4850 VS Intel HD Graphics

[stree]

I currently have a G3258K in an MITX case, 197mmx197mm x80mm, so not a lot of room for cards or hefty cooling, so just running stock and no OC, with the onboard Intel HD Graphics. This is more than adequate for using as an HTPC, but I also have 2 other MITX boxes, Athlon 5150 and Athlon 5350.
The Athlons can be the HTPC units thus freeing up the G3258 for playing with.
I am considering upsiing to MATX, something along the lines of Cooltek coolcube, Rajintek Metis etc.IE: smallish cube style MATX. Silent as possible is main target.
I have 2 full size ATX Seasonic PSUs, a 520 M12 semi fanless and an X series 400 watt fanless, both fully modular. I would like to use one of those.
I also have an old Gigabyte 4850 1 GB Passive GPU, about 235mm long and requires PCIe power.
Not sure of power usage of the 4850 but feel sure either PSU can deal with it.
This is of course assuming that the 4850 is more capable than the onboard graphics of the Pentium.
No gaming, so thats not an issue, but movies, photo editing ( light) and minor photoshop work.
Tried to get a "A" VS "B" for the graphics but nothing clear so far.
Any thoughts?

 

[Rroff]

Tricky one, the 4850 likely has better performance and more driver features but the Intel might support DX11 and newer features that could improve compatibility with some video codecs/hardware rendering and media editing packages.

 

[stree]

Rroff,

Fair point. Seems 4850 is DX10.1, seems very dated now. Shame because it seems it was / is an exeptional passive performer, running 30 degrees cooler than the fanned reference design.
Found a good in depth review at Hardware Canucks.
I only wanted to use it because I already have it and its passive, but will probably just use the Intel graphics rather than try to find a more recent passive GPU. Not worth it for the minimal need I have for anything more than the intel.
Ah well, at least I can make a smaller case now that there will be no passive gpu taking a (the) slot.
Then again I think first I will do an open air build of the spec and run the 4850 on it, see what it can do.

 

[AtaRo]

This is Toms Hierarchy Chart .

According to the chart the 4850 is way above the Intel HD Graphics 4000 although it does not list the latest Intel® HD Graphics 4600.

 

[Aretak]

This is Toms Hierarchy Chart .

According to the chart the 4850 is way above the Intel HD Graphics 4000 although it does not list the latest Intel® HD Graphics 4600.

The graphics portion of the G3258 is actually quite a bit less powerful than even the HD 4000 revision.

http://www.legitreviews.com/intel-pentium-g3258-processor-review-quest-5ghz_145874/12

The 4850 will be much better, but at the cost of DirectX 11 and hefty power consumption for what will still be pretty mediocre performance.

 

[stree]

Interesting.
Considering that I do not do games, and am quite happy with 720 video, chances are the card will be fine for what I need.
Only concerns are power ( although 2 x Psu to choose from 420 watt and 520 watt ) and the limitations of directx 10.1

 

[almoststew1990]

4850 is surprisingly powerful; I used a 512mb one fairly recently and was happily playing games like AC2 maxed with no AA, at 1080p.

I'd be going 4850 all day.

But considering you say no games, I'd stick with the integrated for the space, temps and power benefits.

 

[stree]

Thanks,
Probably right. The idea was to build a cube style case , small as possible, using the spare PSU and passive GPU to make a silent HTPC/SOHO pc.
I still could, temps not an issue, the G"Byte 4850 passive was easily the coolest running 4850 of the lot and way cooler than the competition..
Power will be easily dealt with by either PSU...........Just leaves the size. The card is 235mm long and takes slots, so any case design will have to reflect that.
On the other hand staying with G3258 and Pico means I can reduce the cube to 200mmx200mmx200mm even with a good sizeCPU cooler.