Budget CPU Integrated Graphics Performance

[ControlD]

I am looking at making a couple of changes to some of my systems at home, mainly to go to lower power and heat. The first system getting an upgrade will be my unRAID system which needs almost no graphics performance at all aside from me being able to access the BIOS screen. The second system however is running in my MAME (emulation) machine and it needs to be able to handle my front end and obviously the emulation graphics. As a test I would like to have one solution for both builds.

I am looking at the extreme budget end here. The two CPUs that I am debating between are the Intel G540 and the AMD A4-3300. I guess because these are so low end it is hard to find any real meaningful benchmarks. My gut tells me that the A4-3300 will have better graphics performance but I don't know that for sure.

Does anyone have a good feeling for which CPU has the better on board graphics performance? Keep in mind that there is very little (if any) actual 3D graphics capability required here.

 

[Durvelle27]

The A4 will have way better graphics but cpu power will lack compared to the Pentium G540


i recommend this as it has great cpu power and better graphics than both of those

AMD A4-5300 Trinity 3.4GHz FM2 65W $64

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...ssors-Desktops

 

[ControlD]

The A4 will have way better graphics but cpu power will lack compared to the Pentium G540


i recommend this as it has great cpu power and better graphics than both of those

AMD A4-5300 Trinity 3.4GHz FM2 65W $64

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...ssors-Desktops

Thanks, that's exactly the kind of information I am after. Am I correct in assuming that the AMD integrated graphics are in general going to be better over what Intel has to offer?

 

[Durvelle27]

Thanks, that's exactly the kind of information I am after. Am I correct in assuming that the AMD integrated graphics are in general going to be better over what Intel has to offer?

yes that's true intel HD graphics are inferior to AMD's APU graphics

 

[AtenRa]

I am looking at making a couple of changes to some of my systems at home, mainly to go to lower power and heat. The first system getting an upgrade will be my unRAID system which needs almost no graphics performance at all aside from me being able to access the BIOS screen. The second system however is running in my MAME (emulation) machine and it needs to be able to handle my front end and obviously the emulation graphics. As a test I would like to have one solution for both builds.

I am looking at the extreme budget end here. The two CPUs that I am debating between are the Intel G540 and the AMD A4-3300. I guess because these are so low end it is hard to find any real meaningful benchmarks. My gut tells me that the A4-3300 will have better graphics performance but I don't know that for sure.

Does anyone have a good feeling for which CPU has the better on board graphics performance? Keep in mind that there is very little (if any) actual 3D graphics capability required here.

Even ATOM will play MAME, but yes the AMD APUs Graphics are much faster than Intels HD. I have used a Llano A4-3400 and i could play Civilization 5 at 1366x768 Minimum Quality graphics in DX-9 at 25-35fps.

If you can afford it, I will recommend a FM2 motherboard + Trinity (A6-5400K)

 

[ControlD]

Even ATOM will play MAME, but yes the AMD APUs Graphics are much faster than Intels HD. I have used a Llano A4-3400 and i could play Civilization 5 at 1366x768 Minimum Quality graphics in DX-9 at 25-35fps.

If you can afford it, I will recommend a FM2 motherboard + Trinity (A6-5400K)

I guess I was more concerned about the front end on my cabinet as opposed to MAME itself. It is hard to gauge how much real graphics horsepower is required there.

For the price difference between the FM1 and FM2 chips it seems like going with a Trinity system is a no brainer.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

I guess I was more concerned about the front end on my cabinet as opposed to MAME itself. It is hard to gauge how much real graphics horsepower is required there.

For the price difference between the FM1 and FM2 chips it seems like going with a Trinity system is a no brainer.

MAME only uses 2D functions, even an atom level GMA3150 will be able to handle that...

If you go with an AMD system, trinity really is a no brainer...

Could you please report back on performance if you get an A6-5400K system, I am very curious (it seems the -perfect- chip for the family and friends low-performance, low-budget segment) but have not been able to test one yet..

