Integrated Intel laptop graphics vs. old discrete desktop graphics

W

WhiteTree

New Member
How would the Desktop NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 256MB compare with future and current integrated solutions from Intel. (i3, i5, and Sandy Bridge)?

I'm just wondering if integrated laptop graphics are good enough now (or will be soon). I do believe that integrated graphics would be a lot cooler and quieter. I had an old laptop that struggled with Age of Empires 2 (2D).

I would like something that can handle 3D well. Google Earth, games with 3D graphics circa 2004-2006, reasonably complex Blender 3D viewport work (not rendering as that's CPU based), etc. Can integrated graphics handle that now or is a discrete card needed for a good experience?
 
While integrated graphics do get better, so do the demands of 3D applications, so it's kind of a wash. Integrated graphics will never be that great for the latest 3D software such as games, although for games from 04-06, current integrated video would work fairly well, depending on the application of course. The 5200 would be a much lower performer, and since it's so old you wouldn't be able to take advantage of any of the newer features such as DX9.0c/DX10.
 
[-0MEGA-];1552040 said:
While integrated graphics do get better, so do the demands of 3D applications, so it's kind of a wash. Integrated graphics will never be that great for the latest 3D software such as games, although for games from 04-06, current integrated video would work fairly well, depending on the application of course. The 5200 would be a much lower performer, and since it's so old you wouldn't be able to take advantage of any of the newer features such as DX9.0c/DX10.
Click to expand...

Yep, especially considering that the FX series aren't good for gaming at all, being workstation/rendering cards
 
fastdude said:
Yep, especially considering that the FX series aren't good for gaming at all, being workstation/rendering cards
Click to expand...

I think you're talking about a different lineup (the Quadro FX cards). The FX 5200 was a gaming card in the 5 series, though it was utterly horrible.
 
The FX 5200 is the most powerful graphics I have available, so I use that as a reference point. How much more powerful would integrated graphics from Intel be compared to it?

For an upper level graphics reference point - Age of Empires 3, Battle for Middle Earth 2. The 5200 does these poorly, (lowest settings and minimized unit count is playable) although some of that may be processor based (2.4Ghz Celeron circa 2004).

I don't like hot or noisy laptops, so that level may not be achievable with current (integrated) laptop graphics. Just curious where things are now, and how much things have improved.

I know desktop integrated graphics are usually a bit better than laptop integrated graphics. I'm specifically wanting comparisons with integrated laptop graphics, although comparisons with integrated desktop graphics are still interesting and useful.
 
Last edited:
The integrated graphics used by i3 and i5 is much faster than FX5200, but that doesn't mean that it is good for gaming, unless you play old games or light games.

Age of Empire 3 is an old game. i3/i5 should run that game without much problems

Also the upcoming Sandy-bridge graphics should be about twice as fast as the current i3/i5 models, they will be out in January 2011
 
Last edited:
Even the current integrated Intel graphics are that much faster than the FX 5200? (The 5200 does have 256MB dedicated graphics ram.) Any idea how much faster? Also, do you know of any sources I can reference (that are accessible to someone who doesn't know a lot about this)?
 
The problem is the FX5200 is such an old card no one runs benchmarks comparing it to newer hardware, since very few people actually have both.

It's not just about VRAM, granted it has 256MB dedicated, the hardware supports ancient software such as DirectX 9.0 (can't remember if it's a or b, but it's not 9.0c), and older versions of OpenGL and so forth.
 
Sure, I agree. :)

I'd just be nice to know about how well integrated graphics would work for those tasks compared to what I already have. I don't want a step down in power from what I have.

Integrated graphics are very appealing for laptops. With a desktop, I would probably just get an ATI 5670 since I know that would have plenty of power. It's mainly a laptop issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top