Intel® HD Graphics

Post requests to add new GPUs to the official whitelist here.

Moderators: Site Moderators, PandeGroup

Re: Intel® HD Graphics

Postby bruce » Sun Apr 09, 2017 3:21 am

I have a NVidia GT 740. Its performance is below that of the "average GPU." A 1 minute run on hdfr gave me a score of 8.90. It has 384 shaders running at 993 MHz which gives 762 SP GFLOPS. It easily makes the deadlines.

I also have a GT 710 (LP) which has 192 Shaders @ 954 which produces 366 SP GFLOPS. I'll need to benchmark it but that's probably a FAHBench score of 4.27.

Compare that to the Intel 6000 series which have 48 execution units @ 1000Ghz. I'd expect them to be about 25% as fast. This puts them somewhat above many CPUs but still considerably below most supported GPUs. I can't find anything except the Iris Pro Graphics 580 with more than 48 EUs. (It has 72). Do you have a source that rates the Intel Graphics in terms of Single Precision GFLOPS?

Question: Do you know anybody who considers themselves a gamer would would accept the frame rates that can be produced by an iGPU? Everybody I know has a NV GTX1080 (2560 shaders @ 1607) or a TItan (3584 shaders @1417) which produce something like 1000 GFLOPS.
bruce
 
Posts: 21272
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:13 pm
Location: So. Cal.

Re: Intel® HD Graphics

Postby darkbasic » Sun Apr 09, 2017 1:36 pm

bruce wrote:Do you have a source that rates the Intel Graphics in terms of Single Precision GFLOPS?

Here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_HD_ ... s_Graphics

Mine is an Ultra Low Power HD Graphics 5500, capable of 364.8 GFLOPS and scores 3.8875 points with an unoptimized OpenCL stack.
Iris Plus Graphics 650, which is a modern Kaby Lake but still Ultra Low Power iGPU is capable of 883.2 GFLOPS, which you can interpolate into 9.4118 points with an unoptimized OpenCL stack.
Iris Pro Graphics 580 is a bit more outdated (it's based on the Skylake architecture instead of Kaby Lake) but it's a desktop iGPU and not an Ultra Low Voltage mobile one, so it's capable of 1152 GFLOPS which you can interpolate into 12.2763 points with an unoptimized OpenCL stack.
Intel still didn't release its Kaby Lake top notch desktop iGPU, but since from Broadwell (Iris Pro Graphics 6200, 883.2 GFLOPS) to Skylake (Iris Pro Graphics 580, 1152 GFLOPS) we had a 30.43% increase in GFLOPS, we can expect the soon to be released Kaby Lake top notch iGPU to be capable of 1503 GFLOPS, which you can interpolate into 16.0168 points with an unoptimized OpenCL stack.
Considering the Beignet stack is still far from being well optimized we can expect to squeeze out another 30-50% out of it, which means that we could be able to score up to 20.8218-24.0251 which is 70-80% of an HD 7950/R9 280 at stock frequencies.

bruce wrote:Question: Do you know anybody who considers themselves a gamer would would accept the frame rates that can be produced by an iGPU? Everybody I know has a NV GTX1080 (2560 shaders @ 1607) or a TItan (3584 shaders @1417) which produce something like 1000 GFLOPS.

It's not a matter of who you know, it's a matter of market share. Intel has about 70% of the GPU market share with their iGPUs, nVidia and AMD together have the remaining 30%. Nvidia has 66% of the remaining share and 1080s are probably a tenth of the whole Nvidia cards, which means that 1080s have a 0.1*0.66*0.3=0.0198% of the market share. Yeah 1080s are fast, but they account for less than 0.02% of the total market share.
darkbasic
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 11:50 am

Re: Intel® HD Graphics

Postby bruce » Sun Apr 09, 2017 2:51 pm

Nobody disputes that iGPUs are great for displaying the desktop images produced by your OS. My question is in regard to high-performance video as demanded by video games and by FAH. What kind of GPU is in a "game-ready" or "VR ready" computer and what is their market share in that market?

