hey, i was wondering. I was looking at the4 intel i3 530 on newegg and it says it has video built in. someone told me it doesnt and someone said it does. does this really have built in video into the cpu so i dont need a video card. Ty

http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=46472

It does have built in graphics, running at 733mhz. In order to use the graphics I believe you will need either a H55 or H57 board. I don't thing the P55 boards use the on-cpu graphics.

k thnx alot ur positive right? im building a computer so im gonna get the h55

The integrated graphics is probably not recommended unless you're just browsing the web and running some non-graphics intensive apps... it will probably struggle with HD video and any sort of gaming.

I believe it has some dedicated hardware for HD decoding. But indeed for gaming it will be quite insufficient unless we're talking Solitaire & such games.

I decided to resurrect this thread since you're just a tad to harsh on Intel's new graphics.

First of all, "Solitare" requires a Windows 7 graphics score of >>2.0<< to run.

The Intel G41 integrated graphics scores @ 4.3 (Areo), and 3.5 (business and gaming) in Win 7, and it easily pumps out recorded OTA TV from Media center without a hitch.

Now, the new Core i3 CPUs turn in scores of 5.3 (Windows "Aero") and 5.5 ("business and gaming"). So no, they won't run "Crysis" at full res, but there isn't much in home theater that is beyond their capability, and I'm sure that many older games would run well enough to be entertaining.

The Windows 7 G-41 & i3-530 scores are from my personal machines.

I would be interested in hearing the kinds of scores that the low end Nvidia cards, (8400GT to 9500GT) turn in with the Win 7 "experience index"

Well saying only solitaire would play on such a GPU is pushing it a bit far, I agree. It's just that Intel has built such a bad reputation over the years that bad habits have become hard to lose. ;-)

Intel's GPUs aren't exactly built with gaming in mind.... so what sort of reputation are you talking about?

Btw, they hold the biggest slice of the GPU market as it is (in number of CPUs sold). Its just not the same market we're used to discussing here in Techspot, or any other computer hardware forum.

but graphics really works?

i ended up gettin the i3 and the computer is all built.

the video is fine for now. im having no problems with videos or anything with the video. thnx alot

[STRIKE]Yes[/STRIKE]
Nah just advertisement propaganda.
Edit: what there really needs to be a strike out option .

Duh, Dude, indeed dey do.

HD 3650 rates a 4.8
9500GT rates a 5.5
8600GT rates a 5.6
5.9 seems a popular number- 9600GT (5.6 gaming)/8800GT/9800GT/8800GTS (inc SLI setups)
There a few threads around dealing with the scores/vagaries of the W7 "Experience"
such as this and this

This actually makes a great deal of sense, since I recall reading specs about these cards. Basically the next lower number 9xxx series cards would equal, (or surpass by a smidge), the next higher number 8xxx series card.

I perused these 2 threads and something jumped out at me. "WEI" apparently takes into account whether a CPU is quad core without fail. Even the aging Q6600 scores over 7! I'm reasonably confident that a Core i3--530 (at stock speed) would perform a fair amount better on many, many tasks in the real world, I think I'm reading a WEI of 6.8 or 6.9 @ stock with my i3-530. (Machine not hooked up ATM).

Hmm.... a newer, "budget" dual core vs an older quad core. Should be an interesting comparison.

I just did a quick google, and I think the results show they are quite similar, with the expected variances between quad and dual core.

I'd still stick with the Q6600 due to its overclockability though... the results I found were for stock CPUs.

Brace Yourself, This is about to Become One of Those English Language Threads....

So, basically what we're saying here, is that the i3-530 would have to beat the Q6600 of one hand tied behind its back. Overclocked Q6600 vs the i3-530 at stock speed. Where's the doctrine of fairness in that? "The Tech Report" website reports the 530 stable up to 4.4Ghz on air...! http://techreport.com/articles.x/18448 BTW, this is is great CPU test article, I think DBZ was the first to come up with it.

The i3-530 is way beyond outstanding value when it's compared to a CPU, (Q6600), that spent most of it's product life selling for $279.95 (Newegg), and a CPU (i3-530) which you have been able to walk in a Microcenter and leave with for $99.95 going on several months now...!

(OK, I fudged and did a little "apples to oranges comparison of my own there. The Core i3-530's normal sell @ Newegg is $119.95 w/free shipping). (I'm going back under my bridge now, you won't have captaincranky to kick around, (at least not for a couple of hours anyway)).

The q6600 is pathetically old now, its not really a good comparison.

The Q6600 actually benchmarks above the i3-530 in a few tests that specifically favor the true quad core. However, in the real world, the i3-530 wins handily, and does so with about half the energy consumption. In the comparison that can't be made honestly, (Q6600 out of production), you could buy an i3-530, and a good deal of the computer to put it in, for what the Q6600 would have cost you not so many months ago.

Not to mention the graphics are good enough to be able to say, "for a hundred and twenty bucks, you get a rippin' fast C2D, and a free 8400GS video card.

Well, I wouldn't suggest to anyone to get a Q6600 now. Unless its second hand at a pretty good bargain I suppose.

However, if one were to question an upgrade from Q6600 to an i3, I'd question if it was worth it.