Intel’s introduction of the first modern Core processor in 2008 was a major change in direction, and not just because of its break away from the Netburst architecture behind which powered Pentium 4. The company also made a pledge to take graphics performance seriously, and it made good on that promise. When the first Intel HD Graphics showed up in 2010 alongside the new Core mobile chips, it more than doubled performance over the preceding Intel Graphics Media Accelerator in some games.
Today, five years later, Intel’s crusade for improved integrated graphics continues. Each new generation of Core brings a much bigger boost in graphics performance than per-core processor performance. Nowhere was this more apparent than with the fifth-generation Core launch, as Intel’s own slides claimed a mere four percent boost to productivity, but a 22 percent surge in gaming.
But these impressive gains have occurred in the face of more demanding games and ever increasing display resolution. Over the past five years, laptops have leaped from a typical resolution of 1,024 x 768 to 1080p, and premium models push 4K.
To find out what this means for real-world performance, we rounded up five different models of Intel HD graphics spanning three generations; HD 4000, 4200, 4600, 5500 and 6000. Let’s see what progress looks like.
The hardware
We used a variety of hardware to perform this test. An Apple Macbook Air running Boot Camp with fully updated Intel graphics drivers served as our stand-in for third-generation Core processors with Intel HD 4000.
Related: Check out the details of Intel’s fifth-generation integrated graphics
Next up we have the fourth-generation chips, represented by the Acer Aspire Switch 11 and Zotac Zbox Oi520, which offer Intel HD 4200 and 4400, respectively. The latter is particularly important, as it’s the most common IGP from the outgoing family. Most Intel-powered notebooks sold over the last year have HD 4400 inside.
Dell’s XPS 13 (2015) and Intel’s NUC with Core i5 processor, with HD 5500 and HD 6000, respectively, carry the banner for the fifth and most recent generation. Aside from the Iris 6100, which not a common choice, HD 6000 is the quickest graphics solution currently available with Core processors.
Obviously, it’s impossible to conduct an absolute apples-to-apples test. The Veriton’s Core i5-3337U is not as quick as the NUC’s Core i5-5250U, so processor performance will be in play here, as well. It’d be ideal to test each IGP with the same processor, but ultimately the point is moot, as Intel HD Graphics can’t be used independently of the processor it’s paired with.
3DMark
Futuremark’s 3DMark is essentially the industry standard among graphics benchmarks, and it provides a generalized look at performance that usually translates well to real-world games. Let’s dive right in and see how Intel has matured over the years.
These results are not difficult to interpret. Intel’s HD 4200, the low-power IGP for the thinnest and lightest fourth-generation Core systems, is the obvious loser. Second-worst is Intel’s HD 4000, the headliner of third-generation mobile graphics, which is just slightly beaten by HD 4400, the most common fourth-generation IGP.
3DMark BenchMark
Cloud Gate/Fire Strike score – Higher is better
The new kids in town, HD 5500 and HD 6000, quite easily defeat HD 4400, but the difference between them is less than expected. It’d be reasonable to think doubling execution units would lead to a major performance bump, but that’s not what’s happening here. Instead we see HD 6000 offer an extremely modest gain of just under five percent.
An improvement that slim might not be noticeable in games, but it’s possible 3DMark’s results aren’t entirely on target. Let’s see what happens when we test real games.
World of Warcraft
Blizzard Entertainment
Blizzard’s famous massively multiplayer game is over 10 years old, but it’s not a cinch for modern hardware to handle. The game has been updated significantly over the years with new areas, new textures and, most recently, new character models. There’s also been a general increase of stuff in the game, from foliage to particle effects to larger areas. Can today’s Intel HD hardware handle this evolving title?
World of Warcraft
The improvement between each generation of hardware is harder to see here than you might expect, particularly in the leap between HD 4000 and HD 4400. It turns out the mid-range integrated graphics most people actually have in their fourth-generation Core notebook isn’t much quicker than the best third-generation graphics solution.
We were surprised by the scores, so we re-tested HD 4400 with an Acer Aspire R13, which we’d just received from Acer. The story didn’t change. Intel HD 4000 and HD 4400 are virtually tied in this incredibly popular MMO.
Intel HD 4000 and HD 4400 are virtually tied in this popular MMO.
The new IGPs offer a significant leap in performance, though the size of that leap depends on the level of detail selected. At the low preset, Intel’s HD 6000 is no more than 10 percent quicker than HD 5500, but at high detail the difference grows as large as 40 percent.
Clearly, the added execution units in HD 6000 have an impact, but it’s arguably a futile effort. The HD 6000’s average framerate of 25 in World of Warcraft at high detail and 1080p is barely inside the envelope of what can be called playable, but our test was not conducted during a raid, which would surely turn the game into a slideshow. Even a brand-new notebook will prove most comfortable at medium or even low detail if 1080p the resolution desired.
Sid Meier’s Civilization: Beyond Earth
Firaxis
The latest title in the Civilization series, Beyond Earth is built on the same engine as the incredibly popular Civilization V. These two games have consumed more player hours than any strategy franchise on Steam in 2014. Both games can be demanding in late-game scenarios because large numbers of units, cities and improvements appear at once.
We tested the game using the built-in benchmark, which is represents a very harsh late-game environment. In the real world, the game will run more smoothly than these numbers suggest, but testing in a worst-case scenario is a good idea. Being forced to abandon a late-game scenario over performance issues can cause serious nerd-rage.
Though it failed to soar far above 30 frames per second on any hardware at any level of detail, Beyond Earth proved playable on all Intel graphics tested, HD 4200 aside. The game doesn’t look great at minimum detail and 1,366 x 768 but, at an average of 27 FPS on Intel HD 4000, it was manageable.
Kicking resolution up to 1080p knocked HD 4000 and HD 4400 off the playable pedestal even at minimum detail, but the new HD 5500 and HD 6000 solutions maintained their composure.
Civilization: Beyond Earth
When we fired up the game at high detail and 4x MSAA, though, Intel struggled. None of the integrated graphics solutions provided a playable experience at either resolution; not even close.
It’s worth noting that, once again, Intel HD 4000 and HD 4400 are essentially neck-and-neck: in fact, HD 4000 slightly won in three of the four benchmarks. HD 6000’s improvement over HD 5500 also proved minimal, so much so it’s hard to say the former offers a meaningfully better experience. Most gamers are not going to notice a few extra frames per second.
Battlefield 4
DICE/Electronic Arts
The latest game in DICE’s famous shooter franchise is no longer at the absolute cutting edge of graphics, but it’s still quite demanding, particularly at high detail. Even low-end desktop video cards chug on it at 1080p resolution. Does that mean it’s absolutely too much for Intel HD to handle?
In summary; yes. None of the solutions managed better than 30 frames per second on average, even at low detail and 1,366 x 768 resolution. The closest, predictably, were the two newest, HD 5500 and HD 6000, though even they were three frames shy of the 30 FPS standard. Minimum framerates hit the upper teens. That means noticeable chop occurred in gameplay on both IGPs.
Battlefield 4
Turning detail up to high at 1,366 x 768, or going to 1080p, resulted in an essentially unplayable experience. At 1080p and high detail all five IGPs became slideshows, making the game almost impossible to play.
Battlefield 4 reaffirmed the essential tie between Intel HD 4000 and HD 4400, its supposedly more advanced cousin. It also cast further doubt on the effectiveness of HD 6000. In this game it performed essentially the same HD 5500, which begs the question; what are the 24 extra execution units doing? Perhaps there’s a driver-level issue at work here, as this is the only benchmark that saw HD 6000 offer no benefit at all.
Conclusion
These tests produced interesting results.
Our first surprise came from the competition between HD 4000 and HD 4400. We expected that the latter would provide a marginal boost over its predecessor, but in fact the two are virtually tied. While it’s true that HD 4400 was not the quickest fourth-generation mobile graphics chip, it’s also true that HD 4400 was by far the most commonly encountered, as it shipped with the widely used Core i5-4200U (and its close siblings). It appears the fourth generation’s graphics performance was, in practice, more of a side-step than a leap forward.
Intel’s fifth generation is a definite leap forward, even in HD 5500, which appears to be the new mainstream graphics champion. The boost in speed over HD 4400 approaches 40 percent in select Battlefield 4 test loops, and exceeds 20 percent general. Those figures are enough to make a noticeable different in games. Beyond Earth can be enjoyed at 1080p and minimum detail on the HD 5500, for example, while HD 4400 struggles to handle the same load.
Even Intel HD 6000 failed to serve up more than 30 FPS in World of Warcraft at high detail and 1080p.
We’re more suspect of HD 6000. The version we tested was in Intel’s NUC; we haven’t encountered it in a notebook yet. We have no reason to think the NUC would perform worse than a mobile system, though, and the latest drivers were installed. Given the rise in execution units from 24 to 48 we expected to see major boosts in speed, but instead HD 6000 offered gains of around 10 percent over HD 5500.
Related: Civilization: Beyond Earth review
There’s reason to think it’s a moot point, anyway. Even HD 6000 failed to serve up more than 30 FPS in World of Warcraft at high detail and 1080p resolution, and it just barely exceeded 30 FPS at the same detail and 1,366 x 768. No Intel graphics solution came close to 60 FPS in Beyond Earth or Battlefield 4, and the latter title wasn’t playable above 1,366 x 768 and low detail even on HD 6000. It is technically possible to enjoy new games on Intel integrated graphics, but the experience is not ideal.
Yes, Intel does offer quicker versions, such as Iris 6100, but its high-end solutions are found in a vanishingly small fraction of the systems. Most buyers end up with HD 4000, HD 4400 and HD 5500, and these IGPs continue to struggle with modern games at 1080p resolution. Intel hasn’t been resting on its laurels; the leap between HD 4400 and HD 5500 is substantial. Yet it’s not enough to keep pace with increasing game quality and improving panel resolution.
The answer to the question “Can Intel HD play this game?” remains the same as ever: “Probably. But you won’t enjoy it.”