 

[ControlD]

MAME only uses 2D functions, even an atom level GMA3150 will be able to handle that...

If you go with an AMD system, trinity really is a no brainer...

Could you please report back on performance if you get an A6-5400K system, I am very curious (it seems the -perfect- chip for the family and friends low-performance, low-budget segment) but have not been able to test one yet..

Sure thing. I have it in my basket right now, just picking out some memory and it will be on the way.

 

[Yuriman]

I would be pretty hesitant to get an A4. The A4 is a single module chip (2 Bulldozer/Piledriver "cores") making it something akin to a modern Intel single core with hyperthreading as far as raw performance is concerned, and has 1/3 of the graphics power of the A8/A10. Although the A10's iGPU is significantly faster than Intel's HD4k, I would do some reading on the A4 vs HD2500, it may well be that the A4 is slower on both the CPU and GPU side.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Newegg has a great combo deal on the FM1 APUs with mobo and 8GB RAM (not shown on combo page, but automatically added to cart) starting at $95 after MIR.

 

[AtenRa]

I would be pretty hesitant to get an A4. The A4 is a single module chip (2 Bulldozer/Piledriver "cores") making it something akin to a modern Intel single core with hyperthreading as far as raw performance is concerned, and has 1/3 of the graphics power of the A8/A10. Although the A10's iGPU is significantly faster than Intel's HD4k, I would do some reading on the A4 vs HD2500, it may well be that the A4 is slower on both the CPU and GPU side.

Celerons and Pentiums dont have HD2500.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

I would be pretty hesitant to get an A4. The A4 is a single module chip (2 Bulldozer/Piledriver "cores") making it something akin to a modern Intel single core with hyperthreading as far as raw performance is concerned, and has 1/3 of the graphics power of the A8/A10. Although the A10's iGPU is significantly faster than Intel's HD4k, I would do some reading on the A4 vs HD2500, it may well be that the A4 is slower on both the CPU and GPU side.

You're quite right. The A6-5400K only has 192 shaders vs the A10-5800K's 384. Conservatively it properly has ~ half the performance of the 5800K graphically. That puts it in HD4000 territory. And Intels low-end Pentium/Celeron does not even have a HD2500, but the HD2000(with some features cut).

As for CPU performance I would expect it to be slightly slower then a Celeron G530. The A6 even has AVX support, Intels Pentium/Celeron are limited to SSE 4.2...

A note about single core with HT Intel performance. To give you a rough comparison, a Celeron G465 crosses swords with and is actually slightly faster at some tasks then a Pentium 4EE 3.73GHz, a single Netburst core with HT (with a 130W TDP, no less. The Celeron under full load does not even use 15W WITH integrated graphics). That's how far we have come since 2005...

 

[ControlD]

One thing I don't want to lose sight of is that, for me, these two systems are very single purpose in nature. One will be sitting in the bottom of an arcade cabinet running Gameex + MAME and the other will be a dedicated unRAID machine. For the unRAID, literally any processor will pretty much do so I am not worried too much about graphics performance. I am currently using a Atom D510 for this purpose, but the board only has two SATA ports and there is no real option for expansion there.

My idea for now is to try either a Celeron or a Trinity with my MAME application to see if it will work. If it does not then I will move that hardware over to become my new unRAID system as the board I am looking at will have six SATA ports. I am just hoping to start with the best chance at success which is what prompted the initial question. It could be that neither of the budget choices will be up to the (MAME) task I suppose.

 

[blckgrffn]

I wouldn't spend the money on a Atom system at this point - both AMD and Intel have better solution for just a little bit more. Even if it is an A4 or a Celeron, you can get a really nice board that has the SATA performance you need in a very efficient power envelope.

As you pretty much already stated

 

[ControlD]

I wouldn't spend the money on a Atom system at this point - both AMD and Intel have better solution for just a little bit more. Even if it is an A4 or a Celeron, you can get a really nice board that has the SATA performance you need in a very efficient power envelope.

