Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: graphics performance of i5-4670K

  1. #1
    Registered+
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Fife
    Posts
    33
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    • Bill@W's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Z87-Pro
      • CPU:
      • i5 4670K Haswell
      • Memory:
      • 16gb Corsair Vengeance 9-9-9-24
      • Storage:
      • Plextor 128GB SSD; WD Black 500GB; Toshiba 1TB; Plextor Opt: Asus Opt
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus GeForce GT 640
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic G650 semi-mod.
      • Case:
      • Lian-Li A-05FN
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • BenQ FP241W; Iiyama ProLite X23...HDS
      • Internet:
      • 2.5 mbps (6.5km from exchange)

    graphics performance of i5-4670K

    Any members used this chip in a system WITHOUT a PCIe graphics card? Intel makes extravagant claims for the on-chip graphics, and I'd be interested in any user's comment. I'm about to assemble an i5-4670K on an Asus Z87-Pro board. I use 2 monitors, do audio and video editing, but have no interest in gaming. I would value any comments, since up until now on-chip graphics have not been worth much.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Bonebreaker777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Herts, UK
    Posts
    2,035
    Thanks
    55
    Thanked
    203 times in 186 posts
    • Bonebreaker777's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI H97I AC
      • CPU:
      • Xeon 1225 v3 + Freezer 11 L
      • Memory:
      • 2 x 4GB 1600Mhz 1T-8-8-8-20 1.35V Crucial BallistiX Tactical VLP
      • Storage:
      • 128GB CRUCIAL MX100///XPEnology server + 3 x WD Purple 3TB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Intel HD 4600
      • PSU:
      • be quiet! L8 300W PSU BN220
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master Elite 120
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Pro 64bit
      • Monitor(s):
      • Samsung SyncMaster 226BW
      • Internet:
      • Virgin 100Mb

    Re: graphics performance of i5-4670K

    If no interest in gaming but rather multimedia and work with it the a i5 paired with Quicksync will be good.
    Not sure what kind of feedback you are expecting but the Intel IGP is good as it gets.
    Hardware supported encoding and decoding.Cool.Inconsequential power comsubtion.Overclockable and upgrade-able(OC the core Iin BIOS and OC the memory).
    Problemless drivers.
    From a Sandy Bridge owner.
    Right now I have a Haswell i5 PC, let me know if you are interested in anything.

  3. #3
    Banhammer in peace PeterB kalniel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    31,025
    Thanks
    1,871
    Thanked
    3,383 times in 2,720 posts
    • kalniel's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Ultra
      • CPU:
      • Intel i9 9900k
      • Memory:
      • 32GB DDR4 3200 CL16
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Samsung 970Evo+ NVMe
      • Graphics card(s):
      • nVidia GTX 1060 6GB
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic 600W
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master HAF 912
      • Operating System:
      • Win 10 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell S2721DGF
      • Internet:
      • rubbish

    Re: graphics performance of i5-4670K

    Quote Originally Posted by Bonebreaker777 View Post
    Not sure what kind of feedback you are expecting but the Intel IGP is good as it gets.
    Sorry, but that's complete nonsense.

    The IGP is an HD4600. It is sometimes utterly trounced by the IGPs in recent AMD processors.





    OP - what is your non-gaming use? The AMD IGP is faster at many types of compute, but not all. Video editing is one where quick sync (as per the HD4600) does do very well, but check the benchmarks for your exact software.
    Last edited by kalniel; 17-07-2013 at 07:41 PM.

  4. #4
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    12,986
    Thanks
    781
    Thanked
    1,588 times in 1,343 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus X470-PRO
      • CPU:
      • 5900X
      • Memory:
      • 32GB 3200MHz ECC
      • Storage:
      • 2TB Linux, 2TB Games (Win 10)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus Strix RX Vega 56
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 39 + Win 10 Pro 64 (yuk)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Benq XL2730Z 1440p + Iiyama 27" 1440p
      • Internet:
      • Zen 900Mb/900Mb (CityFibre FttP)

    Re: graphics performance of i5-4670K

    If your motherboard can drive your two monitors then you have nothing to lose trying.

    Many people get a graphics card just to escape Intel's video drivers, in which case the drivers are the same for a £20 card as they are for a £200 one so it doesn't cost much.

