Radeon 2600 pro vs i3's Intel HD Graphics 2000

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
JEDI

JEDI

Lifer
Sep 25, 2001
29,391
2,738
126
i have 4 monitors. my 2 video cards are the Radeon 4850 and an old Radeon 2600 Pro.

if i upgrade to the i3 for my budget build, should i eliminate the 2600 Pro?
ie: Which is better? The 2600 Pro or the Intel HD Graphics 2000? (Google has failed me.)

also, if the mobo does both DVI and VGA, can i plug 2 monitors into the mobo?

thx


edit:
the i3-2100 is dual display capable
 
Last edited:
L

Lonyo

Lifer
Aug 10, 2002
21,938
6
81
If it's just for 2D stuff, then it doesn't really matter.
Best option is to try the motherboard outputs and get 4 monitors, and if for any reason they won't want to work properly, add the 2600Pro.

It's better in terms of power/heat. There's no advantage to the 2600 if you're only on 2D stuff, and the integrated graphics might even have better hardware decode if you play videos.
 
M

MrTeal

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2003
3,919
2,708
136
According to videocardbenchmark.net

Code: 
Videocard Type		G3D Rating	Rank	Videocard Value	Price
Radeon HD 2600 PRO	261		498	NA		NA
Intel HD i3-2100	272		480	NA		NA

I don't think it could get much closer than that. Unless you need to HD2600 for compatibility to run all your monitors, I'd toss it on eBay for $20 and save the slot and the power.
 
JEDI

JEDI

Lifer
Sep 25, 2001
29,391
2,738
126
MrTeal said:
According to videocardbenchmark.net

Code: 
Videocard Type		G3D Rating	Rank	Videocard Value	Price
Radeon HD 2600 PRO	261		498	NA		NA
Intel HD i3-2100	272		480	NA		NA

I don't think it could get much closer than that. Unless you need to HD2600 for compatibility to run all your monitors, I'd toss it on eBay for $20 and save the slot and the power.
Click to expand...

thx, but how did you get the 2 to compare on that website?
 
T

tynopik

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2004
5,245
500
126
One thing to consider is that i often find vga output to be blurry. You might be better served to stick to an all-digital-out configuration
 
S

skipsneeky2

Diamond Member
May 21, 2011
5,035
1
71
Good question would be could the 2600 pro play crysis?

I have been able to play crysis at 800x600 on low on the hd2000 and its pretty smooth...if your 2600 pro could do that who knows.

Even BF3 is playable on hd2000 but at like 640x540 on low or something LOL i know i have tried perhaps these two titles could give you some answers?
 
toyota

toyota

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
12,957
1
0
for gaming the 2600 pro is easily faster than the HD 3000 never mind the HD 2000.
 
A

Arkadrel

Diamond Member
Oct 19, 2010
3,681
2
0
The 2600 pro, from wiki is like:


a "120:8:4" gpu with like 15.6-21.9 GB/s memory bandwidth.

The closest 5xxx card, would probably be a 5450 or so with its "80:8:4" and 12.8 GB/s memory bandwidth. Even if 120/80 = 50%, the step up to the 320 shader models, is a bigger differnce.

I kinda suspect the I3's HD graphics 2000, is faster...not sure though.

He should run a benchmark on both, and if IGP proves faster pull out the card.
 
toyota

toyota

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
12,957
1
0
sometimes you guys make me scratch my head. the 2600 pro is faster than a 5450 and easily faster than the HD3000 and HD2000.
 
JEDI

JEDI

Lifer
Sep 25, 2001
29,391
2,738
126
toyota said:
sometimes you guys make me scratch my head. the 2600 pro is faster than a 5450 and easily faster than the HD3000 and HD2000.
Click to expand...

WHAT?

my 2600 pro is at least 4yrs old and i got it for $25 when it was down to competing vs entry level cards at that time. (it was near end of life.)

according to videocardbenchmark.net:

card/G3D rating/Rank
Radeon HD 2600 PRO/ 261/ 498
Intel HD i3-2100/ 272/ 480
Intel HD i5-2500K/ 437/ 291

the i3's HD2000 barely beats the 2600 Pro.
the i5's HD3000 is 50% better.
 
