Review Index:
Feedback

Frame Rating: Comparing Haswell, Trinity and Richland Integrated Graphics

Author: Ryan Shrout
Manufacturer: Various

Frame Rating Methodology – Changes for Mobile Platforms

Below is the detailed explanation of our Frame Rating capture-based performance analysis, but for those of you that are already familiar with it, we had to change a few things for our mobile testing.  It might not stand out initially, but testing on the integrated panels was NOT possible with this testing; in order to get a capture of the graphical output from the system we need to intercept the signal from the GPU to the display and record it.  In order to this we used external display outputs on all of the machines tested.  For the MacBook Air we used the Thunderbolt / DisplayPort output, for the MSI GE40 I used the HDMI output and on the Trinity reference system I used the HDMI output.  The desktop Richland configuration was captured using the DVI connection on the motherboard.

In order to try and relieve any issues of mirrored outputs, we tested without the displays on each of the notebooks so that only the external monitor was active.  This allows us to test resolutions that are non-native as well – crucial for as scientific a comparison as possible.  Because of that you’ll see we tested some of the machines at resolutions HIGHER than the native screens – most notably the MBA with the HD 5000.  It ships with a rather low 1366x768 resolution display but we ran tests at 1680x1050 and 1920x1080 in order to directly compare it to Trinity, Richland and even an NVIDIA discrete solution.  Even though you would likely never game at 1080p on a MacBook Air, we are still able to get adequate performance comparisons between the various solutions. 

View Full Size

Performance tests were run using the new 3DMark 2013 (Cloud Gate) as well as several games including Battlefield 3, Bioshock Infinite, DiRT 3, Left 4 Dead 2 and Skyrim.  You can clearly see that we combined a good mix of games from the aged (Left 4 Dead 2 and DiRT 3) to the new (Bioshock Infinite) and some in between (BF3 and Skyrim) in order to give a wider range of results.  Left 4 Dead2 and DiRT 3 are games that should be more than playable at higher resolutions even on the MacBook Air while BF3 and Bioshock Infinite will really push that configuration to see if can act as a modest gaming companion.

Looking for other specific tests or think the setup we have arranged is out of whack?  Let me know in the comments – I am always looking to update our workloads!

 

Frame Rating: Our Testing Process

If you aren't familiar with it, you should probably do a little research into our testing methodology as it is quite different than others you may see online.  Rather than using FRAPS to measure frame rates or frame times, we are using an secondary PC to capture the output from the tested graphics card directly and then use post processing on the resulting video to determine frame rates, frame times, frame variance and much more. 

This amount of data can be pretty confusing if you attempting to read it without proper background, but I strongly believe that the results we present paint a much more thorough picture of performance than other options.  So please, read up on the full discussion about our Frame Rating methods before moving forward!!

While there are literally dozens of file created for each “run” of benchmarks, there are several resulting graphs that FCAT produces, as well as several more that we are generating with additional code of our own. 

If you don't need the example graphs and explanations below, you can jump straight to the benchmark results now!!

 

The PCPER FRAPS File

While the graphs above are produced by the default version of the scripts from NVIDIA, I have modified and added to them in a few ways to produce additional data for our readers.  The first file shows a sub-set of the data from the RUN file above, the average frame rate over time as defined by FRAPS, though we are combining all of the GPUs we are comparing into a single graph.  This will basically emulate the data we have been showing you for the past several years.

 

The PCPER Observed FPS File

This graph takes a different subset of data points and plots them similarly to the FRAPS file above, but this time we are look at the “observed” average frame rates, shown previously as the blue bars in the RUN file above.  This takes out the dropped and runts frames, giving you the performance metrics that actually matter – how many frames are being shown to the gamer to improve the animation sequences. 

As you’ll see in our full results on the coming pages, seeing a big difference between the FRAPS FPS graphic and the Observed FPS will indicate cases where it is likely the gamer is not getting the full benefit of the hardware investment in their PC.

 

The PLOT File

The primary file that is generated from the extracted data is a plot of calculated frame times including runts.  The numbers here represent the amount of time that frames appear on the screen for the user, a “thinner” line across the time span represents frame times that are consistent and thus should produce the smoothest animation to the gamer.  A “wider” line or one with a lot of peaks and valleys indicates a lot more variance and is likely caused by a lot of runts being displayed.

 

The RUN File

While the two graphs above show combined results for a set of cards being compared, the RUN file will show you the results from a single card on that particular result.  It is in this graph that you can see interesting data about runts, drops, average frame rate and the actual frame rate of your gaming experience. 

For tests that show no runts or drops, the data is pretty clean.  This is the standard frame rate per second over a span of time graph that has become the standard for performance evaluation on graphics cards.

A test that does have runts and drops will look much different.  The black bar labeled FRAPS indicates the average frame rate over time that traditional testing would show if you counted the drops and runts in the equation – as FRAPS FPS measurement does.  Any area in red is a dropped frame – the wider the amount of red you see, the more colored bars from our overlay were missing in the captured video file, indicating the gamer never saw those frames in any form.

The wide yellow area is the representation of runts, the thin bands of color in our captured video, that we have determined do not add to the animation of the image on the screen.  The larger the area of yellow the more often those runts are appearing.

Finally, the blue line is the measured FPS over each second after removing the runts and drops.  We are going to be calling this metric the “observed frame rate” as it measures the actual speed of the animation that the gamer experiences.

 

The PERcentile File

Scott introduced the idea of frame time percentiles months ago but now that we have some different data using direct capture as opposed to FRAPS, the results might be even more telling.  In this case, FCAT is showing percentiles not by frame time but instead by instantaneous FPS.  This will tell you the minimum frame rate that will appear on the screen at any given percent of time during our benchmark run.  The 50th percentile should be very close to the average total frame rate of the benchmark but as we creep closer to the 100% we see how the frame rate will be affected. 

The closer this line is to being perfectly flat the better as that would mean we are running at a constant frame rate the entire time.  A steep decline on the right hand side tells us that frame times are varying more and more frequently and might indicate potential stutter in the animation.

 

The PCPER Frame Time Variance File

Of all the data we are presenting, this is probably the one that needs the most discussion.  In an attempt to create a new metric for gaming and graphics performance, I wanted to try to find a way to define stutter based on the data sets we had collected.  As I mentioned earlier, we can define a single stutter as a variance level between t_game and t_display. This variance can be introduced in t_game, t_display, or on both levels.  Since we can currently only reliably test the t_display rate, how can we create a definition of stutter that makes sense and that can be applied across multiple games and platforms?

We define a single frame variance as the difference between the current frame time and the previous frame time – how consistent the two frames presented to the gamer.  However, as I found in my testing plotting the value of this frame variance is nearly a perfect match to the data presented by the minimum FPS (PER) file created by FCAT.  To be more specific, stutter is only perceived when there is a break from the previous animation frame rates. 

Our current running theory for a stutter evaluation is this: find the current frame time variance by comparing the current frame time to the running average of the frame times of the previous 20 frames.  Then, by sorting these frame times and plotting them in a percentile form we can get an interesting look at potential stutter.  Comparing the frame times to a running average rather than just to the previous frame should prevent potential problems from legitimate performance peaks or valleys found when moving from a highly compute intensive scene to a lower one.

While we are still trying to figure out if this is the best way to visualize stutter in a game, we have seen enough evidence in our game play testing and by comparing the above graphic to other data generated through our Frame rating system to be reasonably confident in our assertions.  So much in fact that I am going to going this data the PCPER ISU, which beer fans will appreciate the acronym of International Stutter Units.

To compare these results you want to see a line that is as close the 0ms mark as possible indicating very little frame rate variance when compared to a running average of previous frames.  There will be some inevitable incline as we reach the 90+ percentile but that is expected with any game play sequence that varies from scene to scene.  What we do not want to see is a sharper line up that would indicate higher frame variance (ISU) and could be an indication that the game sees microstuttering and hitching problems.

