Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux & Mesa Driver Comparison For Intel Core i5 12600K / UHD Graphics 770

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

  • Linux & Mesa Driver Comparison For Intel Core i5 12600K / UHD Graphics 770

    Phoronix: Linux & Mesa Driver Comparison For Intel Core i5 12600K / UHD Graphics 770

    Earlier this month I provided benchmarks showing the Intel UHD Graphics 770 with Alder Lake compared to other CPUs/APUs under Linux. Those tests were done with the latest open-source Intel Linux graphics driver code at the time, but for those running Alder Lake and wondering if it's worthwhile moving from the stable versions to more bleeding-edge components, this article is for you.

    https://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=30691

  • #2
    Basically it's fine even with 5.13 which was released before Alder Lake was.

    Comment


    • #3
      Michael
      One of the benchmarks from Alder Lake I'm looking forward the most (besides the hopefully positive impact with 'mitigiations=auto' vs. 'mitigations=off') is the comparison with the different CPU governors, namely schedutil.

      Once You get around to running them, it would be really interesting if You could manage two seperate runs:
      One with "intel_pstate=disable", and another one with "intel_pstate=passive".

      AFAIK such a comparison has never been conducted before, therefore having this data point cleared would certainly be worthwhile, IMHO.

      Comment


      • #4
        What do you guys think about gaming on a Intel Core i5 12600K using only the integrated Intel GPU without a discreet dedicated graphics card?
        How viable is it?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by uid313 View Post
          What do you guys think about gaming on a Intel Core i5 12600K using only the integrated Intel GPU without a discreet dedicated graphics card?
          How viable is it?
          Depends on the games you play. I just got a previous gen (Rocket Lake) Core i5 11500 (with a better after market cooling solution which is a must for Intels, plus 32GB of 3200mhz ram) because my old system died. Its igpu is obviously slower than the 12600K but not by much, really, unless you combine the uhd 770 with DDR5. And even then, it is not really that great for resource heavy games. My 11500 i tested with some strategy games i play, they are ok at 1080p, for example Civilization VI, Warhammer 40K Gladius, Two Point Hospital, XCOM 2, etc. You definitely need to lower graphic settings though. Emulators are mostly great as well since they are basically cpu intensive and not gpu intensive (unless you are into upscaling and texture packs and such). All in all, as long as you are willing to compromise on settings or even resolution and can forgo playing a few heavier AAA games until you can get a dGPU installed, you will be fine i think. Just make sure that if you get an Alder Lake, buy DDR5 ram instead of DDR4. If you are not into getting DDR5, i would prefer to get a Rocket Lake instead. Rocket Lake has AVX512, is cheaper, uses much less power when stressed, and does not require special care for the OS schedulers to function optimally.
          Last edited by TemplarGR; 19 November 2021, 10:05 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by TemplarGR View Post

            Depends on the games you play. I just got a previous gen (Rocket Lake) Core i5 11500 (with a better after market cooling solution which is a must for Intels, plus 32GB of 3200mhz ram) because my old system died. Its igpu is obviously slower than the 12600K but not by much, really, unless you combine the uhd 770 with DDR5. And even then, it is not really that great for resource heavy games. My 11500 i tested with some strategy games i play, they are ok at 1080p, for example Civilization VI, Warhammer 40K Gladius, Two Point Hospital, XCOM 2, etc. You definitely need to lower graphic settings though. Emulators are mostly great as well since they are basically cpu intensive and not gpu intensive (unless you are into upscaling and texture packs and such). All in all, as long as you are willing to compromise on settings or even resolution and can forgo playing a few heavier AAA games until you can get a dGPU installed, you will be fine i think. Just make sure that if you get an Alder Lake, buy DDR5 ram instead of DDR4. If you are not into getting DDR5, i would prefer to get a Rocket Lake instead. Rocket Lake has AVX512, is cheaper, uses much less power when stressed, and does not require special care for the OS schedulers to function optimally.
            Oh, sounds like even with 2016 games (X-Com 2) you need to lower the graphics settings? 😢
            DDR5 RAM is hard to find, there is a high demand and a low supply for those.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by uid313 View Post

              Oh, sounds like even with 2016 games (X-Com 2) you need to lower the graphics settings? 😢
              DDR5 RAM is hard to find, there is a high demand and a low supply for those.
              Well, i just got my system 2 days ago, so i didn't do extensive game benchmarks yet. I didn't do XCOM 2 settings tweaks to see what i can get away with, it is just that even the main menu seemed kinda sluggish to me so i don't think you can get many settings on with that title. Of course i only tried Linux ports (and a couple of WINE games), no windows. The games i did try in-game up to now, Warhammer Gladius and Civilization VI, seemed quite playable in-game with low settings at 1080p. Not the absolute lowest. Personally i expected worse, i was pleasantly surprised. I also played a simple nephalem rift (a whole dungeon run in case you haven't played it) in Diablo III under WINE and it went very fluidly with maxed settings at 1080p, but that is an older title. In Heroes of the Storm (WINE again) though i had to lower many settings to get fluid performance at levels acceptable for a MOBA.

