Welcome to the Power Users community on Codidact!
Power Users is a Q&A site for questions about the usage of computer software and hardware. We are still a small site and would like to grow, so please consider joining our community. We are looking forward to your questions and answers; they are the building blocks of a repository of knowledge we are building together.
Post History
You're in a bit of a period of transition - and it's a little more complicated than one would assume. A decade is a very long time, and both 'big' CPU makers are transitioning towards much more cap...
Answer
#3: Post edited
by
Michael
·
2024-08-13T14:42:47Z (2 months ago)
Some grammar improvements. (Hi JG! Welcome!)
You're in a bit of a period of transition - and its a *little* more complicated than one would assume. A decade is a *very* long time, and both 'big' CPU makers are transitioning towards much more capable architectures - Intel ARC's much more capable than older intel onboard, and AMD's good enough. If you're doing transcoding, intel also has quicksync on board, which is handy. I *think* both could run circles around say, a Nvidia 6xx or its AMD equivilent- > Can I expect my old graphics card to work with modern budget CPUs? What specific compatibility issues might I have to look out for, or how can I research this?
- The *hardware* should still be compatible. There's a distinct chance that an onboard graphics solution is better. However - a lot of older cards from around that era are likely not supported *driverwise* on a modern platform. If they're not EOL already, they will be soon.
- > How would the power of integrated graphics on these CPUs likely compare to my old graphics card? I can easily find benchmarks for separate video cards and (by a different metric) the actual CPU performance of CPUs, but not for the video performance of integrated GPUs.
Possibly on par or better on the bottom most end. I'm pretty sure the really cut down GPU on my 3rd gen (we're at 9 now?) laptop grade AMD ryzen is good enough for very very low end gaming.- > Notwithstanding that, if I get a CPU with integrated graphics, would keeping my existing video card plugged in likely make a noticeable difference in performance? If it wouldn't, I think I might prefer to save the power draw.
On the medium/low end 10 years ago, I doubt its going to be a good option. Might as well get a 'better' new system and run that.
- You're in a bit of a period of transition - and it's a *little* more complicated than one would assume. A decade is a *very* long time, and both 'big' CPU makers are transitioning towards much more capable architectures - Intel ARC is much more capable than older Intel onboard, and AMD is good enough. If you're doing transcoding, Intel also has Quick Sync on board, which is handy. I *think* both could run circles around say, a Nvidia 6xx or its AMD equivalent.
- > Can I expect my old graphics card to work with modern budget CPUs? What specific compatibility issues might I have to look out for, or how can I research this?
- The *hardware* should still be compatible. There's a distinct chance that an onboard graphics solution is better. However - a lot of older cards from around that era are likely not supported *driverwise* on a modern platform. If they're not EOL already, they will be soon.
- > How would the power of integrated graphics on these CPUs likely compare to my old graphics card? I can easily find benchmarks for separate video cards and (by a different metric) the actual CPU performance of CPUs, but not for the video performance of integrated GPUs.
- Possibly on par or better on the bottom most end. I'm pretty sure the really cut down GPU on my 3rd gen (we're at 9 now?) laptop grade AMD Ryzen is good enough for very very low end gaming.
- > Notwithstanding that, if I get a CPU with integrated graphics, would keeping my existing video card plugged in likely make a noticeable difference in performance? If it wouldn't, I think I might prefer to save the power draw.
- On the medium/low end 10 years ago, I doubt it's going to be a good option. Might as well get a 'better' new system and run that.
#2: Post edited
by
Journeymangeek
·
2024-08-12T11:26:05Z (2 months ago)
You're in a bit of a period of transition - and its a *little* more complicated than one would assume. A decade is a *very* long time, and both 'big' CPU makers are transitioning towards much more capable architectures - Intel ARC's much more capable than older intel onboard, and AMD's good enough. If you're doing transcoding, intel also has quicksync on board, which is handy.- > Can I expect my old graphics card to work with modern budget CPUs? What specific compatibility issues might I have to look out for, or how can I research this?