Today's ad for a local electronics store advertises a name brand computer with a "6th Gen Intel Core i7 processor" and "Radeon RX-480 graphics." Does it qualify as being part of the Intel's 70%?
bruce
 
Posts: 21272
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:13 pm
Location: So. Cal.

Re: Intel® HD Graphics

Postby Joe_H » Sun Apr 09, 2017 3:47 pm

Yes, an nVidia 1080 is at the high end and represents a smaller fraction of the market, but I only used that as an example where I could find a FAHBench score fairly quickly. There are plenty other mid-tier GPU's from AMD and nVidia that perform quite well and are several times as powerful as the Iris Plus 650.

The Iris Plus 650 you use as an example is one of the most powerful iGPU's currently offered in the Intel lineup. It is only offered in a fraction of the Kaby Lake mobile processors, and not at all currently for the desktop. Same applies for the lesser Iris Plus 640, mobile only. In terms of GFLOPS, there are a few top end iGPU offerings in the recent Intel CPU families that perform at that level.

So, basically the highest end Intel iGPU's are reaching a minimum performance threshold that may make them suitable for folding. Absent answers to the question of how long they can run at near full performance without being throttled by thermal considerations, that at least makes them "interesting". Thermal throttling may be less of an issue with a desktop computer. With future generations of Intel processors likely to get further improvements in iGPU's, worth watching and possibly investigating further. Whether that leads to an Intel GPU folding core, time will tell. PG will still have to weigh the costs in time against other programming and support needs.
Image

iMac 2.8 i7 12 GB smp8, Mac Pro 2.8 quad 12 GB smp6
MacBook Pro 2.9 i7 8 GB smp3
Joe_H
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3812
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 4:41 pm
Location: W. MA

Re: Intel® HD Graphics

Postby darkbasic » Sun Apr 09, 2017 10:36 pm

bruce wrote:Today's ad for a local electronics store advertises a name brand computer with a "6th Gen Intel Core i7 processor" and "Radeon RX-480 graphics." Does it qualify as being part of the Intel's 70%?


It qualifies as Intel as well as Nvidia, in fact the owner of such computer will be able to fold on both GPUs. Yet Intel has still 70% of the market share while Nvidia only 20%.

Joe_H wrote:In terms of GFLOPS, there are a few top end iGPU offerings in the recent Intel CPU families that perform at that level.


True, but since Haswell the average desktop iGPU has at least 432 GFLOPS which you can interpolate into 4.6036 points with an unoptimized OpenCL stack.
Considering the Beignet stack is still far from being well optimized we can expect to squeeze out another 30-50% out of it, which means that we could be able to score up to 6-7 with the average iGPU.
Since Intel has 70% of the market share while the 1080s (which score about 110) only 0.02% if you do the math you will discover that they both account for the same exact computing power.
I'm not saying that Folding@home should absolutely release an Intel GPU core, but they should at least seriously consider it because the trend is towards more powerful APUs and even if iGPUs don't have raw power they have numbers, extremely huge numbers. I don't know how hard could be to adapt core x22 (the one currently in development AFAIK) to be able to run on Intel GPUs, but if it doesn't require too much efforts it should be evaluated, especially because no one is going to optimize the OpenCL stack for a compute task until it becomes of general use and such optimizations will surely take a long time.

Joe_H wrote:Absent answers to the question of how long they can run at near full performance without being throttled by thermal considerations, that at least makes them "interesting". Thermal throttling may be less of an issue with a desktop computer.


My laptop doesn't have such a problem, but it's an high end Dell XPS 13. I really don't know about others.
darkbasic
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 11:50 am

Re: Intel® HD Graphics

Postby Joe_H » Sun Apr 09, 2017 11:07 pm

The iGPU is running within the same TDP as the CPU, so that is a practical limitation. Either can be working and needing to dump heat, once that passes the TDP set for the chip either the CPU, the GPU or both will be throttled to prevent overheating. I have not yet been able to find figures on how much power is required by the iGPU's in these later chips to reach their max GFLOPS.

You still are assuming that the high end power of these chips is representative of the whole, it is not. They also only represent an small fraction of sales, and an even smaller portion of the installed base. Yes, that may change over time, so so also is the computing needs of the folding projects. And due to the sequential nature of the WU's needed to complete runs, faster GPU's are more useful than a large number of slower units that take longer to complete any WU. That delays the start of the next WU in the sequence.

To summarize, the highest performance iGPU's that Intel is including in some of their recent offerings have reached parity with some of the slowest GPU's currently usable. That by itself is probably not enough to get development time, but may be enough for further investigation as to capabilities and potential use. Against that is how much they can already contribute using the existing A7 CPU core.
Joe_H
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3812
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 4:41 pm
Location: W. MA

Re: Intel® HD Graphics

Postby darkbasic » Mon Apr 10, 2017 2:01 pm

Joe_H wrote:Against that is how much they can already contribute using the existing A7 CPU core.


Looking at the benchmarks the iGPU is already much faster than the CPU, but the real question is: do you prefer raw power or the problem solving flexibility of a general purpose CPU?
If PPDs are a true estimate of how useful a certain comupation is for a certain project then CPUs are just a waste of power, despite being able to solve a much wider range of problems. But somehow I suspect that PPDs are far from being representative of the truth...
darkbasic
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 11:50 am

Re: Intel® HD Graphics

Postby bruce » Tue Apr 11, 2017 1:49 am

darkbasic wrote:
Joe_H wrote:Against that is how much they can already contribute using the existing A7 CPU core.


Looking at the benchmarks the iGPU is already much faster than the CPU, but the real question is: do you prefer raw power or the problem solving flexibility of a general purpose CPU?
If PPDs are a true estimate of how useful a certain comupation is for a certain project then CPUs are just a waste of power, despite being able to solve a much wider range of problems. But somehow I suspect that PPDs are far from being representative of the truth...


AFAIK, the words "solve a much wider range of problems" no longer apply. I believe the old distinction of different limitations between implicit and explicit solvent calculations has been removed.

Recent improvements for CPU cores (using GROMACS) allow for better use of modern hardware (AVX). Recent improvements for GPU cores (using OpemMM) still focus on both better hardware utilization and on enhanced scientific capabilities.
Joe_H wrote:To summarize, the highest performance iGPU's that Intel is including in some of their recent offerings have reached parity with some of the slowest GPU's currently usable. That by itself is probably not enough to get development time, but may be enough for further investigation as to capabilities and potential use. Against that is how much they can already contribute using the existing A7 CPU core.


Assuming that some scientific needs of FAH can be met by the highest performance Intel iGPUs, FAH might decide to support those hardware platforms. Speaking now as a member of the FAH support team who staff this forum, I'm sure this will open the floodgates of gripes from folks who have hardware one increment slower that whatever minimum performance is defined.

The overall progress of FAH projects is measured by the average speed of all active machines working on a partular project. When new top-of-the-line GPUs come to market, FAH is able to accomplish increasing amounts of science per year. When the number of machines with minimum performance hardware increases, the opposite it true.

FAH has two categories of projects ... projects needing lots of GFLOPS in a short time and projects which either need fewer GFLOPS or which can simply run at a slower pace. The former are assigned to GPUs and the latter to CPUs. Adding AVX to CPUs is/was a significant help to CPU projects. Adding more GPUs to the low end of "average" GPUs needs to be carefully evaluated as it may or may not be a benefit to time-critical FAH projects.
bruce
 
Posts: 21272
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:13 pm
Location: So. Cal.

Previous

Return to New GPUs (whitelist)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron