stand alone vs integrated
in [ATI Video Cards]
|
From: John Doe on 17 Mar 2006 15:35 "abc" <a b.c> wrote: > > "John Doe" <jdoe usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message > news:Xns9788E6AEAF90Ffollydom 207.115.17.102... >> zebra26 gmail.com wrote: >> >>> >>> I am looking at a new computer purchase and I am a little >>> confused regarding the graphics. >>> >>> The unit is an HP desktop 1330 which has an integrated ATI >>> radeon xpress 200 graphics with 256k shared video memory. > > Check out the reviews for the chipset, it runs surprisingly well, > just gets outdated too quickly that's all. For what applications? The user is talking about the idea that increasing mainboard/system memory will increase the performance of the built-in video. He hasn't specified an application, but we can assume he wants fast video. I replace my mainboard more frequently than my video card. I spent more on my last video card than I spent on my last mainboard. Please pick any mainboard with built-in video and point to comparisons to video cards. I have never seen or even heard of a review like that. It might be an interesting subject, IMO, if it made sense. If it were true that mainboard video compares with videocard video, that's what I would base my mainboard choices on. They don't make them that way probably because the vast majority of users (wordprocessing, financing, and Internet browsing) don't need high-end graphics. > > > > > Path: newssvr14.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm05.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm03.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!news.moat.net!nntp.waia.asn.au!203.59.27.186.MISMATCH!newsfeed.iinet.net.au!newsfeed.iinet.net.au!per-qv1-newsstorage1.iinet.net.au!per-qv1-newsstorage1.iinet.net.au!per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au!not-for-mail > From: "abc" <a b.c> > Newsgroups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati > References: <1142545374.360845.296620 j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <Xns9788E6AEAF90Ffollydom 207.115.17.102> > Subject: Re: stand alone vs integrated > Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 18:01:12 +0800 > X-Priority: 3 > X-MSMail-Priority: Normal > X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2670 > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2670 > X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original > Lines: 39 > Message-ID: <441a89aa$0$18553$5a62ac22 per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au> > NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.59.13.152 > X-Trace: 1142589866 per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au 18553 203.59.13.152 > Xref: prodigy.net alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati:205966 >
From: vellu on 17 Mar 2006 16:03 And isn't cost effective either. There is just no sense what so ever to add 300-400$ worth of graphics capabilities to a motherboard (which is about the average price for a high-end gfx, not the most high-end though). Who in their right mind would buy one... > > It might be an interesting subject, IMO, if it made sense. If it > were true that mainboard video compares with videocard video, that's > what I would base my mainboard choices on. They don't make them that > way probably because the vast majority of users (wordprocessing, > financing, and Internet browsing) don't need high-end graphics. >
From: zebra26 on 18 Mar 2006 10:38 John Doe wrote: > "abc" <a b.c> wrote: > > > > > "John Doe" <jdoe usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message > > news:Xns9788E6AEAF90Ffollydom 207.115.17.102... > >> zebra26 gmail.com wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> I am looking at a new computer purchase and I am a little > >>> confused regarding the graphics. > >>> > >>> The unit is an HP desktop 1330 which has an integrated ATI > >>> radeon xpress 200 graphics with 256k shared video memory. > > > > > Check out the reviews for the chipset, it runs surprisingly well, > > just gets outdated too quickly that's all. > > For what applications? > > The user is talking about the idea that increasing mainboard/system > memory will increase the performance of the built-in video. He > hasn't specified an application, but we can assume he wants fast > video. > > I replace my mainboard more frequently than my video card. I spent > more on my last video card than I spent on my last mainboard. > > Please pick any mainboard with built-in video and point > to comparisons to video cards. I have never seen or even heard of a > review like that. > > It might be an interesting subject, IMO, if it made sense. If it > were true that mainboard video compares with videocard video, that's > what I would base my mainboard choices on. They don't make them that > way probably because the vast majority of users (wordprocessing, > financing, and Internet browsing) don't need high-end graphics. > Ok then how about this. The MB has a built in video and it isn't up to snuff with gaming, not the latest 3D stuff. There is a free PCI express slot. What would be a good choice for a plug in videocard? The vendor told me that once a seperate video card is installed the built it video capability is rendered redundant, although it might have to be shut down in the BIOS.
From: John Doe on 18 Mar 2006 16:37 zebra26(a)gmail.com wrote: > > Ok then how about this. The MB has a built in video and it isn't > up to snuff with gaming, not the latest 3D stuff. > There is a free PCI express slot. What would be a good choice for > a plug in videocard? > The vendor told me that once a seperate video card is installed > the built it video capability is rendered redundant, although it > might have to be shut down in the BIOS. A fast video card. The only likely use I would have for built-in video is dual monitors. Then again, I would have to know whether or not games can be forced to play in the video card driven monitor. Then again, apparently most modern video cards like the one I just bought come with dual output. I think it's fairly well resolved that if you want fast video, don't buy a mainboard with built-in video. Shutting it down in the BIOS should be simple if you know what you're doing. Good luck.
From: MB on 25 Mar 2006 20:49
On 18 Mar 2006 07:38:52 -0800, zebra26(a)gmail.com wrote: > >John Doe wrote: >> "abc" <a b.c> wrote: >> >> > >> > "John Doe" <jdoe usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message >> > news:Xns9788E6AEAF90Ffollydom 207.115.17.102... >> >> zebra26 gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >>> >> >>> I am looking at a new computer purchase and I am a little >> >>> confused regarding the graphics. >> >>> >> >>> The unit is an HP desktop 1330 which has an integrated ATI >> >>> radeon xpress 200 graphics with 256k shared video memory. >> >> > >> > Check out the reviews for the chipset, it runs surprisingly well, >> > just gets outdated too quickly that's all. >> >> For what applications? >> >> The user is talking about the idea that increasing mainboard/system >> memory will increase the performance of the built-in video. He >> hasn't specified an application, but we can assume he wants fast >> video. >> >> I replace my mainboard more frequently than my video card. I spent >> more on my last video card than I spent on my last mainboard. >> >> Please pick any mainboard with built-in video and point >> to comparisons to video cards. I have never seen or even heard of a >> review like that. >> >> It might be an interesting subject, IMO, if it made sense. If it >> were true that mainboard video compares with videocard video, that's >> what I would base my mainboard choices on. They don't make them that >> way probably because the vast majority of users (wordprocessing, >> financing, and Internet browsing) don't need high-end graphics. >> >Ok then how about this. The MB has a built in video and it isn't up to >snuff with gaming, not the latest 3D stuff. >There is a free PCI express slot. What would be a good choice for a >plug in videocard? >The vendor told me that once a seperate video card is installed the >built it video capability is rendered redundant, although it might have >to be shut down in the BIOS. Um.... x1900xtx. That's about $600. But it's very fast! Now, if you can better define your needs and what kind of system it might be easier to make a recommendation for a dedicated video card.... you know, what games you might want to play, how much you can spend.... how long you would like to keep it.... |