(2015) Skylake integrated GPU vs (2008) AMD ATI Radeon HD 4850

[ggerard]

I am about to buy a skylake-based computer and for a while I'll live without a graphic card (which is gonna be the GTX970).

Then I'm curious to know whether the integrated GPU (Intel HD Graphics 530) will be superior or not to my to-be-substituted computer, which has an AMD ATI Radeon HD 4850 (actually it is an imac late-2009, i7-based).

I find difficult to find info about it (here you have the ATI review, http://www.trustedreviews.com/ATI-HD-4850-review-power-consumption-and-verdict-page-9). And I have no idea about the difference "in-years" between an integrated GPU and an external one.

What do you think?

 

[nikoli707]

both are irrelevant as far as higher end pc gaming. otherwise they are at the very least somewhat equal. if all you need is multimedia output then the intel igpu would be far superior. if you want very light gaming, thinking league of legends or minecraft, the igpu would be fine. if you are thinking battlefield 4 then neither will work.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/skylake-intel-core-i7-6700k-core-i5-6600k,4252-9.html
the amd 7700k is roughtly equal to a 2008 circa 8800gt or 9800gt depending on the game. dx9 titles the older graphics card might push past, but those older cards like your 4850 are not at all optimized for dx11 or brand new dx12. raw processing power set aside, the ipc and instruction sets of the new igpu make it a better option, not even counting massive power efficiency gains.

 

[ggerard]

Thanks for the answer, I was just curious because I feared that while I don't get the graphic card, my "new" computer could actually be worse than my "old" one. From what you say it doesn't seem to be the case then, or at least the differences will not be too noticeable (CPU apart).