17 replies to this topic

[teknix360]

Just wondering if anyone knows what the lowest graphics card would be where I would start seeing performance improvement over the integrated graphics 4000 in the i3-3225 CPU.

Radeon 5450? Would I need to hit the 6000 series before seeing a bump? (Nothing against NVIDIA cards, just not familiar with how their models go.)

[+Phouchg]

5450 is the worst possible choice you could make - a vastly inferior card in all respects. HD 5570 or GT 630 would be the first to have a notch or two over the 3rd gen Intel.

[nekkidtruth]

I would go with the 6000 or even 7000 series. The 5000 series is a little dated now. Do you do any specific type of gaming? Is there something you're trying to achieve that you aren't able to right now?

Could probably get a more tailored response if you added a few more details Other system specs?

[Astra.Xtreme]

See this chart:
http://www.videocard...u=Intel+HD+4000

If you want something modern with DirectX 11, the Nvidia GT 630 will give you about twice the performance of the 4000.
It runs about $60.

I'm sure AMD probably has cheap low-end cards too.

[TPreston]

Anything even an i7 with intel hd 4000 cant even play thief 2 without dropping to 20fps as soon as a torch comes into view.

GT 660 are cheap enough lately at 200 quid

[teknix360]

nekkidtruth, on 13 February 2013 - 21:55, said:

I would go with the 6000 or even 7000 series. The 5000 series is a little dated now. Do you do any specific type of gaming? Is there something you're trying to achieve that you aren't able to right now? Could probably get a more tailored response if you added a few more details Other system specs?

It's more of a hypothetical question, I guess. I just completed the following build...

CPU: Intel Core i3-3225 3.3GHz Dual-Core Processor
Motherboard: ASRock H77M Micro ATX LGA1155 Motherboard
Memory: Corsair Vengeance 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory

Power Supply: Corsair Builder 500W 80 PLUS Bronze Certified ATX12V Power Supply

...and was pricing out some graphics cards just out of curiosity. I had found a 5450 for only $20, so I was wondering if it would provide any noticeable performance bump over the integrated graphics to justify a purchase.

The build was for my mom . She plays games like Peggle, Bejeweled, hidden object games, and some flash-based games on Facebook. She might watch some DVDs on it from time to time. But that's really it.

[teknix360]

Astra.Xtreme, on 13 February 2013 - 21:58, said:

See this chart: http://www.videocard...u=Intel+HD+4000

If you want something modern with DirectX 11, the Nvidia GT 630 will give you about twice the performance of the 4000.
It runs about $60.

Thanks for the link! Very helpful.

[PGHammer]

Phouchg, on 13 February 2013 - 21:54, said:

5450 is the worst possible choice you could make - a vastly inferior card in all respects. HD 5570 or GT 630 would be a notch or two over IGP.

And do you actually own (or have you ever used) an HD5450?

While the HD5450 does deserve SOME scorn (after all, it IS a notebook-based GPU in desktop clothing), look at what it offers in term of bang for buck merely today (despite it being far older than even Intel's HD3000 graphics core in the original i5-2500K):

1. Unlike most GPUs targeted for HTPCs, it doesn't need auxilliary power (most don't even require fans!), AND it takes up but a single PCIe x16 slot.
2. It is Hack-duty ready (in fact, OS X Lion and Mountain Lion support it directly, and is easily patchable to support not only Snow Leopard, but even Leopard) - how many GPUs of its age can make that claim?
3. It is also the lowest-priced discrete GPU that supports DX11 directly - until HD4000 came about, no onboard GPU in any Intel CPU could make that claim.

Yes; HD5450 is old. Two generations old. (I've had mine nearly from Launch Day - the Visiontek HD5450 single-slot fanless model with 512MB of GDDR3.) I've done everything that is possible with it - I've even played the Crysis 2 *and* Crysis 3 MP betas on it; lower resolutions, but quite doable. (Not many IGPs - even of today - can do that.)

Not everything is about high-end, or even middle-end, gaming.

While HD7xxx *is* of more recent vintage (HD7750 takes up part of that space today), even HD7750 is not exactly a single-slot solution from most AIBs (despite it only requiring what power comes over the PCI-E bus). If you truly need a single-slot GPU upgrade, HD5450, despite it being long in the tooth, can indeed be the pill to fix your graphical ills.

[teknix360]

PGHammer, on 13 February 2013 - 22:12, said:

Yes; HD5450 is old. Two generations old. (I've had mine nearly from Launch Day - the Visiontek HD5450 single-slot fanless model with 512MB of GDDR3.)

The fanless thing had me a bit concerned about it. But you don't seem to have any over-heating problems with it? The case I used a pretty good airflow. It only has 1 - 120mm fan in front (well, plus the PSU and CPU fans), but lots of mesh openings all over the case.