  5. #5
    Registered+
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    22
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts

    Re: graphics performance of i5-4670K

    I was going to go with purchasing almost a "place holder" graphics card till I had the funds for a proper one for £20. I google'd it but it doesn't seem to say whether a graphics card was necessary for the 4670k, not sure if this is common knowledge I don't know

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    329
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked
    32 times in 32 posts
    • teppic's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Maximus VI Gene
      • CPU:
      • i7 4770K
      • Memory:
      • 16b Corsair Vengeance LP
      • Storage:
      • Samsung 830 256gb
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus 7970 DirectCU II
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic 760w
      • Case:
      • Fractal Design Define R3
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 + Linux
      • Internet:
      • Virgin Media 50mbps

    Re: graphics performance of i5-4670K

    Intel's been able to make grand claims about the IGP in Haswell because in prior releases it was absolutely awful. Double performance from awful isn't quite as catching in marketing, especially when a £60 AMD APU has better graphics than a £275 Intel CPU.

  7. #7
    root Member DanceswithUnix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    In the middle of a core dump
    Posts
    12,986
    Thanks
    781
    Thanked
    1,588 times in 1,343 posts
    • DanceswithUnix's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus X470-PRO
      • CPU:
      • 5900X
      • Memory:
      • 32GB 3200MHz ECC
      • Storage:
      • 2TB Linux, 2TB Games (Win 10)
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus Strix RX Vega 56
      • PSU:
      • 650W Corsair TX
      • Case:
      • Antec 300
      • Operating System:
      • Fedora 39 + Win 10 Pro 64 (yuk)
      • Monitor(s):
      • Benq XL2730Z 1440p + Iiyama 27" 1440p
      • Internet:
      • Zen 900Mb/900Mb (CityFibre FttP)

    Re: graphics performance of i5-4670K

    Quote Originally Posted by gogoyippy View Post
    I was going to go with purchasing almost a "place holder" graphics card till I had the funds for a proper one for £20. I google'd it but it doesn't seem to say whether a graphics card was necessary for the 4670k, not sure if this is common knowledge I don't know
    It is only necessary if you are playing games (performance), doing professional work (workstation features) or running something that causes the Intel drivers to crash so hard you have to turn it off and on again. Perhaps that isn't so common any more, I don't intend finding out.

  8. #8
    Supermarket Generic Brand AETAaAS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Merseyside
    Posts
    654
    Thanks
    79
    Thanked
    147 times in 129 posts
    • AETAaAS's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI B450M Gaming Plus
      • CPU:
      • AMD Ryzen 2600
      • Memory:
      • 16GB Vengeance 3000
      • Storage:
      • Intel 660p 1TB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVGA 1080TI SC2
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic Focus 850W
      • Case:
      • Fractal Design Focus G
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • HP Envy 32
      • Internet:
      • 17mbps

    Re: graphics performance of i5-4670K

    I tend to agree with DanceswithUnix, Intel drivers have caused nothing but headaches for me. Most recently, they have caused strange problems with my laptop. Odd flickering and actually causing some games to run more slowly despite using my 7970M card, and not just a little bit, it caused GTA4 to go from about 40FPS down to 8FPS. It made no sense to me and I was thinking that it was the Catalyst drivers initially and tried a couple versions including the latest beta.

    I later found out that the iGPU drivers caused this problem for some users and tried endless combinations of drivers from Intel, Windows and the laptop's original drivers then finally settled on an older Intel driver which doesn't cause problems.

    I'm not sure which programs you use. Some are well suited to OpenCL and GPU acceleration, the former of which, AMD's GCN does very well. Heavily multithreaded jobs like encoding x264 will be better served by something like a FX-8350 or an i7 if your budget allows.

  9. #9
    Registered+
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    30
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    2 times in 2 posts
    • AJRDLawrence's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus P8Z68-V
      • CPU:
      • intel Core i5-2500K
      • Memory:
      • 8GB Corsair Vengeance 1600 9-9-9-24-2T
      • Storage:
      • OCZ Agility III 120Gb
      • Graphics card(s):
      • nVidia GeForce GTX 760
      • PSU:
      • Coolermaster GX750
      • Case:
      • Coolermaster Silencio 452
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 8.1 x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Philips 234E5
      • Internet:
      • Virgin Media 100Mb

    Re: graphics performance of i5-4670K

    Don't sweat it. You will want something suitable to meet your needs, but just use the integrated graphics until you can afford a decent discrete GPU. That is what I did in 2011 when I built my current rig.

    I couldn't afford to build my PC all in one go so I got it a few bits at a time. I was stuck using the intel HD 3000 on my i5-2500K for a good fews weeks, but hey, at least it put a picture on the screen and let me use my new toy in the meantime. It even worked quite well for playing Half-Life: Source and Half-Life 2 @ 720p.

    Contrary to the others here I've had no problems with intel drivers whatsoever, neither have my friends, many of which built an almost identical PC around the same time as I did.
    Last edited by AJRDLawrence; 18-07-2013 at 03:10 PM.

