With the current GPU shortage and AMD's APUs at 200+% of their MSRP or outright unavailable in many regions, more people than ever may want to resort to playing on Intel's iGPu. However, this possibility has always been interesting to a lot of people, either because they can't afford better hardware or because gaming is a very low priority in their life. Additionally, I find that most people don't actually know how exactly these iGPUs perform. While some overestimate their performance, most actually underestimate them, so this may be interesting even for those who don't really intend to play anything on this iGPU.
The UHD 630 is currently present in more than 40 different laptop and desktop GPUs, so the potential number of people who would want to play on it is quite large. And anyone with an 11th gen Intel CPU will see even better results with the UHD 730 and 750.
I intended to test a wide range of games and compile them into a video. I already tested a bunch but now I've managed to get my hands on a GTX 1050 for a price that was still high but acceptable (actually less than what a brand new GT1030 currently costs) and I really don't see myself spending time on this "project" anymore. Since it would be a shame to throw this data away, I decided to write a post which I could link to and others could read.
Specification
144Hz 1440p display for maximum overkill
Intel i5 10400
ASROCK B460M Pro4 motherboard
16GB RAM @ 2666MHz, 12-14-14-30, T1 Yes, dual channel.
Gelid Tranquillo V2 heatsink (temps never exceed 70°C in OCCT stress tests and stay under 55°C at 100% CPU load).
About performance
Running from a HDD shouldn't decrease FPS, but may introduce more stutter.
60Hz display may result in worse experience, 144Hz has smaller tear lines and displays them for a shorter period of time. Stutter can be less apparent. Using freesync on a 60Hz monitor should give great experience, but some games may not be withing FPS range (fresync typically works between 40-60FPS, check your monitor specs).
Lower memory frequency or higher timings absolutely will result in worse performance. (See Unreal Tournament 3). iGPU uses RAM as VRAM, so memory performance is very important in these scenarios. It may be worth spending a day or to tweaking and testing the lowest stable timings you can achieve. Generally, you want to adjust the primary timings and tRFC, as well as cautiously increasing tREFI, keeping in mind that it increases memory temperature (around 20000 should be allright). Oh, and always dual channel!
Laptops may have lower power and thermal limits than their desktop counterparts. It's therefore possible to see lower performance on a laptop with hardware that's equally powerful on paper.
In general, what can you expect from UHD 630?
There are numerous games which refuse to start on Intel's integrated graphics even with sufficient performance. In many cases, they can be persuaded to run using various methods. Two examples off the top of my head are Witcher 1 and Fallout 3. Both games refuse to start but after a few simple steps, they'll run just fine. If you're running into issues with starting a game, check online forums to see whether or not this is related to the graphics.
Anything from 2004 will almost certainly play at a high resolution, decent framerate and good graphical settings. There may be exceptions, but UHD 630 is more powerful than the high end GPUs of this time period.
Anything from 2007 or before is almost guaranteed to play at decent framerate and resolution, but you may have to lower graphical details.
Between 2008 and 2010, you may be forced to choose between resolution and framerate.
From 2010 onwards, it's mostly a pleasant surprise if a game plays at 1080p with good framerate.
With more recent titles, you're often looking at 720p low to remain playable and that's if the game actually is playable. An additional problem is that at 720p, some games will be far blurrier than they should.
What is playable?
In order to be playable, game needs to be above all else responsive. Numbers alone don't tell the whole story. Some games are playable even below 20FPS, and some games don't provide a good experience even above 30. With low FPS gaming, it's critical to determine how a game behaves at these low framerates, and this isn't always apparent from the FPS statistics, which is why I haven't bothered providing anything other than average frames per second.
Actual testing from now on
Painkiller 2004
1440p maximum settings, 103FPS first level, 123FPS second level, 133FPS 3rd level
1080p maximum settings, 189FPS fourth level
The game is incredibly responsive. The only times frames drop is when something explodes right in your face, but that's rarely noticeable in the actual gameplay without statistics turned on.
But can it run Crysis? Yes, actually, it can.
First area could lead you to being very optimistic about the experience. Once you transition further, you'll see the performance drop significantly. These averages are for the later areas, namely the small "town" and the fields. You may encounter huge performance drops whenever the game is loading new assets.
1440p low around 30FPS with stutters
1080p low 40FPS average, good responsiveness, playable.
720p low 80-120FPS depending on where you are. Blurry and not a good experience.
Unreal Tournament 3 2007 with RAM performance test.
Different primary timings at 2666MHz, 1440p low, Heatray Deathmatch
16-18-18-38 (automatically set by MB), 43FPS average
15-16-16-35 (RAM default timings), 48FPS average
12-14-14-30 (lowest stable timings), 54FPS average
Let there be no doubt that timings of your RAM most certainly matter.
Resolution tests, Defiance Deathmatch
1440p low, 58FPS average
1080p low, 96FPS average
900p low stays above 144hz in most deathmatch maps
720p low, 196FPS average
Resolution tests, Torlan Warfare (large open map)
1440p low, 47FPS average with drops, very playable since bulk of the combat is in vehicles
1080 low, 79FPS average
720p low, 138FPS average, some difficulty spotting on-foot targets across half the map without zoomed weapons. Sucks when "sniping" with a Cicada turret :)
Bioshock 2007, high details
The game is playable even at high details but you'll spend good 20 minutes figuring out how to fix the mouse issues, all the while wondering what the KFC were the developers even thinking.
1440p, 40FPS average, often dips to 35FPS but also can go above 50.
1080p, mostly stays above 60FPS, again the framerate varies.
Both resolutions make for a playable experience but the mouse issues can be really annoying even after fixes.
Deus Ex Human Revolution 2011
Framerate is all over the place and I finished the game recently, so I didn't feel like playing through. I only tested the first indoor and outdoor sections. Disabling DX11 resulted in a performance decrease both indoors and outdoors.
1440p low stays mostly above 30FPS, but somewhat choppy and responsiveness isn't great. Relatively common stutters make the experience uncomfortable.
1080 low holds around 60FPS outside, and above 100FPS indoors. There are some infrequent short freezes where the FPS drops below 10, I suspect this occurs when the game is loading new assets.
At 720p low, I completely forgot to test the game.
Deus Ex Mankind Divided 2016 (Not playable)
Not worth even trying. At 720p, it looks like crap, plays like crap, and won't achieve stable 25FPS. This is regardless of whether DX11 or DX12.
Alan Wake 2012 (2010 on Xbox)
1080p low, 14 FPS average, very delayed responses, choppy, trailing behind moving objects
720p low, 45FPS average, FPS fluctuates between 30 to 60FPS, but the game is very responsive regardless of current framerate. It also somehow looks decent at this resolution.
Definitely playable, but be aware that some people apparently have a problem with the handling because you're using your flashlight beam for aiming. Personally, I didn't have any issues with this.
Alan Wake American Nightmare 2012
1440p low only around 14FPS but funnily enough more playable than OG game at 1080p
1080p low, 23 FPS average across a range of sceneries, feels responsive and playable
720p low, 53 FPS average, very responsive and surprisingly decent looking, with only some elements being notably blurrier than at 1080p
XCOM Enemy Unknown 2012, lowest settings
Due to the turned based combat, the game is playable on all three resolutions. However, I totally expected it to run better.
1440p, under 20FPS, choppy camera, responsiveness of the mouse movement not great
1080p, mostly above 30FPS
720p, mostly above 45FPS, the visuals honestly aren't much degraded over 1080p
XCOM 2 2016, lowest settings
Again, turned based combat makes it playable. Again, very poor performance
1440p under 10FPS, playable, strangely more responsive than previous game, but animations very choppy
1080p, 15-20FPS
720p, above 35FPS, some elements blurry, most notably the menus.
Borderlands 2 2012
Only tested in the first two starting areas but I also visited a few others briefly and didn't see much of a difference in performance.
1080p low 38FPS average, playable but not ideal due to fast paced action
720p low, 83FPS average, very playable and decent enough to enjoy the action. The low resolution makes edges look quite pixelated, but doesn't actually become blurry and doesn't look that much different from 1080p low so I'd recommend playing at 720p and either enjoy the higher FPS or increase some graphical settings to stay at 60FPS.
The performance in Borderlands Pre-Sequel should not be much different.
Shadow Warrior 2013
Tested in level 12 which has a resource intensive exterior and undemanding interior section. The second average is for both sections, I didn't reset the counter after going inside.
1440p low, 25FPS out, 30FPS in, choppy outdoors, responsiveness not great
1080p low, 44FPS out, 49 in. Indoor section plays around 60FPS. Responsiveness is good.
720p low, 89FPS out, 95 in. Indoor section plays above 100FPS. Responsiveness is great, 720p doesn't look offensive.
Pathologic HD Classic 2015, probably high settings, I dunno
1080p with no issues and I forgot what FPS I got. Not even joking. Enjoy your onion.
1440p is not supported by the engine.
Don't bother with the original Pathologic release, the translation becomes unintelligible by the third day or so.
Pathologic 2 2019
At 2160p, the game gives the best experience, as the frustration won't be a result of just your bad decisions.
At 720p, framerate is all over the place, ranging from 15 to over 70. Nevertheless, the game is playable.
