To: ssddx
From: Mr Burns
Sent on: February 21, 2015 3:32 AM
Are you sure? There is a user on youtube called "Intel hd 4600 gaming". You should check him out. He plays lots of modern games all using the Intel hd 4600 graphics. He gets 25-30 fps on low-mid settings and that is when recording as well. From the videos the games look good and the gameplay pretty smooth. Also ive heard youtube cant display higher than 30 fps and that looks perfectly smooth to me.
So im wondering if people are underestimating the capabilities of this card?
Also how do I overclock the integrated graphics?
Thanks.
From: ssddx
Sent on: February 21, 2015 6:47 AM
no, people are not underestimating the capabilities of integrated graphics. there are various benchmarks testing the fps values you can read which all show the same results. while integrated graphics are much more powerful then they ever were they are still no substitute for a graphics card for any type of serious gaming.
as i said in my post you can expect around 30fps at 720p with low or medium graphics which you can consider about typical. some high demand games may do worse, some lower demand games may do better. do keep in mind that this is for current games and that any future games will score lower and lower as you go on. getting 60fps on a game using a gpu and then having to step down to 50 or 45 later on isnt a huge hit. getting 30 and stepping down to 20 certainly is.
if you go intel i would consider integrated as a temporary solution while you save up for a graphics card. in that case it would work fine and in the long run an intel+gpu solution is going to be much better off.
if you watch his videos (for example "the forest") he clearly states that he runs on the lowest settings at 720p. this is pretty much what i posted to you before.
can you play games on integrated? sure, if you do not mind running at reduced resolution at low settings. however it will not age well and eventually you will need to use a graphics card if you want to play certain titles which are more demanding.
you can get a bit more performance out of integrated by using faster than average ram.
--
if you went i5, i would save up for at least a gtx960 (970 is better) in the future.
if you do not want to spend that kind of money (in total, counting everything) then you could always go amd fx8320 and something from the amd lineup of graphics cards (280, 280x or 290 would be ideal) and spend about the same (or a little bit more depending on what parts you're comparing).
an intel system is going to be better than amd of course, but amd offers lower prices.
From: Mr Burns
Sent on: February 21, 2015 7:01 PM
Thanks for the advice. But how much is a decent graphics card. The one recommended to me by the person building my computer for me is a Nvidia Gt 610 for £35. But that is no better than intels integrated graphics. So which card would you recommend for say £50 - £100?
From: ssddx
Sent on: February 22, 2015 5:54 AM
what graphic card is best for you depends on what you expect out of it.
-what resolution do you want to game at?
-what graphics settings do you want?
-what fps levels do you consider sufficient?
-do you want to play the newest games?
if you are on a limited budget and if gaming is your primary use you may want to think about either A) going amd so you can afford a better graphics card or B) saving up for a better graphics card at additional cost.
a few general ideas about what tiers of systems would have. just a general idea for explanation only.
low
integrated graphics or weak graphics card.
720p, lower framerates, lowest graphic settings
low-medium
gtx750ti or r9-260x or 270 or similar lower end card
720p and medium graphics or 1080p on low.
medium
gtx960 or r9-270x or 280
1080p on medium graphics at fair framerates.
medium-high
gtx960 or r9-280x or 290
1080p on high graphics at fair framerates.
high
gtx970 or 980 or r9-290x
1080p on ultra graphics at high framerates. on reduced settings may game on multi monitor or high res.
extreme
sli or crossfire multiple graphics cards
4k gaming, multi monitor at decent settings or lower resolution at 144hz and highest settings.
if this is primarily a gaming pc i would aim for at least the medium-high tier if you are pursuing intel, otherwise you're just wasting money on intel. unless of course this is primarilly for other tasks and gaming is not important in which case a lower cost graphics card is acceptable.
if you want to run a low-medium or medium end machine or are on a tight budget i'd pair up an amd/amd matchup for reduced cost such as a fx6300+280 (low-medium) or fx8320+290 (medium) or fx8320+290 (high).
buying an intel i5 or i7 and pairing it up with a cheap graphics card is a bit silly since you likely bought intel (at much greater cost than amd) for the performance gain. often for the same price you can easily move up one tier in performance for the same cost by going amd. if you go intel and gaming is your primary goal i'd spend the cash on a decent card to compliment it.
as a price comparison/for instance an i5+270x system would be in the medium category however for the same cost using amd you can likely use a fx8320+290 and be in the high category and beat out the system in gaming performance despite the i5 being a better chip. gaming performance is highly gpu based.
however if your system is primarily for another task (which needs the intel chips) such as 3d rendering, video editing, etcetera and gaming is only a side diversion that you want to be able to do here and there and you do not give it much importance then yes.. you can certainly make due with a cheaper graphics card or integrated if that level of performance is acceptable to you.
your decision would depend on your expectations, future upgrade plans, usage habits....
From: ssddx
Sent on: February 22, 2015 5:55 AM
by the way.... the gt610 is a crappy low level card which is for the most part obsolete since modern integrated surpases it.
From: Mr Burns
Sent on: February 23, 2015 12:56 AM
Resolution - at the moment - 1280x1024 - (highest my monitor will go)
Graphics settings - As much detail as possible
Fps - 20 - 30 (30 is preferable)
Games - unsure - but I would definetely like to try source games (half life 2, counter strike etc), open world games (eg oblivion), strategy (eg command and conquer), simulation (eg euro truck sim 2).
Also I will be using it primarily for internet browsing (with multiple tabs) , with a bit of office work, background applications (eg google drive, messengers, antivirus, antimalware protection) and multitasking (eg having lots of tabs open while running an antivirus scan while listening to music while running office while opening other programs etc etc.) and basically running a lot of stuff on my computer ( which bogged my old one down).
So what are your recommendations?
From: ssddx
Sent on: February 23, 2015 2:27 AM
two ways you could go..
something like a fx8320 paired up with a 270x is not all that expensive and would provide better than your expectations. total system cost (just the tower with OS) would be somewhere around 550-600 typically.
or you could just use an i5 for now and then just upgrade to a graphics card in the future when performance on integrated is no longer good enough. total system cost would be somewhere about 550 typically.
in gaming the 270x will trump integrated time and time again though in cpu limited tasks the intel will pull ahead.
there is no doubt that intel has stronger cpus and provides better performance on the cpu end however the stronger gpu on the amd system would mean better gaming (until the intel system was upgraded to a graphics card). if the difference in performance doesnt matter and running games on lowest settings is fine then honestly even integrated would work (for now, but in the future you will need to upgrade to a card).
your activities like browsing, music, multitasking, virus scanning is negligible and will not need much power to run. games like HL2, CS, C&C are old and even older systems can run them fine. oblivion would be more demanding but even that is an older game so is not bad. once you start playing some more recent titles you will see a decline in peformance from not using a gpu.
---
you may be best served by going intel and making sure the rest of the system can handle a graphics card down the line (mostly buying a big enough power supply). in the long run its a better cpu and when you upgrade to a card down the line it will provide a better system. also it will run cooler than an amd system will.
going the amd route will get you more gaming performance for less money but will run hotter and overall the cpu is not as strong. certainly a good choice for people looking for a budget level machine or cheap gaming machine but if intel is in budget it is worth considering using intel instead.
again, as i said in the prior statement, either solution works though i will comment that aiming for 20-30fps at low is only going to end up rearing its ugly head in a few years. it would be best to aim higher so that in a few years performance is at the level you expected instead of aiming for that target now and being severely disappointed in a few years when your system can no longer handle those settings..
your choice.
From: Mr Burns
Sent on: February 24, 2015 4:58 AM
Ok, I will consider your recommendations.
Thanks for your help.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram