Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Integrated graphics/video on AMD Phenom II vs. Intel i5

Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 3, 2011 9:08:00 PM

Hi all,

I'm new here and will be building my first system :hello:  . One thing I can't grasp is about integrated graphics with certain CPU and MOBO combinations with AMD vs. Intel. Here's what I understand (from 2 options I'm exploring) and can you please correct me if I'm wrong:

- Intel i5 2400 LGA 1155 3.1ghz with Intel HD Graphics: With a compatible mobo, I can run this without a separate graphics card and it can handle some pretty intense graphic processing?

- AMD Phenom II X4 975 Black Edition 3.6ghz - I would be new to AMD if I go this route, but it seems I may need a separate graphics card for this setup (for decent graphics)? However, I found a mobo, MSI 880GM-E35 Socket AM3 880G mATX AMD Motherboard that has ATi Radeon HD 4250 integrated graphics.

I'm just confused to how graphics is handled; it seems the Intel has dedicated graphic processing and the AMD doesn't? Can the AMD still process graphics just as well with the correct mobo? I would be doing some video editing and watching recorded HD video.

Thanks for your help!

Craig

Best solution

a c 93 à CPUs
September 3, 2011 9:25:14 PM

The main difference is the newer intel chips like the i5 2400 have the integrated graphics built into the CPU itself, the AMD processors still have the integrated graphics on the motherboard. The i5 2400 uses intel's HD 2000 graphics which are slightly slower than the Radeon HD 4250 integrated graphics. Either one can handle HD video fine and video editing fine. The i5 2400 is the faster CPU though, so if you aren't gaming you probably will get better overall performance with the intel setup. If you do want to use intel's integrated graphics, make sure you get an h61, h67 or z68 board, the p67 boards do not support the use of integrated graphics.
Share
a c 144 à CPUs
a b À AMD
September 3, 2011 11:38:25 PM

It would probably be beneficial for you to make a thread in the system section for people to help you pick parts. Integrated of any kind is not recommended for gaming. Although it would depend on the game and res you play.

But the parts you mentioned are mid high end so it would make no sense to stick with the weak integrated.

Here's a gpu hierarchy chart. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-performance-...
m
0
l
Related resources
September 4, 2011 12:20:22 AM

Thank you both, this definitely helped!
m
0
l
a c 473 à CPUs
a c 119 À AMD
September 4, 2011 12:37:24 AM

The Intel HD 2000 graphics core in the Core i5-2400 is not really meant for games. It is faster than their old GMA X4500M integrated graphics core, but it is not really meant for games. I would say the Intel HD 2000 is slightly slower or just as fast as the Radeon HD 4250.

The Intel HD 3000 graphics core that is found in the Core i5-2500K and Core i7-2600K (and all Sandy Bridge Core i3/i5/i7 laptop CPUs) is slightly faster than the desktop version of the Radeon HD 5450. That would also make it faster than the Radeon HD 4250 integrated graphics core.

m
0
l
September 14, 2011 3:03:20 AM

Best answer selected by Cdr86.
m
0
l
!