tech savvy
Active Member
Who has better "Integrated Graphics",AMD or Intel?
integrated graphics
- Thread starter tech savvy
- Start date
- Status
jonnyp11
New Member
AMD, i think the 800 series chipset graphics might be a little under intel HD, but the llanos kill all intel HD's, and the trinities or fusions or whatever coming out this summer are going to kick serious arse, although ivy bridge isn't looking bad in the graphics department and with their cpu power they might be better.
tech savvy
Active Member
ty jonnyp11, exactly what I needed to know.
wolfeking
banned
I call BS plain and simple. AMD in general have better IPUs, including the trinity. Intel HD2000 doesnt hold a candle to them.
Since pretty much no one runs or wants to run socket FM1, the better comparison is AM3 VS intel HD.
The 880g and 890gx have the two best onboard graphics (HD4250 and HD4290) for socket AM3. The HD4290 is just an overclocked HD4250.
The Intel 2000 graphics is comparable to the HD4250 but the 4290 still beats it slightly. The Intel 3000 graphics easily beats both AMD's offerings.
However, NONE of these onboard graphics are capable of gaming. Only AMD's FM1 offerings can game.....but, I've owned an A8-3850 and overclocked the onboard graphics to the max (cpu at 3.5ghz, onboard at 900mhz...stock is 600 so thats a 50% overclock) and at 1440x900 resolution low settings I still had slight lag at intense scenes playing COD black ops MP. Average 45fps. Playable, but on a 1080p monitor running 1440x900 isn't desirable. Again, thats a 50% overclock, at stock 600 average was more like 35fps and way too laggy.
The 880g and 890gx have the two best onboard graphics (HD4250 and HD4290) for socket AM3. The HD4290 is just an overclocked HD4250.
The Intel 2000 graphics is comparable to the HD4250 but the 4290 still beats it slightly. The Intel 3000 graphics easily beats both AMD's offerings.
However, NONE of these onboard graphics are capable of gaming. Only AMD's FM1 offerings can game.....but, I've owned an A8-3850 and overclocked the onboard graphics to the max (cpu at 3.5ghz, onboard at 900mhz...stock is 600 so thats a 50% overclock) and at 1440x900 resolution low settings I still had slight lag at intense scenes playing COD black ops MP. Average 45fps. Playable, but on a 1080p monitor running 1440x900 isn't desirable. Again, thats a 50% overclock, at stock 600 average was more like 35fps and way too laggy.
Last edited:
jonnyp11
New Member
well actually they now have k versions of the llano's made to overclock, they are limited on the multipliers settings so they won't be going over 4ghz or anything, but they do well, i think they go up to 3.8 or so ghz, but i read the stuff a while back so don't remember exactly.
Call, BS. The AMD APUs and FM1 are selling like hot cakes. If all your looking for is the best onboard, then AMD beats Intel hands down. That was the question, which has the best onboard. Then for you to take the AMD APU out by claming nobody wants it, just to compare AMD older onboard to Intels crap just to even the score is pretty lame. Plus Intel HD 3000 is going to be pretty much crap compared to AMD Trinty too. This only applies to onboard, which was the question.
Last edited:
My guess is the HD 4000 will be slightly slower then llano or even maybe in some.
Haha, to who? OEM market? Who gives a crap about that.
Actually, intel's sales went up the last quarter. From 72.2% to 72.5% of the market share...where's this FM1 hold on the market? Amd lost sales the last quarter. BS called, you lose.
The real question is, what are you going to be doing that you need good onboard graphics?
All of the popular onboards such as the HD4250/4290 and the Intel 2000/3000 can all play 1080p video etc, and none of them can game realistically. As I already said, neither can AMD APU's unless you play at a lame 1024x768 so what good are they for over the intel HD2000/3000 anyway?
Last edited:
BS. OEM sales are 97% of sales, thats why it matters. Maybe not to the 3% that build their own. You really think Intel and AMD give a damn about system builders, if so your fooling yourself. AMD damn near sold ever APU they could make, would have sold alot more if GF would get their head out. The sales they made on APUs/GPUs and some, but a late start with Servers CPU made most of the sales. Having a late start with Servers and the down sales because of Zambezi is what took a hit. Not the APUs. BS called, you lose. But back to the question. Who has the best onboard? AMD does.
The OEM is in that market share report genius. Intel's went up, AMD's went down.
As for AMD's better onboard, what does it even matter? lol you amd fanboys give me a good laugh. Just to win you have to stick to the exact question asked....not look at the real life circumstances of a reason why he's even asking. As I already stated, intel's HD onboard can do anything AMD apu's can do just as well FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, therefore since intel CPU's are better it makes sense to go intel.
With that said, I don't even believe your 97% figure. If that were so, they would not even waste their time on 3% and stop sales.
As for AMD's better onboard, what does it even matter? lol you amd fanboys give me a good laugh. Just to win you have to stick to the exact question asked....not look at the real life circumstances of a reason why he's even asking. As I already stated, intel's HD onboard can do anything AMD apu's can do just as well FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, therefore since intel CPU's are better it makes sense to go intel.
With that said, I don't even believe your 97% figure. If that were so, they would not even waste their time on 3% and stop sales.
Last edited:
The question was, who makes the best onboard, AMD does period. I'm not getting into a noob argument with you like you cause in other threads. Between you and bigfellla trashing threads into stupidity, to where they are not even worth reading. Dont really care if you believe it or not. But of course you will come back dragging it on and on and on. Out of it.
It's like you didn't even read my previous post, unbelievable. Whats more noob that just stating a fact rather than backing it up with reasoning? You are the noob. Like I said, whats he need the ''best'' onboard for? What else is he doing with the PC? Nope just your noob underinformed statement of AMD has better onboard. Not a care at all that he would be buying a dead end socket board and CPU just because of your lame statement.
Seriously? Did you see the reason why I said not to count FM1? It's because no one buying retail uses it (so it has large OEM sales, that has nothing to do with the OP wanting to know about RETAIL chips). Practically everyone on here either uses either AM3 or intel. Therefore, the proper comparison is AMD 4250/4290 or intel HD2000/3000 graphics. And the answer is, both onboards can do that same thing each other can do, so since Intel has better CPU's it's best to just go intel.
Yes FM1 has better onboard, but for like the 100th time I'm asking WHAT DOES IT EVEN MATTER? What can you do better with FM1's onboard that you cannot do with Intel HD2000/3000?
Answer me that and I might be satisfied to not argue with the blanket statement of ''AMD has better onboard graphics''....because here is the TRUE blanket statement that covers all reasoning behind proper choices-
Intel has better CPU's, and onboard graphics plenty good to do anything that you would need to do with onboard graphics.
Last edited:
- Status