integrated video or not?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Carbon
  • Start date Start date
C

Carbon

I'm going to build a new computer for a friend of mine. The main
requirement is stability. Low cost and decent speed are desirable but
secondary. This computer will be used mainly for office type work and web
surfing via modem (no broadband available).

I've been reading the budget box system guides over at arstechnica and
I've pretty much narrowed it down to an nforce2/Barton combination. The
two candidates are:

micro-atx/integrated video: enlight en-7602 w/msi k7n2gm-l

regular atx and agp video: inwin s-506 w/shuttle an35n & ati 9200

Both systems will have good power supplies, 2x256 corsair pc2700 ram, 80gb
wd 8mb hd, usr 2977 modem, etc. The micro-atx msi board has geforce 4 mx
video onboard and I'm sure it would be adequate performance-wise, but
would it be as stable as the full nforce2-400 ultra board w/separate
video?
 
go with integrated video for business aps, and general use. Makes for a
simpler system.

you only need video cards for games and digital editing these days.
 
If speed is not a concern then picture quality will be. In the past,
Intel's integrated video has always looked like crap compared to even
bad looking nvidias. Don't know how the latest extreme graphics compares.
 
~Aart said:
go with integrated video for business aps, and general use. Makes for a
simpler system.

you only need video cards for games and digital editing these days.
Click to expand...


For games only, digital editing doesn't require any better video card than a
business app.
 
mr potatohead said:
If speed is not a concern then picture quality will be. In the past,
Intel's integrated video has always looked like crap compared to even
bad looking nvidias. Don't know how the latest extreme graphics compares.
Click to expand...

It's not bad, I can't see any difference in 2D between a Ti4200 and the
onboard video.
 
Back
Top