Intel plans to launch laptop chips early next year that combine an Intel CPU with a custom AMD graphics solution. While Intel hasn’t provided many details about the upcoming chips yet, a set of leaked benchmarks gives us an idea of what to expect.

GFXBench

It looks like there will be at least two processors to start with, one called the Intel Core i7-8705G, and a more powerful option called the Core i7-8809G.

Both are expected to features quad-core Intel processors based on the company’s Kaby Lake architecture paired with a custom AMD Radeon graphics processor with 24 compute units and 1536 stream processors. The result is two processors that should be able to outperform any Intel mobile chips with integrated Intel HD graphics… but which should (at least theoretically) consume less power than a typical laptop with an Intel processor and discrete graphics.

Tweaktown notes that the Core i7-8809G seems to have about 3.3 TFLOPs of compute performance, which is about half of what you’d get with an Xbox One X game console. So if you want a 4K gaming machine, you’re probably better off building your own desktop or buying a high-end console. But that’s still pretty impressive for a laptop-class processor.

The Core i7-8705G has a lower clock speed and offers significantly less performance, but it’ll also probably be a more affordable option.

You can find more details from the benchmark results listed at GFXBench, GeekBench, and 3DMark. Note that the 694E:C0 board is expected to feature the Core i7-8809G processor, while the 694C:C0 board has the Core i7-8705G chip.

via /r/AMD and HotHardware

Support Liliputing

Liliputing's primary sources of revenue are advertising and affiliate links (if you click the "Shop" button at the top of the page and buy something on Amazon, for example, we'll get a small commission).

But there are several ways you can support the site directly even if you're using an ad blocker* and hate online shopping.

Contribute to our Patreon campaign

or...

Contribute via PayPal

* If you are using an ad blocker like uBlock Origin and seeing a pop-up message at the bottom of the screen, we have a guide that may help you disable it.

7 replies on “Benchmarks leak for Intel’s new CPUs with AMD graphics”

  1. It’s bad luck.
    Years ago, AMD integrated graphics was much better than Intel’s (it was still in chipset back then).
    Now, almost decade years after, when Intel almost overtake AMD, they stop and start integrated their graphics.
    I love AMD graphics in terms of performace, but in terms of drivers and support is no-no, showstopper and dealbreaker. AMD drivers for laptops are bad even on Windows, and in Linux they are bloody mess. They were, and they are today. I remember my first try to install Linux on a laptop with a Radeon graphics… All I have got – terminal. My neighbours bought Windows 10 laptop with AMD APU and discrete AMD Graphics – it was a bloody hell to reinstall all these drivers after reinstalling Windows. Their installer crashes every time with every try to install Catalyst or AMD Crimson. Both are pieces of shit.
    No way I will buy ever something with AMD graphics card. If they cannot write even an installer for their own drivers I don’t care how much horsepower it has – I will not buy it.
    Friend of mine bough AMD back in 2011 and mined a lot of bitcoins (today he is a respectable man, yeah), but he doesn’t ever upgrade his Windows to newest version and didn’t use Linux at all.

  2. So this is barely more powerful than Intel’s now-defunct Iris Pro integrated GPU (which they shelved for no good reason other than Intel’s perpetual lack of a steady direction)? Once the PR noise wears off, this is pretty lackluster.

  3. How does this compare to the Intel Iris Pro 580? That’s the most powerful Intel HD Graphics GPU available and I think it still outperforms this combo.

  4. Wow, this is really underwhelming performance. Just to compare, a desktop PC with an average CPU (i3 or i5), with an nvidia GT 1030 (a very low-end $65 video card) actually scores almost twice as good performance in some of these tests.

    I’m wondering if these tests are actually accurate, because some Intel i7 7th-gen U-series have integrated Intel HD 640 GPUs that score about the same as (or in some tests better than) this offering.

    1. Yeah, you’re right:
      https://gfxbench.com/compare.jsp?benchmark=gfx40&did1=43753666&os1=Windows&api1=gl&hwtype1=iGPU&hwname1=Intel%28R%29+HD+Graphics+630&D2=Intel%28R%29+Core%28TM%29+i7-8650U+CPU+with+UHD+Graphics+620

      https://gfxbench.com/compare.jsp?benchmark=gfx40&did1=26623410&os1=Windows&api1=gl&hwtype1=iGPU&hwname1=Intel%28R%29+HD+Graphics+530&D2=NVIDIA+GeForce+MX150

      Long Story Short:
      Intel HD Iris ~ 100% (enough for everything except Gaming/3D Apps)
      AMD APU Vega ~ 105% (enough for everything except Gaming/3D Apps)
      Nvidia GT 1030 ~ 135 % (enough for everything and 3D Apps, not really Gaming)
      Nvidia GTX 1050Ti ~370% (enough for everything, 3D Apps and Gaming)

    2. I think the key here though, is how much power they use. That is the missing piece of the puzzle so far.

      1. Theoretically they will use the same amount, being capped at 45W TDP.

        Practically speaking, I would expect the Vega GPU to use slightly more power than the Iris HD Graphics. But since they will use a secondary HBM (“eRAM”) it would drain a little less than the Iris HD which will tax the more power-thirsty DDR4 System RAM. The NVIDIA GPU will use more power without a doubt.

        But it really depends on drivers, and the Application utilised. We might (probably) see Nvidia’s Pascal systems offer that performance advantage at very little battery life handicap.

        Although the elephant in the room is Raven Ridge, which was designed for this use from the ground up… so it might just offer the best of both worlds (or who knows, the worst).

Comments are closed.