Onboard VGA comparison

rbenq

Member
Aug 21, 2000
74
0
0
Can anyone show me a link to a site with a good comparison of the various onboard vga chips, including the off-board ones?

Thanks in advance, Ben.
 

rbenq

Member
Aug 21, 2000
74
0
0
Well, if it´s true that nobody had the idea of comparing the benchmarks for the vga chips that comes with ASUS, PCCHIPS, etc., stays the suggestion...
I find it important ´cause for most games my ASROCK K7S41GX is very nice. Indeed, the overall system performance is lower when we are using a shared video memory, but in many cases it has a good tradeoff.

 

daveybrat

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Jan 31, 2000
5,804
1,015
126
I find it important ´cause for most games my ASROCK K7S41GX is very nice.

You poor poor man! SIS onboard graphics??? Ewwwww.......

Maybe if you are only playing solitaire on your computer, but onboard graphics no matter what kind are pretty pathetic for any more recent game out today.

Unless of course you are happy playing games at 640x480 low details.....The majority of us in here would find that unacceptable.

You should consider getting a real graphics card :)
 

PingSpike

Lifer
Feb 25, 2004
21,756
600
126
nvidia nforce IGP is the best as far as socket A was concerned. (Its still not that great). I'm not sure if there are integrated graphics solutions for the Athlon 64 platforms even available! I suspect we'll at least some for the socket 754 when it becomes the budget line. But I could be wrong.
 

Peter

Elite Member
Oct 15, 1999
9,640
1
0
The current SiS integrated graphics (as found in AMD64 and recent P4 chipsets) aren't that bad. It's a fairly recent DX8.1 engine, and in the AMD64 version, the board makers _can_ give it up to 64 MBytes of dedicated (!) RAM. If only they did ...

I have this combination (SiS 760 chipset w/o dedicated RAM, mobile AMD64 CPU) in my notebook, and it's good enough to play the mainstream games. Sure, thanks to the inherent bandwidth limitation, you'll have to keep detail level low, but it works surprisingly well. The engine is a derivative of the previous generation discrete "Xabre" graphics chip.

In fact, SiS have always been pulling their previous-generation graphics engine into their chipsets ... from the 2D-only days of the 6220 (in 5598 chipset), then the first 3D chip 6326 later moved into 530 and 620 chipsets, the "300" DirectX7 chip moved into 630, 540 and 730. Currently we have the "315" in 740, 741 and 650 chipsets, and the "330" aka Xabre in 661 and 760. There's a plot behind all that ... SiS have been doing this for the longest time of them all, and within the constraints of doing that, they're doing it quite well. VIA and Intel have been much slower in updating the graphics engines; NVidia's and ATi's more expensive chipsets would be quite good as well, but they've always been missing the price point for integrated graphics.
 

Peter

Elite Member
Oct 15, 1999
9,640
1
0
Well, THAT one doesn't use integrated graphics. PC-Chips pulled a fully blown graphics card down onto the mainboard, discrete actual Xabre chip attached to the actual AGP port, with 64 MBytes of dedicated graphics RAM. That doesn't count ;)

... although it demonstrates what I said about NVidia and ATi missing the price point for integrated graphics - the 847LU is cheaper than these offerings although you're getting discrete graphics.

Tom's comparison is outdated already, since it doesn't have SiS' latest, and ignores VIA's altogether.
 

LTC8K6

Lifer
Mar 10, 2004
28,520
1,575
126
I believe the opinions about onboard graphics being decent would change with one good day with a decent video card. I thought onboard graphics were pretty good and even argued that a card wasn't really necessary unless you were a rabid gamer.

Then I bought a GF4-4400 card.

Case and mouth closed. :D