Question Old Radeon vs. Intel HD

[Linguofreak]

We recently replaced a machine that had died, and I moved the old, fairly low end Radeon card (HD 2400 XT) from the old machine to the new one, which we bought without any dedicated graphics as a cost-saving measure. The new machine does have a CPU with an Intel HD 2500 on-chip GPU (the processor in question is an i5-3470).

My understanding is that Intel HD GPUs, while better than other integrated GPUs, are still far short of dedicated GPUs in performance, especially for 3D. On the other hand, our Radeon is four years old as was low-end when we got it, so by Moore's law transistor density has doubled twice in that time, so it's possible that a modern integrated GPU actually outperforms a low-end dedicated GPU of that era, and I have seen some indication that the integrated GPU in question's 2D performance may in fact actually be better than the dedicated GPU's.

Can anybody give any idea how the two compare for 3D performance?

 

[tl8]

Had a quick look. While Intel HD GPUs are better than what they were, the GFX card will still probably beat it.

AMD Integrated GPUs are much better because they are actually a GFX card core (If that makes sense).

Short version, while the Intel HD GPU will play 2D and video really well, the GFX card will still beat it in 3D performance.

 

[Quick_Nick]

Did some random googling. netbookcheck.net has benchmarks for hundreds of GPUs. They put the Intel one class above the Radeon and the benchmarks seem to indicate the same. It looks like neither are any good for games, but the Intel should be quite a bit better.