Integrated Intel HD Graphics of Intel Celeron G1610 and Intel Pentium G2010

[Adam Lyon]

Are they the same??they have the same base frequency or lets say they have the same graphics specification. Is there anything different from them??

I have seen in youtube that pentium g2010 could play crysis 3, gta iv, need for speed the run, etc. with only integrated intel hd graphics and 4gb RAM. So i was thinking that i'll just choose celeron than pentium because it is cheaper and have the same integrated graphics.

I hope someone could help me. Thanks in advance

 

[thasan1]

it should be intel HD 3000/2500 im not entirely sure. but whatever it is its not that powerful. you may have seen them running but probably at the lowest settings at 720p res. it should be equivalant of a GF GT 610 which is a really low end card.

 

[jaguarskx]

The are the same graphics core. The Intel HD (not followed by any model #s) is the slowest graphics core for each CPU generation which can be a bit confusing. In this case both Intel Celeron G1610 and Intel Pentium G2010 are based on the Ivy Bridge CPU architecture, thus both also have the same Intel HD graphics core.

If you were to throw in the Pentium G850 into the mix, then it complicates matters a little bit. The Pentium G850 is a Sandy Bridge generation CPU, but the graphics core is also called the Intel HD. Since Sandy Bridge pre-dates Ivy Bridge, the Intel HD graphics core in the Pentium G850 is slower than the Intel HD graphics core in the Celeron G1610 and Pentium G2010 .

The Intel HD graphics core is real weak. Most people think that the Intel HD 3000 and HD 4000. The Ivy Bridge generation Intel HD graphics core is less powerful than the Sandy Bridge generation Intel HD 3000.

If you are relying on an inexpensive CPU to play games with integrated graphic core, then I recommend you look at AMD's Richland generation APUs. The A4-4000 ($46) is the least expensive APU from that generation and it's graphics core is more powerful than the Intel HD in the Celeron G1610. It still sucks, but it will not suck as bad.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113343

However, getting the cheapest thing you can buy will also likely mean that sooner rather than later you wish you had better performance which means you will be spending more money. I would recommend at least going with the A6-6400K ($80) which has a more powerful graphics core than the A4 (but it still sucks) and it can be overclocked for better performance, but you need to buy a separate CPU cooler for overclocking (OC'ing) because the one that comes in the box is not meant OC'ing.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113335

 

[Adam Lyon]

Thanks sir for the reply. It helps me a lot. Actually I'm going to buy a Gaming GPU maybe next year that's why i'm sticking with the integrated hd graphics for now. Also I think Intel Celeron 1610 is much more an all-around cpu that could play some modern game even at low settings that's why i want intel than amd apu. Correct me if i'm wrong A4-4000 or 5300 is good in gaming only, it was actually my first choice but then i was thinking that i usually do conversion of files, video and other stuffs, so i think it would make a big difference if i'll choose intel celeron 1610 since its also latest cpu.

Thanks for the help thasan1 and jaguarskx. ^_^

 

[simon12]

That celerons integrated graphics will not play many modern games even on the lowest settings, it may run Crysis 3 but it will not be playable.

 

[Adam Lyon]

That celerons integrated graphics will not play many modern games even on the lowest settings, it may run Crysis 3 but it will not be playable.

Hmm..so it means they have different type of hd graphics??that makes me rethink again..but then i'm not planning playing crysis3..just my basis for some med setting games that could be playable in this gpu like LOL,nba2k13,fifa13, etc..hehe..thanks sir..^_^

 

[jaguarskx]

The Celeron CPU is relatively slow compared to other (more expensive) CPUs currently available. I think the only difference between the Celeron and Pentium is the the clockspeed. I could be wrong, but a quick review seems to indicate that. If you want to stick with Intel then I generally recommend an Ivy Bridge generation model that ends with the number "5" which indicates it has the Intel HD 4000 graphic core. Specifically speaking, I am referring to the Core i3-3225 which sells for $130 after a promo code.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116774

The least expensive Core i3 is the Sandy Bridge generation Core i3-2100 selling for $120; or $10 less. However, Sandy Bridge is slightly slower than the newer Ivy Bridge CPU. Ivy Bridge generation CPUs are generally about 6% more powerful on average assuming the same. However, the i3-2100 has the Intel HD 2000 while the i3-3225 has the Intel HD 4000 which is generally somewhere between 50% - 75% more powerful than the Intel HD 2000.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115078

The Intel HD 2000 is more powerful than that Intel HD graphics core in the Celeron and Pentium, but I don't know by how much.

 

[Adam Lyon]

The Celeron CPU is relatively slow compared to other (more expensive) CPUs currently available. I think the only difference between the Celeron and Pentium is the the clockspeed. I could be wrong, but a quick review seems to indicate that. If you want to stick with Intel then I generally recommend an Ivy Bridge generation model that ends with the number "5" which indicates it has the Intel HD 4000 graphic core. Specifically speaking, I am referring to the Core i3-3225 which sells for $130 after a promo code.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116774

The least expensive Core i3 is the Sandy Bridge generation Core i3-2100 selling for $120; or $10 less. However, Sandy Bridge is slightly slower than the newer Ivy Bridge CPU. Ivy Bridge generation CPUs are generally about 6% more powerful on average assuming the same. However, the i3-2100 has the Intel HD 2000 while the i3-3225 has the Intel HD 4000 which is generally somewhere between 50% - 75% more powerful than the Intel HD 2000.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115078

The Intel HD 2000 is more powerful than that Intel HD graphics core in the Celeron and Pentium, but I don't know by how much.

Honestly I really wanted to have a core i series but then i'm on a tight budget since i'm not the 1 to pay for it. My father doesn't like gaming pc but i do.He wants the cheapest that is available. He even buys a laptop without checking the specs, only the price of it. This is the cheapest all-around also could play some latest games with lowest settings that i could build for now and i'm planning on upgrading this from my earned money maybe some few years from now with a gaming GPU. But then, thanks for the help. ^_^

 

[Adam Lyon]

Also, these are the videos that i've seen that could play some latest games with lowest setting with intel hd graphics of pentium g2010:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KH10EkiXbMM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ccsi4s0bIs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkC0bhNX6aU&list=PL29Eckyzw25lkTWDgpyVxRaYConAWCXZo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKJagt4JzEc&list=PL29Eckyzw25lkTWDgpyVxRaYConAWCXZo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69fY_4l5Z6s&list=PL29Eckyzw25lkTWDgpyVxRaYConAWCXZo

but then im not planning on playing this games, just my basis because i'm a hdd memory conscious and i'm fine with some med settings or ends games. ^_^

 

[simon12]

Ignore you tube videos its full of videos showing people playing games on hardware that can't. I not saying its faked (it may be though) but its running at likely 10-15 fps and will lag like crazy as soon as it get to an intensive part of the game and even non intensive parts will not feel right.

 

[thasan1]

@Adam Lyon you should be ok with iGPU if its under 1366 * 768 or below, you might be able to play those games in low setting's. my friend with similar setup play's most of those games comfortably at low setting's at that res.

 

[Adam Lyon]

Thanks for the responses. It helped me a lot. ^_^