I have a stupid question to ask. What is better a NVidia GeForce4 Ti 4200 or a intel(R) 12344G Graphic controller? The intel(R) 12344G Graphic controller is inside a friend's new computer and he said it was better than my old GeForce4, Is he right? Does anyone want to compare?

Moved to hardware discussion.

A google search for "intel 12344g" turns up nothing, and it sounds like an old controller, so I'd have to say the GeForce. I'm not sure, but I would be surprised if it wasn't the case. In my experience, Intel onboard GPUs have really only gotten decent with the 9xx series.

Which brings us to the main point: why compare with someone else? If your gpu is inadequate, you simply upgrade.

Anyways, hope that cleared it up somewhat.

If the 12344G is the same as the "Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 3000" then it will do shader model 3, which is better than model 1 that the Ti 4200 does. (Actually, most recent Intel built-in graphics have shader model 2, so they're "better" in that sense, too)

The problem with most Intel Extreme / built-in graphics is that they use the CPU for transforming vertices, as well as use unified graphics memory (shared with the CPU); thus, they will run slower than most dedicated graphics cards. However, the latest version of the 3000 actually has hardware transform (four pipelines) so it might be reasonably fast. It still has shared memory, but memory technology has come a lot further since the Ti 4200, so it's probably capable there, too.

All in all, if it's the hardware-transform version of the 3000, then it's likely he speaks the truth. If it's a software-transform version of the 3000, then it's more murky. If it's something earlier, like the 82915G or 82945G, it'll do shader model 2, but not as fast as the Ti 4200 does shader model 1.