My laptop has the similar but slightly slower 4000 and I was really surprised at what I have been able to play. I think the most demanding game I've played was the Tomb Raider though it more or less was set on low settings.
Some games that ran well on my system were Bioshock 1, Batman Arkham Asylum, Street Fighter X Tekken, Street Figher 4, Two Worlds 2, Left 4 Dead, The Witcher 1. Those things aren't exactly "modern" by some people's definitions, but I wasn't really expecting them to be options with an integrated solution. And many of them ran very well to boot, not just playable.
Some others that run well which are newer are; Shadowrun Returns, SOTS: The Pit, Strike Suit Zero, Defense Grid 2.
I usually punt any serious gaming the way of my desktop so there are a lot of more graphically intense options I've never tried, but some things that don't run are MK9, and Injustice Gods Among Us.
Given how awful Intel's integrated solutions use to be it's kinda exiting that they are very viable for gaming now IF you have some realistic expectations about what to expect. Mostly that means looking at less intensive games dialed down, and games from a few years back. That still leaves a lot of gaming options, especially when shopping here.
cogadh: Gotta agree with Navagon on this one. Integrated Intel graphics, especially low-power laptop graphics, are almost never good for any kind of serious gaming, despite massive improvements they have made over the years.
EDIT - just checked my son's laptop (it has Intel HD graphics) and here's a sample of some of the games he has no issue playing:
...
And ones that fail to run pretty much at all:
All the Arkham games
....
Strike Suit Zero
....
I find that a little weird. Both run well for me. SSZ probably runs at a steady(ish) 60 fps with everything but AA on high. Most of the "will it run" scenarios say I shouldn't be able to run Arkham Asylum, but I runs about as well as it does on my Xbox. Haven't tried Arkham City or Origins.