So, the 8th gen chip is quite good, offering good gpu performance in one package. But it does have a few shortcomings, high power consumption and only a 4core setup. This could be resolved by a new manafacturing process (14nm is old-tech, 10nm and 7nm is good). but will this ever be done? Really, I would much rather see amd perform something like this, but they don't have the EMIB tech or whatever the high-speed link is called. Zen 2's performance will shine bright, and so will the power/performance, especially with it being on 12 or 7nm! But will AMD bother? that's another question, I do hope they see the market that is there. All the high performance 2in1s.
I hope this kills Intel HD/UHD GPUs because those are terrible. Even an entry level graphics card is far superior. These Radeon Vega APUs are something special though. They pack some serious power for integrated graphics.
the intel HD will be here to stay, some users will not need extra GPU muscle. Even the AMD Vega APUs at the low end, have poor graphics performance, starting at 3 compute units which is HD620 ish level --- Post updated --- i meant like the high performance APUs, like the 65w and 100w chips. I know the market will be flooded with 15w chips but they don't compete with the 65w beasts
Fair enough but I still think Intel HD is good for servers (Linux support is excellent for Intel HD from my experience) and not much else. Even for basic web browsing I'd personally want at least a GT 1030.
I have been using Blender and do desktop stuff with Intel HD (Skylake version of it) and don't recall there being any kinda of difference in performance when compared to gtx 1080. Other parts of the CPU are more limiting for those uses. Rendering etc. is then of course much faster with CUDA and gtx 1080, but that is not really the point of Intel HD. However in 2D graphics, Nvidia kind of sucks, Intel HD 530 is faster than gtx 970, Windows interface is what Intel HD does fast (this is under balanced power plan actually so scores might be lower than what is possible): Sadly I don't have data there to show gtx 1030, but it probably sucks at 2D like gtx 1080 and 3D acceleration in browsers and office etc. is very buggy at best, always glitching out no matter if using Nvidia or Intel, so that is something which has to be kept off. This is gtx1080 which causes a lot more CPU load than Intel HD does during the test, sure it is slightly faster on some parts, but also slower than Intel HD on things like Windows UI, in practice they don't have any difference apart from 3D usage: For me at least Intel HD is perfectly well for desktop use as it does save power, reduces case temps etc. compared to dedicated cards. It is possible to do very limited 3D with it too, and I doubt that in my use 1030 would offer much of any improvement.
agree, for 90% usecases, intel HD is adequate, but switchable grahpics are nice to have. You don't have to use the Nvidia GPU if you don't want to.
