Intel HD Graphics 2000 vs. HD 4350

[dxe]

I'm switching to a s1155 based system with a G840 cpu. Can the integrated graphics replace my old HD 4350, or should I keep this dedicated card? No gaming, so any basic graphics solution would do, but I'd like to know how these compare.

 

[Zap]

Hello dxe, and welcome to AnandTech Forums.

No gaming, so any basic graphics solution would do

You said it.

For non-gaming (and I guess non-HTPC) you won't notice a difference.

For gaming, well, the G840 HD graphics (it isn't called HD 2000 because it is missing Quick Sync, but otherwise should be the same in games) is about 2/3 the performance of the HD 3000. The HD 3000 is mostly as good (even a hair better) than the Radeon 5450.

The Radeon 5450 is a hair faster (maybe 5-10%?) than the Radeon 4350. They are near identical, but the 5450 has faster DDR3 memory versus DDR2 (800MHz versus 500MHz data rate) and a bit higher clock speed.

Thus, I would say that your Radeon 4350 will be faster than the 6EU HD graphics of the Pentium G840 in gaming, by maybe anywhere from 10-30% depending on the game. This is purely my guess, so take it with a proverbial grain of salt.

In non-gaming use, you will not notice a difference.

Using a Radeon 4350 will add up to 20W to your power draw.

 

[dxe]

Thanks for the quick and thorough answer. I'll probably keep the HD 4350 as it would be strange to downgrade any component in the process of an upgrade. 20W less could be a good argument, but that's under load, right?

 

[cusideabelincoln]

That would be load. At idle it should be in the 8-12W range.

You'll also get more free system memory using a dedicated card, which could be helpful if using 4GB or lower.

 

[dxe]

You'll also get more free system memory using a dedicated card, which could be helpful if using 4GB or lower.

I considered that too.