Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Which has better integrated GPU..Intel or AMD


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 maxxxgupta007

maxxxgupta007

  • Members
  • 19 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  

Posted 01 August 2015 - 03:50 PM

I wanna make a new rig only for media playback at 1080p with smooth performance and gaming not priority but would be a delite if it can run fifa or pes
Which should i buy AMD OR INTEL processor as if I am correct if a processor has better integrated GPU it can serve the purpose of extra GPU which would be cost efficient as I am not demanding high performance from cpus just simple media playback and casual gaming if required
And if someone has any other tip regarding rig I wanna made..most welcome to share

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 gigawert

gigawert

  • Members
  • 1,304 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Local time:01:36 AM

Posted 01 August 2015 - 03:53 PM

I can't exactly say which of their integrated GPUs are better, but I can say that Intels have more modern technology built into them so they are pricier than AMDs, but higher performance. They also use less power than AMDs.


John 3:16

 "God loved the world so much that He gave His uniquely-sired Son, with the result that anyone who believes in Him would never perish but have eternal life."


#3 maxxxgupta007

maxxxgupta007
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 19 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  

Posted 01 August 2015 - 03:58 PM

I can't exactly say which of their integrated GPUs are better, but I can say that Intels have more modern technology built into them so they are pricier than AMDs, but higher performance. They also use less power than AMDs.


I just need for media playback and casual gaming do u think should i buy 5th gen Intel as I heard it have significant improvement in integrated GPU or wait for 6th gen..idk
I just want a processor which just makes media viewing experience good without hurting my wallet..because if cpu cost is low I can spend more on display and speakers

#4 gigawert

gigawert

  • Members
  • 1,304 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Local time:01:36 AM

Posted 01 August 2015 - 05:02 PM

If you want to be completely sure your parts will work together, go to PCPartPicker.com.

 

Actually, if you just need it for media playback and casual gaming you could try the Pentium G3258 which is popular with gamers. It's only $65 and offers pretty good performance. Also the 4th Gen i3s have very good value for their performance but are a bit pricier. It's your choice.


John 3:16

 "God loved the world so much that He gave His uniquely-sired Son, with the result that anyone who believes in Him would never perish but have eternal life."


#5 SEANIA

SEANIA

  • Members
  • 377 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Local time:04:36 AM

Posted 01 August 2015 - 07:39 PM

AMD has by far better integrated GPUs. Their A10-7870K can pull 900 GFLOPs compared to Intels HD graphics which max out at 400 GFLOPs, and their Iris graphics (which are impossible to find on a consumer chip!) pull only 600 GFLOPs. The A10-7870K also overclocks really well and can easily pull 1000GFLOPs on the GPU and 4.2Ghz CPU side. 

 

The thing is designed for gaming. It was built from the ground up for it with a normally (stand alone) 100$ GPU integrated into it, and a 75$ Quad core CPU next to that. All for 150$ USD. It can play almost every single major tipple A game title in existence.  Don't know where you live, but you've got to get one of them. 


99% of the time, I edit for type-o's and grammar. I'll note it if that's not the case. 

I write near essays for most my responses, and then try to condense as best I can to the introduction of one. Less is more. Let me know if I post to much. 

I do a lot of spacing for readability. Let me know if that makes my posts seem to big. 


#6 gigawert

gigawert

  • Members
  • 1,304 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Local time:01:36 AM

Posted 01 August 2015 - 07:41 PM

I guess that's true  :blush: , but AMDs do run hotter temp wise though.


John 3:16

 "God loved the world so much that He gave His uniquely-sired Son, with the result that anyone who believes in Him would never perish but have eternal life."


#7 SEANIA

SEANIA

  • Members
  • 377 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Local time:04:36 AM

Posted 01 August 2015 - 09:11 PM

The A10-7870k has a 95 watt TDP. It's a high clocked quad core, and 100$ GPU. Either of which on their own could justify 95 watts. Their octo-core CPUs and six core CPUs run really hot hitting in the 120-140 TDP range (their 5Ghz variant hitting 220), but the A10-7850k is a optimized miracle at only 95 for what it is. Intel's i5/i7 quad cores are rated at 85 watts, but can hit 95 if put under a heavy enough of a load (CPU socket rated at 130)- but they have rinky dink GPUs on them.  What I'm getting at is, the A10s run hotter compared to what? They occupy a area that no other chip touches and thus can't really be compared. 