Witcher 3 2015 (Not recommended, potentially playable)
720 low, 20FPS average, fluctuates between 15-25. Delayed responsiveness, very apparent even with character movement. I would say unplayable but personally know people who would play this, including myself about 15 years ago when there was no way for me to get gaming hardware because stupid teenager with no job.
1024x768, game generally stays above 20FPS, responsiveness is acceptable, but it's a 4:3 aspect ratio and the game looks like crap. Myself 15 years ago wouldn't care.
You could probably accept the suck and play the game anyway, especially if you don't plan on ever getting a GPU, but I can't recommend it.
Halo Master Chief Collection 2014 (All games playable)
First two games have a graphical overhaul which suffers from bad optimization. Even at 1080p, it's quite choppy. I recommend playing with the old graphics and the following numbers are with the old graphics enabled. Performance mode refers to the lowest graphical settings of the game (that's what it's called in-game).
Also, for whatever reason from Halo 3 onward, the newer the game, the better it performs. Yes, really.
Halo 1 performance mode, Silent Cartographer
1440p, 52FPS
1080p, 84 FPS
720p, 196 FPS, very blurry.
Halo 2 performance mode, Outskirts
1440p, 49FPS
1080p, 70FPS
720p, 124FPS, very blurry
Halo 3 performance mode, Covenant
1440p, 17FPS
1080p, 28FPS
720p, 45FPS, blurry
This is one of the games where numbers alone don't tell the whole story. At 1080p, the game is actually very responsive both while aiming and steering vehicles. Definitely playable.
Halo 3: ODST performance mode, Mission 6
1440p, 21 FPS, surprisingly acceptable playability
1080p, 40FPS
720p, 70FPS - maybe subjective but not as blurry as the other games
Halo Reach performance mode, Oni Swordbase
1440p, 23FPS, somewhat choppy
1080p, 38FPS,
720p, 65FPS, blurry
Halo 4, performance mode, level 6
1440p averaged 27FPS and was absolutely playable. WTF?
1080p, 40FPS
720p, 60FPS, blurry
Elite Dangerous 2014, low settings borderless
1080p low, around 30FPS depending on what's going on, actually playable
720p low, around 60FPS depending on what's going on, definitely playable
Be aware, I only tested this while flying my ship around a station, doing acrobatic maneuvers nearby other ships and crashing into said station multiple times. I did not land on a planet and I do not have the Odyssey DLC yet.
The Long Dark 2014, tested on two different levels in survival mode
1440p low, 17FPS
1080p low, 30FPS with drops to 25 and indoors above 50
720p low, 65FPS, extremely blurry
This game is funny, because before I turned on the FPS statistics, I would absolutely swear on my life that it is running at a stable 30FPS at 1440p low. In spite of the low framerate, it remains very responsive. 1080p plays really well.
Fallout 4 2015 (maybe playable)
720p low, 25FPS average. That's good, right? No, this is at the very start of the game, in that tiny house. Didn't bother testing further, you probably will be able to run the game but don't expect a good experience.
Control 2019, lowest settings (you don't want to play this)
720p, 17FPS average, delayed responsiveness, very choppy, quite blurry.
It would be possible to finish the game like this, but i just don't recommend it.
Satisfactory 2019, lowest settings
At 720p, the game averages at around 30FPS, goes down to 25 when a lot of stuff is happening on the screen. And I mean a lot of stuff within reason, it's possible to bring even modern midrange systems to their limits with absurd amounts of stuff on the screen.
Even at 25FPS, the game is very responsive and isn't blurry, even if many elements are notably pixelated. Notable stutters during autosaves, framedrops in some specific areas (like the overgrown jungle). Definitely playable, low framerate is not an issue due to the nature of the gameplay.
And that's all I've managed to test. But here's a few more titles which I know for a fact are playable on the UHD 630 and you will be able too look up benchmarks on youtube for most of those. Since I haven't tested them myself, not much feedback on visuals or responsiveness.
Many modern competitive shooters like Overwatch, Fortnite, CS:GO and what not are playable in performance mode.
Rocket League
League of Legends
World of Tanks
The Witcher 1 and 2 (though from what I understand, there can be problematic segments in W2)
Fallout 3
Batman Arkham Asylum
Borderlands 3 (I'm skeptical about this but there are videos of people playing it on UHD 630 and FPS seems solid, I didn't get to testing because I finished very recently)
All FEAR games, including FEAR 3
Left 4 Dead, both 1 and 2
Half Life, all games except Half Life 3 which doesn't even start
GTA 4 and 5 (five may not be great)
Hitman, pretty much all games including the newest reboot
You can also check out this playlist on Youtube, but be aware than not all of those games will actually provide a good gaming experience. That's why I stress that FPS alone doesn't tell the whole story.
Submitted by Critical_Switch | #Specialdealer Special Offer Online Shopping Store 2016
No comments:
Post a Comment