Integrated Graphics vs. Console Graphics

K

King of Heroes

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
2,006
Integrated graphics have really taken off in performance with the HD3200 and HD3300, Geforce 8200 and 8300, and the upcoming Geforce 9300 and 9400. I've always wanted to know how these graphics chipsets compare to the integrated graphics found in consoles like the Playstation 3, X-Box 360, and the Wii. I know the RSX chip in the PS3 runs at 550MHz and is related to the Geforce 7 series in specs. The ATI GPU for the 360 (don't know the name of it) runs at 500MHz. Thats all I know about them.

My reason for asking is because there are some truly beautiful looking games for the PS3 and X-Box 360 (mind you, I don't own either of them), and they're all powered by integrated graphics. The chipsets found in the ones I listed above seem to be just as powerful if not moreso than those found in consoles (I know one or more of them can run Crysis, although only at 800x600), yet I don't think I've seen any modern PC game that would run smoothly on just those chipsets alone.

Metal Gear Solid 4 @ 1080p runs smoothly on the PS3, which uses a modified Geforce 7 chipset. I would imagine that the 8200 or 8300 could AT LEAST do the same, if not run it better assuming the specs are actually superior as I suspect. There are mITX boards, which seems to be making as much a comeback as integrated graphics, using the 8200 and 780G w/ Sideport chipsets. So its entirely possible to make a smaller-than-a-shoe-box machine with specs that SHOULD be better than a console. Unfortunately, no modern PC game that I'm aware could actually run on it with the integrated graphics alone. Bleh, but thats entirely a software issue and unrelated to what I'm asking.

Anyway, pardon the divergence, back to the subject.

Does anyone know exactly how the integrated graphics chipsets listed above compare to the current gen consoles performance wise? I know its impossible to benchmark them due to the massive differences in architecture, so I guess only a spec-to-spec comparison can be made.
 
Integrated graphics chips have a hard enough time keeping playable framerates at the lowest settings. They were designed for everything but gaming, unlike the consoles which were designed solely for gaming. This really isn't a fair comparison just because they were not meant to be doing the same thing really. Generally if a person is going to play a game that is any bit 3d intensive they will use a discrete graphics solution just because that is what they are designed for.
 
Pastyface said:
Integrated graphics chips have a hard enough time keeping playable framerates at the lowest settings. They were designed for everything but gaming, unlike the consoles which were designed solely for gaming. This really isn't a fair comparison just because they were not meant to be doing the same thing really. Generally if a person is going to play a game that is any bit 3d intensive they will use a discrete graphics solution just because that is what they are designed for.
Click to expand...

Ah-hah.

How are the console chipsets implemented that makes them optimized for gaming? In comparison to the 'general' integrated graphics listed above?
 
An ATI 3400 is probably still a bit gimpier than a console, though I could be wrong. That said, the consoles have the advantage of being catered too. The games are made specifically for their card. They use what is available to add as much glitter as possible and avoid the cards weaknesses. That way the cards can be used to the absolute max.
Meanwhile on desktop systems you may have really good at X and weak at Y. A game comes out and it may demand a moderate amount of X and a moderate amount of Y. The card could have made the game prettier if its X had been taken advantage of. Meanwhile its weakness at Y causes you to have to reduce the resolution etc... On a console that wouldn't happen.
 
Jakalwarrior said:
An ATI 3400 is probably still a bit gimpier than a console, though I could be wrong. That said, the consoles have the advantage of being catered too. The games are made specifically for their card. They use what is available to add as much glitter as possible and avoid the cards weaknesses. That way the cards can be used to the absolute max.
Meanwhile on desktop systems you may have really good at X and weak at Y. A game comes out and it may demand a moderate amount of X and a moderate amount of Y. The card could have made the game prettier if its X had been taken advantage of. Meanwhile its weakness at Y causes you to have to reduce the resolution etc... On a console that wouldn't happen.
Click to expand...

I always figured that optimization played a heavy role in getting it to run. But assumed this occurred entirely in software. I assumed that if the same level of software optimization occurred in a PC game, it could run just as smoothly on the integrated graphics listed above. However, it appears the optimizations extends much farther into the hardware than I assumed, as Pastyface pointed out.

Though, that leads to a question. If integrated graphics are not really meant, or at least are not optimized for, games, then why do they include DirectX 10/10.1 support? Last I checked DX10 (and DirectX in general) is only used for games. If integrated graphics is not really meant to run 3-D games, then why include support for it? Why not just save the trouble and leave it out?
 
There's really nothing magical about "integration." In theory, you could design a motherboard with any graphics chipset integrated into the physical motherboard.

The optimization is a two way street as well. It's not just that the chipset is designed for gaming and gaming only, but that game designers know that every single 360 has the same hardware. They don't need to make compromises to get things to run on different GPU's like PC game designers.
 
the 'integrated graphics' on those consoles have a lot more power than pc integrated graphics because they were designed that way. not everyone that buys a pc needs it to play games, so the integrated graphics are generally minimum for other applications. if they wanted to they could put a super powerful integrated graphics in the motherboard, but it would only get outdated within time and very few pc users would buy it because a) its not specifically optimized for b) it can't be upgraded.

it's the worst of both worlds
 
DoomzDayz said:
the 'integrated graphics' on those consoles have a lot more power than pc integrated graphics because they were designed that way. not everyone that buys a pc needs it to play games, so the integrated graphics are generally minimum for other applications. if they wanted to they could put a super powerful integrated graphics in the motherboard, but it would only get outdated within time and very few pc users would buy it because a) its not specifically optimized for b) it can't be upgraded.

it's the worst of both worlds
Click to expand...

also if you integrated a 4870 there would be a lot of heat problems.
 
the big difference between console's graphics and integrated graphics is the simple fact that a console either a PS3 or 360 has the equivalent of a Ge-Force 7900 series gpu in it, so its a quite fast gpu. and add in to that the fact that in the ps3 case it has xDR RAM and the cell processor and the same with the 360, you have yourselves a pretty fast system as it is before any optimizations.
 
To the OP, don't be fooled by "generation gaps" in performance. Just because an onboard solution is "8-series" like the 8200 doesn't mean it's faster than the high end of the "7-series" like the 7800GT-ish GPU in the PS3. On that note the 9800GT is the exact same GPU as the 8800GT, neither of which is faster than the 2-year old 8800GTX.

etc. etc.

And no; no onboard GPU or integrated graphics chipset will look as good as PS3/Xbox 360.
 
So its merely the difference of one having a complete GPU integrated into it, due to its focus on performance and less space and power (to a point) vs. A cut down GPU which, while it may be more advanced, is hamstrung by the focus on space and power and less on performance.

Katalysis said:
The optimization is a two way street as well. It's not just that the chipset is designed for gaming and gaming only, but that game designers know that every single 360 has the same hardware. They don't need to make compromises to get things to run on different GPU's like PC game designers.
Click to expand...

This is off topic since my initial question has pretty much been answered.

As far as the designers knowing that each 360 has the same hardware, don't DirectX and OpenGL make that unnecessary? I'm not on expert on game dev, but isn't the huge of advantage of APIs like those is that you don't NEED to know what hardware the machine has to code properly for it?

Or do you mean that, because they know exactly what the hardware is, they know exactly how much it can perform and therefore know how far NOT to push it?
 
King of Heroes said:
So its merely the difference of one having a complete GPU integrated into it, due to its focus on performance and less space and power (to a point) vs. A cut down GPU which, while it may be more advanced, is hamstrung by the focus on space and power and less on performance.



This is off topic since my initial question has pretty much been answered.

As far as the designers knowing that each 360 has the same hardware, don't DirectX and OpenGL make that unnecessary? I'm not on expert on game dev, but isn't the huge of advantage of APIs like those is that you don't NEED to know what hardware the machine has to code properly for it?

Or do you mean that, because they know exactly what the hardware is, they know exactly how much it can perform and therefore know how far NOT to push it?
Click to expand...

The API's don't change the fact that there are dozens of different GPU's all with different capabilities. Developers may not have to have specific code for all the different GPU's thanks to the API's, but they still have to take into account the capabilities of all of them.
 
baddog121390 said:
MGS4 runs at 720p
Click to expand...

Actually I believe it runs at 1280x1080p with 2x MSAA. The way it renders (narrow) allows for it to look correct when stretched to 1920x1080p.

As for the OP the lower 8200-8400 series nvidia cards tend to be pretty crappy. From what I've seen the 7800GTX 256MB which is very similar to the card in the PS3 is pretty comparable to a 8600GT 256MB.
 
The card in the PS3 looked to be closer to a 7600GT to me. Both the ps3 and the 7600GT are similar to the higher end cards but have a memory bottleneck. The people who own them like to say 7800 though ;) neglecting the fact that it is a gimped 7800... gimped down to the level of 7600GT in my opinion though I could be wrong.


As far as the designers knowing that each 360 has the same hardware, don't DirectX and OpenGL make that unnecessary? I'm not on expert on game dev, but isn't the huge of advantage of APIs like those is that you don't NEED to know what hardware the machine has to code properly for it?

Or do you mean that, because they know exactly what the hardware is, they know exactly how much it can perform and therefore know how far NOT to push it?
Click to expand...

The APIs mean they can give each GPU the same orders. Each GPU still has its strengths and weaknesses though. You can squeeze out more graphical quality if you play to a cards strengths and avoid its weaknesses. In the PC gaming realm though that doesn't happen. You can do some of that optimization yourself in the grapics menus "gee my card has low memory, I better turn the textures down... but it has lots of shader power! lets turn shaders to max!..." etc... Its just that the console games are built from the ground up around one card.
 
Tricky thing Nvidia did there with the numbers and all.

I'm not very technical in understanding most of these things but:

in short, [these] consoles are better

How long till they get behind for real? :confused:
ecstatic.gif
 
Behind what? integrated graphics? probably another die shrink or two. That would bring the heat and cost down enough. You have to remember that integrated graphics are super cheap and have to run cool since they get little cooling. Out of the cost for the board, you probably pay less than 10 dollars extra for the integrated graphics! (not sure on the higher end ATI integrated graphics). If people were willing to pay more for integrated graphics they could stick some decent chips on there and some cooling (similar to laptops). We aren't though, so they wont ;)

Behind enthusiast cards? they were outdated before they were even released.
 
There are huge differences between IGPs of PCs and onboard GPUs you'll find in consoles.

- The GPUs of a console is more a regular videocard with a high-end chip placed on the mainboard instead of on an expansion card. It has the powerful processing chip with dedicated VRAM and traces.
- IGPs are integrated into the NB of the chipset, are always low- to medium-end chips, share memory with the rest of the system (thus having around ten times more latency for memory access) and are in all possible ways aimed at highly integrated and/or budget systems.

The current consoles use GPUs which are relatively out of date, but since all consoles of generation X of manufacturer Y have the same GPU with the same feature set one can optimize the heck out of it, not having to consider other configurations. As pointed out these GPUs hover around the GeForce 7600/7800 level for the PS3 and one generation behind for the X360 (since it was launched a year earlier). These GPUs are still way above what an IGP provided in 780G or current nVidia IGP chipsets can provide. In terms of features they may be ahead, but the shared memory and low clockspeed makes it hard for them to compete.

Then again, everything beats Intel GMA graphics :p
 
the 790gx and the coming 880g ish chips are still a bit behind the console boards. I would have to say that the ps3 is roughly a 7800gt, and the xbox 360 is roughly an x1800.

A better comparison might be if ati is able to build an x3650ish chip into the northbridge, with 128mb ddr 3 sideport memory, then that might be comparible to the consoles, but until then, the consoles beat intergrated.

Although the current crop of low range gaming cards, the 9500gt, and espciallly the 4670 beat the consoles handily, without needing external power connections, which is important on the low end systems, too bad OEM's don't push them in more systems
 
7600gt - rules
8600gt - blows
9600gt - rules

INTEGRATED GRAFIX BLOWS

so bad it's welloy But they are probably on par with a Ps2/wii
 
JohnleMVP said:
Actually I believe it runs at 1280x1080p with 2x MSAA. The way it renders (narrow) allows for it to look correct when stretched to 1920x1080p.

As for the OP the lower 8200-8400 series nvidia cards tend to be pretty crappy. From what I've seen the 7800GTX 256MB which is very similar to the card in the PS3 is pretty comparable to a 8600GT 256MB.
Click to expand...

Actually, the PS3's GPU is the equivalent to two 7900GTX GPUs in SLI. A 7900GTX is faster than an 8600GTS, so you do the math! ;)

The 8200-8400 GPU's are the equivalent to a 7300GS/GT, all of which are MUCH slower than a single (let alone two) 7900GTX.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top