 

It also ships with a very beefy, yet short, stock cooler to keep the thing under wraps. 

d6ca80d2_A10_7870K_03Cooler.png


Edited by SEANIA, 01 August 2015 - 09:14 PM.

99% of the time, I edit for type-o's and grammar. I'll note it if that's not the case. 

I write near essays for most my responses, and then try to condense as best I can to the introduction of one. Less is more. Let me know if I post to much. 

I do a lot of spacing for readability. Let me know if that makes my posts seem to big. 


#8 gigawert

gigawert

  • Members
  • 1,304 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Local time:01:36 AM

Posted 01 August 2015 - 09:15 PM

Hotter compared to Intels.


John 3:16

 "God loved the world so much that He gave His uniquely-sired Son, with the result that anyone who believes in Him would never perish but have eternal life."


#9 SEANIA

SEANIA

  • Members
  • 377 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Local time:04:36 AM

Posted 01 August 2015 - 09:28 PM

Hotter compared to Intels.

In general, but Intel dosent make beefy iGPU chips like that. So there's nothing to compare it against.


99% of the time, I edit for type-o's and grammar. I'll note it if that's not the case. 

I write near essays for most my responses, and then try to condense as best I can to the introduction of one. Less is more. Let me know if I post to much. 

I do a lot of spacing for readability. Let me know if that makes my posts seem to big. 


#10 gigawert

gigawert

  • Members
  • 1,304 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Local time:01:36 AM

Posted 01 August 2015 - 09:40 PM

I stand corrected, then. :)


John 3:16

 "God loved the world so much that He gave His uniquely-sired Son, with the result that anyone who believes in Him would never perish but have eternal life."


#11 OldPhil

OldPhil

    Doppleganger


  • Members
  • 4,157 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Long Island New York
  • Local time:04:36 AM

Posted 07 August 2015 - 10:08 AM

I have Intel both 3000 and 4000, the 3000 is weak on games.  The 4000 does much better ok for the light stuff, the newer 5000 steps it up a notch.  My grandson has the 5000 chip and plays some pretty decent online stuff and is pretty happy, he says a hot card would be better but not that important.


Edited by OldPhil, 07 August 2015 - 10:09 AM.

Honesty & Integrity Above All!


#12 YeahBleeping

YeahBleeping

  • Members
  • 1,258 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:03:36 AM

Posted 07 August 2015 - 02:20 PM

So the answer is while Intel has much better processing power than AMD their on board video is a bit lacking .. which is fine because they are not meant to compete with a gaming pc video card.  They are meant for browsing web.. email day to day things that a gamer doesn't do.  There are much better solutions out there for video cards.  The fact is .. even the lowest of the low video cards from Nvidia's yesteryear can run circles around that 900 Flops of AMD .. so now your argument is.  I can get MUCH better performance from a low end Intel cpu and even a LOW end Nvidia card than AMD's 900 flop solution.  I really hate bashing AMD cuz Intel NEEDS a competitor.. but for gaming..... go Intel and Nvidia. Sorry AMD....


Edited by YeahBleeping, 07 August 2015 - 02:21 PM.


#13 OldPhil

OldPhil

    Doppleganger


  • Members
  • 4,157 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Long Island New York
  • Local time:04:36 AM

Posted 07 August 2015 - 03:33 PM

I did a test with a 2 gig card I have the 4000 was very slightly better then the card.


Honesty & Integrity Above All!


#14 YeahBleeping

YeahBleeping

  • Members
  • 1,258 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:03:36 AM

Posted 07 August 2015 - 06:34 PM

Might I ask which 2gig card your putting your 4k up against?



#15 OldPhil

OldPhil

    Doppleganger


  • Members
  • 4,157 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Long Island New York
  • Local time:04:36 AM

Posted 07 August 2015 - 08:13 PM

Sitting here RED faced, called the bud I borrowed from he laughed and said NOT it was 1g Nvidia.  Oh well is was not up to the 4000 LOL !!


Honesty & Integrity Above All!





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users