Is intel hd2000 graphics (i3 2100) better than a nvidia 210?

munkle

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 16, 2005
Messages
11,799
Is intel hd2000 graphics (i3 2100) better than a nvidia 210? I can't find any benchmarks that compare the two.
 
Last edited:
Using the Intel HD 3000 on a i5 2500k I was able to play some games at 1080p resolutions, some maxed and some with details turned down. The HD 3000 is a little faster but not a lot, the biggested difference would be the CPU.

Portal, TF2, L4D, (Source games) played fine with high to very hight settings. Albeit not at 60fps but still playable. Games live Civ 5, COD4, Dirt, Street Fighter 4, StarCraft 2, dcu:eek:, wow, avp and arma II were all playable with low to medium settings no aa or af. I used this on my Epson 8700UB projector with 1920x1080 resolution.

I was a fairly impressed considering it was integrated video. I recently upgraded to a EVGA GTX 460 FTW card as I wanted to play games with higher details. This is primarily a HTPC but is used for light gaming when my 24" desktop monitor isn't quite big enough.

EDIT: I forgot to mention the new Intel HD 2000/3000 should be faster than a Geforce 210. They would match more closely to the 220 I would think, but not quite as fast. Maybe a Geforce 215??
 
all those games at 1920x1080 with HD3000? um my own experiences with gpus that are stronger than a HD3000 sure do not make that seem plausible. even my 8600gt is faster than HD3000 graphics and no way in hell am I able to play games like AvP or ARMA 2 at 1920x1080 on even low never mind medium.

some of these game are not even as demanding as AvP or ARMA 2 yet are barely playable at 1024x768 and low settings. http://www.anandtech.com/show/4134/the-brazos-review-amds-e350-supplants-ion-for-miniitx/5

HD2000 graphics would probably be slower than a g210 with HD3000 being slightly better. a gt220 would beat the crap out of the HD2000 and 3000 though. http://www.anandtech.com/show/4476/amd-a83850-review/5
 
Last edited:
The two (GF210, HD Graphics 2000) are pretty close. There's not many comparable benchmarks since they were released over year apart and many games in testing suites changed. I wouldn't install a GF210 in a SB system unless you want it for reasons other than 2D/3D performance.

On AT and xbitlabs, the few comparable benchmarks available show the cards within a couple fps of one another. HDG2K isn't very fast. At best, it's around 10% faster than the older HD Graphics in i5-661 processors. Not horrible by IGP standards, but HD Graphics was only around the level of HD 4290 IGP performance.
 
Portal, TF2, L4D, (Source games) played fine with high to very hight settings. Albeit not at 60fps but still playable. Games live Civ 5, COD4, Dirt, Street Fighter 4, StarCraft 2, dcu:eek:, wow, avp and arma II were all playable with low to medium settings no aa or af. I used this on my Epson 8700UB projector with 1920x1080 resolution.

I didn't get the Lenovo x220t (i7-2620M with HD 3000) to game but I will say that it actually games better than I thought and my experience is similar to this. I think that HD 3000 can provide a decent gaming experience for mobile gaming in the bulk of modern games particularly if you're only driving a 720P display.
 
I didn't get the Lenovo x220t (i7-2620M with HD 3000) to game but I will say that it actually games better than I thought and my experience is similar to this. I think that HD 3000 can provide a decent gaming experience for mobile gaming in the bulk of modern games particularly if you're only driving a 720P display.
some of what he claimed is bunk though.
 
Is intel hd2000 graphics (i3 2100) better than a nvidia 210? I can't find any benchmarks that compare the two.

AMD Fusion in a laptop destroys both those options, just so you know.

But here you go.

