Information

Dear forum members,
We are delighted to inform you that our forums are back online. Every single topic and post are now on their places and everything works just as before, only better. Welcome back!



Discussion

Discussion on Article:
Intel HD Graphics 3000 and Intel HD Graphics 2000 Review

Started by: mamisano | Date 02/22/11 01:27:27 PM
Comments: 11 | Last Comment:  07/21/12 09:13:04 AM

Expand all threads | Collapse all threads

[1-9]

1. 
I have to say that I am very disappointed that you did not include ANY image quality tests. Sure, the HD2000 / 3000 may be able to run at xx FPS, but at what cost to image quality?

I think an update to this review is necessary before you can make any informed conclusions.

My .02
0 0 [Posted by: mamisano  | Date: 02/22/11 01:27:27 PM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
All of the tests were at Low Quality. No anti aliasing or other complicated effects that can be performed incorrectly.
0 0 [Posted by: cashkennedy  | Date: 02/24/11 11:05:18 AM]
Reply

2. 
Your conclusion is a bit optimistic. The 5570 retails for $50 these days and is 2.5x faster than the std clocked HD3000. A $125 processor + $50 gpu will beat out the more expensive i5 2500 /HD3000 in every game by a large margin. Furthermore, if someone was intending to do even a modest amount of gaming, I would recommend a card costing about $150. At that price you can get around 8-10x the performance of the HD3000. Instead of getting a mix of unplayable and ugly games, the gamer would be able to run all modern games at modest levels of visual quality.
0 0 [Posted by: MattM  | Date: 02/22/11 04:59:12 PM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
The article made it clear that these processors and their graphics are suited for mobile aplications, where you can't just throw in a GPU at a whim. The cost of designing the laptop to include a GPU (slot, cooling, space...) for the OEM is going to way outweigh the fact that sandy bridge costs more then some cpus that perform similarly. And the processors are priced competitively for their performance, or they wouldn't be selling.

On the desktop side of things, the integrated graphics are not designed for gaming but just for office pc's to have acceptable video and graphics editing abilities. And for home users who do not plan to play games, but just use the internet and watch videos.
0 0 [Posted by: cashkennedy  | Date: 02/24/11 11:09:25 AM]
Reply

3. 
LOL. Integrated graphics is NOT for gaming!!! For office work, server, etc, is perfect.
0 0 [Posted by: TAViX  | Date: 02/23/11 01:20:26 AM]
Reply

4. 
A comment about : "These CPUs are positioned for computer enthusiasts, who will never use integrated graphics merely because the Intel H67 chipset supporting it doesn’t offer any overclocking-friendly options at all"

I think there are still a number of users like me who like upgrading their system in order to have a best-in-class processor, and who don't need a separate graphics adapter.

My typical use of a desktop is to be able to do photo editing, video encoding and blu-ray conversion to other formats; I never play games except some good old' logic puzzles.

After seeing the impressive tests results of the "Quick sync" feature, as soon as main boards with corrected chipsets are shipping again, I'll probably switch to Core i7 2600K with H67 chipset; or maybe I'll be patient enough to wait until z68 come out, in order to enable the "unlock" part of the processor .

In any case I will not purchase a dedicated graphics board "only for Cuda" or equivalent !

Cedric
0 0 [Posted by: cedric  | Date: 02/23/11 01:55:55 AM]
Reply

5. 
Thanks for the review. I'm always interested in what's offered at the low end, and been impressed with some HD 3000 benchmarks I saw on AMD E-350 reviews, so it was nice to read more about Intel's new graphics. Intel definitely upped the stakes in integrated graphics, and hopefully Llano will do that again. This kind of performance means that even laptops not designed for gaming can be used for some gaming on the side, which is great news.
0 0 [Posted by: ET3D  | Date: 02/25/11 01:53:22 AM]
Reply

6. 
I'll be very happy to see more detail about transcoding (what was the duration of the demo clip used, extra or no effects applied in media espresso). For example on my computer with a Phenom X4 955 and a HD5850 I obtain a 6x conversion time for an 1080p clip (12min converted in 2min) and I have also only 30% processor used.
0 0 [Posted by: novv  | Date: 02/25/11 01:16:36 PM]
Reply

7. 
More blathering on something that can't even run directx 11.

Intel and graphics shouldn't be used in the same breath.

0 0 [Posted by: Iceman  | Date: 02/25/11 02:19:24 PM]
Reply

8. 
I've long enjoyed your in-depth articles. I do agree however on the lack of discussion regarding image quality. If their isn't anything to discuss, then say so. By quality I'm referring to 2D, not games.

Also would like your findings on image editing/Photoshop, available resolutions, dual monitors, etc.

My present system-- i7-920 @ 4.0GHz uses a silent low end AMD 4670 for my computer painting..in a couple of years when I upgrade & if I can make do with just the built-in GPU, that would be great.

0 0 [Posted by: pmcwillie  | Date: 03/01/11 09:25:37 AM]
Reply

9. 
I recently bought a new pc hp pro desktop 3400 MT, with Intel core i3, with Intel HD Graphics 2000 insede, but it came with problem on true color screen, it is almost everything green/yellow/blue/black only, ex. red color is turned to black.
Is there any way to solve this issue, please?
0 0 [Posted by: Panguela  | Date: 07/21/12 09:13:04 AM]
Reply

[1-9]

Back to the Article

Add your Comment