Integrated vs. Dedicated Laptop Graphics

[alimoalem]

i'm looking at a lot of laptops for school and there's some pretty nice deals on some laptops. i won't be gaming on the laptop but i was thinking having a dedicated card now will help me upgrade the video down the road (i want to keep this for all 4 years of college).

1. will dedicated graphics heat up if i'm not doing anything graphic-intensive?
2. will it be the same temp as integrated graphics if i'm doing something i would be able to do with integrated graphics?
3. are there any losses to integrated graphics other than not being able to game?

thanks for the help

 

[Lord Evermore]

Only a few machines have graphics that can be upgraded, and I don't think any laptop makers actually sell upgrade cards for them. By the time you want to upgrade, an entirely new laptop would probably be cheaper than getting a video card for the old one.

Dedicated graphics usually have their own memory, while integrated graphics share main system memory. That may be as little as 8MB at standard desktop resolutions but can go up to 128MB if you do anything requiring 3D performance. If you have plenty of system memory, it really doesn't matter much.

Dedicated graphics are generally clocked higher than the graphics core in an integrated chipset, so they probably use a little more power, plus they're running the memory chips. Same with heat output.

Really if you're not planning to game or do anything else requiring 3D power, integrated graphics are perfectly good.

 

[corkyg]

Agree with the Lord about the upgradeable laptops. Very few have upgradeable graphics because most have the graphics chips soldered on to the laptop's mainboard. Only a very few use removable modules.

 

[alimoalem]

thanks Lord Evermore with your advice and corkyg for seconding what he says

 

[Lord Evermore]

Well a lot of them use a removable module, especially those that have dedicated video memory, but it's a proprietary connector and may not even be the same connector across different laptop models, and the exact shape of the module is dependent on the exact shape of the space that it fits into in the casing and on the mainboard, and the laptop makers don't sell upgrades, they're only available for repair swap.

So even the ones they stock are limited to those few GPU models that they offer as options in the laptops, and you can't buy them, and if you could buy them you could only buy the ones that were made for your specific laptop by that one manufacturer.

The MXM module was created by nvidia to make completely laptop graphics as upgradeable as desktops, but laptop makers haven't bothered to implement it much. Even with those that do put it on a laptop, there aren't many options for cards to go in it.

 

[ForumMaster]

it depends on what you plan to do with it. if you plan on getting Vista and you want to run Aero, i doubt integerated graphics will suffice. however, if all you're planning to do is write essays and surf the web, integerated graphics will be fine plus they give longer battery life.

 

[Lord Evermore]

Well the Geforce Go 6150/6100 is Aero capable, as are ATI's Xpress 1100/1250. Not sure if the Xpress 200M might be technically capable but they may never make drivers for it. GMA950 is also capable of running Aero. It might not run it particularly WELL of course, especially at high resolutions. The upcoming GMA X3000/3000 will be much better for it.

Of course, 99% of laptops that get sold with integrated graphics have GMA950. Most laptop makers either use Intel chips with integrated graphics, or they just use an add-in graphics chip from ATI or nvidia. Not a whole lot of mobile systems using nvidia and ATI chipsets.

 

[alimoalem]

i know i read about this before but i forgot...how does aero benefit the user?

 

[Lord Evermore]

It's just a bit of new stuff in the interface. You get 3D graphics and the interface is processed on the video card, rather than using CPU power to process the GUI eye-candy like XP. You can make things happen like windows that flip up and down as you alt-tab, or a lot of other stuff that may or may not be interesting to a particular user. But I think it also uses the GPU to accelerates the simple stuff like when you minimize a window and you can watch it shrink down to the taskbar, where XP uses the CPU to do that. It also adds in 3D-accelerated translucency effects. Also, it includes just plain changes to the appearance of things like buttons and toolbars, which aren't necessarily something that couldn't be done without the 3D acceleration. Systems that don't use Aero will just look like XP's default for the most part.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Aero

 

[alimoalem]

thanks a lot Lord Evermore, you've been very helpful