• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Integrated Graphics Debate

C

cerbul

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 14, 2012
Messages
242
Long time ago I was able to make a direct test between 2 computers build identically, except for the motherboard which was with integrated graphics in one computer and dedicated in the other one. (had a decent graphics card).
Not only that benchmark tests showed clearly that the dedicated one is faster, especially when motherboard is stressed from different parts, but also I was able to feel this on my own moving the mouse around while there was intense hdd reading/writing or any other operation that will require extra work from the motherboard. The integrated graphics one was simply falling behind with a large margin speed wise.

So my deduction from here is that not only the memory is shared but also quite a few resources, affecting the performance of the motherboard itself.

My question at the moment is: how are integrated graphics affecting the motherboards nowadays. And to be honest I am more interested in brands like HP and DELL that makes their desktops, and not custom made ones. So, please, anyone can help on this issue?
 
Considering that the integrated graphics of the past 2+ years have been more than enough for the average general use (music playback, flash playback, web browsing, and HD videos), the current onboard video solutions have been fantastic. Especially the AMD APUs.
 
Hmm, just to make sure we talk about the same thing.
I am not concerned about how awesome are those integrated video cards.
The only thing that concerns me is the effect they have on the overall performance of a motherboard, compared to the non integrated one.

So is a motherboard stressed of resources more then its non-integrated graphics version?
 
I assume by "long time ago" you mean somewhere around the late 90's to early 2000's when Intel was pretty much the only integrated party in town. Most of what the IGD's were capable of doing was only because they offloaded a lot work off onto the CPU to do for them.


Today is a different story. Even Intel's IDG's are very capable devices and don't need the CPU to do anything for them anymore. You're not going to get current-midrange performance from them, but they'll run circles around even the high-end graphics cards from 10 years ago.
 
cerbul said:
The only thing that concerns me is the effect they have on the overall performance of a motherboard, compared to the non integrated one.

So is a motherboard stressed of resources more then its non-integrated graphics version?
Click to expand...
Well for one thing, the motherboard is more or less out of the equation as these days in regards to the GPU as the GPU is now integrated directly onto the CPU itself. As such, that bypasses the motherboard and would probably increases performance compared to past integrated graphics on the motherboard. Thus, the overall system performance isn't all that much different with an integrated GPU isn't all that different from that of a system with a dedicated GPU when it comes to everyday general use.

Now if you're talking about heavy duty usage of the PC (photoshop, video editing, 3D editing, gaming, etc), then yes the onboard GPU may be a handicap in those cases as system resources is still tied up with the onboard GPU or the integrated GPUs aren't fast enough for some of the usages I described.
 
ryan_975 said:
You're not going to get current-midrange performance from them, but they'll run circles around even the high-end graphics cards from 10 years ago.
Click to expand...

RAM we already know that integrated cards use.
My guess is that this management of the Ram will eat a lot of the cpu/motherboard power, making the sistem overall less powerful compared to a dedicated graphics one.
True or not?
 
Danny Bui said:
Well for one thing, the motherboard is more or less out of the equation as these days in regards to the GPU as the GPU is now integrated directly onto the CPU itself. As such, that bypasses the motherboard and would probably increases performance compared to past integrated graphics on the motherboard. Thus, the overall system performance isn't all that much different with an integrated GPU isn't all that different from that of a system with a dedicated GPU when it comes to everyday general use.

Now if you're talking about heavy duty usage of the PC (photoshop, video editing, 3D editing, gaming, etc), then yes the onboard GPU may be a handicap in those cases as system resources is still tied up with the onboard GPU or the integrated GPUs aren't fast enough for some of the usages I described.
Click to expand...

Thank You,
I also do believe that will add heat when operating.
What I am trying to decide is if to buy a Dell Desktop with Integrated Graphics or to buy a custom made Desktop made with dedicated graphics card, and with a motherboard that doesn't have integrated graphics. (the dedicated version of the dell is just out of budget)
 
cerbul said:
RAM we already know that integrated cards use.
My guess is that this management of the Ram will eat a lot of the cpu/motherboard power, making the sistem overall less powerful compared to a dedicated graphics one.
True or not?
Click to expand...
Depends on what you're using the PC for. In other words, depending on what you're using the PC for, it may not be true. Or it can be true. It's not exactly black and white as you're trying to make it.
cerbul said:
Thank You,
I also do believe that will add heat when operating.
What I am trying to decide is if to buy a Dell Desktop with Integrated Graphics or to buy a custom made Desktop made with dedicated graphics card, and with a motherboard that doesn't have integrated graphics. (the dedicated version of the dell is just out of budget)
Click to expand...
Again, depends on what you're using the PC for.

So what will you be doing with this PC?
 
Definitely not games, and I don't care about the performance of the graphics card itself.
It will be used for word/excel/mailing but also for software that will work with databases. I can't say it will be stressed out, but in the other hand I don't like to stay with a poor performance just cause I wanted to save the money for a video card...
However, my biggest concern is not that much about performance as it is for life expectancy of the pc. I can tell you that it was a rule in the early 2000 that not only integrated meant poor performance but also short life expectancy of the motherboard.


Edit: Is not about trying to make it sound like that, but yes, I was trying to setup the "scene" so that I make my desire understood better. I don't like paying for a system with integrated graphics that will work less good then a system that is one generation older and doesn't use integrated. That would be just stupid, and they would probably cost about the same.
 
Last edited:
cerbul said:
Definitely not games, and I don't care about the performance of the graphics card itself.
It will be used for word/excel/mailing but also for software that will work with databases. I can't say it will be stressed out, but in the other hand I don't like to stay with a poor performance just cause I wanted to save the money for a video card...
Click to expand...
Onboard video will be just fine for your needs. We're not talking about stuff from the year 2000 and earlier. These days, onboard GPUs provide more than enough performance to handle the kind of work you're describing.
cerbul said:
However, my biggest concern is not that much about performance as it is for life expectancy of the pc. I can tell you that it was a rule in the early 2000 that not only integrated meant poor performance but also short life expectancy of the motherboard..
Click to expand...
Not a major concern at all these days since, again as noted earlier, the GPU is now integrated directly into the CPU. As such, the onboard GPU does not have a major effect on the longevity of the PC itself. However, motherboard quality and reliability are still factors in the life expectancy of the motherboard.
cerbul said:
I don't like paying for a system with integrated graphics that will work less good then a system that is one generation older and doesn't use integrated. That would be just stupid, and they would probably cost about the same.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately your example doesn't exactly make sense considering that some dedicated GPUs are actually slower than the onboard video found in many CPUs today and some dedicated GPUS are significantly faster. In addition, an one generation older system with a dedicated GPU may not be the same price as a newer generation system with an integrated GPU due to the way hardware is priced nowadays.
 
cerbul said:
RAM we already know that integrated cards use.
My guess is that this management of the Ram will eat a lot of the cpu/motherboard power, making the sistem overall less powerful compared to a dedicated graphics one.
True or not?
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about shared RAM. I was talking about capabilities of integrated graphics devices altogether. If I'm remember right, Intel's i810/815 integrated graphics devices were little more than a framebuffer with a driver that asked the CPU to do nearly all of the heavy lifting for it. So popping up content on a half-dozen windows would have had the CPU's time split between processing your programs' instructions and telling the graphics device how to put it on the screen for you to see it.

Today that's not the case. Intel's integrated devices are full-blown GPU's with all the 2D and 3D capabilities that even the top of the line discrete graphics cards have... just not enough of the resources necessary to operate at the same speeds they do.

It's worth mentioning that for general office tasks, today's hardware is so powerful that even IF the iGPU had any effect on performance, you would never be able to notice it.
 
I actually decided to make it simple: I will post 2 computers, and ask you guys what would you chose if you would have this situation:

1. http://www.emag.ro/sistem-desktop-p...soft-windows-8-pro-dl-272194195/pd/EGZKNBBBM/

Price: 951$


2. Cpu Intel Core i3-3220 3.30 GHZ 3MB Box
Motherboard: Asus P8Z77-M LGA1155
Ram Kingston 2x2GB, DDR3 PC12800
HDD: WD 500/Sata3 600/16M/7200 rot Caviar Blue
DVD+-R Asus S-ATA
Video Card: Saphire AMD HD6670 2GB DDR3
Power Source Sirtec HPE-450-A12S
Case(no power source): CODEGEN Q3354-A11
Keyboard Logitech K120
Mouse Logitech Optical B110 Black
MS Windows 7 Home Premium OEM

Price: 767$

Please don't compare prices to other countries as ours seem to be pretty big..
Anyway, you see the specifications and the price difference. What should I chose? What are the odds to still have a good computer in 6-7 years for office use?
 
It seems both systems are equal with exception of the OS and a Graphics card, quality of components not withstanding. Warranty details could be the deal maker for you though. However, if it were me and I was choosing a system for my own personal use to do the tasks you mentioned, I'd go with the cheaper one. The graphics card included with it is essentially a bonus and really shouldn't be a factor in your decision (unless you plan to sell it to bring the price down a little more).

EDIT: I just noticed the ram in the Dell system is configured for single channel mode (probably only one 4GB module installed). That would slow things down a bit since the iGPU is also accessing it's memory contents through that controller.
 
Yes, well spotted, I guess I can go even more down in price with a cheaper video card. But I will have to dig a bit some info, to not buy a really bad one. That will save me probably 50 $. I think it seems more and more obvious that regardless of the pro/against integrated graphics, I should pick the cheaper one instead.
 