- The *hardware* should still be compatible. There's a distinct chance that an onboard graphics solution is better. However - a lot of older cards from around that era are likely not supported *driverwise* on a modern platform. If they're not EOL already, they will be soon.
- > How would the power of integrated graphics on these CPUs likely compare to my old graphics card? I can easily find benchmarks for separate video cards and (by a different metric) the actual CPU performance of CPUs, but not for the video performance of integrated GPUs.
- Possibly on par or better on the bottom most end. I'm pretty sure the really cut down GPU on my 3rd gen (we're at 9 now?) laptop grade AMD ryzen is good enough for very very low end gaming.
- > Notwithstanding that, if I get a CPU with integrated graphics, would keeping my existing video card plugged in likely make a noticeable difference in performance? If it wouldn't, I think I might prefer to save the power draw.
- On the medium/low end 10 years ago, I doubt its going to be a good option. Might as well get a 'better' new system and run that.
- You're in a bit of a period of transition - and its a *little* more complicated than one would assume. A decade is a *very* long time, and both 'big' CPU makers are transitioning towards much more capable architectures - Intel ARC's much more capable than older intel onboard, and AMD's good enough. If you're doing transcoding, intel also has quicksync on board, which is handy. I *think* both could run circles around say, a Nvidia 6xx or its AMD equivilent
- > Can I expect my old graphics card to work with modern budget CPUs? What specific compatibility issues might I have to look out for, or how can I research this?
- The *hardware* should still be compatible. There's a distinct chance that an onboard graphics solution is better. However - a lot of older cards from around that era are likely not supported *driverwise* on a modern platform. If they're not EOL already, they will be soon.
- > How would the power of integrated graphics on these CPUs likely compare to my old graphics card? I can easily find benchmarks for separate video cards and (by a different metric) the actual CPU performance of CPUs, but not for the video performance of integrated GPUs.
- Possibly on par or better on the bottom most end. I'm pretty sure the really cut down GPU on my 3rd gen (we're at 9 now?) laptop grade AMD ryzen is good enough for very very low end gaming.
- > Notwithstanding that, if I get a CPU with integrated graphics, would keeping my existing video card plugged in likely make a noticeable difference in performance? If it wouldn't, I think I might prefer to save the power draw.
- On the medium/low end 10 years ago, I doubt its going to be a good option. Might as well get a 'better' new system and run that.
#1: Initial revision
by
Journeymangeek
·
2024-08-12T11:24:43Z (2 months ago)
You're in a bit of a period of transition - and its a *little* more complicated than one would assume. A decade is a *very* long time, and both 'big' CPU makers are transitioning towards much more capable architectures - Intel ARC's much more capable than older intel onboard, and AMD's good enough. If you're doing transcoding, intel also has quicksync on board, which is handy. > Can I expect my old graphics card to work with modern budget CPUs? What specific compatibility issues might I have to look out for, or how can I research this? The *hardware* should still be compatible. There's a distinct chance that an onboard graphics solution is better. However - a lot of older cards from around that era are likely not supported *driverwise* on a modern platform. If they're not EOL already, they will be soon. > How would the power of integrated graphics on these CPUs likely compare to my old graphics card? I can easily find benchmarks for separate video cards and (by a different metric) the actual CPU performance of CPUs, but not for the video performance of integrated GPUs. Possibly on par or better on the bottom most end. I'm pretty sure the really cut down GPU on my 3rd gen (we're at 9 now?) laptop grade AMD ryzen is good enough for very very low end gaming. > Notwithstanding that, if I get a CPU with integrated graphics, would keeping my existing video card plugged in likely make a noticeable difference in performance? If it wouldn't, I think I might prefer to save the power draw. On the medium/low end 10 years ago, I doubt its going to be a good option. Might as well get a 'better' new system and run that.