[Astra.Xtreme]

teknix360, on 13 February 2013 - 22:09, said:

Thanks for the link! Very helpful.

No prob.

Here's the one with the 5450 listed, which seems to be considerably slower than the Intel 4000:
http://www.videocard...=Radeon+HD+5450

Intel HD 4000 is considered "High" range whereas the 5450 is considered "High Mid" range.

[+Phouchg]

PGHammer, on 13 February 2013 - 22:12, said:

Big block of twaddle

First of all, I wrote 5570.

Second of all, I have handled nearly any fairly modern graphics card, I happen to be an RMA technician, so please sit back down with "have you actually seen" - it's really a bad habit. Yes, I have. Just yesterday we had an older AM3 board with Radeon IGP and HDMI port (MSI 890GXM-G65), which we were unable to change, so we picked basic AM3+ board and put Asus 5450 Silent instead. Ran it through 3Dmark to ensure that it works. Yes, it's mighty fine, but doesn't hold a candle to HD 4000.

The important point - Intel HD 4000 is better, so the purchase is not justified, especially after the clarification by OP. Quod erat demonstrandum.

[PGHammer]

teknix360, on 13 February 2013 - 22:18, said:

The fanless thing had me a bit concerned about it. But you don't seem to have any over-heating problems with it? The case I used a pretty good airflow. It only has 1 - 120mm fan in front (well, plus the PSU and CPU fans), but lots of mesh openings all over the case.

The fact that it doesn't overheat (despite being both fanless and single-slot) is why it was a solid choice for notebooks, after all (and why it also excels for HTPCs and other designs where cooling can be an issue).

The problem with the HD5450 isn't heat, but lack of headroom for anything above 720p gaming - that said, it WILL do 1280x720 NI - even with Crysis 2 or Crysis 3 MP.

The very fact that it will do so separates it from most notebook/integrated GPUs - other than HD4000, only AMD's APUs play in that ballpark on the notebook side today.

When I replace my HD5450, it will be because I'm moving from mATX to full-size ATX in terms of motherboard - hence, I can go with something far larger (I have HD7850 in mind); however, my Mom (currently suffering with Intel G31, AKA Bear Lake integrated graphics) with a gaming diet consisting of mostly DX9-based casual games from PopCap, has first call on the HD5450 after I retire it.

[PGHammer]

Phouchg, on 13 February 2013 - 22:27, said:

First of all, I wrote 5570.

Second of all, I have handled nearly any fairly modern graphics card, I happen to be an RMA technician, so please sit back down with "have you actually seen" - it's really a bad habit. Yes, I have. Just yesterday we had an older AM3 board with Radeon IGP and HDMI port (MSI 890GXM-G65), which we were unable to change, so we picked basic AM3+ board and put Asus 5450 Silent instead. Ran it through 3Dmark to ensure that it works. Yes, it's mighty fine, but doesn't hold a candle to HD 4000.

The important point - Intel HD 4000 is better, so the purchase is not justified, especially after the clarification by OP. Quod erat demonstrandum.

You said that HD5450 was the WORST possible choice, when in fact, HD5570 is nearly improbable to find in a desktop configuration; the HD5450 is far more prevalent.

And I had NOT seen the followup post by the OP, as I was replying directly to your post - not that of the OP.

Further, I've actually been using my HD5450 (as I pointed out) almost since the chipset launched. I've pointed out its shortcomings (especially the fact that it IS a notebook GPU in desktop clothing - which is ALSO true of the HD5570); however, unlike the HD5570, it actually is more common (especially in single-slot/fanless) and also cheaper (usually in such a situation, price is ALSO a consideration, in addition to space in the case).

I didn't say that the HD5450 isn't long in the tooth - I specifically stated that it is two generations old.. However, there ARE things that it still does better, given specific constraints, than other options, even newer ones. (I even pointed out that HD4000 is just catching up to where HD5450 was two generations ago - such is the sorry state of ALL integrated/onboard graphics - not just Intel or even AMD.)

All YOU saw was my picking apart a single line of your post and you immediately got defensive.

[threetonesun]

teknix360, on 13 February 2013 - 22:02, said:

The build was for my mom . She plays games like Peggle, Bejeweled, hidden object games, and some flash-based games on Facebook. She might watch some DVDs on it from time to time. But that's really it.

The the Intel HD4000 is fine. Seriously, don't even consider a dedicated GPU. I played Dishonored and Skyrim on mine before I got a real card, anyone saying the newer Intel graphics are terrible probably has no real experience with them.

[+Phouchg]

PGHammer, on 14 February 2013 - 00:10, said:

More twaddle

Ok. Do you have any more important and useful information to share or that will be all today?