Nvidia Geforce 210 - SF4AE
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im5XwT97Suo"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im5XwT97Suo[/ame]

Intel i5-2300 + HD 2000 Portal 1
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJpIfA9RSLk"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJpIfA9RSLk[/ame]

Fusion on a laptop - Portal 2
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3cJ0qur014&feature=player_embedded"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3cJ0qur014&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

Fusion on a laptop - Race Driver GRID
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwRRdo1TUEA&NR=1"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwRRdo1TUEA&NR=1[/ame]

Hope these videos help, I know they're not benchmarks, they're real world gaming performance results. ;)
 
all those games at 1920x1080 with HD3000? um my own experiences with gpus that are stronger than a HD3000 sure do not make that seem plausible. even my 8600gt is faster than HD3000 graphics and no way in hell am I able to play games like AvP or ARMA 2 at 1920x1080 on even low never mind medium.

some of these game are not even as demanding as AvP or ARMA 2 yet are barely playable at 1024x768 and low settings. http://www.anandtech.com/show/4134/the-brazos-review-amds-e350-supplants-ion-for-miniitx/5

HD2000 graphics would probably be slower than a g210 with HD3000 being slightly better. a gt220 would beat the crap out of the HD2000 and 3000 though. http://www.anandtech.com/show/4476/amd-a83850-review/5

I most certainly did play AvP and ARMA 2 at 1920x1080 with the lowest settings and frames were mid 20's to mid 30's. I ran the GPU at an overclocked speed of 1550. It wasn't awesome but it was very playable. Every game I listed was playable.
 
I most certainly did play AvP and ARMA 2 at 1920x1080 with the lowest settings and frames were mid 20's to mid 30's. I ran the GPU at an overclocked speed of 1550. It wasn't awesome but it was very playable. Every game I listed was playable.
there is no way that is possible.

you are living in a fantasy land claiming to run all those games at 1920x1080. even with your gpu at 1550, an 8600gt would still be 20-30% faster and it can not do close to everything you are claiming. I just fired up ARMA 2 on my 8600gt and even at just 1280x960 it was not playable at all on all low settings. AvP could barely handle all low at 1280x960 so forget about 1920x1080 with an even slower gpu. and in that review I linked to earlier, Anandtech could only get 10 fps in Civ 5 on all low settings at 1680 while you claim you ran it at 1920x1080.

AvP at just 1280x960 on all low with an 8600gt that is faster than HD3000



Uploaded with ImageShack.us




ARMA 2 at just 1280x960 on all low with an 8600gt that is faster than HD3000



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
 
Last edited:
AMD Fusion in a laptop destroys both those options, just so you know.

Except this is a desktop. I have a spare 210 but probably wont use it now. Amd's apu (a6/a8) isn't that great for desktops. If you price it out you can get an i3 (way better cpu), mobo and descrete graphics card (which will be better than the amds apu) for roughly the same price as the amd apu and mobo, the only thing that the amd combo will have an edge on is the mobo is probably better (more features and overclockable).

For example
i3 $125
h61 mobo $55
your descrete card of choice $50-70 will get you one better than the apu
so $220-$240 for something alot better.

or amd A8 $140
amd fm1 mobo $70
or $210 for meh.
 
Last edited:
I've been real impressed for a while now with both the first and second gen i3 integrated graphics when overclocked. Had a couple towers with them in the office, and they played league of legends and starcraft 2 on acceptable settings.

Also munkle, evga usually has 768mb gtx460s for $89.99 refurbed on their site. Can't really beat the overall bang for the buck of teaming one of those up with a 2100.
 
Also munkle, evga usually has 768mb gtx460s for $89.99 refurbed on their site. Can't really beat the overall bang for the buck of teaming one of those up with a 2100.
It's for an htpc, so I will probably get a gt 430. I have a 6850 in my main rig, I wish I would have gone the 1gb 460, drivers blow so hard with ati.
 
there is no way that is possible.

you are living in a fantasy land claiming to run all those games at 1920x1080. even with your gpu at 1550, an 8600gt would still be 20-30% faster and it can not do close to everything you are claiming. I just fired up ARMA 2 on my 8600gt and even at just 1280x960 it was not playable at all on all low settings. AvP could barely handle all low at 1280x960 so forget about 1920x1080 with an even slower gpu. and in that review I linked to earlier, Anandtech could only get 10 fps in Civ 5 on all low settings at 1680 while you claim you ran it at 1920x1080.

AvP at just 1280x960 on all low with an 8600gt that is faster than HD3000



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

ARMA 2 at just 1280x960 on all low with an 8600gt that is faster than HD3000



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

I'll have to try and get around to setting it up and use fraps to test fps. I didn't look at fps before but I certainly played all those games like I said I did and none of them chopped to the point of being unplayable. I'm using a GTX 460 now and don't plan on going back to the HD 3000 but I can say I'd recommend it to anyone looking for light gaming sessions.