July 8, 2013 | 01:04 PM - Posted by Br01 (not verified)

Good reviews Ryan and as you say in the (Performance per Watt and Final Thoughts) section : (Clearly we need to get in a Richland based notebook to see where it stands for the mobile market).

I couldn't agree more will be interesting to see them results.

Good work.

July 8, 2013 | 01:10 PM - Posted by grommet

Nice article Ryan, quick question though; On the Methodology page should the following sentence have the word "NOT" in it where I inserted it (capitalized for ease in finding it)?

"It might not stand out initially, but testing on the integrated panels was NOT possible with this testing; in order to get a capture of the graphical output from the system we need to intercept the signal from the GPU to the display and record it."

July 8, 2013 | 02:00 PM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

Yup!

July 8, 2013 | 01:55 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

With 2 out of the 3 laptops, that I own, never get Intel HD graphics Driver updates from the OEM's [who customizied the Intel HD graphics drivers, then never update the graphics drivers!]. Intel lets the OEMs customize their Intel HD graphics drivers, Once these Intel HD Graphics drivers are customizied by the OEM, Intel can not update them, it becomes the OEM's responcability to update the OEM modded Intel HD graphics drivers! 2 of the 3 laptops that I own will never get updated graphics drivers. The big question here is What good is Intel graphics without updates? Intel's record here, thorugh letting laptpop OEM customizie the Intel HD graphics, and OEMs never updating their customizied Intel HD graphics drivers, is Piss Poor! Intel needs to make the laptop OEMs use Intel generic HD graphics drivers, which can be updated by Intel, or Intel needs to require laptop OEM's to keep the OEM customizied Intel HD graphics drivers updated on a regular basis! Without proper graphics drivers, and graphics driver update support, Intel graphics can not be trusted for gaming, no matter how good Intel's graphics hardware is!

July 8, 2013 | 05:58 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

"And to be completely fair to Intel, I think that it was able to hold its own in terms of performance per watt of TDP." --HAHAHA as if ANYONE needs to be fair to INTEL!!!

July 8, 2013 | 07:37 PM - Posted by Gabe Newell (not verified)

So ryan, what's better for a budget game box?

A10-6800k vs a low end dedicated GPU such as GTX750 for 19x10 gaming?

July 9, 2013 | 11:31 AM - Posted by Ryan Shrout

Well the 750 will be faster, but it's a bigger configuration and will use more power / create more heat.

July 11, 2013 | 12:27 PM - Posted by Poci

For gaming I would do hybrid crossfire by adding a low to mid range card.

July 12, 2013 | 07:03 PM - Posted by IronMikeAce

I think if you are going to put up a graph on performance/watt then you should put up a performance/price graph as well. These two graphs are the main points of any hardware comparison and go hand in hand with each other. You can't have one without the other. All your hardware reviews should have performance/watt and performance/price graphs included in them. Those are the best scales to use when comparing hardware. I usually have to make my own graphs because most don't do that and when they do its only with a couple pieces of hardware. Another suggestion would be to include older hardware in benchmark comparisons because most who are buying new components are upgrading from something older. There is no point really not to include older hardware because the end-user can't tell how much faster the new card is over theirs. I think the best comparisons for benchmarks should include one from each team of a high-end, mainstream and low-cost part from the current components back at least 2 generations. There are so many benchmarks of hardware of the same generation and there are plenty of places to find it but what is hard to find is how a new component is going to perform over someone's old component. Just a thought.

July 22, 2013 | 02:17 PM - Posted by drbaltazar (not verified)

@ryan:I did not follow the whole series of article,my question.
I believe one angle wasn't covered that might affect result.pre-msi,post-msi and latest msi-x (message signal interrupt)
From what I read msi-x or newest possible is recommended.but I can't find one mono that does not hybridize .(use pre-msi and msi-x or MSI.could you suggest a mono that do 100% msi-x.if your bored it would be a nice article to do.since it should definitely alter most result you had so far (if you didn't think about interrupt!)

July 22, 2013 | 02:20 PM - Posted by drbaltazar (not verified)

Not mono but motherboard

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote><p><br>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.