Video card performance input needed

8 Responses to Video card performance input needed

1. Wildman7316 says:

   April 4, 2011 at 2:16 am

   As a rule of thumb, unless the video card is quite a bit older than than your processor (which this one isn’t), you’re almost always better off with a video card than time sharing your processor and memory. Not only are you going to improve your video, you will also gain available main memory and processing cycles which speed everything up.
2. Russell says:

   April 4, 2011 at 2:21 am

   As a general rule of thumb, almost anything that’s as new as or newer than the computer it’s in on the Radeon or GeForce card lines is better than any Intel integrated graphics.
3. Will says:

   April 4, 2011 at 3:02 am

   Have you looked on this site? They have rating lists that compare cpu’s and cards.

   http://www.cpubenchmark.net/
4. Chris says:

   April 4, 2011 at 3:50 am

   Everything you need to know is here 🙂 http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/the-sandy-bridge-review-intel-core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/11

   In a nutshell the i3 560 will not fair well against the 5450 at all. Meanwhile the newer i3 2100 series chips do much better, with the HD Graphics 2000 slightly slower and the HD Graphics 3000 slightly faster.
5. Montag says:

   April 4, 2011 at 4:32 am

   It will blow it away. Integrated graphics are a joke. That’s a card that was released in 2010. The only case where a video card wouldn’t out-perform integrated video is maybe (and this is a pretty tentative maybe) is with a video card that is 8 years older than the integrated video on the mobo.

   As always, what the intended purpose is has a lot to do with it. If it’s a headless server, obviously graphics don’t matter. If it’s for use in a corporate environment where spreadsheets are the order of the day, integrated will do. Photo, video – if either of those two words are uttered – time to get a video card.
6. David says:

   April 4, 2011 at 10:10 am

   I agree with the others. Built in graphics are great for low power applications, but for what you use a computer for I’d recommend against it.
7. Duncan says:

   April 5, 2011 at 1:00 am

   I have the 5450, and compared to the intel graphics that are native, there’s just no comparison, the 5450 smokes the dogpiss out of the native graphics. I’ve got the one with 1GB of video memory and playing games at HD720P is no sweat.
8. Sigivald says:

   April 6, 2011 at 8:28 pm

   I disagree with Montag – by which I mean, the only thing you really need a video card for these days is 3d.

   (And by “these days” I mean “using an i-series integrated video chipset”; the Atom ones can be too wampy even for HD video by themselves. And I don’t know if AMD even has an equivalent.)

   If you’re not doing gaming, that i3 built-in stuff should be more than sufficient; it’ll handle 1080p HD video just fine, on the video side.

   Even photo retouching shouldn’t need that much GPU, though it certainly won’t hurt (of course, I suspect this isn’t meant to be your graphics workstation, or you wouldn’t be spec’ing an i3 in the first place).

   For gaming, of course, built-in video is still worthless.

Comments are closed.