Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 100938	2009-06-26 06:03:00	Integrated graphics	Strommer (42)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
786063	2009-06-26 10:52:00	Depends how picky you are. Imo a well thought out PC has a video card, and I have yet to use an integrated system that performs as well as a PC with a video card, and I'm talking right across the board. Though it may be all in my mind. Yes. I acknowledge that a separate video card will (should) be superior to onboard graphics. My intention in this thread is about integrated graphics only, not integrated vs video cards. I did do some basic video editing with Premier elements 4 (trial) on a laptop that had integrated graphics. It seemed to run OK. Thanks. That is the sort of info I am looking for. BTW, the reason I am interested in this topic is because I have had a few people ask for my advice when buying a laptop and I notice that most of them have integrated graphics. If they can afford it, I tell them to get a laptop with WinXP and at least 256 mb dedicated for graphics or one that says it has a separate graphics card. But I digress and do not want this thread to drift off into how much better separate graphics cards are than integrated - of course it will be better. Here is an example, chosen at random. (pbtech.co.nz) Ignore the brand (HP). Specs: WinXP, 1 Gb RAM, Intel Core 2 Duo Processor T5670. GRAPHICS : Mobile Intel Graphics Media Accelerator X3100, up to 384-MB shared system memory It seems to me that this low priced ($1094.32 incl GST) laptop would do *some* video editing just fine, or better if more RAM is added. Correct?	Strommer (42)
786064	2009-06-26 10:57:00	The video card affects how fast things happen on screen when your editing the video, when you have a few gig of videos all loaded into memory and cut up into little pieces and reassembled and then ask for a real time play back including rendering the effects like transitions and filters, Your pissy integrated graphical video chipset will cause it to damn near die, and thats after 2 hours of hampering your efforts. When you do the actual rendering the video chipset has no effect, that comes down to how grunty your CPU is, and your harddrives. Though I'm not suggesting anyone needs a high end gaming video card for video editing, and if its just a one off it isn't going to matter, If you like to do things that suck that is. Good point about actual rendering / CPU. Yes, if big time video editing is necessary, integrated graphics will be a drag.	Strommer (42)
786065	2009-06-26 11:02:00	That happens when I don't read peoples posts all the way through. LMFAO. I didn't even see the reference to laptops, My laptop has its own dedicated ram (256mb I believe), Plus 2GB of system ram installed, Its still a pig for video editing. I have considered throwing away the HD and replacing it with a faster model.	Metla (12)
786066	2009-06-26 11:06:00	Here is another example. IGNORE THE BRANDS. Most of us prefer ASUS but this thread is not about which brand is better - just compare the graphics. Try to also ignore the OS. Yes, I know that Vista requires more RAM than XP, etc, but lets not get bogged down about OS's, not yet anyhow. DSE laptop (www.dse.co.nz) Graphics: ATI Mobility Radeon™ HD 4530 M92 with 512MB GDDR2(dedicated) Another DSE laptop (www.dse.co.nz) Graphics: Shared-upto 256MB Comparing only the graphics, it seems to me that "512 dedicated" would be better than "shared up to 256". Correct?	Strommer (42)
786067	2009-06-26 11:07:00	It seems to me that this low priced ($1094.32 incl GST) laptop would do *some* video editing just fine, or better if more RAM is added. Correct? Yes, it's my understanding that onboard video cards "borrow" memory from the RAM. The more RAM you have, the more memory you can borrow (until it reaches it's limit, which for the previously mentioned laptops was 384MB). Dedicated graphics cards don't need to "borrow" memory for RAM, and take some of the processing haul off the CPU. (I'm 99% sure thats how it works). So I think more modern laptops/desktops with onboard video will do some video editing, however encoding time may be longer, and responsiveness of the computer may be lesser than it would if it had dedicated graphics (because it's lost some RAM to the onboard video). So long as your not editing and encoding in HD and not expecting top notch performance, I think you should be fine :thumbs:.	davidmmac (4619)
786068	2009-06-26 11:14:00	My laptop has its own dedicated ram (256mb I believe), Plus 2GB of system ram installed, Its still a pig for video editing. I have considered throwing away the HD and replacing it with a faster model. Well there goes my hope that 256 mb dedicated for graphics would be ok for video editing - or do you mean it sucks only when doing major editing with bits and pieces cut and moved, text added, etc? Most laptops have slow HD's AFAIK, around 5400 rpm or thereabouts, but would a 7200 rpm (or whatever that figure is) HD make that much difference? Now of course we can get into all the other components that affect video editing - things like bus speeds, quality of RAM, and lots more that I cannot recall right now. Yeah, I mainly am asking about laptops, but of course heaps of desktops these days also have integrated graphics.	Strommer (42)
786069	2009-06-26 11:23:00	Well there goes my hope that 256 mb dedicated for graphics would be ok for video editing - or do you mean it sucks only when doing major editing with bits and pieces cut and moved, text added, etc? I'll put it this way, I personally would only ever buy a laptop with its own dedicated video ram and a reasonable video chipset. And I would not be surprised if everyone else on the planet finds them to be fantastic for video editing :stare:. As for the HD, when you take into account the swap file, and massive temp files being created/written to and read when you have a project open I believe it has a very noticble effect on performance when editing video. But I'd be hard pressed to replace a perfectly fine harddrive for that reason alone.	Metla (12)
786070	2009-06-26 11:43:00	Blam and pctek, remember I said "Not for high end games...". . Remember I said Terrible. For Low-end games too.:D Most things it doesn't matter - CPU becomes the important thing. I always install motherboards with a PCI-E slot anyway, because the user may decide they want to bump up the graphics a bit later....... So if your onboard is coping OK, then don't worry about it.	pctek (84)
786071	2009-06-26 20:44:00	... I always install motherboards with a PCI-E slot anyway, because the user may decide they want to bump up the graphics a bit later....... I take it you mean mb's in desktops, not laptops. There would not be room in a laptop for a graphics card in a PCI-E slot - correct? From what I have seen, few laptops actually have a separate graphics card. For example, the ASUS N50VC (www.dse.co.nz) has this: [nVidia G9300M GS ⁄ 512] but at $2600 it is not a cheapie. Another example: HP Laptop (www.notebookcity.co.nz), $3053 NVIDIA GeForce 9600M with 512MB Dedicated graphics memory I would think these laptops would do a decent job with video editing and average games - but these do not have integrated graphics.	Strommer (42)
786072	2009-06-26 21:01:00	Theres one here (www.dse.co.nz)from dse with a dedicated graphics card for $1500. Edit: there's another one here (www.dse.co.nz) for $1400. Both of the above have 512MB dedicated graphics :).	davidmmac (4619)
1 2 3