Big Mess in Intel GMA Sections

[Christian Ney]

I just came across this submission.

Intel says its HD Graphics. Not HD2000 or HD3000. Seems we are missing a category here:

GMA HD (Sandy Bridge)

 

I quote myself:

After some reading, seems like Intel HD "1000" = HD 2000

 

At least looking at the specs

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Intel_graphics_processing_units#Sixth_generation

 

Intel calls it different though.

 

But I see Pentium Gxxx competing with i7 2500 in the renking so I guess it's the same indeed.

 

The only differences between HD 1000 (HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)) and the HD 2000 are the clock frequencies, the CPU they are integrated to and some hardware acceleration that are deactivated.

 

 

What I then see is:

 

GMA HD (Sandy Bridge)

GMA HD (Sandy Bridge) Mobile

GMA HD 2000

GMA HD 2000 Mobile

GMA HD 3000

GMA HD 3000 Mobile

GMA HD P3000

 

 

GMA HD (Ivy Bridge)

GMA HD (Ivy Bridge) Mobile

GMA HD 2500

GMA HD 4000

GMA HD 4000 Mobile

GMA HD P4000

Edited January 8, 2013 by Christian Ney

[Strunkenbold]

What I then see is:

 

GMA HD (Sandy Bridge)

GMA HD (Sandy Bridge) Mobile

GMA HD 2000

GMA HD 2000 Mobile

GMA HD 3000

GMA HD 3000 Mobile

GMA HD P3000

 

 

GMA HD (Ivy Bridge)

GMA HD (Ivy Bridge) Mobile

GMA HD 2500

GMA HD 4000

GMA HD 4000 Mobile

GMA HD P4000

 

Yup, and having this list like that here on HWBot would be perfectly fine. Atleast as we already started with this scheme with GMA HD. Its using same gpu in desktop and mobile (Iron Lake). The only fact is that GPU-Z says incorrectly Arrendale and Clarkdale. Now if we say everything is one, regardless of socket or marketing name, we would have to unite these also.

Moreover, GPU-Z started to report Sandy Bridge GPU's now correctly. Means GT1 for HD, GT2 for HD2000 and GT2+ for HD3000.

Atleast I dont know what speaking against creating multiple sections. I would be very interested to know if theres some kind rule on HWBot which makes it clear what qualify's for a new hardware category and what not.

[Strunkenbold]

Are there any news here? Is there atleast a suggestion?

[Christian Ney]

Let me get into this again.

Edited May 1, 2013 by Christian Ney

[Christian Ney]

I don't see any changes to be made.

[GENiEBEN]

Wait, so you mean the Intel IGP categories are finally sorted out?

[Strunkenbold]

I don't see any changes to be made.

 

It astonishes me that you say something like that after 4 pages of discussion.

 

Right now your arguments are:

Mobile and Desktop CPUs feature the same gpu in any aspects so no new extra separated sections. Also Intel says that there are no differences.

 

If we handle things like that Im fine with it. But as I saw in the database we create categorys in another manner:

 

-same chip different socket --> new section

-same chip but gpu-z/cpu-z reports different code name --> new section

 

Some examples:

 

-Thunderbirds and also Coppermine CPUs where available for Slot and Socket systems ---> why extra category? Arent they same chips? The user could always choose the more advanced Socket Mobos, no one would even bother running a Slot system.

-Intel GMA 950 has a code name for mobile and desktop variants, but where is technically the difference between those? Aside clockrates, nothing! Im sure, just write Intel an email and ask...

 

So my conclusion is:

Mobile Sandy Bridge and Clarkdale chips should get their own section, desktop and mobile have the same codename but from what we learned now, Intel gives out Codenames like they want. It has nothing todo with technical differences. But what we know is that every socket brings new boards, new cpu's and other aspects that make these not 1:1 comparable.

I mean we have e.g. categorys for Abit IS7, IS7-E and IS7-G. We award points for what? One has a extra raid controller? And we make such a fuss about creating a category where you can actually measure performance differences?

Aside from that, I had to report 10+ submissions to clean the GMA HD (mobile) section again. And this in only 3 months!

[Christian Ney]

Right, you point is valid, it's a different socket though the interface is the same (PCIe).

 

Soooo:

 

SB:

GMA HD GT1 (Sandy Bridge)

GMA HD GT1 (Sandy Bridge) Mobile

GMA HD 2000 GT2

GMA HD 2000 GT2 Mobile

GMA HD 3000 GT2+

GMA HD 3000 GT2+ Mobile

GMA HD P3000

 

 

IB:

GMA HD (Ivy Bridge) (not sure if there is a mobile version of this one, I have seen it only on Desktop pentium and Celeron so far)

GMA HD 2500

GMA HD 4000

GMA HD 4000 Mobile

GMA HD P4000

 

Haswell:

Not enough info yet

 

 

Those two are fine ?

http://HWBOT.org/hardware/videocard/gma_hd/ or we should split/rename something ?

http://HWBOT.org/hardware/videocard/gma_hd_mobile/

 

Like: GMA HD (Clarkdale)

GMA HD Mobile (Arrandale)

Edited May 4, 2013 by Christian Ney

[Strunkenbold]

IMHO, creating too much categorys for the same hardware aren't the way to go. Its like example with IS7 mobos. I would rather see them merged. So e.g. GMA HD (Sandy Bridge) and GMA HD 2000 should stay one section.

I had one proposal for a more elegant solution.

What about make something like a symbolic link between these categorys?

Lets say we create a section for GMA HD (Sandy Bridge) Corename GT1 and GMA HD 2000 Corename GT2, but instead of having a ranking for each section alone we would unite these. So both GPUs would appear in one ranking sharing points and cups. This would have the advantage that we could keep exact names, so users wouldn't get irritated and submit to wrong categorys.

 

I try to compile a list:

 

HD Graphics (Clarkdale)

Mobile HD Graphics (Arrandale)

 

HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)

--> HD Graphics 2000

Mobile HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)

HD Graphics 3000

--> HD Graphics P3000

Mobile HD Graphics 3000

 

HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge)

--> HD Graphics 2500

Mobile HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge)

HD Graphics 4000

--> HD Graphics P4000

Mobile HD Graphics 4000

 

 

Those two are fine ?

http://HWBOT.org/hardware/videocard/gma_hd/ or we should split/rename something ?

http://HWBOT.org/hardware/videocard/gma_hd_mobile/

 

Like: GMA HD (Clarkdale)

GMA HD Mobile (Arrandale)

 

I think this would be a good choice, just to keep a consistent name scheming.

Also as per wiki the Codename of the GPU (both desktop and mobile) is Ironlake. GPU-Z seems to report things incorrectly.

[GENiEBEN]

^ Looks much better. What about older stuff like the 900 Series?

[Christian Ney]

IMHO, creating too much categorys for the same hardware aren't the way to go. Its like example with IS7 mobos. I would rather see them merged. So e.g. GMA HD (Sandy Bridge) and GMA HD 2000 should stay one section.

I had one proposal for a more elegant solution.

What about make something like a symbolic link between these categorys?

Lets say we create a section for GMA HD (Sandy Bridge) Corename GT1 and GMA HD 2000 Corename GT2, but instead of having a ranking for each section alone we would unite these. So both GPUs would appear in one ranking sharing points and cups. This would have the advantage that we could keep exact names, so users wouldn't get irritated and submit to wrong categorys.

 

Hum, I will ask if such a thing is possible without the need of extra coding time.

 

But I think it will mess up things like this, because people will report scores like: hey this is GT1 ranking and not GT2 and I don't want mods explaining over and over how/what/why.

 

 

I try to compile a list:

 

HD Graphics (Clarkdale)

Mobile HD Graphics (Arrandale)

 

HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)

--> HD Graphics 2000

Mobile HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)

HD Graphics 3000

--> HD Graphics P3000

Mobile HD Graphics 3000

 

HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge)

--> HD Graphics 2500

Mobile HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge)

HD Graphics 4000

--> HD Graphics P4000

Mobile HD Graphics 4000

 

Sorry I don't really get your list, what should be "in the same ranking" as what

 

 

I think this would be a good choice, just to keep a consistent name scheming.

Also as per wiki the Codename of the GPU (both desktop and mobile) is Ironlake. GPU-Z seems to report things incorrectly.

 

I will make those changes right away then. As per the codename, maybe Wiki is wrong ? I will ask TPU, he knows better.

[Christian Ney]

Also as per wiki the Codename of the GPU (both desktop and mobile) is Ironlake. GPU-Z seems to report things incorrectly.

 

Yeah I won't ask TPU to fix it in fact, better leave them named Arrandale and Clarkdale to avoid confusion. In this case it's even better to leave it as it is as we have:

 

Mobile HD Graphics (Arrandale) and HD Graphics (Clarkdale) now on both HWBOT and GPU-Z. People can't do it wrong now, they have no excuse.

Edited May 4, 2013 by Christian Ney

[Christian Ney]

Maybe I have an idea to make it even more easier for both members and moderators: Device ID

 

 

SB:

HWBOT DB Name <= GPU Description

HD Graphics (Dev. ID 0152) <= GT1 (Sandy Bridge)

HD Graphics (Dev. ID 0156) <= GT1 (Sandy Bridge Mobile) (some desktop cpus make use of the mobile version Pentium B9xx)

HD Graphics (Dev. ID 0112) <= GT2

HD Graphics (Dev. ID 0116) <= GT2 Mobile

HD Graphics (Dev. ID 0122) <= GT2+

HD Graphics (Dev. ID 0126) <= GT2+ Mobile

HD Graphics P3000 => HD Graphics P3000

 

 

 

IB:

HWBOT DB Name <= Additional Info

HD Graphics 2500 (Dev. ID 0152) <= 2500 (GT1)

HD Graphics 4000 (Dev. ID 0162) <= 4000 (GT2)

HD Graphics 4000 (Dev. ID 0166) <= 4000 (GT2) Mobile

HD Graphics P4000 <= P4000 (I think Dev. ID 016A)

 

Dunno what those two are for:

015A

0156 (should be some kind of 2500 Mobile (GT1))

 

 

 

 

Haswell: (Well Shit)

Intel Haswell Desktop (GT1): 0x0402

Intel Haswell Desktop (GT2): 0x0412

Intel Haswell Desktop (GT2+): 0x0422

Intel Haswell Mobile (GT1): 0x0406

Intel Haswell Mobile (GT2): 0x0416

Intel Haswell Mobile (GT2+): 0x0426

Intel Haswell Server (GT1): 0x040A

Intel Haswell Server (GT2): 0x041A

Intel Haswell Server (GT2+): 0x042A

Intel Haswell SDV Desktop (GT1): 0x0C02

Intel Haswell SDV Desktop (GT2): 0x0C12

Intel Haswell SDV Desktop (GT2+): 0x0C22

Intel Haswell SDV Mobile (GT1): 0x0C06

Intel Haswell SDV Mobile (GT2): 0x0C16

Intel Haswell SDV Mobile (GT2+): 0x0C26

Intel Haswell SDV Server (GT1): 0x0C0A

Intel Haswell SDV Server (GT2): 0x0C1A

Intel Haswell SDV Server (GT2+): 0x0C2A

Intel Haswell ULT Desktop (GT1): 0x0A02

Intel Haswell ULT Desktop (GT2): 0x0A12

Intel Haswell ULT Desktop (GT2+): 0x0A22

Intel Haswell ULT Mobile (GT1): 0x0A06

Intel Haswell ULT Mobile (GT2): 0x0A16

Intel Haswell ULT Mobile (GT2+): 0x0A26

Intel Haswell ULT Server (GT1): 0x0A0A

Intel Haswell ULT Server (GT2): 0x0A1A

Intel Haswell ULT Server (GT2+): 0x0A2A

Intel Haswell CRW Desktop (GT1): 0x0D12

Intel Haswell CRW Desktop (GT2): 0x0D22

Intel Haswell CRW Desktop (GT2+): 0x0D32

Intel Haswell CRW Mobile (GT1): 0x0D16

Intel Haswell CRW Mobile (GT2): 0x0D26

Intel Haswell CRW Mobile (GT2+): 0x0D36

Intel Haswell CRW Server (GT1): 0x0D1A

Intel Haswell CRW Server (GT2): 0x0D2A

Intel Haswell CRW Server (GT2+): 0x0D3A

 

 

 

Yaye, 3'308 results to moderate, it will be fun

[Strunkenbold]

What about older stuff like the 900 Series?

 

This will be a more complicated list. Good would be a consistent name scheming but GPU-Z doesnt do us this favor.

 

Maybe some things to discuss before we start:

 

Probably merge of 82852 and 82855 category to 82852/82855 GM/GME as GPU-Z doesnt distinguish between those two anyway.

Same for GMA 4500, X4500, X4500HD to GMA 4500 (B43, G41, G43, G45, Q43, Q45)

and GMA 4500M and 4500MHD to GMA 4500MHD (GL40, GS40, GS45, GM45)

 

There are different chipsets but gpu core is the same.

 

Also doesnt we always enter the codename as Core? Currently there are mostly the chipset names.

[Strunkenbold]

Maybe I have an idea to make it even more easier for both members and moderators: Device ID

 

Yaye, 3'308 results to moderate, it will be fun

 

Device ID would work, although it doesnt look that good. Wouldnt exact GPU-Z name not enough?

 

 

And better take some days vacation.

[Christian Ney]

The problem is GPUZ was reporting Intel HD Graphics for all of them for a long time. Only newer version report HD 2000, HD 3000 and so on.

[Strunkenbold]

yeah but shouldnt mods handle older results based on cpu and device id? When once everything is sorted, new submissions should get correct category by users.

[Strunkenbold]

Hum, I will ask if such a thing is possible without the need of extra coding time.

 

But I think it will mess up things like this, because people will report scores like: hey this is GT1 ranking and not GT2 and I don't want mods explaining over and over how/what/why.

 

Ok I see that things probably becomes complicated. Still, apart from clockrates its same hardware.

Maybe we can add a description somewhere?

[svl7]

Still, apart from clockrates its same hardware.

 

This kind of argumentation is void.

If you take a closer look at mobile hardware you will notice that many parts have their desktop equivalent, e.g. the GTX 680m uses the exactly same ASIC as the desktop GTX 670 and yet it is out of the question to put both in the same category, for very well reasons.

 

The mobile i7 920XM is equivalent to the desktop i7 920 when you look at the ASIC, and again - both have its own categories.

 

Some parts are even exactly the same except for their stock clocks, e.g. 5850m vs 5870m and yet they are not in the same category either, once again, for good reason.

 

It's totally pointless to start moving mobile parts in the same category with its desktop equivalents, mobile and desktop are two completely different worlds.

 

You realizing that it is usual for chip manufacturers to have mobile and desktop applications for their products is no reason to make "same hardware" the only criteria for a category.

Or should we put the GTX 680 in the same category as the GTX770 as well?

[Strunkenbold]

Did you actually red the whole thread? I guess you didnt. Cause else you wouldnt have come to the conclusion that I want to mix desktop and mobile counterparts in one category.

Actually I "fight" for over 5 pages now to alter _exactly_ this situation!

 

Dont know whats the current situation now. Whats the next step Mr. Ney?

[Johnksss]

Yes, what's the next step? Because I have a lot of points tied up in this.

[svl7]

Did you actually red the whole thread? I guess you didnt. Cause else you wouldnt have come to the conclusion that I want to mix desktop and mobile counterparts in one category.

Actually I "fight" for over 5 pages now to alter _exactly_ this situation!

 

Yes I read the thread, and I don't see what you really want or would make you happy. On one hand you say that you want separate categories, and on the other hand you come up with the "same hardware" argument just as here:

 

Mobile and Desktop CPUs feature the same gpu in any aspects so no new extra separated sections. Also Intel says that there are no differences.

 

If we handle things like that Im fine with it.

 

For me it seems as if you simply like to act as kind of "hwbot cop", reporting tons of submissions just because you're not happy with the definitions of certain categories.

That approach doesn't make sense, if all those submissions needs moderation then it's necessary to clean up the categories in advance, so that they can get moved to the proper place. Else the involved moderation work is just a waste of time.

 

So what we need are clearly defined categories for the concerned hardware, and we need this *before* reporting random dozens of random submissions, as this won't help anyone at all.

 

How about finishing your list in post #34, it looked like a good start to me...

[Strunkenbold]

Ok right, I changed my mind for a little time during this discussion. First I wanted to separate everything in mobile and desktop. Cause from my point, only this would be the only way to guarantee a fair competition. At this time I guessed everyone would understand aswell. Than people popped up and said same chip on desktop and mobile = one category.

I began thinking about again. As everything I said seemed to be superseded by arguments from the mods. At this time I already thought I fight against windmills. See my thread here. I guess this is the only thread that Turrican ever ignored completely....

So what to do now? I started to report subs as I thought I would gain attraction for this thread. Maybe other users start to discuss. Ofcourse nothing happend, besides other users started to report my subs (the usual game)...

And yes, your absolutely right reporting subs without correct categorys is a waste of time.

Ive been already reporting some of these but there are many and I hope that a result moderator can go through all of these.

I waited and waited -again nothing happened.

So that was the point I said lets just have the mods their way.

I reported everything what shouldnt be there as I was basically done with this topic. I had never imagined that we had to start such an epic discussion just to create some hw categorys.

Still, in post #32 I made a last attempt laying down all the facts I know and to my honest surprise it was successful.

I think that one that you dont get is that I if we want to make things 100% exactly, we have to create lots of categorys. I tried to explain this in post #34. Splitting Desktop and Mobile? Ofcourse! But also split HD Graphics and HD Graphics 2000? Its same hardware, on the same socket with the same possibility to alter clock speeds. The chip is 1000% exactly the same. I said lets find a more elegant solution...

But as Christian said this could irritate.

 

I wanted to finish a list but still waiting for answer to post #39.

[Strunkenbold]

For me it seems as if you simply like to act as kind of "hwbot cop", reporting tons of submissions just because you're not happy with the definitions of certain categories.

 

One more word to this; Im absolutely right to report subs if their are in the wrong categorys. As I knew that categorys arent correct I started this thread to make everyone aware of that. Im not a mod, I dont work for HWBot. So if you dont like the current situation, start bugging the mods instead of me. Maybe you have more luck.

[Strunkenbold]

Ive compiled now a list for Sandy Bridge / Ivy Bridge and Haswell

 

These should be simple and accurate enough.

As performance also mainly depends from L3 Cache of CPU, categorys could be even more diverse to be 100% fair