How bad is Intel 4000 HD video?

LongLensPhotography

LongLensPhotography

Th..th..that's all folks!
Suspended / Banned
Messages
18,695
Name
LongLensPhotography
Edit My Images
No
Please tell me your experience with INTEL 4000 HD, on mac if possible.

It will drive a 2560x1440 27", and has to be nice and smooth. It needs to play HD videos without frame skipping, and well just work. I don't play any games, but some minor video editing could be expected once I get 5DIII.

So will 4000 HD cut the mustard?

I am considering mac mini 2.7 i7 quad core, 16GB (crucial) and fusion drive. For the price it's good, it leaves me in a good position to get 5DIII shortly after. This may cause my buying a MBA a year or two later.

Contenders - the top spec 15" retina, or top spec 27" imac (selling of my Dell monitor). iMac is only considered if it is truly non-glossy (CANT STAND REFLECTIONS of any sort)
 
For video editing it's fine, the video decoding block is as good as most discrete cards so playback shouldn't be a problem and for the output you'll want to use the CPU for encoding for optimal quality.

Main advantage for a discrete card will be if the software you use has some OpenGL or OpenCL accelerated effect.
 
Thorburn said:
For video editing it's fine, the video decoding block is as good as most discrete cards so playback shouldn't be a problem and for the output you'll want to use the CPU for encoding for optimal quality.

Main advantage for a discrete card will be if the software you use has some OpenGL or OpenCL accelerated effect.
Click to expand...

OK, so it would be acceptable then? I might delay iMac/MBP then considering 27" retina will be out sooner or later, and the video card in those can't deal with one - so best to buy "cheap" for now?
 
If you're going to be hitting the system hard in Photoshop then you might want to do a bit more research as I wouldn't want to give a definite answer either way and I'm not an expert when it comes to OS X.

If you're looking for support for very high resolution displays then GMA HD 4000 will be getting a driver update to allow it to support 4K soon (if it isn't already out) using a pair of DisplayPort outputs - no idea if Apple will be supporting it though

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6270/ivy-bridge-gets-4k-display-support-in-october
 
daugirdas said:
then considering 27" retina will be out sooner or later, and the video card in those can't deal with one - so best to buy "cheap" for now?
Click to expand...

It will be a fair old while before we see over 4k desktop displays that are realistically priced. a 27" "retina" display would be around 5200 pixels across. I reckon at least a couple of years if not longer before that happens. When it does, yes, you'll need a more powerful GPU or GPUs.

It depends what your doing though. Photoshop doesn't need a very powerful GPU. Gaming is the area that required the most grunt. I game at 2560x1600 on a 30" display, and I need 2x 670 GPUs to get away with that. To game on a "retina" 27 or 30" now would actually be impossible at decent frame rates with even the most powerful GPUs available.
 
I've spent a bit of time in apple store playing with the iToys, watching some HD movies from iplayer (flash version).

The playback seemed fairly smooth but I just wasn't sure it was completely fluid, maybe it was the flash compression.

The 27" cinema looks so bad compared to my dell 2711 that I am going to forget about the new imacs. When they release retina and non glossy I will have another think.

So it's probably the mini this time; I just feel sick of spending £800 on a fairly average spec desktop. I might be better of geting new MBP 2 years later and keep the old one while on the go.
 
You should see the retina compared to the cinema.. I had a new retina MacBook plugged into a 27" Thunderbolt Display on my desk the other day and it looked a pile of crap :lol:
 
neil_g said:
You should see the retina compared to the cinema.. I had a new retina MacBook plugged into a 27" Thunderbolt Display on my desk the other day and it looked a pile of crap :lol:
Click to expand...

that's exactly what I did there. But saying that the Dell is comfortably somewhere between the two, while 15" is personally just too small for normal work.
 
neil_g said:
You should see the retina compared to the cinema.. I had a new retina MacBook plugged into a 27" Thunderbolt Display on my desk the other day and it looked a pile of crap :lol:
Click to expand...

Yeah, but resolution aside, it's tiny. I don't understand how anyone can do serious work on any laptop screen, retina or otherwise. In fact, I don't understand how anyone can work on less than 2 screens either.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Yeah, but resolution aside, it's tiny. I don't understand how anyone can do serious work on any laptop screen, retina or otherwise. In fact, I don't understand how anyone can work on less than 2 screens either.
Click to expand...

Granted. I'm saying the screen quality difference was huge.
 
neil_g said:
Granted. I'm saying the screen quality difference was huge.
Click to expand...

Indeed... and as soon as 4K screens become available I'll be on that bandwagon quick smart... but it won't be an Apple screen. I'll stick with Eizo or NEC I think.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Yeah, but resolution aside, it's tiny. I don't understand how anyone can do serious work on any laptop screen, retina or otherwise. In fact, I don't understand how anyone can work on less than 2 screens either.
Click to expand...

Quite happy working on a 1080p 13.3" screen running at 96DPI in Windows, so long as it's high enough resolution that I can run side-by-side web browsers I'm happy.

Unfortunately today I'm stuck with a 15.6" 1366x768 laptop as my girlfriend needed mine, and it's horrible. :thumbsdown:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top