Super User is a question and answer site for computer enthusiasts and power users. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I was watching the wwdc keynote and they where talking about integrated graphics "Intel HD Graphics 4000". I understand the integrated part of it, so that its soldered to the motherboard but as the memory part of it, usual when i look at graphics spec you look for mb right ?

They are not listing that, does it not have is own memory as its integrated if so what does it share memory with, ram ?

What is the comparable motherboard equivalent of these integrated graphics cards ?

share|improve this question
Actually, the new Intel IGP is part of the new processors itself (AMD does this now as well). It's not a separate GPU soldered to the motherboard. And yes, some of your system RAM is shared with the IGP. You can typically decide exactly how much (with a range) within the BIOS. So, there really isn't a comparative megabyte equivalent. – Bon Gart Jun 13 '12 at 0:22
For instance if i needed to run a program with a required minimum 512mb of video memmory would an intergrated card do the job ? – sam Jun 13 '12 at 0:31
If you had 512mb of system allocated to the IGP, then yes. However, if you are talking about a GAME that requires a minimum of 512mb of Video Ram, although this might meet the minimum memory requirements, performance is still going to suffer greatly because it's an IGP. IGPs aren't meant for gaming at all. – Bon Gart Jun 13 '12 at 0:34
up vote 0 down vote accepted

Traditionally IGPs have been separate chips on the motherboard, though most modern systems have it built in. Both the traditional IGP on a chip, and IGP on the same package as the main processor (what AMD calls an APU) use/share ram with the main system - and you can set the amount of ram in the bios. It would be possible to have a discrete processor on board (for example on a laptop), so having its own ram would be one defining feature that seperates a IGP (which shares ram) from a discrete graphics chip. Of course, on a desktop, most systems use a significantly more powerful PCI-E(or AGP if its old enough) card.

Up until recently, IGPs have either been about 2-3 generations behind the current discrete graphics cards - the current intel IGPs are about as good as a low end graphics card - Anandtech compared current laptop IGPs with discrete cards for diablo III and found them wanting

The advantage with IGPs is they are good enough for basic things like casual gaming, may do some things better (the sandy bridge/ivy bridge cards accelerate video transcoding for example), and come with the system. Most modern motherboards will support using it.

Even a mid range, last generation graphics card will crush any IGP for gaming purposes.They should also crush any IGP in the sort of things a graphics card does better than an IGP.

If you have a program that says it has a minimum amount of video memory, get that graphics card, cause ram isn't everything - The increased speed, processor power and cores and everything else will result in a noticeable difference in performance.

share|improve this answer
The software in question was artlatis 3d rendering, am i right in thinking that 3d work and rendering needs similar to gaming resources ? – sam Jun 13 '12 at 10:48
Realtime rendering will. If you're pre rendering it would just take longer. I'd personally feel safer with a nice powerful discrete video card in such scenarios tho. – Journeyman Geek Jun 13 '12 at 10:50

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .