Early Ivy Bridge Benchmark: Graphics Performance Greatly Improved 146
The folks over at Anandtech managed to spend some time with early Ivy bridge production samples and perform a few benchmarks. The skinny: CPU performance is mildly increased as expected, but the GPU is 20-50% faster than the Sandy Bridge GPU. Power consumption is also down about 30W under full load. The graphics, however, are still slower than AMD's Llano (but the Ivy Bridge CPU beats the pants off of the Fusion's). Is the tradeoff worth it?
Tradeoff? (Score:5, Insightful)
It isn't meant to be powerful graphics. It isn't a "tradeoff". Intel's HD graphics are meant to be very low power, but competent enough to run basics, shiny OS features at least. That they do, and it sounds like IB is even better at that. But it isn't a "tradeoff" to get a good CPU with basic graphics that is called "normal". If you need good graphics discrete is still the way to go and there are plenty of reasonable options.
From the look of it, Ivy Bridge is quite a win. Sandy Bridge, but a bit better. Nothing not to like there.
Re:GPU Performance (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:GPU Performance (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ivy bridge vs ARM (Score:5, Insightful)
As soon as ARM tries to catch up to the performance of x86 (and x64) it no longer has the lower power consumption.
Re:But still slower then a "real" video card... (Score:5, Insightful)