Advantage of Graphics card vs. motherboard VGA built in?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Albert
  • Start date Start date
A

Albert

I don't play PC games, so other then that is there really a reason to
put in a $100 graphic card in a PC other then utilizing the built in
VGA graphics on my ASUS motherboard. What types of applications if
any other then games would I notice a difference? Video Editing,
Photoshop, etc ????? Thanks.
 
Albert said:
I don't play PC games, so other then that is there really a reason to
put in a $100 graphic card in a PC other then utilizing the built in
VGA graphics on my ASUS motherboard. What types of applications if
any other then games would I notice a difference? Video Editing,
Photoshop, etc ????? Thanks.
Click to expand...

As long as you have the inputs/outputs you require, I doubt you will see any
advantage at all for what you are doing.


Ed
 
Albert said:
I don't play PC games, so other then that is there really a reason to
put in a $100 graphic card in a PC other then utilizing the built in
VGA graphics on my ASUS motherboard. What types of applications if
any other then games would I notice a difference? Video Editing,
Photoshop, etc ????? Thanks.
Click to expand...

Install the OS, test the things you do, and then make up
your mind. If you see signs the chipset graphics suck,
then you can upgrade to a video card. You don't have to
buy the graphics card right away.

The Vista Aero graphical interface, uses some 3D functions
for desktop rendering. And some chipsets may not be
entirely optimal for that. But testing will tell you
soon enough (if that is your OS of choice).

And by the time you're ready to buy the graphics card,
you may have a list of things you tried, which performed
poorly. If you post the list of things you tried to do,
the speed of the processor you're using, then perhaps
someone can suggest a good enough graphics card to
support the functions needed.

There are certain specialty functions, that differ
between chipsets. In this example, the chipset is being
used to do some of the processing for H.264 movie
playback. For people building HTPCs, they may care
about this kind of thing. It all depends if you're
trying to get away with using a budget processor
or not. If your processor has "plenty of grunt",
then the acceleration feature or lack of it,
may not be important.

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3258&p=7

Paul
 
Albert said:
I don't play PC games, so other then that is there really a reason to
put in a $100 graphic card in a PC other then utilizing the built in
VGA graphics on my ASUS motherboard. What types of applications if
any other then games would I notice a difference? Video Editing,
Photoshop, etc ????? Thanks.
Click to expand...

Video adapters built into motherboards use your CPU and RAM to help simulate
a video card. It is a cheap solution, mainly good for business workstations
that only see office applications and minimal Internet use.

Even the cheapest add-in video card will make a tremendous improvement in
overall system performance. With a dedicated video card, your CPU will not
work as hard, and you will have more RAM available to run programs, which
will mean that your hard drive(s) are accessed less. This translates to
programs open/close faster, and the display on your monitor gets refreshed
faster. That is, after the program opens (or closes, or whatever), you will
see the results faster. These improvements make the computer feel like a
faster computer, even if it's not significantly faster.

In other words, you will notice a difference, no matter WHAT you are
running.

I wouldn't necessarily suggest you spend $100 on a graphics card unless you
know that you will need it for some reason, such as games, or video editing,
etc. But, DO get SOME kind of video card for your system. Decent ones
start as low as $30. And yes, gamers and other computer users will ridicule
your $30 video card as terribly slow and outdated, cheap piece of crap, etc.
But you will be happier with your cheap video card than you will WITHOUT
t. -Dave
 
I don't play PC games, so other then that is there really a reason to
put in a $100 graphic card in a PC other then utilizing the built in VGA
graphics on my ASUS motherboard. What types of applications if any
other then games would I notice a difference? Video Editing, Photoshop,
etc ????? Thanks.
Click to expand...

ot really. Most onboard graphics support Directx 9.0b or 9.0c, so if
you're not running HD movies or 3D games there's little reason to add a
card. If you're running Photoshop or video editing a GF8600, HD2900
or better card would help. However, if you only do occasional Photoshop
and video editing then a graphics card still wouldn't be worth it.

Perform should be what you're looking for with a graphic card upgrade not
just price, ie, hardware Directx 10 or 11 support, hardware HD or BluRay
decoding, higher gpu clock speed, low power consumption, quiet and cool
operation, etc.
 
Albert said:
I don't play PC games, so other then that is there really a reason to
put in a $100 graphic card in a PC other then utilizing the built in
VGA graphics on my ASUS motherboard. What types of applications if
any other then games would I notice a difference? Video Editing,
Photoshop, etc ????? Thanks.
Click to expand...

I have a dumb question to add to above

Does built in video usually have TV out
connections?

Or must one go to an add in card to get
that feature?
 
Video adapters built into motherboards use your CPU and RAM to help simulate
a video card. It is a cheap solution, mainly good for business workstations
that only see office applications and minimal Internet use.

Even the cheapest add-in video card will make a tremendous improvement in
overall system performance.
Click to expand...

Is this true for name-brand circuitry (ATI, NVidia) built into
name-brand MBs (Intel, ASUS)? How can we tell i.e. what
is the evidence?
 
Video graphics cards seem to improve every 6 months or so, if not
quicker.

I don't know if any motherboard maker has a replaceable video chip.
 
I have a dumb question to add to above

Does built in video usually have TV out
connections?

Or must one go to an add in card to get
that feature?
Click to expand...

I think a video card is the best choice in that case.
You're more likely to get full dual head operation,
without a lot of research, testing, driver updates, cursing,
and so on. Using a video card for TV output, is more
likely to work out-of-the-box.

This motherboard uses a tiny plugin card (you can see it
in the picture). The plugin card is not a full graphics
card, and converts SDVO output from the motherboard (signals
multiplexed onto the video slot pins), to DisplayPort in
this particular case. By using other chips, it is possible
to go from SDVO to S-video. But nobody is addressing this
kind of market, as it is too obscure to consider as a viable
business. The fact that Asrock bundled the card, is commendable.
Otherwise, nobody would sell you one.

http://images17.newegg.com/is/image/newegg/13-157-127-S05?$S640W$

This is an example of a card Asus did several years ago, for
adding S-video and DVI to motherboard graphics. The signals are
multiplexed on the AGP slot. But don't expect to find one
of these cards at RadioShack. Even the Asus Estore doesn't
seem to carry these kind of adapters. So while you can find
pictures, that is all you can get.

http://www.asus.com/999/html/share/3/txt/13/images/DVI-ADD.jpg

A proper video card is a safer alternative, and may even include
bundled cables or adapter plugs.

Paul
 
nobody > said:
There may be a very few motherboards that do offer composite video
onboard, but none come to mind immediately. I seem to remember a mention
here of one that had DVI and HDMI outputs,
Click to expand...

OK thanks

Well I want to order a generic Dell Optiplex to use as
a "base" for a DVR for a TV.... but was curious of the
onboard video had any TV out connections or if I will
need to add a 3rd party video board
 
Albert said:
I don't play PC games, so other then that is there really a reason to
put in a $100 graphic card in a PC other then utilizing the built in
VGA graphics on my ASUS motherboard. What types of applications if
any other then games would I notice a difference? Video Editing,
Photoshop, etc ????? Thanks.
Click to expand...


I find the North bridge gets too hot on most motherboards with
integrated video. Fitting a copper heatsink with thermal epoxy is
usually not difficult but it does void any warranty. For $30 you can add
a Sapphire Radeon HD 3450 which is silent and performs better than any
integrated solution.
 
Is this true for name-brand circuitry (ATI, NVidia) built into
name-brand MBs (Intel, ASUS)?
Yes.


How can we tell i.e. what
is the evidence?
Click to expand...

Not meaning to sound like a smartass, but you use your own eyes. Set up the
system with built-in video. Notice how slowly windows open, and how long
you have to wait for the screen to refresh. Then install video card and
disable onboard video. It will feel like a whole new computer.

If you want numbers, you can always run 3dmark06 or similar. Even with the
supposedly same chipset, the dedicated video card will score a good 50%
higher. -Dave
 
Dave said:
Not meaning to sound like a smartass, but you use your own eyes. Set up
the system with built-in video. Notice how slowly windows open, and how
long you have to wait for the screen to refresh. Then install video
card and disable onboard video. It will feel like a whole new computer.

If you want numbers, you can always run 3dmark06 or similar. Even with
the supposedly same chipset, the dedicated video card will score a good
50% higher. -Dave
Click to expand...

Not forgetting of course, that video operations consist of 2D and
3D operations. Advancements in 2D stopped years ago, and bitblt
and the like would be the same whether done on built-in
or via a video card. It is 3D that is differentiated by
the extra silicon on a video card, due to more resources
operating in parallel. But for 2D, the video card is largely
the same (single threaded). I don't believe there is parallelism
for bitblt or other 2D accelerated functions.

Which is why I recommend testing the computer without video card
first. If the graphics render fast enough, then there is no need to
install a video card.

If the computer uses Vista, and the Aero interface is enabled, then
that is an example of a (relatively lightweight) usage of 3D. If
the built-in video cannot composite windows fast enough to make
Aero fluid, then again, a video card upgrade could be
considered.

If you're a gamer, then obviously you buy a video card, because
you'll be seeing a 3D slide show otherwise. But there is no
reason to panic, if the computer usage is 2D only.

Paul
 
Back
Top