Leaked slides reveal Haswell graphics options for mobile CPUs

As Haswell approaches, details are leaking out about what we can expect and when. The latest trickle comes from VR-Zone’s Chinese site, which has published information on the various integrated graphics options for Intel’s next-gen mobile chips. Desktop versions of Haswell will be limited to GT2 versions of the integrated GPU, but there’s some variety on the mobile front.

According to official-looking documents posted on the site, the fastest version of Haswell’s built-in GPU will be known as the Intel HD Graphics 5200. This flavor will use the GT3 version of the integrated graphics processor paired with dedicated memory on the CPU package, and it’ll apparently be restricted to high-performance notebooks. Ultrabooks will get the HD Graphics 5100 and 5000, which will share the GT3 core but won’t employ on-package memory.

As they are on the desktop, GT2 versions of Haswell will be part of the HD Graphics 4000 family. 4200 and 4400 variants will hit ultrabooks, and a 4600 version is coming for beefier notebooks.

VR-Zone doesn’t have details on the relative performance of the various graphics configurations, but it does outline which ones will come with which ultrabook-bound CPUs. The site also has full specifications for a pair of high-end i7 parts with HD 5200 GPUs. It looks like the top-of-the-line model will be the Core i7-4950HQ, which purportedly boasts four cores clocked at 2.4GHz with a 3.6GHz Turbo peak. The integrated graphics will scale from 200-1300MHz, just like on the i7-4850HQ. That chip is otherwise identical apart from its CPU clock speeds, which are 100MHz lower. Both i7s have a 47W thermal envelope that rules out use in ultra-slim notebooks.

The HQ models may not be the only 47W chips in the Haswell lineup. CPU-World says we’ll see MQ derivatives with slower HD 4600 graphics. Those processors will reportedly trade faster integrated GPUs for a 400MHz boost in base CPU frequency and a 200MHz increase in max Turbo speeds. The lower model numbers suggest Intel is keen to emphasize integrated graphics performance with its new processors.

Comments closed
    • HisDivineOrder
    • 8 years ago

    So Intel.

    Give us a quad-core, 8-thread with hyperthreading, GT3, embedded memory-powered NUC please. Give it USB3 ports, HDMI, and ethernet. Make it any color we want as long as we want black. And give it enough room for two mSATA SSD’s inside.

    Thanks.

    • NeelyCam
    • 8 years ago

    [quote<]This flavor will use the GT3 version of the integrated graphics processor paired with dedicated memory on the CPU package, and it'll apparently be restricted to high-performance notebooks. Ultrabooks will get the HD Graphics 5100 and 5000[/quote<] $(*&|! #*^%! What do I do now? Get a brick with integrated gpu memory, or a svelte ultrabook without? Maybe someone will make a "high-performance 12" notebook" or something...

      • chuckula
      • 8 years ago

      They already do… but you need a discrete GPU for the best performance. GT3 Haswell will do very well in Ultrabooks given the power/size/heat limitations, but don’t expect miracles. If, however, you are OK with breaking one or more of the power/size/heat limitations, then you can get more performance.

        • NeelyCam
        • 8 years ago

        Overall, I don’t care about heat. I care about power (or, rather, battery life) and size.

        I don’t see how breaking a heat limitation would score me more performance in the same power and size.

      • MadManOriginal
      • 8 years ago

      I don’t understand why you’re so bothered about the IGP in a notebook. You say you don’t do any PC gaming, these IGPs are more than enough for general use…so what’s up?

        • NeelyCam
        • 8 years ago

        Benchmarks, of course! Duh! I wanna show that my Intel ultrabook kicks Temash/Kabini/Richland/Kaveri butt in [b<][i<]EVERYTHING[/i<][/b<], because I know some AMD fanbois that need to be shown their place

          • Spunjji
          • 8 years ago

          Sadly it won’t, because evidently Intel can’t do that just yet. Better luck at 14nm eh? 😉

            • NeelyCam
            • 8 years ago

            We haven’t seen GT3 data yet, let alone GT3e. And we havent seen ANY data for those AMD APUs that didn’t come directly from AMD.

            So, let’s wait before making wild conclusions, ok?

      • Spunjji
      • 8 years ago

      Pretty much agreed here. The hype led me to think the memory would be on the Ultrabook models, where it might make the performance less miserable. Oh well. :/

    • brucethemoose
    • 8 years ago

    Aren’t ultrabooks the machines that need GT3 graphics the most?

    In games, any decent dGPU will blow GT3 out of the water, and while the memory is interesting, GPU computation isn’t really a priority for notebooks right now.

      • My Johnson
      • 8 years ago

      It looks like they are still bumping up against thermal envelopes.

        • Visigoth
        • 8 years ago

        Indeed, that seems to be the logical conclusion. Obviously the die-shrink to Broadwell will probably allow for some more iGPU features to be integrated. No promises though, as these things are always moving targets depending on complexity, yield and other issues.

      • MadManOriginal
      • 8 years ago

      [quote<]Ultrabooks will get the HD Graphics 5100 and 5000, which will share the GT3 core but won't employ on-package memory[/quote<] Ultrabooks will get GT3, just not GT3 with the extra on-package memory.

        • Spunjji
        • 8 years ago

        That’s the one we’re (people like me who want to see the most they can do with a small machine) really after, though. Intel promised 2x graphics performance but if they can only hit that in a fat laptop where dGPUs come into play then it’s less exciting.

        That said, it’s still interesting from the competitive perspective of perhaps prodding AMD and nVidia into putting decent gear into OEM machines in order to compete. No more x4xx or lower from AMD and x3x or lower from nVidia, please! 😉

    • thesmileman
    • 8 years ago

    Wow! Intel making a dedicate graphics chip? Whats next AMD making a profit?

      • chuckula
      • 8 years ago

      [quote<]Intel making a dedicate graphics chip?[/quote<] Not any time soon! (these are still IGPs) [quote<]Whats next AMD making a profit?[/quote<] That will likely happen later this year (at least we hope so).

      • tipoo
      • 8 years ago

      It’s not dedicated, it’s still integrated.

        • NeelyCam
        • 8 years ago

        You know, if it has its own memory, the line is sort of blurred.. one could call it an “integrated dedicated GPU”.. I mean, what’s the definition of an IGP?

          • tipoo
          • 8 years ago

          From my understanding, the eDRAM on Haswell isn’t a complete replacement for video memory, it still does use system memory. Rather, like the Wii Us or Xbox 360s eDRAM, it likely helps with some high bandwidth low footprint graphics operations, while most things are still stored on the system DRAM.

          So if you define integrated graphics only by shared memory, it’s still only halfway there, and if you say shared memory plus being integrated onto another chip whether the processor or chipset, then Haswells GPU is still mostly in the integrated GPU camp.

      • NeelyCam
      • 8 years ago

      [quote<]Wow! Intel making a delicate graphics chip?[/quote<] ftfy

    • windwalker
    • 8 years ago

    First one able to put a GT3e (HD 5200) in a fanless NUC sized computer gets my business.

      • NeelyCam
      • 8 years ago

      Well said.

      • MadManOriginal
      • 8 years ago

      I don’t think it could be NUC-sized, not at 45W at least. So it’s a choice between fanless and NUC-sized…your choice. Personally I’d be ok with a larger cube that has one slow, large fan and a passive CPU heatsink.

        • NeelyCam
        • 8 years ago

        GT3e only comes at 45W? I’m hoping they have something that would be closer to 25W or so..

          • MadManOriginal
          • 8 years ago

          ‘GT3e’ = HD5200 branding (no on package memory = HD5000 or HD5100). Reading the second link, which basically translates the first link, HD5200 is in the 47W* i7xxx[b<]H[/b<]Q CPUs. So yes, high wattage mobile only for GT3e based on the information we've got so far. *I said 45W before...oops.

          • tipoo
          • 8 years ago

          Does it? Someone confirm or deny? That would rule out the 13″ MBP and many similar laptops as those tend to use 35W.

        • Airmantharp
        • 8 years ago

        I bet they could make it NUC-sized, but it’d probably be both louder and harder to work inside.

        • windwalker
        • 8 years ago

        I’m thinking the case would be the heatsink.

      • tipoo
      • 8 years ago

      Has anyone even built an NUC sized AMD APU computer yet? Seems like that would be a good fit. Something Mac Mini sized but fairly game capable.

      • HisDivineOrder
      • 8 years ago

      With USB3.

    • MadManOriginal
    • 8 years ago

    [quote<]GT2 versions of Haswell will be part of the HD Graphics 4000 family[/quote<] Interestly, this is like the opposite of AMD and NV rebranding...a new, or at least significantly updated, GPU architecture but branded as part of an older series.

      • slaimus
      • 8 years ago

      This happens plenty of times in graphics. 8800GT/GTS-65nm, Radeon 4770, even the recent 7790.

    • Airmantharp
    • 8 years ago

    Still disappointed that they’re not giving us a full-fat desktop version, though I’ve no doubt that they’ll make some really nice near-ultrabooks with these.

    Would have been nice to get a near-NUC with everything included, and it’d be perfect for HTPCs. I’m thinking this new GPU with cache will be competent at 1080p on all but the most demanding titles.

      • tipoo
      • 8 years ago

      A desktop user that wants any serious graphics performance would get or have a discreet GPU. Whereas on laptops, the thinner you make them the less room there is for a discreet GPU (plus the cost factor), so having decent performing integrated graphics is nice.

        • Waco
        • 8 years ago

        A small desktop has the same requirements as a “fast laptop” IMHO.

        There’s no reason except for market segmentation.

          • tipoo
          • 8 years ago

          Sure. But what I said was likely Intels reason for justifying it.

      • OneArmedScissor
      • 8 years ago

      It’s looking like they want the GT3 with memory to be in the i7 price tier. If that is the case, the price difference between a hypothetical desktop part and an i5 quad-core would cover a Radeon 7770. If you’re thinking i3 dual-core, that’s enough for a Radeon 7870.

      Intel would not only be completely unable to sell that part in volume to OEMs, but would probably be branded a “rip off” or “price gouger” by enthusiasts. They have nothing to gain and something to lose.

      If you just want lower end 1080p games in a small box and at a low price, AMD will probably have a “full fat” A10 at the lower TDP level.

      • UberGerbil
      • 8 years ago

      There’s nothing stopping somebody like Zotac from sourcing the mobile chips and selling them as part of a “barebones” kit with motherboard (and probably HSF) or as full NUC-like boxes. Well, there are potentially two things stopping that: possible Intel contract language, and price. Though Ultrabook pricing is such that the CPUs can’t be all that outrageously-priced relative to the desktop parts (though apples-to-apples comparisons are difficult). And Intel’s NUC push suggests that full ultra-SFF boxes are a focus for them, so I wouldn’t think they’d bar ODMs from doing it.

      Now, it’s true even then that you’re still not getting a top-end desktop CPU mated with the top-end integrated graphics in a single chip; it certainly would be interesting seeing what that combination would do to the thermal budget, but for the purposes of HTPC at least that’s not really necessary.

        • Forge
        • 8 years ago

        You noticed that Intel mobile parts are pretty much all BGA these days, with very few in sockets, yeah?

        It’s not a matter of buying a chip and slapping it onto a standard mobo. The product you describe would need a custom motherboard as well.

          • UberGerbil
          • 8 years ago

          It’s no different from engineering a laptop, which plenty of ODMs already manage to do. Offering it in a NUCish form, with relaxed thermal constraints, is actually easier. Of course you don’t get the volume advantage you get with standard desktop motherboards, but you’re not going to be getting that with any ultra-SFF anyway.

      • chuckula
      • 8 years ago

      My money is on all-in-one desktop PCs (iMacs included) using the high-end BGA chips just like they do now with the higher-end notebook parts being put into these systems to keep the size down.

    • tipoo
    • 8 years ago

    Hmm, that’s a bit ambiguous. I wonder if 13 inch non-ultrabook laptops (like the Macbook Pro 13″) would be getting the integrated graphics with embedded DRAM then, and actually it was rumored that Apple was the one pushing for eDRAM on the graphics, probably to bring better performance with retina displays.

    I also wonder how much of a performance delta there will be between the GT3 and GT3e (I guess 5200 and 5100) will be. Ivy Bridges HD4000 graphics didn’t seem to improve much with higher memory bandwidth, but if GT3 performs twice as well the memory may be a bottleneck and so the eDRAM would make sense. And speaking of which, I wonder, when Intel said Haswells integrated graphics would be twice as good, did they mean GT3 with or without the eDRAM?

    Also, is it known if the CPU can use the eDRAM as a sort of L4 cache, or is it GPU only? It would help tremendously for GPGPU, where the biggest bottleneck is swapping memory from GPU to system memory, if both the CPU and GPU could access the same quick pool that would help.

      • NeelyCam
      • 8 years ago

      Maybe Apple has an exclusivity agreement with Intel for having a GT3e in an Ultrabook form factor? That would certainly help them compete with Lenovo, Asus et al.

        • tipoo
        • 8 years ago

        That would certainly make it tempting. That’s why I’m wondering about the performance delta with or without the eDRAM. If Apple alone got it into the Macbook airs and everyone elses ultrabooks had the weaker graphics and the difference was great, that’s a big deal. And it would likely fix the performance issues in the retina models too.

