PDA

View Full Version : Integrated graphics



Strommer
26-06-2009, 05:03 PM
How bad - or good - are integrated graphics these days? I remember when motherboards only had 8 mb of graphics but what is it like now? If a computer with Win XP has 1 or 2 Gb of RAM are there mb's with 128 or 256 mb of graphics that do a decent job? Would you need 3 or 4 G of RAM with Vista?

Not for high end games, but what about video editing?

I have looked at Tom's Hardware and Tech Report sites which give statistical analysis but I wonder what your personal experience has been...

I see adverts for laptops without dedicated graphics, i.e. they have onboard graphics. My wife has an old laptop, about 6 years old, Win XP, low specs when purchased, but it does simple photo editing just fine and viewing videos is OK. It would seem that the (cheap, low spec) laptops these days would be considerably better.

pctek
26-06-2009, 05:09 PM
Terrible.
Because graphics are for gaming. And integrated fails on that.
Anything else onboard is fine.

Blam
26-06-2009, 07:48 PM
Onboard GFX still suck for gaming.

For simple stuff, its usually just right though.

gary67
26-06-2009, 08:09 PM
I don't game and do some easy video editing on this dual core machine and occasionally on an old P4 they both have integrated graphics mobo's and cope just fine, but as I said I don't game

Strommer
26-06-2009, 08:42 PM
I don't game and do some easy video editing on this dual core machine and occasionally on an old P4 they both have integrated graphics mobo's and cope just fine, but as I said I don't game

Thanks gary67. Glad to hear that your integrated graphics cope ok.

Blam and pctek, remember I said "Not for high end games...".
I know onboard graphics will suck with games. I do see that you mention "simple stuff" and "anything else" is ok, but not sure if you have actually tried video editing with integrated graphics (or what the specs for the onboard graphics would be).

What I am interested in is actual user experience when used for photo and video editing, also for viewing videos.

Metla
26-06-2009, 08:51 PM
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.

davidmmac
26-06-2009, 08:55 PM
Some video cards have a dedicated video decoding capability that is designed to take the load off the CPU.

Some video editors claim to take advantage of this sort of technology to hasten the encoding time (like this (http://www.cyberlink.com/products/powerdirector/overview_en_US.html) for example).

I did do some basic video editing with Premier elements 4 (trial) on a laptop that had integrated graphics. It seemed to run OK.

Speedy Gonzales
26-06-2009, 09:01 PM
I dont think it matters what videocard you use for video editing. I havent used onboard for video, BUT it hasnt been the most expensive card either. The speed of a CPU, the OS you use, and the amount of ram, would be more important. The only thing, I've used is firewire to transfer video, then I edit it, if I have to. I do it on this, (and have done it on a P4) with an ATI 256mb card

pcuser42
26-06-2009, 09:20 PM
Integrated graphics still suck, but some are capable of running Aero - just.

IMO any video card will be fine for video editing (and I would hope so: I may need to create a video on my netbook at school soon :eek:).

Metla
26-06-2009, 09:30 PM
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.

Strommer
26-06-2009, 09:52 PM
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. (http://pbtech.co.nz/index.php?item=NBKHNB0535)
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
26-06-2009, 09:57 PM
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.

Metla
26-06-2009, 10:02 PM
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.

Strommer
26-06-2009, 10:06 PM
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 (http://www.dse.co.nz/dse.shop/4a449bbd00e4021a273fc0a87f3b0694/Product/View/XC4369)
Graphics: ATI Mobility Radeon™ HD 4530 M92 with 512MB GDDR2(dedicated)

Another DSE laptop (http://www.dse.co.nz/dse.shop/4a449bbd00e4021a273fc0a87f3b0694/Product/View/XC4361)
Graphics: Shared-upto 256MB


Comparing only the graphics, it seems to me that "512 dedicated" would be better than "shared up to 256". Correct?

davidmmac
26-06-2009, 10:07 PM
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:.

Strommer
26-06-2009, 10:14 PM
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.

Metla
26-06-2009, 10:23 PM
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.

pctek
26-06-2009, 10:43 PM
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.

Strommer
27-06-2009, 07:44 AM
...
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 (http://www.dse.co.nz/dse.shop/4a4521ce007f79da273fc0a87f3b06e9/Product/View/XC4971) has this: [nVidia G9300M GS ⁄ 512] but at $2600 it is not a cheapie.

Another example: HP Laptop (http://www.notebookcity.co.nz/product/hp-pavilion-dv7-1210tx-c2d-t9500-4gb-640g-geforce-9600m-512mb-17-dvdrw-vista-home-premium), $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.

davidmmac
27-06-2009, 08:01 AM
Theres one here (http://www.dse.co.nz/dse.shop/4a4528cc01b31be8273fc0a87f3b06be/Product/View/XC5942)from dse with a dedicated graphics card for $1500.

Edit: there's another one here (http://www.dse.co.nz/dse.shop/4a4528cc01b31be8273fc0a87f3b06be/Product/View/XC4369) for $1400.

Both of the above have 512MB dedicated graphics :).

pctek
27-06-2009, 08:33 AM
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?


Yes.
The best you can do with laptops is use one with dedicated graphics RAM andf get the highest spec integrated you can. Which of course is super expensive.
But then laptops aren't designed for gaming really anyway.

Metla
27-06-2009, 09:44 AM
I would think these laptops would do a decent job with video editing and average games - but these do not have integrated graphics.

They all have intergrated graphics, they just use a better then average intergrated chipset and have their own dedicated video ram rather then utilising system ram.

Though as has been pointed out in the past there are exceptions, though as far as I know they are a rarity.

The Asus Pro50SR is listed at DSE for $1399 hand has ATI Mobility Radeon 512MB Dedicated Graphics, She will suck at games but be far superior for all multimedia applications then a laptop such as the Pro50SR.