AMD vs Intel – Integrated Graphics in Hardcore Games

Exploring integrated graphics performance in hardcore multiplatform games released during this console generation. Have console graphics held PCs back to the point where integrated graphics is enough?

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Bear_Grylls2769d ago

AMD all the way for integrated GPU's.

awiseman2769d ago (Edited 2769d ago )

I smell a foolish AMD fanboy, srsly ur company put out like 3000 different cards in a year and with no real improvement, look at what they did with the gpu/cpu hybrid, its over a year old. Intel's chip wipes the floor with that thing, and dont even get me started on gaymd's driver support...

Intel+Nvidia is the way to go for gaming...amd is a poor mans gaming machine :p

ChrisW2769d ago (Edited 2769d ago )

No... I smell someone being sarcastic.
(That is, IF he read the article)

Bear_Grylls2768d ago

Besides the new sandy bride crap. all Nvidia INTEGRATED GPU's suck balls.

Dedicated cards from Nvidia are better yes. But INTERGRATED ie ONBOARD Pieces of shit. AMD are far better at that.

nnotdead2769d ago

both being a bit fanboyish. if you are building a PC for gaming AMD is a good choice because of price. games are so GPU intense its worth saving the money going AMD instead od Intel. if you also plan to use a lot of CPU intensive programs Intel will be worth the investment. though with how qickly tech moves, this can change at any time.

on the GPU side its not as clear. really you just have look at cards in your price range, and see who is currently offering the best options at that time.

when i purchased my 4850 it was much better than anything that Nvidia was offering at that price range. my recent upgrade i went with a 560 because it was almost $50 cheaper than the 6950 and is really close in performance.

NYC_Gamer2769d ago

they both lose because rather use my own gpu

xtremegamerage2769d ago (Edited 2769d ago )

Quite interesting how they mention Consoles?

Crysis low, is worse then farcry. Crytek said it themselves.

Not bad for someone who doesn't want to spend much to game.

But this.

The more graphically intense games run even lower than this (for instance, CoD: Black Ops runs at 1040×608 on the XBOX 360 and 960×544 on the PS3, both with 2x antialiasing).

Graphically intense, ROFLX1000

Not sure why the disagree.(cod? lmao)

On the subject of the 3000 model, it has 12pixel pipelines.

No match for either console.

distorted_reality2769d ago

Graphically intense = lots of stuff happening, not necessarily great looking.

Is an interesting article - would of liked to see some screenies to compare for the multiplats. It's no secret that some multiplat devs have been somewhat lazy when it comes to the PC versions, but hopefully that will be changing this year.

Letros2769d ago

They mention consoles because they are trying to see if integrated graphics can reach equivalent potential, it is getting close but not quite there yet, which is what you should have understood from the article instead of getting overly defensive about it.

kazman2769d ago

that article was a joke!

Skynetone2769d ago

Thats actually quite amazing, Integrated Graphics card running crysis at 50+ fps

my local pc world, has over 70% of there pcs with Integrated Graphics cards, and the rest with low level cards, in fact i dont think you could buy a mid level gaming pc in my local store

its obvious that 99% of people have know idea what there buying when it comes to pcs, {myself included}

arjman2769d ago

Agreed when I walk around computer stores seeing the salesman telling some foolish customer "This computer has a graphics chip which means you can play games on it" I walk over to the computer, see the Intel HD logo and laugh...

ChrisW2769d ago

Sounds something like BestBuy would try to feed a customer.

Show all comments (18)