Check out this review of the HD 3000.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/graphics/display/intel-hd-graphics-2000-3000.html

They clocked the HD 3000 at 1500MHz and tested 1024x768 and 1650x1050 with low quality settings

Here are some 1650x1050 results on 2500k CPU with HD 3000

Crysis Warhead - 37.53 fps
Far Cry 2 - 41.81 fps
Left 4 Dead - 43.72 fps
F1 2010 - 30.94 fps
HAWX 2 - 50 fps
Civ 5 - 55.22 fps
StarCraft 2 - 32.16 fps


Those results look pretty good to me...
 
I'll have to try and get around to setting it up and use fraps to test fps. I didn't look at fps before but I certainly played all those games like I said I did and none of them chopped to the point of being unplayable. I'm using a GTX 460 now and don't plan on going back to the HD 3000 but I can say I'd recommend it to anyone looking for light gaming sessions.

Check out this review of the HD 3000.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/graphics/display/intel-hd-graphics-2000-3000.html

They clocked the HD 3000 at 1500MHz and tested 1024x768 and 1650x1050 with low quality settings

Here are some 1650x1050 results on 2500k CPU with HD 3000

Crysis Warhead - 37.53 fps
Far Cry 2 - 41.81 fps
Left 4 Dead - 43.72 fps
F1 2010 - 30.94 fps
HAWX 2 - 50 fps
Civ 5 - 55.22 fps
StarCraft 2 - 32.16 fps


Those results look pretty good to me...
yes and my 8600gt will beat all of those scores. and as I just showed you it is impossible to run AvP and ARMA 2 at 1920x1080 on my 8600gt so no way could HD3000 graphics do it.
 
yes and my 8600gt will beat all of those scores. and as I just showed you it is impossible to run AvP and ARMA 2 at 1920x1080 on my 8600gt so no way could HD3000 graphics do it.

You also said Civ5 would be impossible yet they got 55fps at 1650x1050. I have no idea what the actual frames were but arma2 and avp worked on my i5 2500k and hd3000 @1550.
 
You also said Civ5 would be impossible yet they got 55fps at 1650x1050. I have no idea what the actual frames were but arma2 and avp worked on my i5 2500k and hd3000 @1550.
that was going by what one other site had said so it could have been an issue with Intel driver. I am testing AvP and ARMA right in front of me. the fact is that an 8600gt is faster than HD3000 even when overclocked. I just showed you proof that ARMA 2 was not playable at all on low settings even at 1280x960 yet you said you played it fine at 1920x1080. AvP was barely playable at 1280x960 on low settings with the 8600gt so no way would it be playable on the slower HD3000 at 1920x1080.

some of those other games you exaggerated a bit on but as for those games your claim are 100% impossible.
 
that was going by what one other site had said so it could have been an issue with Intel driver. I am testing AvP and ARMA right in front of me. the fact is that an 8600gt is faster than HD3000 even when overclocked. I just showed you proof that ARMA 2 was not playable at all on low settings even at 1280x960 yet you said you played it fine at 1920x1080. AvP was barely playable at 1280x960 on low settings with the 8600gt so no way would it be playable on the slower HD3000 at 1920x1080.

some of those other games you exaggerated a bit on but as for those games your claim are 100% impossible.

Well since it is 100% impossible. I decided to try again. I configured my PC to use the HD 3000 again and loaded up ARMA2 with lowest settings and found the game mostly ran in the mid 50 fps. It occasionally dipped into the high 30's and sometimes into the low 60's. I tried AVP at the lowest settings and found it mostly ran in the mid 20's but sometimes dipped to the low 20's or up to low 30's. It was playable but not great, just like I said. If I turned ARMA 2 from lowest to low settings the results were similar to AVP. Here are some screens of both games at 1920x1080 with their lowest possible settings.

The results are pretty good for a integrated video chipset. Maybe your results with the 8600gt were so low because of other system limits like CPU? I'm sure if I lowered the resoultion to a something like 1366x768 or 1280x960 the results would be even better. My point is that with a HD3000 at 1550 most games will be playable. If you decide to go to 1366x768 I'm certain almost everything would run smooth with medium settings.

