Intel HD2000/3000/4000 vs old Radeon 4670

[wpcoe]

I'm fairly literate with SSDs and Intel CPUs, but know next to nothing about graphics cards.

I have an ATI Radeon 4670 on a P55 motherboard. If I were to update to SandyBridge (or Ivy Bridge) platform, how would the integrated Intel graphics compare? I can find no specs to compare apples to apples.

I do not play computer games. (My idea of a computer game is Solitaire.) With Intel HDx000 integrated graphics, would there be any benefit to installing my current Radeon 4670? i.e. Is there anything the Radeon 4670 does better/faster than the integrated Intel graphics?

I couldn't even find specs for my old Radeon card via Google. Here's a report from GPU-Z:

 

[gmaster456]

I'd recommend just using the intel graphics if you aren't gaming or doing anything else that requires a dedicated card.

 

[Termie]

This should answer your question: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4263/amds-radeon-hd-6450-uvd3-meets-htpc/5

A 4670 is about equivalent to a GT430.

The short answer, despite the 4670 being much faster than HD2000/3000, is that you don't need it unless you're gaming.

 

[wpcoe]

Thanks. I'm mildly amused that such an old card would show up so high in a couple of those benchmark charts. I thought this card was so ancient to not be worth the effort to install.

But, I get the point from the two of you that I'd be just as happy with the integrated Intel graphics, and could cut down on some heat & power consumption.

Do the integrated Intel graphics support the "OpenGL" features in Photoshop?

 

[BallaTheFeared]

It's pretty close to AMD's Llano gpu, which is considerably faster than Intels HD3000.

However the HD3000 is far more efficient, and a better gpu for non gaming likes like encoding.

If you don't need to it to play more demanding games than the HD3000 can handle, go with the HD3000.

 

[FalseChristian]

Yes the 3000 would be a good non-gaming 'GPU'. The other one would be better for gaming (think GLQuake).

 

[Mars999]

Thanks. I'm mildly amused that such an old card would show up so high in a couple of those benchmark charts. I thought this card was so ancient to not be worth the effort to install.

But, I get the point from the two of you that I'd be just as happy with the integrated Intel graphics, and could cut down on some heat & power consumption.

Do the integrated Intel graphics support the "OpenGL" features in Photoshop?

Depends... SB CPU's support OpenGL 3.0, so they should work... For any real work in PS or 3D rendering I would always use a dedicated Gfx card IMO. I would say your 4670 would be better as the support for GL is many times better.

 

[Blitzvogel]

It's pretty close to AMD's Llano gpu, which is considerably faster than Intels HD3000.

However the HD3000 is far more efficient, and a better gpu for non gaming likes like encoding.

If you don't need to it to play more demanding games than the HD3000 can handle, go with the HD3000.

RV730 is still quite a performer, especially with 32 TMUs as opposed to 20 on Redwood and 24 on Turks. It was faster than the Radeon 5570 I bought for a slim computer about a year after replacing the 4670 with a 5850 in my current main computer. Overclocked nicely too, hell I beat Mirror's Edge with it, not to mention played the crap out of FEAR 1, BF2, Crysis, and Far Cry 2 using it. FEAR 1 and BF2 at 1080p! It was a great graphics card to end my Windows XP days with.

 

[sunny4691]

The hd4670 will be a better performer than the integrated ones, but as others said if you don't game then no need for the 4670, it will just use extra power.