A Five Year Old NVIDIA GPU Can Still Beat Broadwell HD Graphics 5500

[chrisb]

No need. Intel HD 5500 already beat the Tegra X1 at every 3DMark test at CES 192 SPs to 256. This whole article is just laughable trying to diminish Intel's progress when the Von Neumann Bottleneck is still there and a Quadro back then still had both more SPs and higher memory bandwidth.

Not all things are equal.

What is the price of the Tegra X1? What is the power consumption?
What is the price of the HD5500? What is the power consumption?

[patrickjp93]

Intel Onboard graphic are a Joke, even if We stop our development, it will toke 10 years to Intel catch us. Nvidia.

There are so many noobs thinking that his onboard cards can run the latest games, Is so funny.

Tell that to the people who watched HD 5500 pummel the Tegra X1 in everything 3DMark at CES. Intel has caught up, but the RAM bottleneck is still in the way and will be until we get stacked DRAM on-package. But be aware Intel developed iGPU solely to knock Nvidia and AMD out of office machines, and now all the research is going towards compute power to fight against AMD's HSA.

[patrickjp93]

You guys permute bus width with bandwidth

GTX260 had 448 bit bus width but only 112 GB/s bandwidth, while GTX 970 has 224 bit bus width and 196 GB/s bandwidth for the first 3.5 GB of memory, last 512 memory has only 32 bus width and really big 28 GB/s bandwidth that only because of fast GDDR5 is used otherwise it will be slow motion .

Someone should compare GTX 970 only with last 512 MB memory if posibile vs current intel's non iris GPUs that should be honest comparison as those only have 25.6 GB/s bandwidth if in dual channel ddr3 mode.

Benchmark? Run openarena 0.8.8 from phoronix test suite, it is known mem bandwidth bench. Plus compare quality of images, as those on nvidia blobs looks like compressed washed shit

No need. Intel HD 5500 already beat the Tegra X1 at every 3DMark test at CES 192 SPs to 256. This whole article is just laughable trying to diminish Intel's progress when the Von Neumann Bottleneck is still there and a Quadro back then still had both more SPs and higher memory bandwidth.

[patrickjp93]

Your Point?

Oh God, what a scandal! HD 5500 is by no means a flagship GPU from Intel, and it only has 192 Stream Processors. HD 5500 beat out the Tegra X1 in everything 3DMark at CES 2015, so really this article is a total waste. No one cares if HD 5500 doesn't outperform a workstation graphics card with a far greater SP count. The Quadro also comes with much higher memory bandwidth whereas Intel's iGPU (and AMD's) is bandwidth starved by the system RAM. It's just not a fair contest or one with good context. Where is the integrity here?

[dungeon]

You guys permute bus width with bandwidth

GTX260 had 448 bit bus width but only 112 GB/s bandwidth, while GTX 970 has 224 bit bus width and 196 GB/s bandwidth for the first 3.5 GB of memory, last 512 memory has only 32 bus width and really big 28 GB/s bandwidth that only because of fast GDDR5 is used otherwise it will be slow motion .

Someone should compare GTX 970 only with last 512 MB memory if posibile vs current intel's non iris GPUs that should be honest comparison as those only have 25.6 GB/s bandwidth if in dual channel ddr3 mode.

Benchmark? Run openarena 0.8.8 from phoronix test suite, it is known mem bandwidth bench. Plus compare quality of images, as those on nvidia blobs looks like compressed washed shit

[TiberiusDuval]

If you want to compare raw performance then you need fast vram. DDR3 is very slow compared to GDDR5 used on a PS4. Older cards like the GTX 260 used 448 bit access to vram. A new GTX 970 uses tricks like compression to do the same with 224 bit. But entry level cards use only 64 bit, often simple DDR3 compareable to onboard.

Yes I knew about that quite very large memory bandwith on GTX260. Still its amazing that quite old tech on dedicated hardware beats newer entry level so thoroughly. (Of course that does not come free, that GTX 260 is likely most power hungriest component on my system.)

[Kano]

If you want to compare raw performance then you need fast vram. DDR3 is very slow compared to GDDR5 used on a PS4. Older cards like the GTX 260 used 448 bit access to vram. A new GTX 970 uses tricks like compression to do the same with 224 bit. But entry level cards use only 64 bit, often simple DDR3 compareable to onboard.

[TiberiusDuval]

No, I can have high settings and a good FPS in games like War?ow and Tesseract, etc.

I probably cant have high settings and high fps in the latest and most advanced games.
So it is not great for hardcore gamers, but for normal users and casual gamers, it works surprisingly well.

Haven't played either. But generally some years old games will work nicely, recent ones, depends how graphics heavy they are. On Windows, my old GPU could run Rome 2 Total War (15-25 fps depending how big battle was on) with much reduced effects, Skyrim with moderately reduced effects and so on. That GTX 260 allows enjoying both games with much more details enabled and still better framerate.

[uid313]

I had Nvidia multimedia graphics adapter, not really gaming adapter, 620-series, and it was in real gaming use a little bit better than Intel's onboard Haswell. Got in January (for free) my friends old Nvidia GTX 260, from 2008, and it beats much newer 620 in every way (according to some tests about 10x performance). Ok, that was dedicated gaming card, and so on. But it is 7 years old. How long it would take untill Intel onboard graphics have same performance as dedicated gaming graphics adapter from 2008? Ten years? Five Years?

Yes you can play some quite modern games with Intel onboard graphics, or with that cheap multimedia adapter. But better turn of nearly all eye-candy or tolerate something like 15fps...

I have Core-i5 4460.

No, I can have high settings and a good FPS in games like War?ow and Tesseract, etc.

I probably cant have high settings and high fps in the latest and most advanced games.
So it is not great for hardcore gamers, but for normal users and casual gamers, it works surprisingly well.

[TiberiusDuval]

I know that 620 was cheapo GPU, and GTX 260 was when it was new somewhat expensive. But still same old GTX 260 is much more faster than quite much newer entry-level GPU, and likewise way faster than 2014 desktop CPU graphics.
Still I wonder when entry level GPU's or processor onboard graphics will advance to same performance as quite old gaming GPU? Still seems there is quite big performance gap.