Intel HD Graphics 4000 Performance

Ian

Ian

Administrator
Joined
Feb 23, 2002
Messages
19,878
Reaction score
1,509
I'm building a PC from some spare parts I had, based around an Intel 3570k. I've got a case arriving today and I've already got all of the other parts.

I used this CPU until very recently and was still very happy with the performance, even if it's 8 years old. I'm going to stick the PC in my workshop to run CAD and a power a CNC machine.

The only component I don't have is a graphics card, but the CPU has an integrated graphics chipset and the motherboard has HDMI out. My question is, has anyone used Intel HD Graphics 4000 and were you happy with day-to-day performance? I won't be doing any gaming on this system at all, but I will be doing CAD work, and I imagine that this should be fine (it's even DX11 compatible). I'm hoping there's a way to allocate additional RAM to the graphics chipset in the BIOS.
 
Intel don't make Graphic Cards!!! ;)

Buy some cheap somethingorother, not Intel. :nod:
 
Yes, Ian, it should be sufficient for your application and 3D work. As for memory, you can allocate the max if possible in the bios, probably around 1 GB or whatever. Irrespective of what is pre-allocated Windows will share the system memory for the graphics card. My current laptop which is an i5 has the 4000 card and my desktop which is i7 has the 4600 one built-in. I am not into gaming anymore and these cards are more than sufficient for my current needs which is mostly basic computing. I was a heavy user 25 years ago with fancy components in the computers but those days are gone. :p
 
I've just fired up the PC a few moments ago, and allocated 1GB (maximum) to the system :). I'm going to give Fusion 360 CAD a go this weekend and see if it works well enough. Good to hear that you've got the same graphics chipset and it works fine :D.
 
Ian said:
I've just fired up the PC a few moments ago, and allocated 1GB (maximum) to the system :). I'm going to give Fusion 360 CAD a go this weekend and see if it works well enough. Good to hear that you've got the same graphics chipset and it works fine :D.
Click to expand...

Glad to know that! I will be waiting for an update later in the week when you have had a go at it. I am very confident that you will not need to spend any money and it would suffice. :nod:
 
Just tried it this morning and it works a treat - certainly plenty for what I need :). Interestingly, when I set the minimum dedicated RAM in the BIOS to 1GB, the system refused to boot. It only works with 512MB or less. No idea why that is, but I'll be looking in to this later on!
 
Ian said:
Just tried it this morning and it works a treat - certainly plenty for what I need :). Interestingly, when I set the minimum dedicated RAM in the BIOS to 1GB, the system refused to boot. It only works with 512MB or less. No idea why that is, but I'll be looking in to this later on!
Click to expand...

Good to know it is working :thumb:

Ian by any chance the RAM you have on the machine is less than 8 GB? Maybe that could be the reason for max limit of 512 MB. Of course I may be wrong but I was curious to find out. :)
 
I used the graphics on a similar Intel chipset for a while recently after an old Asus motherboard went faulty on me and wouldn't display fullscreen graphics from a graphics card.

It was fine for everyday use and also played a few games with undemanding specs. The most intense graphics apps I used with that setup were old versions of Pinnacle Studio video editing and an old version of Adobe CS Photoshop.

After the MSI motherboard I bought as a replacement proved to be faulty on arrival I bought an old Asrock motherboard on Ebay and used the old DDR3 RAM (2 x 8Gb), the original 8 year old Intel Sandy Bridge 2600K 3.4Ghz 4-Core CPU, and an MSI Nvidia GTX 2Gb 1050 graphics card and that's been in use for several months now.
 
Quadophile said:
Ian by any chance the RAM you have on the machine is less than 8 GB? Maybe that could be the reason for max limit of 512 MB. Of course I may be wrong but I was curious to find out. :)
Click to expand...

16GB in total, so it's a little strange. It's working ok though, so I'm just going to leave as-is :).
floppybootstomp said:
It was fine for everyday use and also played a few games with undemanding specs. The most intense graphics apps I used with that setup were old versions of Pinnacle Studio video editing and an old version of Adobe CS Photoshop.
Click to expand...

That's good to know! Most of my work on that PC will be similar stuff. Out of curiosity, I'll fire up a steam game and see what it can handle :lol: .
 
I'm using the same graphic card, which performs generally a little behind the Radeon 6450 in gaming performance. It's an integrated GPU, so its memory depends on how much memory you give it from your system memory. All in all, it is among the worst options for gaming, but it's decent for basic stuff such as most average usage, HTPC usage, and office work.

Other than its dismal performance for gaming, it is also hindered by the poor Intel drivers and in the case of many OEM systems, even worse custom drivers.
 
Thanks @yuanyasmine :). It's been running fine running my machinery, even CAD, so I'm happy enough with it :D.

I used the Windows 10 default drivers, so it avoided most of the Intel bundled driver software thankfully (although I still do have the Intel Control Panel that it installed).
 
Back
Top