  10. #10
    Moosing about! CAT-THE-FIFTH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Not here
    Posts
    32,039
    Thanks
    3,910
    Thanked
    5,224 times in 4,015 posts
    • CAT-THE-FIFTH's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Less E-PEEN
      • CPU:
      • Massive E-PEEN
      • Memory:
      • RGB E-PEEN
      • Storage:
      • Not in any order
      • Graphics card(s):
      • EVEN BIGGER E-PEEN
      • PSU:
      • OVERSIZED
      • Case:
      • UNDERSIZED
      • Operating System:
      • DOS 6.22
      • Monitor(s):
      • NOT USUALLY ON....WHEN I POST
      • Internet:
      • FUNCTIONAL

    Re: graphics performance of i5-4670K

    I had the Core i3 2100 soon after launch and it had texture corruption in L4D when I tried running it. Moreover,one of the german sites showed that the HD3000 was not rendering all the shadows properly in one of the games they tested. Image quality during gaming was a major issue with the SB IGP AFAIK,and it took IB and Haswell to improve in those areas.

    Intel has no doubt improved on their drivers and game compatability in the last few years but AMD and Nvidia are still better.

    If it is just for bog standard display stuff and playing back videos you should be not having any issues TBH,with the Intel IGPs in the last few years though.
    Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 18-07-2013 at 03:12 PM.

  11. Received thanks from:

    Bill@W (18-07-2013)

  12. #11
    Registered+
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Fife
    Posts
    33
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    • Bill@W's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Z87-Pro
      • CPU:
      • i5 4670K Haswell
      • Memory:
      • 16gb Corsair Vengeance 9-9-9-24
      • Storage:
      • Plextor 128GB SSD; WD Black 500GB; Toshiba 1TB; Plextor Opt: Asus Opt
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus GeForce GT 640
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic G650 semi-mod.
      • Case:
      • Lian-Li A-05FN
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 Pro x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • BenQ FP241W; Iiyama ProLite X23...HDS
      • Internet:
      • 2.5 mbps (6.5km from exchange)

    Re: graphics performance of i5-4670K

    I’m grateful for all the useful comments posted. What prompted my original query was that I’ve bought a Lian-Li case PC-A05FNB (I used Lian-Li cases for my last 4 builds and for me there’s none better). This case is tight with maximum space of 280 mm for a graphics card. I looked for an Nvidia PCIe 3.0 card smaller than that, and there are not a lot. Since I have no interest in gaming, I wondered if the i5-4670K would have the on-chip graphics oomph that Intel claims.
    After digesting the negative comments about Intel graphics drivers, I’m leaning towards the Asus GTX650TIB-DC2-2GD5 (215mm), or the Asus GTX650-DC-1GD5 (259mm). These are really gaming cards, which I have no need for, but I like Nvidia drivers for a multi-display setup, which I find useful for photo-editing.

  13. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    329
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked
    32 times in 32 posts
    • teppic's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Maximus VI Gene
      • CPU:
      • i7 4770K
      • Memory:
      • 16b Corsair Vengeance LP
      • Storage:
      • Samsung 830 256gb
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Asus 7970 DirectCU II
      • PSU:
      • Seasonic 760w
      • Case:
      • Fractal Design Define R3
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 + Linux
      • Internet:
      • Virgin Media 50mbps

    Re: graphics performance of i5-4670K

    I wouldn't bother with that - for basic multi-screen work the most basic £20 PCI-E cards are sufficient.

  14. #13
    Senior Member Bonebreaker777's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Herts, UK
    Posts
    2,035
    Thanks
    55
    Thanked
    203 times in 186 posts
    • Bonebreaker777's system
      • Motherboard:
      • MSI H97I AC
      • CPU:
      • Xeon 1225 v3 + Freezer 11 L
      • Memory:
      • 2 x 4GB 1600Mhz 1T-8-8-8-20 1.35V Crucial BallistiX Tactical VLP
      • Storage:
      • 128GB CRUCIAL MX100///XPEnology server + 3 x WD Purple 3TB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Intel HD 4600
      • PSU:
      • be quiet! L8 300W PSU BN220
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master Elite 120
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Pro 64bit
      • Monitor(s):
      • Samsung SyncMaster 226BW
      • Internet:
      • Virgin 100Mb

    Re: graphics performance of i5-4670K

    Slightly sad to see all the issues with Intel IGP. Mine works flawlessly.
    But I tend to agree with the last comment.
    If you are not after the gaming or computing performance but only multiple screen support (which works for me again without issues) or HD/UltraHD decoding, cards around £20 will be perfect for you.
    Choose a silent one. AMD 6450 tend to be good.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •