Integrated Graphics performing faster than ATI?

[blobface007]

Here's the issue.
My HP ProBook 4730s contains switchable graphics. One of which, is an ATI Radeon HD 7470M, and the other is a generic Intel HD Family. Now, I can assure you that when I switch between cards, they switch properly, and are in the correct order. I have checked with many different methods. Now to the actual issue. In low and medium end games, my Intel out preforms my ATI my miles. For example, in Trackmania United Forever, on my ATI, medium settings, 720p, no AA = 20fps.
Intel, max settings, 900p (native res), 4x AA = 60fps.
However, if I play Mirror's Edge, these results are inverted, thus proving that the ATI is more powerful.

What I can only conclude is that the ATI is attempting to conserve power by limiting it's performance in low end games. Problem is, I have configured it for max performance in every setting I can find. I just don't get it.

Help would be appreciated as to how to get around this. I know this is a powerful laptop, but it's holding itself back.

 

[blobface007]

You know what you doing.

Shameless self bump, for great justice.

 

[FuturDreamz]

The Intel "card" is actually a graphics subsystem that's built directly into the processor (it's a HD Graphics 3000 BTW), and has direct access to system memory and the processing cores.

the AMD chip is separate from the processor, and has a more limited connection to the processor, and has to rely on it's own (somewhat limted) memory. It's more powerful than the HD 3000, but it has bottlenecks when working with other components.

Does that help a little?

 

[blobface007]

I know how they work, and what resources they use. But surely a dedicated system would be faster than shared CPU? Surely? I just don't understand why the Intel outpreforms the ATI so much in non intensive games. It clearly underpreforms in games using advanced engines like Frostbite or Source, but the Intel devastates the ATI in most indie, 2D and low-profile games. It makes no sense.