              All in all, like i said in the previous message, performance is enough if you don't have much expectations. It (my UHD 750 that is) is roughly half that of an Nvidia GTX 1030. I suppose the UHD 770 having around 10% higher boost clocks + 50% more RAM bandwidth (if you use DDR5 4800mhz) can close the gap with the 1030 considerably. But i don't think using slower DDR4 will have that much improvement over the UHD 750, remember any non entry-level 500 series mobo supports memory OC up to 5000+mhz for rocket lake cpus, so you can match the memory bandwidth of DDR5 anyway. It is just that high speed OC memory is expensive especially if you buy 32gb like i did, and i don't feel particularly great with OC components, i prefer official stock clocks that is why i went with 3200mhz RAM. Personally i don't feel the expense of OC RAM is worth it, because once you install a dGPU on your system, you won't get that much of a difference in most games anyway. Igpus are a temporary solution for gamers or a back up troubleshooting component at best.

              If you can't find DDR5, Alder Lake becomes a poor proposition currently in my humble opinion. It is a nice cpu but support for DDR5 is a big chunk of its improvements in both cpu and igpu. I am sure once DDR5 becomes more affordable and OSes improve scheduling for the big.little architecture it uses it will justify the price premium over Rocket Lake, but right now, i don't think so, especially considering it lacks official AVX512. Not that AVX512 is that much important on the desktop currently, but if you buy a new cpu in almost 2022, wouldn't you prefer to have it over not having it? It essentially brings your GCC architecture tier from tier 3 to tier 4. Might not be terribly important right now but you may use it down the line.

              I picked the i5-11500 because it was great value for money, something i never expected to say for an Intel. i got a tray version for 188 euros while the boxed version of an AMD 5600g costs at least 285 euros in my country. The i5-11500 is very competitive in cpu performance with the 5600g, in fact when you use a quality after market cooler it trades blows with the 5600X and even surpasses it. I don't understand why Rocket Lake got such a bad reputation. Yes the 5600g has roughly double the igpu performance of the i5-11500, but really, it won't change your experience much in the grand scheme of things. It is not like with a 5600g-5700g you can play PS5 games. You get somewhat better fps at the same low res/low settings/old/indie games the Intels are playing too.

              Long story short, to go back to your original question full circle, it all depends on your expectations. Personally being an older gamer at 38 years old, and mostly playing indies/strategy games/ emulators, i can get by with an Intel igpu until gpu prices become sane. Perhaps you can't because you want to play more demanding games or have less tolerance for lower settings. But you can game in some capacity with the latest Intel Xe igpus, yes. I am just expecting Intel to release some cool 128 EU budget dGPU soon-ish so i can get it because i have lost hope that AMD will ever release current architecture budget gpus ever again.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by TemplarGR View Post
                I didn't do XCOM 2 settings tweaks to see what i can get away with, it is just that even the main menu seemed kinda sluggish to me so i don't think you can get many settings on with that title. Of course i only tried Linux ports (and a couple of WINE games), no windows. The games i did try in-game up to now, Warhammer Gladius and Civilization VI, seemed quite playable in-game with low settings at 1080p.
                Sounds disappointing to me. I didn't expect it to run 2021 AAA games, 4K or ray tracing, but I had hoped it could run games that were a couple of year old at 1080p without having to put the graphics settings on low.

                Originally posted by TemplarGR View Post
                i prefer official stock clocks that is why i went with 3200mhz RAM. Personally i don't feel the expense of OC RAM is worth it, because once you install a dGPU on your system, you won't get that much of a difference in most games anyway. Igpus are a temporary solution for gamers or a back up troubleshooting component at best.
                I don't like OC either, because I value system stability and don't want excess heat, cooling and noise.
                I am not a gamer, so I don't want to buy a dGPU, so I like relying on a iGPU as I do now (with my i7 4770K "Haswell"), but would appreciate to be able to run games that are a couple of year old at 1080p.

                Originally posted by TemplarGR View Post
                If you can't find DDR5, Alder Lake becomes a poor proposition currently in my humble opinion. It is a nice cpu but support for DDR5 is a big chunk of its improvements in both cpu and igpu.
                Also beware that the first DDR5 memory now have rather high latency. DDR5 will improve later, not only with higher bandwidth, but also with lower latency.

                Originally posted by TemplarGR View Post
                Perhaps you can't because you want to play more demanding games or have less tolerance for lower settings. But you can game in some capacity with the latest Intel Xe igpus, yes. I am just expecting Intel to release some cool 128 EU budget dGPU soon-ish so i can get it because i have lost hope that AMD will ever release current architecture budget gpus ever again.
                I don't care so much for demanding games, but would appreicate running some older games on 1080p without having to resort to setting the game settings to low quality.
                I hope that Intel releases a CPU with a good integrated GPU.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by uid313 View Post
                  Sounds disappointing to me. I didn't expect it to run 2021 AAA games, 4K or ray tracing, but I had hoped it could run games that were a couple of year old at 1080p without having to put the graphics settings on low.


                  I don't like OC either, because I value system stability and don't want excess heat, cooling and noise.
                  I am not a gamer, so I don't want to buy a dGPU, so I like relying on a iGPU as I do now (with my i7 4770K "Haswell"), but would appreciate to be able to run games that are a couple of year old at 1080p.


                  Also beware that the first DDR5 memory now have rather high latency. DDR5 will improve later, not only with higher bandwidth, but also with lower latency.


                  I don't care so much for demanding games, but would appreicate running some older games on 1080p without having to resort to setting the game settings to low quality.
                  I hope that Intel releases a CPU with a good integrated GPU.
                  I don't think you will be able to play recent AAA games @1080p with good quality settings on any iGPU any time soon. That is sadly a pipe dream. From both Intel and AMD. It seems that both companies have realized that on the desktop they are better off just selling dGPUs to gamers instead of trying to create apu models catering to gamers. And perhaps they are right from a certain point of view, igpus need very fast RAM bandwidth and they would be too expensive with needs for more expensive mobos and cooling solution to facilitate larger igpu dies. They just figure out it is pointless to do that when a gamer can simply plug in an additional card on his PC.

                  The bad thing about this of course is that the current gpu cartel from NVIDIA and AMD do not want to release current gen budget gpu SKUs in order to force gamers to more expensive solutions, not to mention the insane prices these days. It used to be that with every new generation of GPUs we also got some cut-down SKUs for the budget/mainstream market, and that kept prices down because gamers had more choices. Today the number of gamers is far larger but the total number of gaming cards on the market is far lesser because NVIDIA and AMD both do not produce smaller dies at all and instead produce larger dies because they can sell all of them to miners and rich gamers willing to pay anything for new cards. Waffers may be limited due to "shortages" but the larger dies you cut off from a waffer, the fewer you get in total. For every 6600XT AMD makes, for instance, they could cut it in half and sell 2 of them to more budget oriented gamers in need of a gpu, but this would make them less profit because they would get the same revenue from selling the same transistors to 2 buyers instead of 1, pushing demand for cards down.... It is better for the duopoly to starve the market. How long has it been since AMD has produced any budget SKU? Polaris? Nvidia? Pascal? Older? We are talking 5-6 years now... Yup this is intentional and their price fixing has been so blatant that they even allowed a 3rd player to justify the enormous costs to enter the market.... And i hope it bites them in the behind and steals all market share from them.

                  As for the couple of years old games thing, you need to remember that AAA games are console ports these days. So obviously with a new generation of consoles being out a year ago, AAA game requirements have gone way up. You can play past generation AAA games like Witcher 3 or Tomb Raider on igpus better, but still with lower settings i am afraid. But current ones i am afraid not. Even the Steam Deck which is going to have a beefier igpu + faster ram is only going to work because it has a 720p screen. And granted even on Intel at 720p and low settings most games can be playable. So if you are willing to sacrifice visual quality you can get by for now. But dgpu is a must if you want to seriously game.

                  As for the RAM CAS latency thing, it is overblown by people. As long as you get much better bandwidth, higher CAS latency is a nothingburger due to how memory works. Yes it has more latency to access the first ram cell of data but it delivers it at much faster ns times because of the faster data rate, evening it out. CPU caches can nullify any penalties most of the time anyway, and data transfers tend to be about larger collections of cells next to each other so every successive transfer is faster once the first address is accessed. ALL in all, if you have a 3200mhz vs 4800mhz kind of RAM kit, unless the latencies are literally insane, it won't make much of a difference and the 4800mhz kit is going to be much faster. Especially for igpus who are not latency intensive anyway, there is a reason they are using GDDR ram after all.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X