Is onboard graphics good enough?

[Aztech]

How good have the onboard graphics gotten? I'm getting ready to buy computers and monitors. The monitors may be as big as 24". Will onboard graphics do a good enough job on such a monitor. The main applications will be Office and Internet and some data processing (heavy number crunching). Which Intel chipsets are good enough for this task, if any? Should I just get at least a budget card just to get the video load off the CPU?

Thank you very much

 

[krnmastersgt]

No reason why integrated graphics shouldn't be able to do what you need them to, but yeah getting a dedicated card wouldn't hurt too much either, in either case you're fine assuming you don't do anything that's graphics intensive, and I mean really intensive like 3d rendering.

 

[InflatableBuddha]

Originally posted by: krnmastersgt
No reason why integrated graphics shouldn't be able to do what you need them to, but yeah getting a dedicated card wouldn't hurt too much either, in either case you're fine assuming you don't do anything that's graphics intensive, and I mean really intensive like 3d rendering.

I second this, integrated is fine for anything short of rendering/CAD, etc.

However, if you are looking at dual-monitor setups, you will need a dedicated graphics card.

 

[ja1484]

I've found that investing $50 or so in a low-end GPU (6/7/8300) will definitely help desktop responsiveness when multi-tasking. If you're going to be on Vista, it's required hardware.

 

[Knowname]

with the very best integrated designs just coming out (Asus' G35 and up- basically just the future stuff as the Asus board is the only G35 I know of) dual monitors on a single IGP sollution may be possible, even at higer resolutions like 1920x1200. OFC you can't expect to play anything at that...

Current X300 and greater AMD/ ATI (a few ATI chips and every AMD/ ATI offering) motherboards can utilize both the IGP and GPU at the same time for dual monitors. upcoming Nvidea designs should support a similar feature.

 

[hans007]

some of the latest intergrated hardware is probably faster than some dedicated boards.

i mean i'd rather have a gma x3500 on the g35 than say a x300SE ati discreet board or a 6200TC/7100gs

 

[ja1484]

Originally posted by: hans007
some of the latest intergrated hardware is probably faster than some dedicated boards.

i mean i'd rather have a gma x3500 on the g35 than say a x300SE ati discreet board or a 6200TC/7100gs

Very true. Depends on what exactly has been "integrated". If we're talking vanilla Intel, bleh.

 

[BernardP]

I am very satisfied with running a 24-inch monitor with NVidia 6150 integrated graphics, even for 3D gaming at 800x600 😛

Upcoming (february) new IG for AMD processors from both ATI and NVidia are going to be markedly faster.

What I like with NVidia graphics and drivers is the ability to scale correctly at non-native resolutions, a very useful feature with the very small fonts/icons on a 1920x1200 resolution 24-inch monitor

 

[Demoth]

Never liked integrated video much. Even if there was an open vid slot for future upgrades, the bios could still cause some instability. There is also some more potential for the whole MB to fry using integrated video.

Really, the important factors to consider for a work computer are stability, upgrade capacity, cost, and useable lifespan.

If you get a integrated motherboard without an available PCIe slot, you will be looking at a more expensive upgrade should your video go out (something I have personally seen on a few systems using integrated cards). Also, depending on the nature of what you are doing, consider if there may be applications down the pike that are graphical in nature that you could be using. Much easier and cost effective to just throw in new vid cards as needed as a good cheap Duo 2140 could last as a work computer for literally a decade+. Most of our office systems were built in 1997 around a Pentium 3 128 meg RAM server. Applications we use though are mostly web based and rely more on a high speed DSL connection.

Regardless though, get a solid MB with an open PCIe slot and one of the numerous dirt cheap vid cards available and your pretty much in the same price range as a integrated solution except with more potential stability and room to upgrade.

Also, build you own- don't buy cheap E-Machines. You'll pay a bit more initially because of the OEM OSs, but you want to put in a good quality PSU like a Antec Earthwatts $29 sweet deal. One thing I do most with work computers is replace cheap PSUs that fail. Stability is far more important then saving a few dollars initially. The few extra spent building will be saved in man hours alone trying to troubleshoot hardware problems later.

 

[shamans]

I've used a gigabyte ga-ma69gm-s2h motherboard. It's one of a few motherboards that come with ATI/AMD SurroundView functionality, which I've used to have 4 displays at high res. The video card powering the 2 other display output was a lowly sapphire ATI/AMD x1550 radeon card.

The motherboard is cheap, and is integrated everything (with integrated dual display output to start with).

This is probably the set of capabilities you're looking for in an office computer.

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: Demoth
Never liked integrated video much. Even if there was an open vid slot for future upgrades, the bios could still cause some instability. There is also some more potential for the whole MB to fry using integrated video.

Uh... I don't even know where to start with this FUD.

The only board that was known to be problematic with IGP was that abit Fata1ity mATX board that people were overclocking with the IGP, causing most of the failures. Really, generally speaking a failure is from a bad design, bad components or just one of those things... nothing to do with having graphics on-board.

 

[hans007]

Originally posted by: Zap

Originally posted by: Demoth
Never liked integrated video much. Even if there was an open vid slot for future upgrades, the bios could still cause some instability. There is also some more potential for the whole MB to fry using integrated video.

Uh... I don't even know where to start with this FUD.

The only board that was known to be problematic with IGP was that abit Fata1ity mATX board that people were overclocking with the IGP, causing most of the failures. Really, generally speaking a failure is from a bad design, bad components or just one of those things... nothing to do with having graphics on-board.

yeah that is ridiculous.


every intel chipset has integrated graphics now, and the silicon for it is power on all the time. the P35 and g33 chipsets are exactly the same die size. the p35 has it disabled.


that and if your integrated graphics ever died and the rest of your system didnt, then someone probably broke the connection for it and its not the graphics fault. if the chipset shorted out then all of it would be dead.

 

[Demoth]

I just recently fixed a home and office computer with non-functional video problems by over riding the integrated video with an add-on card. The home computer lost video when the user had some kind of power spike that also fried his computer modem and a satellite reciever. I think your underestimating the chances of a overload event occuring directly from the monitor into the GPU.

I never said there is any more chance of a failure for integrated vs non, but it is much easier to fix specific types of problems by replacing a vid card versus the whole MB. Since PCIe cards can be had for under $15, it is a build option I would personally favor even for an office word processor.

 

[google01103]

I have a 6100 based mb and recently added a 6800gs 256mb pcie board (an oldy but a goody) and other than a noisy fan that I wish to shoot/kill/boil/maim I'm not seeing any difference in what I'm doing (which is basic 'net & business stuff) do I'd suggest an nvidia based igp with a pcie slot (not all Dells have 'em) and if you find/think/want an addon card afterwards get one.

And get a passively cooled one cause they can be real noisy