Laptop proformance chart

[Tjj226_Angel]

Intel graphics don't suck, their main use is for laptops where people don't play games. Also, their HD4000 series puts up very respectable numbers.

 

I agree. Plus you guys have to keep in mind that those HD graphics in the benchmarks are not optimized or tweaked. For instance I THINK the stock vram that is shared by the RAM is like 256mb. There are ways where you can increase that up to 1GB. Just changing the memory alone I was able to get up to 8 FPS more over stock, and when you increase your RAM speed, you can sometimes push up to 10 FPS (however, I do want to mention that I am not entirely positive that the ram speed had anything to do with the frame rates.)

 

After messing with the settings enough you can play some fairly popular titles on HD 3000 graphics. For instance I can play portal 2, MW3 (even though I hate playing it because everyone cheats), Bioshock 1 and 2, skyrim if I play around with the settings, and I can even play BF2 fairly well.

 

none of the games look stunning, but if you just want to waste some time, it is perfectly acceptable.

 

With HD 4000 graphics I have been able to get some pretty darn good results at 1366x768.

 

I personally think that as long as you upgrade the ram, and change out all the crappy TIM so that you can allocate more video memory and so that nothing overheats,... a decent i5 ivybridge laptop isn't totally out of the question.

[DanTheGamer11]

Processors do not exist in a vacuum.

Most people buying laptops are as happy with one as the other, for one reason and another Intel is more popular.

 

If, big if, AMD APUs became more popular Intel laptops can add dedicated GPUs with their own memory.

Please note, not all AMD APUs use the same video performance, you have to pay more to get more, in both CPU and IGPU performance. Shared memory, remember.

Too many people regard all APUs as equal.

 

Intel offered HD3000 with Sandy Bridge laptops, HD4000 with Ivy Bridge across the range. More memory friendly too.

 

Intel doesn't have dedicated GPUs :/ If ya mean add an nvidia or amd gpu then it would defy the purpose of an apu or igp

 

Why people no speak clear organized english

------

So what will apu performance be like in the next generation apu? http://www.extremetech.com/computing/130939-the-future-of-amds-fusion-apus-kaveri-will-fully-share-memory-between-cpu-and-gpu

Edited September 30, 2012 by Dan The Gamer

[Guest Trankop]

Even if Intel

Edited November 5, 2012 by Trankop

[Tjj226_Angel]

Even if Intel created a good GPU, game makers won't bother supporting it so you could have a strong card but it still won't run a game.

 

If intel were to make a decent enough card, game manufactures would probably support it. The point behind making a video game is to make money. Why would limit market base by not supporting more GPUs?

[Guest Trankop]

If intel were to make a decent enough card, game manufactures would probably support it. The point behind making a video game is to make money. Why would limit market base by not supporting more GPUs?

 

I mean you can't just make 1 good card and expect game makers to find it and support it, you need to create a partnership with game developers and be serious about getting into high end GPUs.

[BluePanda]

Even if Intel created a good GPU, game makers won't bother supporting it so you could have a strong card but it still won't run a game.

Game makers don't have to support cards...they just have to support DX, OpenGL, etc.

 

If Intel made a kickass GPU and had good drivers for it game makers wouldn't have to do anything at all to make it work.

[Guest Trankop]

Game makers don't have to support cards...they just have to support DX, OpenGL, etc.

 

If Intel made a kickass GPU and had good drivers for it game makers wouldn't have to do anything at all to make it work.

Edited November 5, 2012 by Trankop