Which of these two is better? I have both of them in my PC. I have heard that the hd graphics does better than the nvidia gt 610. Would it make any difference if I disable the nvidia card and use the intel graphics? Or do both of them work together in sync?
You really, seriously believe that the Intel HD is better than the Nvidia?! Then the joke is on you, my friend. I don't know where you got your info, but it's just flat-out wrong.
Try play a relatively recent game with the Intel HD forcefully set as your primary card (in the Nvidia Control Panel). It may run OK, maybe not. Then forcefully set the Nvidia as your primary card and play the same game again. You'll see how much better it runs. Maybe not great, but it will beat the Intel HD by a mile any day.
Combo Intel HD/Nvidia setups are known as Optimus. The Intel will generally run the primary display when not gaming, but the Nvidia should (but not always) automatically take the reigns when a game or other 3D application is started. But you can forcefully set either the Intel or the Nvidia as the primary display to override this behavior. I will assume you have a laptop rather than a desktop, I also have an Alienware laptop with Optimus. I play games on it all the times, including newer games like Grand Theft Auto V, Fallout 4, etc, they run pretty well for the most part (after some tweaking). But I have forcefully set the Nvidia to run as primary all the time.
By searching with google, which lead to many sites with benchmark and people with similar question, I found that Intel HD 4000 is better than gt610. And intel hd 4600 is better than intel hd 4000.
So the conclusion is intel hd 4600 is better than gt610.
Intel really should consider buying out Nvidia, or at least significantly beef up the graphics processing unit of their chips so it is suitable for consideration by serious gamers. This would likely drive AMD into the ground.
Quote