Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 85383	2007-12-08 11:51:00	Integrated graphics card vs dedicated graphics card	Ninjabear (2948)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
619228	2007-12-10 05:46:00	What used to be believed is not necessarily true with the latest motherboards. I have just assembled a Vista Aero machine using 1 GB of integrated video [800MHz DDR2 dual channel] that knocks the socks of a machine I assembled 3 months ago that has a fairly costly PCI Express card that glitches, every now and then, on start-up. Like wise, just installed a New Vista Prem Machine with intergrated graphics, it actually runs the Vista Aero nice, flip 3D the works, I did originally suggest a graphic card but he didn't want one.- hes not a gamer. Mind you It wouldn't handle any intense 3D games a gamer would use, but for general stuff it worked fine. Depends what you want to do with it I spose.	wainuitech (129)
619229	2007-12-10 05:50:00	Like wise, just installed a New Vista Prem Machine with intergrated graphics, it actually runs the Vista Aero nice, flip 3D the works, I did originally suggest a graphic card but he didn't want one.- hes not a gamer. Mind you It wouldn't handle any intense 3D games a gamer would use, but for general stuff it worked fine. Depends what you want to do with it I spose. Yeah, thats what I've found, build a PC with 2 or 3 gig of RAM, (RAM being worth less that petrol these days :p) and give the on board video 256MB or more, if the motherboard will let you, and it runs Aero well, as well as lower end games. Far cheaper than a graphics card.	wratterus (105)
619230	2007-12-10 06:29:00	What used to be believed is not necessarily true with the latest motherboards. I have just assembled a Vista Aero machine using 1 GB of integrated video [800MHz DDR2 dual channel] that knocks the socks of a machine I assembled 3 months ago that has a fairly costly PCI Express card that glitches, every now and then, on start-up. Sounds to me like the better one isn't actually working properly, and that's why it's beaten by the integrated one From experience I know that a Geforce 4 Ti4200 AGP 8x cannot beat a Geforce 2 MX 220 PCI when the AGP drivers aren't installed. When they are, it's pretty obvious which one kicks the other one	Agent_24 (57)
619231	2007-12-10 06:41:00	Integrated is crap! never even think about playing anything with an integrated chipset That statement is a bit broad - Not everybody is into FPS games. There are plenty of games that will work fine on the Nvidia or ATI onboard graphics. You can get away with onboard graphics by nvidia or ATI (or even Intel isn't that bad these days) when playing most games - you just don't get all the flashy stuff the dedicated graphics cards give you. The games are still fun.	Greven (91)
619232	2007-12-10 13:52:00	hmmm ok...	MaXimus (13013)
619233	2007-12-10 21:14:00	Dedicated -Dedicated and singled out (performs by itself) -Has it's own dedicated video RAM -Alot more powerful in comparison due to being singled out -Cheap low end cards more powerful than most integrated Integrated -RAM hogging (sometimes uses system RAM) -Very tiny and powerless due to being small and mounted -Used to save LOTS of money good point, i usually call them both intergrated ie "onboard graphics". Originally Posted by MaXimus Integrated is crap! never even think about playing anything with an integrated chipset not so much FPS games but any recent games. older games will play fine. don't forget a lot ofpeople are still useing GF2-4 chipsets on their agp graphics cards. i just recently replaced my GF3, which cost over $900 orginally!.	tweak'e (69)
1 2