Onboard Graphics or Separate Card?

[Luddite]

Building a new system and thinking of going with onboard video on this mobo:
http://ca.asus.com/products.as...model=2413&modelmenu=2

I'm going from a system with a separate card (an old ATI Radeon 9600) to an HTPC, and thought I could save a few dollars by just having IGA. I don't game, encode video or do anything with 3D. However, I do photo editing, desktop publishing and thinking of moving towards Indesign.

Will integrated graphics be enough, and are there any limitations I should be aware of?

 

[Arkaign]

G45 will more more than adequate. However, grabbing something like a 4350 (less than $40 shipped) would be a nice boost, as well as offering multi-monitor support, more outputs, and dependable 1080p h264 playback, all the while negating any need for the chipset to 'steal' memory for performing video functions.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16814121310

 

[yh125d]

Get a nice 780G or 790GX board and call it a day

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: yh125d
Get a nice 780G or 790GX board and call it a day

I think those are great, but the OP posted an Intel board, I don't think they make 780G or 790GX for Intel (?).

 

[yh125d]

He also said he's building a new system. If he wants to stay with an intel chipset, go for the Geforce 9300/9400 IGP

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: yh125d
He also said he's building a new system. If he wants to stay with an intel chipset, go for the Geforce 9300/9400 IGP

Can that be combined with an actual Intel chipset?

I think the Intel SATA controllers are worth sticking with a G45 board if the Nvidia board is an all Nvidia chipset. The G45 as well as the NV integrated chipsets are equally useless for gaming (which he isn't doing), and AFAIK can handle h264 about equally.

I've used some quality Nvidia-based chipset boards for Intel cpus, but not since the 500 series. Back then, the SATA controllers were not as good, and the overclocking was weaker as well (not sure if the OP will OC though). Of course, that's been a while ago, maybe the new ones are a lot better?

 

[MODEL3]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
G45 will more more than adequate. However, grabbing something like a 4350 (less than $40 shipped) would be a nice boost, as well as offering multi-monitor support, more outputs, and dependable 1080p h264 playback, all the while negating any need for the chipset to 'steal' memory for performing video functions.

I don't know for sure, but isn't an IGP like 9300/9400 (or even G45) better in 2D in some factors in relation with a low end card like 4350?
I mean he said that the only reason that he wants it, is photo editing and desktop publishing
Isn't the cost of moving all those megabytes (and for pro photo editing use, sometimes gigabytes) of data from main to local memory a real pain?
I don't know I am just asking.

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Can that be combined with an actual Intel chipset?

I think the Intel SATA controllers are worth sticking with a G45 board if the Nvidia board is an all Nvidia chipset. The G45 as well as the NV integrated chipsets are equally useless for gaming (which he isn't doing), and AFAIK can handle h264 about equally.

I've used some quality Nvidia-based chipset boards for Intel cpus, but not since the 500 series. Back then, the SATA controllers were not as good, and the overclocking was weaker as well (not sure if the OP will OC though). Of course, that's been a while ago, maybe the new ones are a lot better?

Again I am not sure, I'm just asking.
Is the difference between G45 SATA controllers and 9300/9400 SATA controllers that big?
I mean he is not planning to do any RAID.
I thought that with the 9300/9400 finally Nvidia nearly caught Intel in the perf. department for simple HDD use (not raid)

 

[hans007]

well he says he is coming from a machine that was an htpc. i'd recommend one of the IGPs with good HD decoding. I am not sure how good the G45 is at that, but you cant really go wrong with an nvidia igp 9300/9400 or go to an amd setup instead of intel and get a 780g/785g/790gx

 

[MODEL3]

Originally posted by: hans007
well he says he is coming from a machine that was an htpc. i'd recommend one of the IGPs with good HD decoding. I am not sure how good the G45 is at that, but you cant really go wrong with an nvidia igp 9300/9400 or go to an amd setup instead of intel and get a 780g/785g/790gx

I don't have a G45 but I remember in the Anand review that Intel made him some promises about improving their driver (and that for some things it was not their fault but the fault of WIN DVD & Power DVd developers)

Does anyone have any news about Intel's G45 current situation?

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: MODEL3

Originally posted by: Arkaign
G45 will more more than adequate. However, grabbing something like a 4350 (less than $40 shipped) would be a nice boost, as well as offering multi-monitor support, more outputs, and dependable 1080p h264 playback, all the while negating any need for the chipset to 'steal' memory for performing video functions.

I don't know for sure, but isn't an IGP like 9300/9400 (or even G45) better in 2D in some factors in relation with a low end card like 4350?
I mean he said that the only reason that he wants it, is photo editing and desktop publishing
Isn't the cost of moving all those megabytes (and for pro photo editing use, sometimes gigabytes) of data from main to local memory a real pain?
I don't know I am just asking.