          • NeelyCam
          • 8 years ago

          [quote<]And speaking of which, I wonder, when Intel said Haswells integrated graphics would be twice as good, did they mean GT3 with or without the eDRAM? [/quote<] Well, it's rumored that GT3 has 40 execution units while GT2 has 20.. (meanwhile, Ivy Bridge HD4000 has 16). Clocks might be different, though, so I'd guess the 2x was probably comparing Ivy Bridge to a GT3 without eDRAM.

            • tipoo
            • 8 years ago

            I think GT3 was clocked significantly lower to save power. The HD4600/GT2 is about a quarter better than the HD4000 from IVB, there’s still plenty of room for differentiation in between double and 25% better, I would guess they were talking about the full version with eDRAM when they say double the performance. I’d love to be surprised and proven wrong though. If GT3e can get significantly above double, that is a big step forward.

            EDIT: Here, GT3 has a base clock of 200MHz with or without the eDRAM, and GT2 has one of 400.

            [url<]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haswell_(microarchitecture)[/url<]

            • maroon1
            • 8 years ago

            At least both models have same GPU turbo clock

            • tipoo
            • 8 years ago

            Do the GPUs run at Turbo the majority of the time in games? I seem to recall somewhere (I think anandtech?) saying that they do. But then why not call that the base clock if they always run at it when pushed?

            If they do run at the turbo clock most of the time, the doubling of execution resources over GT2/HD4600 should in theory put it over double IVB performance, but memory bandwidth would be a factor at such performance. So I’m still not sure if they mean with or without the eDRAM when they say double performance.

      • Spunjji
      • 8 years ago

      They almost certainly meant with eDRAM. Intel aren’t likely to quote the smaller of two numbers.

        • NeelyCam
        • 8 years ago

        AMD marketing inflates numbers as much as they can. Intel aims for realistic, honest numbers.

          • tipoo
          • 8 years ago

          Even if it’s “realistic”, why would they compare their previous gen top performer to their next gen mid range when talking about an “up to” performance?

            • NeelyCam
            • 8 years ago

            … um… to throw people off from their [b<]magnificent[/b<] GT3e numbers...? I don't know - it almost seems like they are hiding something.. There are the 2x/5x rumors, until charlie decided it's 2x/2x_but_lower_power. That lower clock frequency got propagated everywhere (including Wiki). That doesn't make sense to me. I've seen it, [i<]first hand[/i<] that the NUC benefits from memory bandwidth - something all APU fans agree on. Integrating memory on GT3e could speed up the memory BW. Why would you waste that opportunity on running your stuff at half the frequency? "Normal" memory would do fine, especially if it did a fine job at the "regular" frequency. There is no reason whatsoever to run GT3e at a low frequency. My guess is that the GT3e is all about performance and NOT about power consumption.

            • tipoo
            • 8 years ago

            I wasn’t implying GT3e does perform much better than GT3, but there’s still plenty of room between the 1.25x GT2 is posting over IVB and the 2x rumor. Maybe GT3 is somewhere in between there, with GT3e on top. But we’ll have to wait to see. 13 inch laptops with GT3e and significantly better than the double performance rumor would be very exciting.

      • DavidC1
      • 8 years ago

      Only the Quad core and the Ultrabook chips are getting GT3 of any sort. The rest are getting GT2.

      Of course, and it would be very stupid to give Apple the only GT3e when they want to dump Intel from the lines and is far less of a market than rest of the PC market. But I think they are smarter than that.

    • LukeCWM
    • 8 years ago

    Around nine months ago, I researched my small company’s president’s laptop purchase. I looked at Ultrabooks, but they lacked the muscle he desired. I found a neat Sony for the ridiculous price of $2,000 that failed to meet the Ultrabook specification because it had a 35w Ivy i7.

    I’m not suggestion everyone pay $2,000 for a notebook, but that one is definitely thin and slick, and it was able to pack a 35w processor. I think there’s hope for more powerful computers with thinner profiles.

      • smilingcrow
      • 8 years ago

      I like that Intel’s Ultrabook campaign has led to a lot more small form factor laptops but the term itself throws such a wide net as to be almost pointless now.

      • Beelzebubba9
      • 8 years ago

      You mean like the retina MacBook Pros? Or does the Sony laptop fall under the weight portion of Intel’s ultabook spec unlike the Macs?

    • 5150
    • 8 years ago

    Can’t wait!

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This