Sorry for the large screens

igpu.jpg


arma22011071017371820.jpg


arma22011071017375520.jpg


arma22011071017380663.jpg


arma22011071017381790.jpg


arma22011071017393909.jpg


arma22011071017405384.jpg


arma22011071017424921.jpg


avp2011071017441293.jpg


avp2011071017445281.jpg


avp2011071017453421.jpg


avp2011071017453687.jpg


avp2011071017454842.jpg


avp2011071017460571.jpg


avp2011071017461405.jpg


avp2011071017464097.jpg


avp2011071017470581.jpg
 
I still call BS especially for ARMA 2. facts are facts and your HD3000 at stock speeds is equal to a 5450 at best. overclocked to 1550 would still make it slower than an 8600gt. my benchmarks line right up with it is possible on my card. there is no way in hell you are running ARMA 2 at 1920x1080 at FOUR times the framerate I am getting on faster card at just 1280x960. there is zero logic in that.

heck the very minimum card just to run ARMA 2 is a 7800gt which is faster than your overclocked HD3000. and yet you are posting screenshots of you getting 50-60fps at 1920x1080? again there is no logic in that.
 
Last edited:
Uhh, 3D resolution != 1920x1080... The game is being rendered at 96x540 and upscaled to the screen size aha...
 
you know, it just could be that the drivers work better for the HD3000 than they do for the 8600gt for that particular game. Either that or you two need to get together and LAN it out. After school in the parking lot.
 
I still call BS especially for ARMA 2. facts are facts and your HD3000 at stock speeds is equal to a 5450 at best. overclocked to 1550 would still make it slower than an 8600gt. my benchmarks line right up with it is possible on my card. there is no way in hell you are running ARMA 2 at 1920x1080 at FOUR times the framerate I am getting on faster card at just 1280x960. there is zero logic in that.

heck the very minimum card just to run ARMA 2 is a 7800gt which is faster than your overclocked HD3000. and yet you are posting screenshots of you getting 50-60fps at 1920x1080? again there is no logic in that.

You're hilarious. I post screen shots and its still not good enough for you. What else would I need to do?

Just because you don't think it is possible doesn't mean it isn't. You were all over CIV 5 until I posted a review that showed it was playable. Like someone else said maybe the Intel drivers just work better for ARMA 2. Also like I said maybe my CPU is a lot better and it helps that game. Which CPU is your 8600GT running with?

I don't understand the point of you basically calling me a liar. What would I have to gain from making up numbers? I told you what my experience was and I took the time to post screen shots for you.
 
Uhh, 3D resolution != 1920x1080... The game is being rendered at 96x540 and upscaled to the screen size aha...

Ahh... i didn't really realize that... that would explain the performance. I thought it was something for 3d glasses or something.
 
You're hilarious. I post screen shots and its still not good enough for you. What else would I need to do?

Just because you don't think it is possible doesn't mean it isn't. You were all over CIV 5 until I posted a review that showed it was playable. Like someone else said maybe the Intel drivers just work better for ARMA 2. Also like I said maybe my CPU is a lot better and it helps that game. Which CPU is your 8600GT running with?

I don't understand the point of you basically calling me a liar. What would I have to gain from making up numbers? I told you what my experience was and I took the time to post screen shots for you.
because like I said facts are facts on how much gpu power the HD3000 has. its no secret that it is only as fast as a 5450 which is abysmal for most games even at very low res and settings. in fact a 5450 does not even meet the minimum requirements to play many newer games. and again even overclocked you would still not match a wimpy 8600gt. unless I was running some out dated or very low end cpu then it would not matter. any modern dual core cpu would not even be remotely close to being the limiting factor with an 8600gt or HD3000 especially at 1920x1080. considering I can drop the res and get a massive increase in framerate shows a gpu of that level is the absolute limiting factor.
 
Using the Intel HD 3000 on a i5 2500k I was able to play some games at 1080p resolutions, some maxed and some with details turned down. The HD 3000 is a little faster but not a lot, the biggested difference would be the CPU.

Portal, TF2, L4D, (Source games) played fine with high to very hight settings. Albeit not at 60fps but still playable. Games live Civ 5, COD4, Dirt, Street Fighter 4, StarCraft 2, dcu:eek:, wow, avp and arma II were all playable with low to medium settings no aa or af. I used this on my Epson 8700UB projector with 1920x1080 resolution.

