC
            Vuze open seeding 10 torrents
            Desura open with Monster RPG2 on pause
            Steam open with Psychonauts running, on pause
            Dungeons Of Dredmor open on pause
            Pithos open on pause
            Songbird open listening to a Shoutcast station
            Calibre with 2 eBooks open
            VirtualBox with ReactOS and HaikuOS VMs open, thoguh I don't have anything running in them currently, I just have them auto open when I log in.


            All of this running, has been running since I last updated the kernel a week ago with no impact on performance that isn't network related from the torrents. heres enough overhead to open up GIMP and start editing my 12mp photos or even start up Lightworks and start editing 1080p video.
            I run the same kind of workload, and it would run perfectly fine on 2 cores. 4 is overkill for that kind of workload. Having 500 open tabs in firefox is fine, because none of them are ever doing anything (as long as you run adblock). Same with 99% of everything else going on.
            Last edited by smitty3268; 06-18-2013, 09:49 PM.

            Comment

            Working...
            X