Intel HD Graphics 4000
Hi. I have a i5 - 3570k, 8gb memory, and intel hd graphics 4000. I would like to konw the equivalent for the Intel HD Grphacis 4000 by AMD or nVidia. Thanks you.
Intel's intergrated graphics solutions cannot match the performance of nVidia's and AMD's discrete graphics cards. If you want to play your games at satisfying settings, get a discrete card, exactly what the 7750 is. The 7750 is great for those in a budget. Refer to articles and benchmarks here for a better picture.
beeding said:Hi. I have a i5 - 3570k, 8gb memory, and intel hd graphics 4000. I would like to konw the equivalent for the Intel HD Grphacis 4000 by AMD or nVidia. Thanks you.
one should never compare a integrated graphics technology (via CPU/Mobo) to a dedicated one. otherwise terms like CUDA cores/stream processers/memory types like ddr5 /bandwith of 256-bit,128-bit,64-bit... will have no meaning left. Dedicated memory is always better ...now of course for HD 4000 it would be better from many intergrated graphics but not of some dedicated ones.
If you don't have the money at this time, save some...If you have go for a HD 7850 2 gb at a cheap price in newegg.com..............It would play all games till date (can't say about the ultra settings part....but yeah ...it will blow away your HD 4000) ....perfomance wise obviously
You'll see a huge Boost upgrading to a 7750.
And you'll be able to Play the games on Decent settings with good fps. (I'm not familiar to this game, should be less demanding then BF3)
I've heard those games more depend on CPU, and you've got the Best Gaming CPU.
So it will be a Good experience playing with a 7750.
It doesn't need a external PSU connector too.
Look. Y'all aren't being helpful.
The guy asked what nvidia card is comparable to the Hd4000 intel.
He knows that an nvidia is going to be better. But nvidia also has older and cheaper cards.
So if anyone knows about which nvidia card's performance is equivalent to this hd4000 intel, please let us know.
Sometimes you get what you can afford and your laptop can't be upgraded. So what has he got?
In terms of performance vs Radeon & GeForce... The Intel HD 4000 is roughly about 80% the performance of a Radeon HD 5570 or about 65% the performance of the Radeon HD 6570. At least it is faster than a Radeon HD 6450 by a decent margin. As for the nVidia competitors it probably has about 85% the performance of the GT 430.
knotsean999 said:I have the Same Card. Intel graphics card with my macbook pro. I just bought it. Is there a way I could upgrade or am I stuck with this graphics card??
Nope. The only laptops that can have their GPU upgraded are PC laptop specifically gear towards gaming and generally cost at least $,1500. However, only a handful of specific models gives you the ability to so. In general, about 99% of laptops do not allow you to upgrade the GPU.
Discrete: 6800 Ultra, 7600 GT, 7800 GS, 8600 GS, 8600 GT (GDDR3), 9500 GT (DDR2)
Go (mobile): 7800 GTX, 7900 GTX Discrete: X800 XT (& PE), X850 XT (& PE), X1650 XT, X1800 GTO, HD 2600 XT, HD 3650 (DDR3), HD 3670
Mobility: X1900, 3670
Integrated: 6520G, 6530D, 7480D Integrated: Intel HD Graphics 4000
^^bit messed bu heres http://
7750 is way better and should run dayz and dayz standalone. It should run about every game
Nico Valentino said:hi,
i too want to know about the Intel HD Graphics 4000, i have GTS250 in my pc, and the laptop im about to buy have Intel HD Graphics 4000.
how is the 2 card performance against each other?
About the same. Intel HD 4000 really is quite disappointing. Not horrible, I'm able to deal with it while waiting on a real graphics card, but I would not ever recommend it for gaming.
jaguarskx said:If you want a mobile GPU that is equivalent to your GTS 250, then you probably need a laptop with a GTS 730m / 740m or Radeon HD 6870m / 7750m.
ah, so GTS 730m for laptop is equal to my GTS 250 in my desktop...
thats not in my budget -_-
thanks for the knowledege
tq jaguarskx, not planning to change my 250 gts, works fine for me so far, im not that extreme gamers
wolfkraut, yeah i just brows around and found that intel 4000 is not recomended really... -_-
I know this post is a little old but I have done extensive testing with the HD 4000 graphics. Fortunately I also had an Nvidia 430 GT to compare it too.
If anyone else is curious and comes looking, the Intel HD 4000 is pretty close to the Nvidia graphics cards with 48 CUDA cores. It performs about half as good as an Nvidia card with 96 CUDA cores and a 64-bit connection to RAM. I have used two variaties of Nvidia's 96 CUDA core, the old one in the Nvidia 430 GT and the newer one in the Nvidia 620M GT. Both of which have a 64-bit interface and perform fairly similar (The older one has a slightly higher clock, but the new one has some enhancements that improve performance in the design).
So long story short, the 48 CUDA core cards should be equal to the Intel HD 4000. For the AMD equivalent, just find what competes with the 48 CUDA core graphics cards and there is your answer.