New Intel HD 4000 Drivers Improve Performance Up to 10%

Status
Not open for further replies.

A Bad Day

Distinguished
Nov 25, 2011
2,256
0
19,790
2
Not a joke. It was on OCN forum a few days ago.

Anyways, I still wouldn't use the HD 4000 for low-mid range gaming. Especially when only the high end CPUs have it, thus the HD 4000 is guaranteed to bottleneck.
 

jack1982

Honorable
Feb 5, 2013
69
0
10,630
0
Great news for me as I'm planning on building an i5 system but can't afford the video card until later. Playing in 720p I think I should be able to enjoy a variety of somewhat older games - now 10% better :)
 

bunz_of_steel

Distinguished
Dec 10, 2008
294
0
18,780
0
only worthy advantage here is the Handbrake optimization with Quick sync. Now that would be nice to see another updated review. Video rendering/rippin with Quick sync vs GPU vs CPU with pros and cons. Yeh prob just us vid buffs that wanna see that stuff lol..... Still would be kwl.
 

tslot05qsljgo9ed

Distinguished
May 22, 2009
51
0
18,530
0
Can you please run the FCAT capture software and analysis both Intel (HD video) and AMD (APU) integrated claims as they only refer to FRAPS and with the current exposure on AMD's crossfire being vastly inflated it would be interesting to see if any of the integrated GPUs solutions are also have inflated FRAPS.
 

omnimodis78

Distinguished
Oct 7, 2008
886
0
19,010
9
[citation][nom]ankit0x1[/nom]10% up of 0 performance=10/100 x 0 =still 0 performanceYay Intel©[/citation]

That's quite the narrow minded view, isn't it? Some people don't game, or game very lightly and the HD 4000 more than meets their needs, in most cases even far exceeds it. The best news here isn't even so much the 10% performance increase, though that is always a welcomed, but rather the improvement in power efficiency. Heck, it's a "free" update, so why the negative stab?
 

warezme

Distinguished
Dec 18, 2006
2,440
41
19,840
20
10% is ok but there are no specifics as to what parts get a boost? Generally drivers only improve certain areas of performance and 10% is not that much and likely unnoticeable. It is not unreasonable for people to be jaded by Intel graphics. They don't have a solid history of producing competitive or even usable performance beyond 800x600 even though they always promise great improvement from generation to generation. They are better at marketing than engineering.
 

dwhapham

Distinguished
Oct 22, 2007
24
0
18,510
0
I recently build at HTPC using an Intel i3 w/HD4000. I only had one PCI-E slot which was already taken by my 4 channel tuner so I had no choice but to use the integrated graphics. Surprisingly, I'm able to play most modern games at low to medium settings at 720p (and some at 1080p). Some examples are SimCity5 and PlanetSide2. Having a 10% increase in performance is a big deal in my case..
 

Pherule

Distinguished
Aug 26, 2010
591
0
19,010
8
I was playing Path of Exile (single player) and Left 4 Dead on max or near-max settings at 1920x1080 fairly smoothly on HD3000 and HD4000 is supposed to have roughly double the performance iirc. If I do get a new system, be it Haswell or Rockwell, I may not need to get a new graphics card at all. Depending, of course, on available funds at the time. The GTX960Ti may be a rather good deal, come 2016.
 
[citation][nom]tslot05qsljgo9ed[/nom]Can you please run the FCAT capture software and analysis both Intel (HD video) and AMD (APU) integrated claims as they only refer to FRAPS and with the current exposure on AMD's crossfire being vastly inflated it would be interesting to see if any of the integrated GPUs solutions are also have inflated FRAPS.[/citation]

According to Tom's, review, Crossfire is not "vastly over-inflated". It was almost always only a fairly minor issue, granted whether FRAPS was too high, too low, or right on seemed random to me.
 

Thorfkin

Distinguished
Dec 22, 2006
81
0
18,630
0
It'll be a long time before I trust Intel to reliably support their hardware with driver updates. Intel has an extremely long history of stopping driver updates on older graphics chipsets the moment a newer graphics chipset comes out. This usually results in less than a year's worth of driver updates and then nothing substantial thereafter. At least with AMD and nVidia you get 3 to 5 years worth of driver updates. Gives you a bit of longevity that Intel never seems to offer.
 

Branden

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2009
598
0
19,060
39
true, intel's graphics suck and 10% performance improvement still leaves it on the bottom rung (as seemingly every second commenter here feels the need to state the obvious) but considering 99% of laptops out there are stuck with it.... any improvement is a good one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY