Integrated Graphics

[RobertTreadway18]

I'm on a tight budget to build a computer, what do y'all think about intel's integrated graphics to keep the budget down. Then later when I get more money I could try to spring for a graphics card what do you guys think about all of that?

 

I'm also caught at what monitor I should use and I'm thinking about the Asus 21.5" VX228H any thoughts on any of this?

[The Robot]

In the past when I have used integrated graphics it wast the best. I could play most games on low below 30fps and some very demanding games dont even render properly. For a monitor that size I wouldn't recommend it. You could go with a 30-50 dollar dedicated graphics card.

[Stuman1]

Depends what CPU you're going for, and your budget. If you've got a small budget and really don't have the money to splash out on a graphics card, then I guess you could wait and live with some not-as-great quality graphics. And, I'm not really sure about the monitor... I probably need a new monitor myself...

[Dimwitted]

Ignore The Robot's advice. A $30-50 card is way worse than the HD4600 on board graphics. You'll need to spend around $200 to make it worthwhile to NOT go with integrated graphics. Something like a R9 260X or better. And it's going to get better with Intel going to the HD5200 series with the next generation of chips.

[Grimezy]

Have you checked out the AMD A10 series (I believe the A10-7850 OR -7800 are the latest iterations)?

 

The on-board graphics are supposedly much better than Intel HD and you're also getting a fairly good processor thrown in the deal. The only issue is when it comes to adding your new graphics card you'll have spent money on integrated graphics that you won't need anymore. Unless of course you crossfire one of the suitable AMD cards with the in-built ones.

[TheCorbinLong]

+1 ^

Going with an APU will be your best bet. In addition to having decent quality for the price, it offers you the unique chance to crossfire with a dedicated GPU at some point. Intel integrated graphics are generally not worth it.

[Inkz]

If you can deal with the integrated graphics for know and get a good GPU when you can. The iGPU should be more than sufficient for web browsing,although gaming is another story. If you can please do not try to rip yourself of with one a GPU in the under $100 dollar category.

[YoloSwag]

Could you say what CPU you'd be getting?

 

Since you have plans to acquire a discrete GPU later, you should just buy the best CPU you can afford now. I'm running on an Intel HD 2000, it's 4 or 5 years old I think.

I run Dirt 3 on mixed settings (medium-low, off) at 1366x768

CS:GO 30FPS (lowest settings 720p) at various maps

Dota 2 30FPS mix of medium and low settings

Some older games would run just fine at 1600x900 with max settings except for AA and AF, something like old Source games (TF2, HL2, Portal, etc.)

 

The HD 4600 is a couple of notches higher. So you can churn out more with that.

Like I said, just get the best CPU you can buy now. I'd go with any i5, even the old sandy bridge i5 actually has better performance most of the time than AMD's quad cores.

Keep in mind, Broadwell comes out with with the same socket as Z97, Skylake comes 2H 2015 with DDR4 support.

 

I'm saying stick with Intel since you're not gonna play with the iGPU for very long and you said you're planning on upgrading later on.

[D2ultima]

If you don't want to go the APU route, you could get a GT 730 or something and it'll do you better than any HD 4600. But the APU would probably be better choice for you, I think.

[Kryptyx]

Intel just releases a new graphics driver for their haswell chips that boosts performance by a bit. Might be okay until you save up.

[SwaggerJuice]

If you are on a tight budget then get a APU from AMD the on chip gpu is better and is usually cheaper than a high end Intel cpu. You can play most modern games at acceptable frame rates at 1080p. 

[SkilledRebuilds]

You can play modern games with playable fps with a few additions.

I've been playing 64p BF4 on my HD4600 all week,../w 768p on a 27" 1080p TN no less, indoor maps are 50-70fps, outside maps are 35-60fps

35fps+ was my goal, I achieved it in all titles cept AC4:BF, which was 31fps average.

 

Your resolution will be low, but thats expected.

If you were gunna get fast RAM/MEM for an AMD system may as well for the Intel system too if that was the alternate choice.

 

Intel Integrated Graphics Model HD4600 Performance
Overclocked to 1650mhz (/w 1.2v) & Paired with 2133mhz DDR3 Memory
Captured with MSI Afterburner via the CPU (Stealing 5-10fps of performance overall)

Playlist of Modern TItles - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5ofzFlQXfuGY5pwsXIsONCRNHyIMmG_J

I made this with the intention of visually showing it in action, because I was seriously surprised @ what it could handle without just being rumored guesses.

 

AMD's APU is stronger for Graphics and higher resolutions, but Intels CPU side is stronger for CPU related tasks, and their GPU's can play the same things too, just at an ever lower resolution.

 

If both CPU Driven GPU's can do what you want 'FOR THE MEANTIME' then add in a discrete GPU later with either ecosystem, Intel or AMD is up to you.

 

Essentially the HD4600 will give you XB360/PS3 visuals @ a higher FPS & Texture Quality and the PC feature set (bigger maps) available to you.

^Which isn't bad, when its for the meantime...but yeah,.. AMD can provide more performance with their APU's @ the same detail levels.