BS any of those games are playable at 1080p with an Intel HD3000. They might run at 5fps if you're lucky, with all setting turned down, but that's about it.

I'm not sure who calls 5fps or less "playable" though.

Ahh... i didn't really realize that... that would explain the performance. I thought it was something for 3d glasses or something.

lol, yeah, those screenies you posted may have been 1080p, but the tiny resolution was totally upscaled. How did you not notice that? It's very obvious.
 
@teletran8, lol macbook gaming versus regular laptops.
 
@teletran8, lol macbook gaming versus regular laptops.

Yeah, I'm not sure who would pay $1000 for a Macbook to game on when they could spend less than that and get a far superior PC laptop. :confused:

Hopefully this was just for tech-demo purposes.

Apple + gaming != logic
 
BS any of those games are playable at 1080p with an Intel HD3000. They might run at 5fps if you're lucky, with all setting turned down, but that's about it.

I'm not sure who calls 5fps or less "playable" though.

The review I posted showed several of the games I mentioned playable at 1650x1050 so is 1920x1080 really that hard to believe? Sure they don't look the prettiest but a lot of games will play with lowest settings at 1920x1080 and many will play in the medium to high settings range. I know someone with a HD 3000 chipset in a laptop and uses 1366x768 and it plays everything he has tried with some tweaking.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/graphics/display/intel-hd-graphics-2000-3000.html

My point isn't that the HD 3000 is a great gaming card, my point is that as far as integrated GPU goes it is pretty good and it is a viable option for the casual gamer on a budget.

lol, yeah, those screenies you posted may have been 1080p, but the tiny resolution was totally upscaled. How did you not notice that? It's very obvious.

I tried running it at 3D resolution 1920x1080 after with lowest settings and it wasn't playable, it was in the low to mid teens. 1366x768 3D res ran fine, in the 45-55 range. 1600x900 was also playable at 25-35 fps.
 
because like I said facts are facts on how much gpu power the HD3000 has. its no secret that it is only as fast as a 5450 which is abysmal for most games even at very low res and settings. in fact a 5450 does not even meet the minimum requirements to play many newer games. and again even overclocked you would still not match a wimpy 8600gt. unless I was running some out dated or very low end cpu then it would not matter. any modern dual core cpu would not even be remotely close to being the limiting factor with an 8600gt or HD3000 especially at 1920x1080. considering I can drop the res and get a massive increase in framerate shows a gpu of that level is the absolute limiting factor.

In the review I posted you'll see the HD 3000 beats the 5450 in almost every game and in 3DMark benchmarks. For example:

3dmark-2.png


crysis-2.png


l4d-2.png


f1-2.png


civ-2.png


StarCraft II is the only game in this review that the 5450 was faster.

starcraft-2.png


The OP was asking which was better the nvidia 210 or Intel HD2000. My opinion is the HD3000 is better, it performs as well if not better in every game and doesn't require you to spend extra on a GPU. I acutally said it was close to the nvidia 220 but I'd call it a 215 as I feel it falls somewhere between the 210 and 220. The HD2000 isn't as good as the 3000 so the review I posted can be used to compare. I would think the 210 and 2000 perform almost the same.

There are a ton of people out there playing games on chips like this and they are fine with it. I wasn't, I said it was playable but I want sometime more than that. I want to crank the details as I enjoy the game better that way. That is why I upgraded to a evga 460ftw.

Hell I still know of people playing older games on the old ATI Xpress 200 series chipsets, a lot of older games play fine on that with lower res and detail settings. My wife's computer with a single core AMD 3200+ and Xpress 200 chip plays WOW just fine on 1280x1024 with lowest settings.

Obviously if the OP is considering the nvidia 210 or hd 2000 they aren't looking for high end graphics, for what it is the hd 3000 is a pretty good entry level chipset and the 2000 a little less so.
 
Last edited:
Nice find, it is surprising that the Intel HD3000 is faster than an HD5450. Intel has come a long way with their IGPs, and now that it's in an APU form factor, it will be far more power efficient.

Yeah, the NVIDIA 210 is a very low end card, considerable to an 8400GS in all respects. I'm actually not surprised that it would be faster than that, but I am surprised about the HD5450.
 
Back
Top