high-end integrated/onboard video?

[John Doe]

I've always kind of assumed that integrated video stinks. Are there
any exceptions?

Have you ever seen a review, or can you point to a review that
compares onboard video with video cards?

I have replaced mainboards more frequently than video cards. If they
integrated high-end video, my choice would probably be based on
that. But that's difficult to imagine considering my last video card
cost more than my last mainboard.

Thank you.

 

[Dale Brisket]

I've always kind of assumed that integrated video stinks. Are there
any exceptions?

Have you ever seen a review, or can you point to a review that
compares onboard video with video cards?

I have replaced mainboards more frequently than video cards. If they
integrated high-end video, my choice would probably be based on
that. But that's difficult to imagine considering my last video card
cost more than my last mainboard.

Thank you.

The Asus A8N-VM CSM has the GeForce 6150 integrated, and for me it handles
everything nicely. I haven't asked it handle Quake 4 or the like, but so far
it has not lagged. Know that it uses a max of 128 MB of system memory, so if
you plan on running games that demand more, or run best on the lastest video
iron, this board prolly won't cut it.

 

[Paul]

I've always kind of assumed that integrated video stinks. Are there
any exceptions?

Have you ever seen a review, or can you point to a review that
compares onboard video with video cards?

I have replaced mainboards more frequently than video cards. If they
integrated high-end video, my choice would probably be based on
that. But that's difficult to imagine considering my last video card
cost more than my last mainboard.

Thank you.

They stink so bad, that on a bar chart, an integrated video 3D
performance would barely measure on the chart. If you consider
gaming with an FX5200 to be fun, then by all means buy integrated
video

Consider the electrical power for a moment, as a metric. A good
video card draws 60W of electricity and has 8 memory chips
dedicated to feed it. An integrated video draws 3W of electricity
or so when gaming, and has no memory chips dedicated to feed it.
The integrated video leeches off main memory, so the frame buffer
used to paint the screen, is read out of main memory, over and
over again. Any 3D operations presumably have to block transfer
stuff back and forth to main memory as well.

On some of the more modern chipset, there is a fair amount of
bandwidth available, to get to main memory. But the main memory
on any computer, still has a small bandwidth compared to the
eight dedicated chips on a good video card.

If you go integrated video, always make sure there is a video
card slot available for upgrading.

Paul

 

[DaveW]

Onboard video chips cost the motherboard manufacturer around $10 for the
part. I think that should answer your question as to the relative Quality
of onboard video versus a separate video card...

 

[JAD]

what are your plans for the machine? 2007 released 4D games?

Intel's extreme graphics is the best I've seen AFA integrated graphics goes.

 

[bgd]

I was quite surprised by an intel extreme onboard graphic with an 865
chipset(845 was simply disappointing). 1gb of system ram really sent my hl1
game maxxed. Never bothered with hl2 engine, I assumed to this day no
onboard would play it. I'm not sure how much you'd need for graphic, the
aforementioned is quite surprising for cheap performer.It also blows away my
agp card for online streaming vid, and encodings on the drive local(as
usual, for years now!).Its as if there is no inbetween "do it all" card,
full throttle fan screaming agp madness or just shy of really good with
onboard....

 

[John Doe]

The comparison, if there were any, would be to video cards running
current games, for example Doom 3, Half-Life 2 and Battlefield 2,
graphics intensive multiplayer games. That's the typical set up for
comparing current video cards.

 

[Larry Roberts]

I've always kind of assumed that integrated video stinks. Are there
any exceptions?

Have you ever seen a review, or can you point to a review that
compares onboard video with video cards?

I have replaced mainboards more frequently than video cards. If they
integrated high-end video, my choice would probably be based on
that. But that's difficult to imagine considering my last video card
cost more than my last mainboard.

Thank you.

The best out there is the Nforce 6150 based boards. The video
is DX9 SM3.0 feature supported, but is still slow with games that use
those features.

 

[WooHoo2You]

I was quite surprised by an intel extreme onboard graphic with an 865
chipset(845 was simply disappointing). 1gb of system ram really sent my hl1
game maxxed. Never bothered with hl2 engine, I assumed to this day no
onboard would play it. I'm not sure how much you'd need for graphic, the
aforementioned is quite surprising for cheap performer.It also blows away
my agp card for online streaming vid, and encodings on the drive local(as
usual, for years now!).Its as if there is no inbetween "do it all" card,
full throttle fan screaming agp madness or just shy of really good with
onboard....

From what I understand, HL2 performance has much more to do with your mobo
and CPU then your video card. Just the way it was programmed.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

The comparison, if there were any, would be to video cards running
current games, for example Doom 3, Half-Life 2 and Battlefield 2,
graphics intensive multiplayer games. That's the typical set up for
comparing current video cards.

I take it as a given that integrated graphics are limited to budget
machines because of the market. What customer would pay for an
expensive video chipset they could never resell/reuse if they decided
to upgrade?

This is a curious question, coming from you. You have said your
approach is to upgrade component by component, rather than
scratch-building a new system every few years. You would seem the
least likely type of person to be interested in a main board with
integrated graphics.

Charlie

 

[Ed Medlin]

The comparison, if there were any, would be to video cards running
current games, for example Doom 3, Half-Life 2 and Battlefield 2,
graphics intensive multiplayer games. That's the typical set up for
comparing current video cards.

With current games you would be much better off with a mid-range AGP or
PCI-E 16x card. On board video is just fine for an office system and playing
solitaire or the like, but for taxing games like you mentioned would be all
but useless. Folks have enough problems running some of those like BF2 with
very high-end cards. Take a quick look at some of the forums for the games
you mention and you will see what I mean......

Ed

 

[Dale Brisket]

From what I understand, HL2 performance has much more to do with your mobo
and CPU then your video card. Just the way it was programmed.

Careful there. You might cause some doubt in these, er, 'enthusiasts' who
dropped $400 on the latest vidcard. You know, the ones who can't wait to
tell you that onboard is the suck.

 

[John Doe]

Last time I had any concern about playing local video was in about
1998-2000. I was able to play nine tiled iterations of Rob Roy from the
Windows 95 CD, all with audio going at the same time through the old
Windows media player. I thought that was cool.

Fast is fast is fast.

It's a typical FPS.

Careful there. You might cause some doubt in these, er,
'enthusiasts' who dropped $400 on the latest vidcard.

My last card cost about $140. It's not the latest but it will blow
away any onboard video for any graphics intensive application.

You know, the ones who can't wait to tell you that onboard is the
suck.

Apparently it is. But there's no malice in saying so.

Path: newssvr29.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm05.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm04.news.prodigy.com!newsdst01.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr27.news.prodigy.net.POSTED!2c008f61!not-for-mail
From: "Dale Brisket" <[nospam]jhansman pacbell.net>
Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
References: <Xns978995AB2E2DEfollydom 207.115.17.102> <usFSf.57298$Jd.22851 newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> <eLKSf.4594$092.2168 trndny04> <1DOSf.6297$k75.3220 newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: high-end integrated/onboard video?
Lines: 25
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; Response
Message-ID: <8U0Tf.2649$tN3.2072 newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.134.95.186
X-Complaints-To: abuse prodigy.net
X-Trace: newssvr27.news.prodigy.net 1142725252 ST000 70.134.95.186 (Sat, 18 Mar 2006 18:40:52 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 18:40:52 EST
Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com
X-UserInfo1: TSU[ ION_BTQBQD[CJKXOFTBTR\B GXLN GZ_GYO^ZUDUWYAKVUOPCW[ML\JXUCKVFDYZKBMSFX^OMSAFNTINTDDMVW[X\THOPXZRVOCJTUTPC\_JSBVX\KAOTBAJBVMZTYAKMNLDI_MFDSSOLXINH__FS^\WQGHGI^C E[A_CF\AQLDQ\BTMPLDFNVUQ_VM
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 23:40:52 GMT
Xref: prodigy.net alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:461776

 

[Miami Jones]

I've always kind of assumed that integrated video stinks. Are there
any exceptions?

I don't know of any, I do see some 5 and 600 dollar motherboards for
sale.
you might find some good intergration on the high end motherboards.

I've ALWAYS held to the idea that each component should be by the
people who do that component best. I have a low end nvidia agp, it has
made a monster difference in my pc experience. same with my mid grade
sound card.

You can't buy a $100 mobo, and expect a 500.00 video performance; goes
without saying. just a matter of simple math.