As you pretty much already stated

Yeah, it is amazing to me to see what kinds of processors are on the market these days and how much capability they have while at the same time running at such low power. The problem is that the sheer number of choices out there can be a bit overwhelming and of course not a ton of time is spent reviewing the cheaper end of the spectrum which is understandable.

 

[Arkaign]

This is exactly the situation where I'd just get a good deal on some used stuff.

For comparable $$, you could scoop up a used i3-XXX (1st-gen), 1156 mobo, and a cheap discrete card like a 5650 or something. Your overall experience would be much better overall. About the only thing that may or may not be important to you, but I would recommend anyway, would be looking at a PCIe USB 3.0 card to go along with it if you need faster external storage.

 

[ControlD]

This is exactly the situation where I'd just get a good deal on some used stuff.

For comparable $$, you could scoop up a used i3-XXX (1st-gen), 1156 mobo, and a cheap discrete card like a 5650 or something. Your overall experience would be much better overall. About the only thing that may or may not be important to you, but I would recommend anyway, would be looking at a PCIe USB 3.0 card to go along with it if you need faster external storage.

I thought about going the used route and that is still an option. A i3 is still pretty low power in most cases. I guess part of this is more to satisfy my curiosity to see how much power I can cut out and still have an acceptable solution. My current MAME setup is a 95W C2D processor with a 8800GT running the video end. For sure it is much more than capable but it is not what I would call a power sipper. The thing about trying an integrated solution is that I know it will for a fact work for my other needed upgrade so it almost feels like a perfect time to try something that I would normally not even be considering. Plus, it is been awhile since I build my last system and I am starting to get that itch.

 

[beginner99]

Celerons and Pentiums dont have HD2500.

they do. It's exactly the same as hd2500 except no quick sync and some other such features.

This is a problem for AMD especially on notebooks were the low end intel chips are actually better in graphics because they have the same as an i7.

 

[AtenRa]

Well, HD and HD2000 have almost 50% lower performance than HD3000, AMD Llano 3850K is faster than Intel HD3000.
Now according to Trinity TH review, Trinity A6-5400K comes close to Llano 3850K graphics and that means that A6-5400K is WAY better than the crappy HD2000.

 

[SPBHM]

HD 2000 is pretty basic, you can play some older games, but it's at best comparable to old AMD IGPs (like the 790GX with sideport)

for any kind of gaming the 5400k should beat easily, always... but... I don't know, a single module CPU doesn't sound good, it should be seriously slow in some cases.
as a CPU a Celeron G530 makes more sense I think.
as an "APU" the A6/A4 is better.

so if you need to use the IGP for any kind of gaming, go with the AMD solution, but if that's the case, you should consider buying something better....

well, if you try hard enough you can even play games with a 1.7GHz Celeron and the HD2000, but...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__t-E-NEw-c

ivy bridge pentiums and celerons have the HD2500 without quick sync, which is much faster than the 2000, but still slower than the AMD solutions I think.

 

[AtenRa]

for any kind of gaming the 5400k should beat easily, always... but... I don't know, a single module CPU doesn't sound good, it should be seriously slow in some cases.
as a CPU a Celeron G530 makes more sense I think.
as an "APU" the A6/A4 is better.

If you referring to single thread Trinity A6-5400K is faster than 3850K @ 2.9GHz.

I will have to say that for the price, the CPU performance of Trinity A6-5400K is more than enough. It is in Multithreaded scenarios that lucks behind but this is only a single Module APU.

 

[SPBHM]

I'm talking specifically about anything over a single thread, or multitasking...

single thread shouldn't be slower than a 2 module CPU, that's obvious,

2 SB cores, even at lower clock and with less l3 cache should work better.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

they do. It's exactly the same as hd2500 except no quick sync and some other such features.