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Can that be combined with an actual Intel chipset?

I think the Intel SATA controllers are worth sticking with a G45 board if the Nvidia board is an all Nvidia chipset. The G45 as well as the NV integrated chipsets are equally useless for gaming (which he isn't doing), and AFAIK can handle h264 about equally.

I've used some quality Nvidia-based chipset boards for Intel cpus, but not since the 500 series. Back then, the SATA controllers were not as good, and the overclocking was weaker as well (not sure if the OP will OC though). Of course, that's been a while ago, maybe the new ones are a lot better?

Again I am not sure, I'm just asking.
Is the difference between G45 SATA controllers and 9300/9400 SATA controllers that big?
I mean he is not planning to do any RAID.
I thought that with the 9300/9400 finally Nvidia nearly caught Intel in the perf. department for simple HDD use (not raid)

Ah, found some great info here :

http://techreport.com/articles.x/15653/1

Basically the good news is that all the solutions are very good. Nvidia's SATA performance has increased a lot, strangely the 780G is lagging in this area according to the benchmarks. Gaming the 780G obviously dominates, but all three are very slow.

The discrete 4350 will blow away any of the integrated video solutions, but all three are more than up to the task of 1920x1200 HD Video playback at full framerate with a low-end processor.

Really I think the OP would do well according to his light usage description with getting a decent AM2+ 780G setup, and a cheap Phenom II + plenty of DDR2. The Intel stuff is faster, but for a non-gamer, and for someone wanting to save some $$$, an AMD build really makes sense.

 

[MODEL3]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
The Intel stuff is faster, but for a non-gamer, and for someone wanting to save some $$$, an AMD build really makes sense.

Even for a Gamer in a budget I would add.
Anyone that cares about the Industry should promote competition.
It is crucial this particular time to support AMD.

So if someone don't care particularly about either brand, and thinks that he can find solutions than can suit his needs from both brands, he should prefer AMD.

Imagine AMD to disappear, we will have 2000$ limit (from 1000$) in the CPU price spectrum overnight (well not overnight but you get my point)

It is for this reason, that I am willing to cut some slack to some reviews that are on the edge of objectivity (objective, but still you can detect a little bit of number fixing)

Someone from the older members here, should make a post about it (sticky)

 

[Luddite]

Hey, thanks very much everyone for the feedback.

I just wanted to ask; someone mentioned memory being used (stolen) from main RAM for the IGP. About how much RAM would be utilized approx.? I'm planning to put 4GB and using a Quad proc with Win7 64-bit. Would the memory drain be a factor?

I'm pretty sure I'm going to go with the Intel G45 chipset. Just still not sure at this point whether a discrete card would bring noticable improvements for my needs.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

The memory size can vary, and you can probably set how much the IGP can "take" from the system in the BIOS. 128 or 256MB is probably all you'll need.

 

[mike pyne]

Hi Luddite,
I would like to recommend instead of buying 4GB , get 6GB ram with paying little you can get the double of it. As far as you query is concerned IGP or OS could hardly take few MB's of Ram. So that wouldn't affect your Ram's performance.

Regards,
Mike

 

[tcsenter]

If you go with G45, it would be recommended to use something other than Windows XP (e.g. Vista or W7). Intel has gutted some hardware decoding features under Windows XP, because it feels that XP's secure pathway APIs are not robust enough for protected content. That doesn't explain why Intel crippled hardware decoding of non-protected content as well, nor why ATI and NVIDIA seem to have no problem with 'robustness' of secured pathway APIs under Windows XP, and Intel ain't commenting on any of this.

 

[theAnimal]

Originally posted by: mike pyne
Hi Luddite,
I would like to recommend instead of buying 4GB , get 6GB ram with paying little you can get the double of it. As far as you query is concerned IGP or OS could hardly take few MB's of Ram. So that wouldn't affect your Ram's performance.

Regards,
Mike

There's no reason to get 6GB unless you're going triple channel with an i7. Either go 4 or 8 with dual channel.

 

[hans007]

Originally posted by: theAnimal

Originally posted by: mike pyne
Hi Luddite,
I would like to recommend instead of buying 4GB , get 6GB ram with paying little you can get the double of it. As far as you query is concerned IGP or OS could hardly take few MB's of Ram. So that wouldn't affect your Ram's performance.

Regards,
Mike

There's no reason to get 6GB unless you're going triple channel with an i7. Either go 4 or 8 with dual channel.

i can't see how anyone could possibly need 8gb of ram. on this build especially and in generally really.

i mean 4GB of ram is a lot of ram already and will barely be used on a system like what the OP was talking about.

 

[mike pyne]

Hi hans007,
Even i too feel the same thing, 4 GB is itself a big in size, and we are getting best output from it, then why spend too much on Ram itself. If we need then we could utilize that money for some other component.

Regards,
Mike