Integrated Video Card Comparison

Hello, I'd like to make a decision considering purchasing a cheap laptop. Most of the models are offering Intel GMA 4500M integrated video solutions, however, some are giving ATI Radeon HD 4250 as an option. I'd like to ask for opinions to make an educated decision on purchasing one over another, or perhaps getting one with a cheap dedicated card.

1) Would the battery life be drastically decreased with a dedicated video card if all other components are exactly the same?
2) Would the integrated card negatively affect the quality and speed of streaming videos and DVD\Video files?
3) I don't expect to run Crysis, but how much better is Radeon 4250 compared to the Intel GMA in terms of light gaming? What should be my expectations?

 

The ATi card is a lot better. Here are the 3dmark06 scores: GMA 4500M around 800. ATi 4250 1900.

With the Intel card there's no hope of games like Far Cry 2. With the 4250 you can play it on low.

1. Battery life should be around the same.
2. Eiher card is fine for video's and DVD's
3. With the Intel card there's no hope of games like Far Cry 2. With the 4250 you can play it on low. What games do you play?

 

This laptop is going to be a gift, so I can't tell you exactly which games to consider, but I'm expecting something older than Far Cry 2. If going by benchmarks alone Intel Integrated HD (not 4500M) is not far behind Radeon 4250. Perhaps that is also a good option? I've never had any experience with integrated cards, so my practical knowledge is extremely limited.

 

ATI 4250 will be come with systems using AMD chipsets and CPUs. While the gfx is faster, the rest of the system is not as power efficient as an Intel solution.

An i3 system with Intel gfx will see it's HD graphics being twice faster than a 4500MHD, so would be closer, but not quite a HD4250 in performance. Consider too a system with an expresscard slot so could do a DIY ViDock. A US$190 HD5670 setup would give you over 5-10 times better gfx fps than either Intel HD or HD4250.

 

Or he could spend the $200 on a better laptop


I'd go with AMD/ATi.

 

ATI or Nvidia integrated cards will still be much better in terms of performance when compared to Intel integrated cards.

 

If 3D gaming is something you want to be able to do on this laptop, get the ATI card. Stick with flash games if you have only a GMA...

HD video playback will be fine on any modern laptop (netbooks excepted)

 

Thank you so much for your input. Right now, I'll get into specifics.

I have a choice of AMD processor at 2,3 GHz 1mb L2 cache with Radeon HD 4250 integrated card. For $60 more I can get an i3 processor at 2.26 GHZ 3mb L3 cache with Intel HD card. RAM and Hard Drive RPM are identical. I'm really torn because i3 should be a significant upgrade in terms of processing power, but I wonder would I end up paying more to get a system that will be able to handle game applications less efficiently? Could you please help me out with that choice.

 

Believe me, he Intel 4500MHD is one of the worst of the pack compared to other integrated solutions by ATI/Nvidia. However, it uses less power than ATI's in my experience.
This site might be useful

 

It's not 4500MHD, but this one, 250 benchmarks of 3dMark06 below Radeon 4250 HD. So I have to choose between 3mb L3 cache i3 processor and slightly worse video card and AMD processor with 1mb L2 cache and 4250 HD.

 

I would go with the HD 4250. Even though the score is only a little higher, it will game much better. The Intel HD can't really play games.

 

The nVidia ION is also a decent integrated GPU, based on the 9400m. I would definitely consider that or the ATi over the Intel if it has to be integrated.

 

1) Would the battery life be drastically decreased with a dedicated video card if all other components are exactly the same? Yes, battery life is a major trade-off when it comes to selecting a dedicated card over an integrated card.
2) Would the integrated card negatively affect the quality and speed of streaming videos and DVD\Video files? Comparing an integrated card to another integrated card: no overly dramatic difference. However, a dedicated card can potentially give you a HUGE increase in performance.
3) I don't expect to run Crysis, but how much better is Radeon 4250 compared to the Intel GMA in terms of light gaming? What should be my expectations? The latest Intel graphics solution is what they refer to as Intel HD graphics which is coupled with the new i3 CPU. However, I've personally tested the two (i3-350m + Intel HD grapics vs. AMD Turion II P520 + ATI Radeon HD 4250 a.k.a. AMD Vision Premium) and the benchmarks clearly show that the AMD system is at least 20-40% better in terms of 3DMark06, 3DMark05, and 3DMark03 scores. However, when playing actual games, I would never expect the world from either systems. When it comes down to it, for $50-100 less, the AMD system is the better bang for the buck (IMHO).

I hope that helps...P.S. Don't let the speeds and feeds fool you. 2.26GHz and 2.3GHz are indistinguishable. 1MB and 3MB L2 cache, likewise. What really sets the two systems apart is the graphics. If you are online watching Hulu.com or Youtube videos, play online games (even the simple flash and Java based games) then graphics is the single most important aspect of the system.

Good luck with your purchase!

 

he Intel 4500MHD is one of the worst of the pack compared to other integrated solutions by ATI/Nvidia. However, it uses less power than ATI's in my experience.

 

I wanted to weigh in on this as I am in sorta the same situation. Presently I have a Sony Vaio running the GMA 4500 graphics. I can get on Second Life at low settings. I can bump up object mesh to mid if I need to at times but it causes more lag. However it is doable.

I'm looking into the new Vaio with the ATI 4250. There are some vids posted on youtube featuring the ATI 4200 on different games and it's pretty impressive, but I haven't found any showing the 4250 yet.

I am not a gamer but I am a Second Lifer, so for me being able to play on low setting is a must and mid setting would be awesome. My wife has a macbook with a NVDIA 9400 and she can run Second Life on mid with no lag and even bump up to high in a low lag area. The macbook was a gift though and is way out of my budget.

The new Vaio I am looking at is $579 at bestbuy and is the exact same Vaio I am on now...it just has the better graphics. I don't know however if I will be able to run Second Life on mid setting with the 4250 but low setting should run great. The GMA 4500 runs it like I said but barely.

 

Well the 4200 and 4250 are supposed to run at the same speed with the latter having better power efficiency, but I see 4250's with fractionally better scores. Go figure?

 

Games im playing on my core i3 330m 2.13 ghz laptop include HL2 death match,just got Stalker:shadow of chernobyl and call of pripyat,playing first one now runs smooth and looks good,bioshock,nation red demo,so i would say you can do some gaming with intel gma hd graghics...