Between the two PCs as is, I'd go with the Dell since I'm willing to bet that the Dell PSU is of better quality than that Sirtec PSU in PC #2. In addition to the more than likely better quality PSU, the Dell case is probably better cooling than that Codegen case.

In addition, unless the HD 6670 2GB costs the same or less than the HD 6670 1GB, the HD 6670 2GB is not worth the extra money at all. In fact, for your kind of usage, the HD 6670 is overkill in general. At most, you would need the HD 6570. But you'll be fine with the HD 6450 if you must have a dedicated GPU.

Also, which Windows 7 HP variant does PC #2 come with? 32bit or 64bit?

Now, if you were to drop the HD 6670 2GB down to the HD 6450 1GB, upgrade the PSU to the Corsair CX430, upgrade the RAM to a 2 x 4GB set, make sure that you have the 64bit version of Windows 7 HP, and upgrade the case to the NZXT Source 210 Elite, Coolermaster HAF 912, or Corsair 200R cases, I would definitely recommend PC#2 over the Dell. But if you don't make all of the above changes to PC#2, go with the Dell.
 
Videocard will be changed to HD6570 from Asus.(with 1 gb)

Windows 7 HP 64 bit is already chosen, forgot to write it in the post.

About PSU, I have no clue what else to chose as an alternate solution to Corsair CX430. Please feel free to pick one for me if you don't mind, and please keep the price lower then 250 LEI if possible,
http://www.intend.ro/surse/
I have chosen those 5 models that they have on stock, are they any good?
http://www.intend.ro/sursa-cooltek-cvs-450w/
http://www.intend.ro/sursa-rasurbo-450w-eco--power-eap450/
http://www.intend.ro/sursa-segotep-550w-raynor-power-rp550/
http://www.intend.ro/sursa-cooltek-cvs-550w/
http://www.intend.ro/sursa-cooler-master-460w-elite-power-plus--rs-460-psap-j3-/
Probably coolermaster is best option isn't it?

About Ram, they don't need more, 4 gb is more then fine, I won't go with anything bigger, unless the person I try to help decides otherwise.

And about case, will this do it?
http://www.intend.ro/carcasa-cooler-master-elite-431-plus/

Thank You for helping.
 
Last edited:
I am afraid that they don't have those on stock. Anything that they have on stock that might work?
 
Thank You very much.
What is the logic for your choices?
At PSU I absolutely have no idea, and never had my entire life.

For case, 2 fans in the front that will put in more cool air then is being taken out? Or 2 in front and one in the back near psu? What is the logic behind it?
 
cerbul said:
Thank You very much.
What is the logic for your choices?
At PSU I absolutely have no idea, and never had my entire life
Click to expand...
The Seasonic was the cheapest PSU available from that website that's actually capable of providing its rated power without harming the PC or dying. Every single one of the PSUs you listed cannot provide their rated power without dying, harming the PC, or both. So in other words, some of the PSUs you linked to says "550W". But in reality those "550W" PSUs would only be capable of 250W of power before they died or started harming hardware. With that Seasonic, it's guaranteed to provide 500W of power without killing itself or the PC.

When it comes to PSUs in foreign countries, brand name kinda matters. So Rasurbo, COOLTEK, and SEGOTEP aren't good choices since they have no reputation whatsoever for good quality PSUs.

cerbul said:
For case, 2 fans in the front that will put in more cool air then is being taken out? Or 2 in front and one in the back near psu? What is the logic behind it?
Click to expand...
Two front and one rear should help. I highly recommend reading this article on case cooling:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/02/10/the-big-cooling-investigation/1

Another case choice could be this:
http://www.intend.ro/carcasa-silverstone-redline-sst-rl01b-usb-3-0-black/
 
Can you tell if a psu can give what it says without damaging itself or the hardware just by looking at the specifications or how can I search for this particular thing over internet?
 
You have to read professionally done PSU reviews if you want to get an accurate idea of whether or not a PSU is good or not. Here's a list of most of the websites known to properly test and review PSUs:
http://www.overclock.net/t/738097/psu-review-database

Note that the PSU reviews list itself is outdated but the list of sites that do proper PSU reviews is mostly up-to-date.
 
I am kind of doomed. This is a huge amount of information and I find it really hard to follow. However, can you give me an idea about how to filter my search so that I got a better chance to find a good PSU.
For example, I assume at this moment that there are some brands out there that should be building almost exclusively good quality psu. I might be wrong as well.
So how would you start a search on a website that has a huge amount of psu models?
Should I start by checking a few Corsairs, Silverstone, Seasonic and see individual reviews? Or how would you advice me increase my chances of finding fast a good one.
 
cerbul said:
Should I start by checking a few Corsairs, Silverstone, Seasonic and see individual reviews? Or how would you advice me increase my chances of finding fast a good one.
Click to expand...
Yes that would be a good way to start. Don't forget Antec and XFX as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top