Intel Integrated GPU Vs DX9 Discrete

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
R

raotor

Distinguished
Nov 3, 2007
37
0
18,530
Hello,

Having not built a system in nearly 6 years and being somewhat out of date
with respect the capabilities of various hardware etc I am wondering how the
integrated graphics processors found on modern Intel CPUS compare with my DX
9 Nvidia 9600GT? I know my graphics card is very old and wasn't even the
most capable available at the time but in the past integrated graphics have
always been rather less capable than even modest discrete cards and so I'm
wondering as I do not play any games other than a couple of DirectX 9 titles
from about 10 years ago whether I should bother with installing my 9600GT
into a new build that uses an Intel Core i3 or perhaps an i5 CPU.

 
Solution
geofelt

True enough.
But the max will usually be less depending on the motherboard bios.
512mb to 1gb is usually all you can effectively use.

Sort by date Sort by votes
geofelt

geofelt

Titan
Oct 9, 2006
54,291
4,145
174,240
Current integrated graphics is entirely suitable for desktop work and HD movie playback.
I would not plan on installing the 9600GT card even though it is marginally faster.

Normally, intel cpus do not depend on fast ram. 1600 is fine.
If you will be using the integrated graphics, 1866 ram is faster and will help a bit.
Also, but sufficient total ram so you can allocate more than the default ram to be used by the graphics adapter.

You could always do so later if you think it would help.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
R

raotor

Distinguished
Nov 3, 2007
37
0
18,530

Interesting indeed. If I read the provided comparison correctly, it appears
that the Intel integrated GPU performs better in 2D applications. However,
the 9600GT out performs the 4400 in 3D tasks. I have to confess being rather
surprised at this given how old my 9600 GT is and the fact that it wasn't
even high-end when I got it new some 6 years ago.

As I don't really play games other than the handful of DirectX 9 titles I
should be really focused on the superior 2D performance of the 4400
solution. The difficulty here is that when I do play the odd game, do I want
to sacrifice the loss of 3D performance.

I suppose I should opt for a practical approach and take into account just
how rarely I play games. Couple this with the fact that by not using my 9600
GT in a new build that I reduce overall system power consumption by up to
95W. Less power, less heat and quieter system.

I had forgotten about the fact that integrated GPU's require the allocation
of system RAM unlike discrete cards and so this would perhaps influence how
much system memory I install in the new system. Given my existing 9600 GT is
the base 512 Mb model then I need only allocate this amount of RAM to be on
[par in terms of memory with my discrete card. I presume from the responses
I've read that there is a way for me to configure how much system memory to
allocate to the 4400?


 
Upvote 0 Downvote
coozie7

coozie7

Champion
Jun 2, 2007
10,015
10
59,215
If the games are that old the integrated will almost certainly play them well, you could always download and install FRAPS and see how fast the games are actually running, if you see 60FPS or more the IGP will handle them perfectly, your monitor can only display 60.

What will you be using the system for?
For light office work like Word or Excel (not 100,000 cells, though!) an i3 with 8Gb of memory would be pretty well ideal, if you're photo/video editing professionally you'll probably want to aim at the i5 or even an i7 in order to maximise your output and earning potential.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
geofelt

geofelt

Titan
Oct 9, 2006
54,291
4,145
174,240

True enough.
But the max will usually be less depending on the motherboard bios.
512mb to 1gb is usually all you can effectively use.

 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom