Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Intel Graphics HD 4000 for a non-gaming laptop

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
December 11, 2012 10:48:29 PM

Hi,
Would Intel Graphics HD 4000 card, on a i7-3630QM, be good enough for working with Photoshop/Lightroom and occasional video transcoding? (providing I'm planning to keep the laptop for 4-5 years)
Or should I invest in Geforce GT 630M/635M?

Thank you.
a b U Graphics card
December 11, 2012 10:57:55 PM

you should go for the one with the best card you can get, since laptops are hard to upgrade, and since you want to keep it for that long. if theres a chance get the 650m.
Score
0
Anonymous
a c 117 U Graphics card
a b D Laptop
December 11, 2012 11:37:29 PM

the GT 630/5 would barely be any better than the HD 4000 so it most likely would not be worth the extra cost.
Score
0
Related resources

Best solution

a c 358 U Graphics card
a c 433 D Laptop
a c 115 å Intel
December 12, 2012 12:12:29 AM

For what you are doing the Intel HD 4000 is fine. If you use a video program that is Quick Sync compatible, the Intel HD 4000 helps dramatically decrease the time it takes to transcode video. When I say "dramatically" I mean by at least 6x faster than just with the CPU.
Share
December 12, 2012 12:18:15 AM

What jaguarskx said.

The HD4000 is more than enough for a good photoshop rig, just make sure you have at least 8GB of ram or more and you will be good with your i7 and make sure it is 64 bit.
Score
0
December 12, 2012 2:08:07 PM

Anonymous said:
the GT 630/5 would barely be any better than the HD 4000 so it most likely would not be worth the extra cost.


Strange you say that...
From all the benchmarks/comparisons I checked, it looks like the GT 630 is about 1.5 times more powerful and GT 635 is 2 times more powerful, than the HD 4000
Score
0
December 12, 2012 2:16:07 PM

jaguarskx said:
For what you are doing the Intel HD 4000 is fine. If you use a video program that is Quick Sync compatible, the Intel HD 4000 helps dramatically decrease the time it takes to transcode video. When I say "dramatically" I mean by at least 6x faster than just with the CPU.


Thanks for your reply.
That's what I figured. But do you think in the long run (4-5 years) I might be better off with 630/635? Coz, obviously it would be foolish to invest in a powerful laptop that, eventually, will have it's integrated graphics card as the bottleneck for properly running some future "ultra-graphical" Windows or a future Photoshop. Do you see what I'm saying?
Score
0
Anonymous
a c 117 U Graphics card
a b D Laptop
December 12, 2012 8:27:43 PM

zeevikma said:
Strange you say that...
From all the benchmarks/comparisons I checked, it looks like the GT 630 is about 1.5 times more powerful and GT 635 is 2 times more powerful, than the HD 4000

in what? gaming?
in using solid works the difference is less than 5%
for what your doing . . .not worth it.

edit: i have been using photoshop for several years; there is no difference when i used a GT 8500, 9600 GT, 550ti or GTX 570. your rendering an image . . nothing taxing on any GPU.
Score
0
December 18, 2012 11:12:34 PM

Best answer selected by zeevikma.
Score
0
!