Are integrated graphics ALWAYS the wrong choice?

[Smoolean]

Which would offer better performance...

GeForce FX200 XT AGP 8X 128MB graphics card

or

Intel® Graphics Media Accelerator 900 224MB

Those two are basically the deciding factor between two computers that I am debating over.

 

[saltedeggman]

From those options, I don't think you'd be a gamer, so go with whatever is cheaper

 

[Jiggz]

Since I have neither of the cards you're asking I cannot comment. But for the heading question about Integrated Graphic cards, not necessarily. It all depends on what you will use it for. For sure it's not designed for games especially 3D games. So if you plan on using it for 3D games, don't get no integrated card.

 

[Smoolean]

Correct, I am not a gamer. I will be using the computer for graphic/web design (Photoshop + Flash), and on the side, just for fun, hopefully a little video editing.

 

[wchou]

Originally posted by: Smoolean
Correct, I am not a gamer. I will be using the computer for graphic/web design (Photoshop + Flash), and on the side, just for fun, hopefully a little video editing.

The only way to find out is to use the build in video and if you find it too slow then chuck in your AGP wonder and enjoy 😀

 

[volrath]

I see you bolded the texture memory. That doesn't do anything for you in your situation.

 

[Smoolean]

Originally posted by: volrath
I see you bolded the texture memory. That doesn't do anything for you in your situation.

What stats/specs should I be looking for when shopping for a graphic card?

 

[imported_Kensai]

That's when it starts getting complicated. You'll want to look at fill rate, core clock, memory clock, pixel pipelines, vertex shaders, etc. etc.

 

[w00t]

for gaming intergrated suxs unless you play games that dont need good graphics cards ( cs 1.6, gunbound, and others) xpress 200 intergrated graphics are good.

 

[Dr X]

Intergrated graphics would be fine for your use - todays intergrated graphics chips are more than powerful enough for heavy 2d work.

 

[wchou]

Originally posted by: Dr X
Intergrated graphics would be fine for your use - todays intergrated graphics chips are more than powerful enough for heavy 2d work.

The problems is that it will be slower then an external card regardless. I find that onboard video are both slow in 2d and 3d. Is playing divx movies 3d??? Hell no, and if its not fast enough that it just plain sucks. Find out for yourself by using Performance Test and you will see a noticeable difference between onboard and a video card.
FYI, slow 2d = slow 3d since they are related and share the same bandwidth.

 

[knothead34]

Originally posted by: Smoolean
Which would offer better performance...

GeForce FX200 XT AGP 8X 128MB graphics card

or

Intel® Graphics Media Accelerator 900 224MB

Those two are basically the deciding factor between two computers that I am debating over.

did you mean fx5200 video card? if so yeah that would be much better then integrated. you can get low end video cards cheap its worth it to have a video card vs onboard graphics.

 

[Dr X]

Originally posted by: wchou

Originally posted by: Dr X
Intergrated graphics would be fine for your use - todays intergrated graphics chips are more than powerful enough for heavy 2d work.

The problems is that it will be slower then an external card regardless. I find that onboard video are both slow in 2d and 3d. Is playing divx movies 3d??? Hell no, and if its not fast enough that it just plain sucks. Find out for yourself by using Performance Test and you will see a noticeable difference between onboard and a video card.
FYI, slow 2d = slow 3d since they are related and share the same bandwidth.

Firstly, consider that he's already said he wont be using it for games, so 3D is not an issue. Secondly, find me ANY onboard card in a new motherboard that cant keep up in a 2D environment. I've used MANY and they can all EASILY dvix. I dont care what a performance benchmark tells me, because I have real world experience.

You can harp on about how it's better to have a seperate card, but at the end of the day, you need to weigh up whether it's simply wasted money, which in this case, I believe it would be.

 

[Promethply]

If you're not into 3D games, the integrated graphics will do.

 

[CrispyFried]

Originally posted by: Dr X

Originally posted by: wchou


The problems is that it will be slower then an external card regardless. I find that onboard video are both slow in 2d and 3d. Is playing divx movies 3d??? Hell no, and if its not fast enough that it just plain sucks. Find out for yourself by using Performance Test and you will see a noticeable difference between onboard and a video card.
FYI, slow 2d = slow 3d since they are related and share the same bandwidth.

Firstly, consider that he's already said he wont be using it for games, so 3D is not an issue. Secondly, find me ANY onboard card in a new motherboard that cant keep up in a 2D environment. I've used MANY and they can all EASILY dvix. I dont care what a performance benchmark tells me, because I have real world experience.

You can harp on about how it's better to have a seperate card, but at the end of the day, you need to weigh up whether it's simply wasted money, which in this case, I believe it would be.

Agreed, Ive run divx on pretty old on board graphics (whatever was included with the intel 810e chipset) and its fine. And that was with a Celeron 733.

On board graphics for non gaming is fine 99% of the time.

 

[vitec]

Just adding to the initial question - I have a Intel 1.7 Ghz, 512 MB 266 RAM, Geforce 2 MX 400 - 64 MB setup. It plays Age of Mythology, Medieval - Total War, Rise of Nations without any issues (all at 1024*768). Yes I'm a RTS fanboy and not much of a shooter 🙂

* Will going for AMD 3000+, ATI Radeon 200 Express (integrated video), 512 MB RAM improve the performance in the above games?
* Can I hope to play Rome - Total War with this new setup ?

Planning to add 6600GT and another 512 MB stick after 6 months or so for AOE III.

 

[wchou]

Originally posted by: Dr X

Originally posted by: wchou

Originally posted by: Dr X
Intergrated graphics would be fine for your use - todays intergrated graphics chips are more than powerful enough for heavy 2d work.

The problems is that it will be slower then an external card regardless. I find that onboard video are both slow in 2d and 3d. Is playing divx movies 3d??? Hell no, and if its not fast enough that it just plain sucks. Find out for yourself by using Performance Test and you will see a noticeable difference between onboard and a video card.
FYI, slow 2d = slow 3d since they are related and share the same bandwidth.

Firstly, consider that he's already said he wont be using it for games, so 3D is not an issue. Secondly, find me ANY onboard card in a new motherboard that cant keep up in a 2D environment. I've used MANY and they can all EASILY dvix. I dont care what a performance benchmark tells me, because I have real world experience.

You can harp on about how it's better to have a seperate card, but at the end of the day, you need to weigh up whether it's simply wasted money, which in this case, I believe it would be.

you still don't get my drift
you stilll dont, get my drift!

a low end video card is still faster!~ and I bought this sucker called Geforce MX200 16mb apg 4x for only 14.00, that's right only 14.00 and it was still faster by a margin say 200%
And this is only a 2ghz system. At 1ghz, the onboard video seems to run considerably slower! but for a video card, it has little effect!
if you think i am shouting then maybe I am 😀

Believe whatever you want to believe but as you will come to understand, knowledge is power and you do not grasp any of it so far. Sorry but you need to compare a low end video card and see for yourself. Plus onboard video share memory with your ram, that is the real reason it sucks no matter what. Why video card is faster? it doesn't use your ram, it doesn't steal cpu cycle from your system, it has it's own cpu galled GPU

Get a clue already and get some education yourself.

Have a nice day,


I mean a very nice day.

:music:

 

[wchou]

To the OP,

It's not just a wrong choice, it's a bad choice. Believe it or not, onboard is for the lazy and for the real stingy people who wouldn't shell out a little more dough for better performance and stability.

The onboard video does not like generic ram, hence why most hate generic ram. If they would use video card, there's no reason to spend more on ram and use that money toward a decent vga card.

Lesson of the day? It doesn't pay to be a cheap ass mofu 😀

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: wchou
you still don't get my drift
you stilll dont, get my drift!

a low end video card is still faster!~

NO! It is only faster if you can notice it being faster.

Onboard graphics are for those who know what they are going to be doing with a computer, and knowing that for their uses there is no perceived speed difference.

Originally posted by: wchou
The onboard video does not like generic ram, hence why most hate generic ram. If they would use video card, there's no reason to spend more on ram and use that money toward a decent vga card.

People hate generic ram because it fails at a far higher rate than memory from respected manufacturers. Would your twisted words actually be implying it's better to buy generic ram with agp video than quality ram with integrated video? If so, that logic alone is proof that the OP should not trust your judgement at all.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Integreated graphics will likely be fine for your apps. If you want improved quality for 2d apps, I highly recommend a Matrox vid card. Even a $50 Matrox card will offer excellent quality 2d output.

 

[Gurck]

Onboard is fine if you don't plan on gaming. A lot of people in this forum have trouble realizing some people don't game and don't need a pair of 6800Us in SLI 😉

 

[Booster]

Are integrated graphics ALWAYS the wrong choice?

Modern integrated chipsets have good 2D performance unlike the first generation, so they're fine starting approximately with Intel 845G/GL. Anything older than that is complete crap even for regular Windows/video etc. apps, and the newer the better.

But keep in mind, very rarely integrated chipsets have DVI output on the motherboard. There is typically only 1 15-pin D-Sub, that's what you get. If you need a DVI or dual monitor setup integrated just isn't the way to go right now.

Personally I'd stick with the cheapest external card that'll give me 3 outputs instead of one crappy analog and will be faster at the same time.

 

[piroroadkill]

I heard the Intel GMA900 had terrible 2D graphics quality, and nVIDIA have never been especially renowned for their 2D quality (although I believe it's much better in recent years).

To be honest, I'd get a budget ATi card, something like a 9200, and be done with it. They cost next to nothing and you should get excellent 2D quality.

 

[mordantmonkey]

it's not like it's either gaming or web surfing. Intensive photoshop, or adobe premier, will be helped by a graphics card. especially if he's using real time effects, high-res photo manipulaton, etc. I think the extra $15-$20 (+$10 saved not getting integrated graphics) is worth it.
If your just watching movies/web surfing, then IG is fine. If you are using 2D intensive apps i would spring for a decent low end card.

 

[DarkKnight]

integrated graphics steal ur system memory, use the agp card