The HD2000 and HD2500 are certainly not completely identical. The HD2000 is a DirectX 10.1 core and the HD2500 is a DirectX 11 core. They both have 6EUs (24 shaders). Not that it matters because the HD2500 is too slow to run any game with DX11 features. But the HD2500 has full OpenCL support, while the HD2K emulates OpenCL on the CPU...

HD 2000 is pretty basic, you can play some older games, but it's at best comparable to old AMD IGPs (like the 790GX with sideport)

for any kind of gaming the 5400k should beat easily, always... but... I don't know, a single module CPU doesn't sound good, it should be seriously slow in some cases.
as a CPU a Celeron G530 makes more sense I think.
as an "APU" the A6/A4 is better.

so if you need to use the IGP for any kind of gaming, go with the AMD solution, but if that's the case, you should consider buying something better....

well, if you try hard enough you can even play games with a 1.7GHz Celeron and the HD2000, but...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__t-E-NEw-c

ivy bridge pentiums and celerons have the HD2500 without quick sync, which is much faster than the 2000, but still slower than the AMD solutions I think.

I can say from personal experience that a Celeron G465 (single core sandy bridge with HT @ 1900MHz) based PC is plenty enough for basic PC use. It even handles video streaming and blu-ray playback without a hitch. And is EXTREMELY low-power, it only uses 5W at idle and 10-15W at full load...

I am almost willing to bet that ANY AMD APU will completely trash any Ivy based Pentium/Celeron in graphics performance. The HD2500 is SLOW...:whiste: (and has horrible image quality in games, besides poor driver support...)

 

[SPBHM]

The HD2000 and HD2500 are certainly not completely identical. The HD2000 is a DirectX 10.1 core and the HD2500 is a DirectX 11 core. They both have 6EUs (24 shaders). Not that it matters because the HD2500 is too slow to run any game with DX11 features. But the HD2500 has full OpenCL support, while the HD2K emulates OpenCL on the CPU...



I can say from personal experience that a Celeron G465 (single core sandy bridge with HT @ 1900MHz) based PC is plenty enough for basic PC use. It even handles video streaming and blu-ray playback without a hitch. And is EXTREMELY low-power, it only uses 5W at idle and 10-15W at full load...

I am almost willing to bet that ANY AMD APU will completely trash any Ivy based Pentium/Celeron in graphics performance. The HD2500 is SLOW...:whiste: (and has horrible image quality in games, besides poor driver support...)

they certainly made a lot of changes to the 2500 compared to the 2000, looking at the same number of EUs can be very misleading

obviously I don't need to comment on how superior the llano graphics is (and in games it tends to be even better for AMD)...
as far as I know image quality was greatly improved from sandy to ivy

as for this g465, pretty interesting CPU, to be honest I didn't know it existed, I thought under the G530 they only had the G440 (which is bad, without HT and lower clock), an interesting alternative to Atom and the Bobcat I think... but still a G530 is probably way faster... but power usage is also higher....

the best choice depends on his needs basically, I guess for a more basic use and some light gaming the single module trinity could be a decent choice...
video playback with GPU acceleration should also be fine, but using the CPU only... I'm not so sure.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

as for this g465, pretty interesting CPU, to be honest I didn't know it existed, I thought under the G530 they only had the G440 (which is bad, without HT and lower clock), an interesting alternative to Atom and the Bobcat I think... but still a G530 is probably way faster... but power usage is also higher....

I actually bought one to test vs one of my friends E350 (It was -cheap-, so just for fun and games...). I can say that the Celeron blows the E350 out of the water. Even though its "only" a single core its 30-50% faster with similar power consumption. The only place the E350 can hold its own is the graphics department, where it kicks the Celerons butt...

Look here, add 19% frequency, HT and 1MB L2 cache...

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/celeron-g540-g440_8.html#sect0

Edit; forgot to mention that you can overclock the integrated HD2K pretty significantly. Stock is 1000MHz, I got it running at 1500 with a mild voltage bump...