Update 2/3/2016: We’ve updated this article with results for the Intel HD 520, which is the IGP in the Surface Book and Surface Pro 4.
Intel’s introduction of the first modern Core processor in 2008 was a major change in direction, and not just because of its break away from the Netburst architecture which powered Pentium 4. The company also made a pledge to take graphics performance seriously, and it made good on that promise. When the first Intel HD Graphics showed up in 2010 alongside the new Core mobile chips, it more than doubled performance over the preceding Intel Graphics Media Accelerator in some games.
Today, six years later, Intel’s crusade for improved integrated graphics continues. Each new generation of Core brings a much bigger boost in graphics performance than per-core processor performance. Nowhere was this more apparent than with the fifth-generation Core launch, as Intel’s own slides claimed a mere four percent boost to productivity, but a 22 percent surge in gaming.
But these impressive gains have occurred in the face of more demanding games and ever increasing display resolution. Over the past five years, laptops have leaped from a typical resolution of 1,024 x 768 to 1080p, and premium models push 4K.
To find out what this means for real-world performance, we rounded up seven different models of Intel HD graphics spanning four generations; HD 4000, 4200, 4600, 5500, 6000, as well as the HD 520 and 530 which, despite the name, are actually a generation newer than the 6000 series.
The hardware
We used a variety of hardware to perform this test. An Apple Macbook Air running Boot Camp with fully updated Intel graphics drivers served as our stand-in for third-generation Core processors with Intel HD 4000.Related: Check out the details of Intel’s fifth-generation integrated graphics
Next up we have the fourth-generation chips, represented by the Acer Aspire Switch 11 and Zotac Zbox Oi520, which offer Intel HD 4200 and 4400, respectively. The latter is particularly important, as it’s the most common IGP from the outgoing family. Most Intel-powered notebooks sold over the last year have an HD 4400 inside.
Bill Roberson/Digital Trends
New to the roundup is HD 520, as tested in an i7 Surface Book with the dedicated GPU turned off. There’s also Intel HD 530, which we tested in the Core i7-6700K desktop processor. Despite the removal of a numerical from the name, HD 530 is meant to be a new mid-tier integrated graphics option for desktop chips.
We’ve also thrown in AMD’s A10-7870K to provide some additional context. That processor is a quad-core that sells for $140 and packs AMD’s most impressive integrated graphics to date. You can find out more by reading our full review.
Obviously, it’s impossible to conduct an absolute apples-to-apples test. The Veriton’s Core i5-3337U is not as quick as the NUC’s Core i5-5250U, so processor performance will be in play here, as well. It’d be ideal to test each IGP with the same processor, but ultimately the point is moot, as Intel HD Graphics can’t be used independently of the processor it’s paired with.
3DMark
Futuremark’s 3DMark is essentially the industry standard among graphics benchmarks, and it provides a generalized look at performance that usually translates well to real-world games. Let’s dive right in and see how Intel has matured over the years.These results are not difficult to interpret. Intel’s HD 4200, the low-power IGP for the thinnest and lightest fourth-generation Core systems, is the obvious loser. Second-worst is Intel’s HD 4000, the headliner of third-generation mobile graphics, which is just slightly beaten by HD 4400, the most common fourth-generation IGP.
The newcomer HD 520 doesn’t fare much better, with only a four percent gain in Cloud Gate. Fortunately, HD 530 arrives to save the day, and it pretty well stomps on every other IGP. Its score of 7,621 represents almost exactly a 100 percent improvement over HD 4000, and a nearly 50 percent increase over HD 6000. That actually exceeds the 40 percent improvement that Intel claimed to the press.
Update: With Intel’s help, we were able to extract higher scores from the NUC and its Intel HD 6000 graphics. The system hit an average Cloud Gate score of 5,297 and Fire Strike score of 862. These improvements make HD 6000 about 7 percent quicker in Cloud Gate and 15 percent quicker in Fire Strike. Still not a gigantic leap, but certainly better than before.
World of Warcraft
Blizzard Entertainment
The improvement between each generation of hardware is harder to see
here than you might expect, particularly in the leap between HD 4000 and
HD 4400. It turns out the mid-range integrated graphics most people
actually have in their fourth-generation Core notebook isn’t much
quicker than the best third-generation graphics solution.We were surprised by the scores, so we re-tested HD 4400 with an Acer Aspire R13, which we’d just received from Acer. The story didn’t change. Intel HD 4000 and HD 4400 are virtually tied in this incredibly popular MMO.
Intel HD 4000 and HD 4400 are virtually tied in this popular MMO.
The new IGPs offer a significant leap in performance, though the size
of that leap depends on the level of detail selected. At the low
preset, Intel’s HD 6000 is no more than 10 percent quicker than HD 5500,
but at high detail the difference grows as large as 40 percent.Clearly, the added execution units in HD 6000 have an impact, but it’s arguably a futile effort. The HD 6000’s average framerate of 25 in World of Warcraft at high detail and 1080p is barely inside the envelope of what can be called playable, but our test was not conducted during a raid, which would surely turn the game into a slideshow. Even a brand-new notebook will prove most comfortable at medium or even low detail if 1080p is the desired resolution.
The new HD 530, available with 6th-generation desktop processors, exceeds the performance of even HD 6000, especially at 1080p resolution and low detail. However, the two are virtually tied at 1080p and high detail, the most demanding setting. The HD 520 falls right between the 6000 and 530 at 768p, and once again basically ties the other two at 1080p.
Intel’s latest IGP even comes close to the AMD A10-7870K. However, AMD’s alternative does manage an important win at 1080p and high detail, as it manages to exceed 30 FPS while Intel HD 530 is stuck at an average of 24 FPS.
Sid Meier’s Civilization: Beyond Earth
The latest title in the Civilization series, Beyond Earth is built on the same engine as the incredibly popular Civilization V.
These two games have consumed more player hours than any strategy
franchise on Steam in 2014. Both games can be demanding in late-game
scenarios because large numbers of units, cities and improvements appear
at once.We tested the game using the built-in benchmark, which is represents a very harsh late-game environment. In the real world, the game will run more smoothly than these numbers suggest, but testing in a worst-case scenario is a good idea. Being forced to abandon a late-game scenario over performance issues can cause serious nerd-rage.
Only HD 5500, 6000, and 530 managed to hit more than 30 frames per
second, even at 1,366 x 768 resolution and minimum detail. Of the trio,
HD 530 by far was best, hitting 53 frames per second. This same trio
even managed a playable experience at 1080p and minimum detail, with HD
530 once again leading the charge. Due to an issue with the Civilization: Beyond Earth benchmark, we’re unable to add the HD 520 to our results at this time.When we fired up the game at high detail and 4x MSAA, though, all the IGPs struggled. None of them provided a playable experience at 1,366 x 768 resolution, except for AMD’s A10, and even that chip fell flat at 1080p and high detail. Clearly, this game needs a discrete card to be enjoyable past its lowest settings.
Battlefield 4
DICE/Electronic Arts
For the most part, yes. Most of the IGP failed to better than 30 frames per second on average, even at low detail and 1,366 x 768 resolution. Intel HD 5500 and 6000 came close, but didn’t quite get there. However, the new Intel HD 520 and 530 both offered a substantial performance benefit, hitting 40 FPS and 34 FPS respectively at 1,366 x 768 at the low detail preset.
Battlefield 4 reaffirmed the essential tie between Intel HD 4000 and HD 4400, its supposedly more advanced cousin. It also cast further doubt on the effectiveness of HD 6000. In this game it performed essentially the same HD 5500.
HD 530 performed the best by far, which is refreshing — as the other IGPs show, this game has been a tough nut for Intel to crack. HD 520 ran just behind the HD 530 the whole way, averaging about 16 percent slower in terms of framerate. Performance is still poor, but it’s at least enjoyable, something Intel’s IGP couldn’t previously claim at any reasonable level of detail or resolution.
That said, AMD is on an entirely different level. It trounces Intel’s best IGP at every resolution and detail setting. At 1080p and low detail it offers 16 additional frames per second, on average. Clearly, AMD has spent a lot more effort optimizing for this popular shooter.
Conclusion
These tests produced interesting results.Our first surprise came from the competition between HD 4000 and HD 4400. We expected that the latter would provide a marginal boost over its predecessor, but in fact the two are virtually tied. While it’s true that HD 4400 was not the quickest fourth-generation mobile graphics chip, it’s also true that HD 4400 was by far the most commonly encountered, as it shipped with the widely used Core i5-4200U (and its close siblings). It appears the fourth generation’s graphics performance was, in practice, more of a side-step than a leap forward.
Intel’s fifth generation is a definite leap forward, even in HD 5500, which appears to be the new mainstream graphics champion. The boost in speed over HD 4400 approaches 40 percent in select Battlefield 4 test loops, and exceeds 20 percent general. Those figures are enough to make a noticeable different in games. Beyond Earth can be enjoyed at 1080p and minimum detail on the HD 5500, for example, while HD 4400 struggles to handle the same load.
Intel’s HD Graphics remain the solution of last resort.
We’re more suspect of HD 6000. The version we tested was in Intel’s
NUC; we haven’t encountered it in a notebook yet. We have no reason to
think the NUC would perform worse than a mobile system, though, and the
latest drivers were installed. Given the rise in execution units from 24
to 48 we expected to see major boosts in speed, but instead HD 6000
offered gains of around 10 percent over HD 5500.The HD 520 marks a significant jump in real-world gaming performance. It beats out the HD 6000 by a noticeable margin in almost every one of our gaming tests, although it suffers as resolution and settings climb, just like all of the other integrated chips. It sneaks past 30 FPS in Battlefield 4 on low and 768p, which may even satisfy users coming from the console side of things, where 30 FPS is the standard.
At the top end of the tested GPUs, HD 530 still offers by far the best overall performance. In most tests it substantially outran its predecessors, including the 15 percent slower HD 520, and it takes a bigger lead over the previous generation of iGPUs. The HD 520 and 530 are the only chips in the test that offer a playable experience in Battlefield 4, and both crack 60 frames per second in World of Warcraft in 1080p with settings at low.
Still, neither chip’s ability to play Battlefield 4 at 1,366 x 768 is going to make gamers salivate. At that point, you’d be better off buying the game for a console — arguably, even an older one, like the Xbox 360. If you have no choice, you’ll find that most games will play on the latest Intel IGP, but it’s clear that Intel’s HD Graphics remain the solution of last resort
Four generations of Intel HD Graphics tested
Reviewed by Queency
on
16:07:00
Rating:
Reviewed by Queency
on
16:07:00
Rating:
