• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

integrated graphics.....mb or cpu?

D

dryfly

Member
I've been out of the computer building loop for a couple of years and need some advice. I've always used mb's with built in video as my needs are slim. General business use and internet.

I've been looking at some of the mb's that use the cpu's with integrated graphics such as the AMD A6400K. Would this offer advantages over a regular cpu and mb with built in graphics?
 
All current mainstream platforms have the integrated graphics built into the cpu itself, not on the chipset of the motherboard
 
CPU+GPU packages are the new norm whether you go with Intel or AMD. AMD banks on a CPU package with a more powerful GPU (called an "APU") while Intel offers a more "basic" GPU on all but their high-end CPUs. As a result, built-in motherboard GPUs are virtually extinct in the last couple processor generations.

They're also much more powerful than the old integrated MB offerings. At minimum, pretty much any iGPU today will allow for 2D/3D acceleration and video processing. The higher-end models even handle gaming fairly well for what they are.
 
IGemini said:
CPU+GPU packages are the new norm whether you go with Intel or AMD. AMD banks on a CPU package with a more powerful GPU (called an "APU") while Intel offers a more "basic" GPU on all but their high-end CPUs. As a result, built-in motherboard GPUs are virtually extinct in the last couple processor generations.

They're also much more powerful than the old integrated MB offerings. At minimum, pretty much any iGPU today will allow for 2D/3D acceleration and video processing. The higher-end models even handle gaming fairly well for what they are.
Click to expand...


That explains why there are so few onboard video MB's available as opposed to 3 years ago. I assume the video memory is shared with RAM? Can specific amounts be allocated to video or is this fixed?

I've been using AMD for the last 12 years with great results. So it looks like you just get an FM2 cpu and FM2 MB and you are in business. Which are the best bang for the buck among the Athlon, Trinity, Richland CPU's.

I'm not totally opposed to Intel platforms but would prefer to stay with AMD.
 
look for the new kaveri's - yes vram is shared from system ram and can usually be allocated up to a certain amount
 
dryfly said:
Would this offer advantages over a regular cpu and mb with built in graphics?
Click to expand...
Yes. The only current chipset IGP is in the AMD FX line, with old chipsets, the IGPs of which are far weaker than what is available directly on CPUs.
 
AM3(+) IGPs (from AMD, but even worse you can still find geforce 7xxx IGP MBs for AM3+ lol) are extremely slow, only 40sps and DX10.1 and the huge memory bottleneck because of hypertransport, they basically improve nothing since 2008-2009 and shouldn't even be sold anymore, even sandy bridge Celeron IGP was already better.

the rest is all built into the CPU, Fm1-fm2-fm2+, 1156-1155-1150 and the mobile variations all have GPUs and CPUs integrated.
 
Phynaz said:
Trinity or Richland. Kaveri is way too expensive.
Click to expand...

Agreed, kaveri adds a lot of features that *may* be useful in the future, and improves power consumption somewhat, but is still new, expensive and has limited models available. Personally, I would go with a Pentium for a low end system, especially if you do not intend to game on it, but otherwise I would go for Rich land. The igp on either will be far better than mb graphics.
 
Thanks to everyone for your comments and info. Either the Richland or Trinity low end cpu's will work fine for my needs.

One last question: I see most of the MB's offer VGA, DVI, and HDMI outputs. Since I run dual monitors is there any reason I can't use one monitor on HDMI port and the other on the DVI port?

I'm currently doing it on VGA and DMI and it works well.

thanks again.
 
dryfly said:
I've been using AMD for the last 12 years with great results. So it looks like you just get an FM2 cpu and FM2 MB and you are in business. Which are the best bang for the buck among the Athlon, Trinity, Richland CPU's.
Click to expand...

Don't buy an Athlon- these are Richland and Trinity parts which have had their built in GPU disabled, meaning that you need to buy a graphics card. Go for something from the A8 series- the 2 core parts aren't that great frankly. The A8-5500 would be my recommendation.
 
dryfly said:
One last question: I see most of the MB's offer VGA, DVI, and HDMI outputs. Since I run dual monitors is there any reason I can't use one monitor on HDMI port and the other on the DVI port?
Click to expand...
Sure you can. You can have both use DVI, as well, with a cheap passive adapter (if you don't have one, IMO, get an adapting cable).
 
Though a single-module (dual core) Trinity/Richland would probably suit your needs just fine OP, I'd argue that for your needs, Intel's offerings may be better suited. AMD's APUs trade CPU power and overall system power consumption for a "beefy" integrated GPU, which will (at least for the moment) will benefit only gamers. I have a few choice words to say about Intel leaving AVX instructions out of their Pentium/Celeron line, but even so I'd bet you'll have a better overall system at the same price if you go that route.
 
With a Haswell i3, you can have good enough IGP for almost any non-gaming non-content-creation non-CAD uses, and plenty of CPU power in a smaller power envelope, to boot.
 
If you get an AMD system make sure its a FM2+ board. You can still run FM2 cpus but will give you a upgrade path for FM2+ cpus in the future.
 
Yuriman said:
Though a single-module (dual core) Trinity/Richland would probably suit your needs just fine OP, I'd argue that for your needs, Intel's offerings may be better suited. AMD's APUs trade CPU power and overall system power consumption for a "beefy" integrated GPU, which will (at least for the moment) will benefit only gamers. I have a few choice words to say about Intel leaving AVX instructions out of their Pentium/Celeron line, but even so I'd bet you'll have a better overall system at the same price if you go that route.
Click to expand...


Well, it does appear that the Intel might be a better in processing power but in looking at price I can get a Trinity A6 for about half the price as an Intel Haswell. I'm not on a budget but I always just have not been tempted to buy more computing power than I need. And usually by the time I upgrade everything is bigger, faster, better on a different platform.

I know most of the folks on the forums are gamers and usually the higher end mb's/cpu's are suggested. I sure don't mind spending more if it would benefit me, but I'm seeing an A6 and MB for around $150, so I just need to do a little more research to see if the Intel is for my needs. And yes, I will get the FM2/FM2+ for future upgrade.

I am glad to find I can use the DVI port and the HDMI port simultaneously.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top