I agree with Sudamericano, i don't why most of the folks here had to make a big commotion over intel hd 4000 performance or notebookcheck's benchmark test. Let's use the common principle here: discrete (dedicated graphics cards) = high level gaming, integrated cards = low gaming, that's how we know it.
I use to own a system with a Intel Pentium dual-core T4200 processor and the dreaded 4500m of the GMA series and it was poor in gaming. I'm already make plans to obtain a laptop with a more powerful i3-3120m 3rd gen dual core processor and hd 4000 in it and expect this system to do better than my old system on any level even on games.
But since both 4500m and hd 4000 are integrated cards i didn't expect any to play high level games but on the contrary, hd 4000 is faster and better. Not that i want to be a hardcore gamer but more on casual level so i make no regrets choosing the latter system, i just want it for more performance.  And i did this without complaining but researching more about computer specs.

If you are a "gamer" play with a system with a dedicated powerful videocard or with a expensive laptop for gaming, and stop bictching about igps, apus, or whatever. Some people do not bother the sawtooth (just see some games in PS3 and Xbox360 lol), low resolution, or mid/low details.  Get over it!
HD 4000 is a decent IGP for CASUAL gamers, as stated in article. Maybe the benchmarks aren't accurate, but you can have an idea about the igp

How much is Mobile Intel HD 4000's graphics memory? 64MB?

Why only test against the A-6 and A-8 APU's and leave out the A-10 APU's?

hey bud, great article, though it's one year old i got what what i needed out of it. just needed to understand where about the hd 4000 fits in the "ballpark". nice detail,appreciate the updates. thanks for taking the time to write it. MrSqueezeMe.

This is total crap you cant even oc the igpu a ati 6410D oced to 1200 mhz will beat that crap any time of day.And you compare the strongest mobile cpu to some low and middle end ones lets copmare that to a desktop with a amd fx 4150,6 GB of ram at 1600 and nvidia 520/610GT the performance would be 10x better then the intel igpu crap.Face it intel fanboys intel is to lazy to make any normal drivers so if you want budget pc go with amd apu or nvidia loewer end

Quote from: Hony on January 20, 2013, 23:18:17
I have 2 full HD screens connected to my Intel HD 2500 (i3 3220T) - LCD 23" / DVI and Plasma TV / HDMI. Would you believe that full HD video on one screen is not fluent while I'm browsing internet on the other one? (or even while it's just on?) quite wondering why??? (cpu is at 20% so nothing really much happening here). If i only use 1 screen it's ok (using xbmc). Could you recommend Intel HD 4000 to improve this???

My HD4000 handels 2 displays quiet good. Only playing movies on both screens make it a bit laging, but not too bad.

Your benchmarks are SERIOUSLY SKEWED.  You mostly used very much slower processors with the video cards, thus giving inaccurate benchmark results. If you look closely at your "bar graph" you see that an i3 processor system with an entry level video card will consistently outperform an i7 processor system with the "Intel HD 4000".  This only proves that "integrated video" is still crap.
- Rashid

I have 2 full HD screens connected to my Intel HD 2500 (i3 3220T) - LCD 23" / DVI and Plasma TV / HDMI. Would you believe that full HD video on one screen is not fluent while I'm browsing internet on the other one? (or even while it's just on?) quite wondering why??? (cpu is at 20% so nothing really much happening here). If i only use 1 screen it's ok (using xbmc). Could you recommend Intel HD 4000 to improve this???

I'm amused by many of the comments here. Some people are talking about LOW END graphics solutions as if they are bleeding edge card competitions. The difference between 17 and 24 fps is significant, but come on, neither are really acceptable if you are a real gamer.

Having said that, I have a new MacBook Pro with a dual core i7 HD4000 chip (4MB L3 cache) and I did not plan on doing any gaming on it, but after doing some trials in Mountain Lion and Windows 7, I find that I can run Wow, LoTRO, Civ5, STO, Dragons Age, and other games not just adequately, but beautifully. Of course, none of the these are especially demanding games, but again, it isn't my gaming system, and I knew what I was getting in video when I bought it.

On top of it all, unlike the gaming laptops I've owned, the whole system remains cool and quiet during the most demanding gaming I've thrown at it. Much different than past systems that almost burned my hands on the wrist rests.

My conclusion based on my 3 month usage experience with this system is that, if you are a person that does moderate gaming and need a laptop or all-in-one system without a discrete graphics card for moderate gaming you can do a lot worse, and based on the content of the article, getting a quad core version of this i7 will grant an even better graphics experience.

These tests are just showing not to expect much from Intel HD Graphics 4000.  If you look at all the test results all the Intel HD Graphics 4000 computers had Intel Core i7 processor which not many go for because of how expensive it is and the other computers had i5 and lower and produced results near or better than the 4000 with i7.

Intel... Please buy NVDIA or AMD so you can improve your graphics chip. Come on!

Agree with the rest of the above. very dissapointed by notebookcheck. Intel > Amd on raw power but Amd APU's are by far the best Integrated Graphics for now

AMD's just plain suck, get over it!

Apple is using the HD 4000 in it's newest macbook airs and it's able to drive an external 27" display very well plus play mongo mongo all day with daytime.NBC