Last edited:
toyota

toyota

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
12,957
1
0
JEDI said:
WHAT?

my 2600 pro is at least 4yrs old and i got it for $25 when it was down to competing vs entry level cards at that time. (it was near end of life.)

according to videocardbenchmark.net:

card/G3D rating/Rank
Radeon HD 2600 PRO/ 261/ 498
Intel HD i3-2100/ 272/ 480
Intel HD i5-2500K/ 437/ 291

the i3's HD2000 barely beats the 2600 Pro.
the i5's HD3000 is 50% better.
Click to expand...
nonsense. an HD2000 does NOT beat a 2600 pro and that is a fact. even the HD3000 does not beat it. if you think an HD3000 is maybe 40-50% faster than the 2600 pro then you have no idea what you talking about. lol, do you people look at reviews? a 2600 pro is just a wee bit slower than an 8600gt and those cards are faster than the HD2000/HD3000 gpus which compete with the 5450 level of cards overall.



EDIT: here you see even proof that overall the HD3000/HD2000, even overclocked, only competes with the 5450. even the stock HD3000 is slower than the 5450 in all but a couple of cases. a 2600 pro is about 50% faster than a 5450 so do the math and see that even an oced HD3000 would be slower never mind a stock HD2000. http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/...core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/11
 
Last edited:
M

MrTeal

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2003
3,919
2,708
136
The HD5450 is about 5-10% slower than a HD4550, so the HD4550 is decently faster than Intel's HD3000.

The HD2600 Pro (DDR2 version) is consistently slower than the HD4550.
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/...009-mainstream-quality/compare,1797.html?prod[3543]=on&prod[3552]=on
Not sure why the headers don't work, but the HD2600 Pro is the second column. Neither solution is going to run anything remotely current at a playable framerate, but at least the SB IGP gives you access to QuickSync.

Regardless, I think in either case as long as the solution works for driving 4 monitors and the OP doesn't mind one being VGA, ditch the 2600 Pro and just run the other two monitors off the i3. It's not like the 2600 or the IGP would be used for gaming anyway.
 
toyota

toyota

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
12,957
1
0
I was thinking the 2600 Pro was DDR3 but it looks like standard version is DDR2. its still easily faster than the HD2000 though the HD3000 would match it in some cases then.
 
Last edited:
blckgrffn

blckgrffn

Diamond Member
May 1, 2003
9,687
4,348
136
www.teamjuchems.com
Keep all three :p

Seriously, you should use all digital outputs as mentioned earlier in the thread... My $.02 :)

I think we can all agree that the HD2000 and the HD2600 are so slow performance as to make it a non-issue from that perspective. Do you need every drop of RAM your system has? Dedicated Video card. Want to save juice? Onboard. Concerned about drivers? In this case I am guessing that's a draw given how old the 2600 is....
 
Last edited:
IonusX

IonusX

Senior member
Dec 25, 2011
392
0
0
toyota said:
um no its not that bad. you can clearly see the HD3000 is about on par with the 5450 which is twice as fast as the 2400.
Click to expand...
every bench ive seen puts it below the 5450.. its barely better than the mobility hd 4330
 
toyota

toyota

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
12,957
1
0
IonusX said:
every bench ive seen puts it below the 5450.. its barely better than the mobility hd 4330
Click to expand...
did you even see the review link I posted? the HD3000 is right there with the 5450 in many cases and even beats it in a few. overall the HD3000 would easily beat out the 2400 pro.
 
Last edited:
Vesku

Vesku

Diamond Member
Aug 25, 2005
3,743
28
86
I remember looking at the 2600pro when it started to hit the $30-40 price point. I don't think it was ever a great gaming card but image quality is one aspect the 2000 series got some kudos for. If you are sensitive to an incandescent light bulb amount of power use then I'd try to get by on the integrated HD graphics, otherwise I'd follow the recommendation of trying to keep everything on a digital output with the 2600pro (4850?) hooked up to primary monitor.

Oh, and make sure your motherboard is also dual display capable. I recall some of the budget H series boards had some funky video fineprint.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom