On-board vs. VGA card

[NoiseFreeGuy]

I'm trying to decide between an on-board graphics MB (mATX) and an ATX MB sans graphics.

I've gotten by with a 1M and then 4M graphics card for ten years, so obviously graphics are not a big thing with me.

I'm not a gamer and not into anything demanding in terms of graphics.

What I'd like to know is what the difference would be, performance-wise, between the two above choices?

The two MB's have slightly different configs. and each is preferable to the other in different areas.

Let's assume I'd get a passively cooled card if I were to go that route.

I couldn't find this info in the FAQ.

Thanks!

[breunor]

You can disable an onboard video chip if a MB comes with one, if you prefer using your own video card. A standalone card certainly is faster and has more features, but a built in chip on pretty much any current MB is fine for handling office work or web surfing tasks. Some can even handle less intense/older games. Add a little more system memory for video use, I think the integrated chips all still use system memory compared to a standalone card using dedicated memory.

[danielvh]

Something like a mATX AM2 board based on the nvidia 6150 chipset is absolutely awesome for normal PC stuff like office apps, internet, basic multimedia and so on, and you have a little bit of power if you ever want to play any games etc (though newer games you'd have to play at 800*600 with low details but older games like warcraft3 run sweet as).

I recently built a system for a client in an Antec NSK2400 using the Asus M2NPV-VM board, an A64 3800+, 1GB DDR2 PC6400 RAM and a 320GB Seagate 7200.10 (although I'd now recomend the WD SE16 over the Seagate) and it was an awesome little system. Quiet too (after replacing the stock cooler with a Zalman 7700-Cu, removing one of the 120mm exhaust fans and setting the other one to low).

[wumpus]

What I'd like to know is what the difference would be, performance-wise, between the two above choices?

The performance difference is huge, typically 3x or greater in favor of stand-alone graphics cards. However, integrated video has a huge advantage in terms of lower power use. Integrated video uses at least 10 watts less even for the most efficient stand-alone video cards!

And less heat = less noise!

[danielvh]

What I'd like to know is what the difference would be, performance-wise, between the two above choices?

The performance difference is huge, typically 3x or greater in favor of stand-alone graphics cards. However, integrated video has a huge advantage in terms of lower power use. Integrated video uses at least 10 watts less even for the most efficient stand-alone video cards!

And less heat = less noise!

But not compared to 4mb graphics cards :p

Basically, unless you're doing graphics intensive stuff an IGP like the 6150 will be more than sufficient and not produce much heat

[smilingcrow]

Under certain circumstances on-board graphics can be limiting even in 2D work. This is in situations where you are saturating the memory bandwidth and it has nothing left for the graphics. In these admittedly rare cases, the GUI can slow to a point where you even wonder if the system has hung. This is likely to get more of an issue as CPUs with 2 or more cores share the memory bandwidth. Therefore, I personally wouldn’t buy a motherboard that didn’t have a PCIe x16 slot even if it has an IGP. At least you can then upgrade if your particular work load causes this to be an issue for you.

[NoiseFreeGuy]

The performance difference is huge, typically 3x or greater in favor of stand-alone graphics cards. However, integrated video has a huge advantage in terms of lower power use. Integrated video uses at least 10 watts less even for the most efficient stand-alone video cards!

Thanks Wumpus.
I guess it might be wise (all other things being equal) to try integrated, and if it doesn't perform as expected switch to a graphics card.
The only problem there is that I wouldn't know how much of a hit I was taking (video-wise) until I bought a PCIe card to compare.

One other factor currently at play is the Intel G965 chipset.
It happens to be on the mATX MB that I'm considering. It's getting a very bad rap so far on the net. Apparently Intel is re-doing the chip as we speak. So that doesn't leave me feeling totally positive about a purchase.

[NoiseFreeGuy]

Therefore, I personally wouldn’t buy a motherboard that didn’t have a PCIe x16 slot even if it has an IGP. At least you can then upgrade if your particular work load causes this to be an issue for you.

Thanks Smiling. I'll make sure it has PCIe x16 if I go the mATX route.

[NoiseFreeGuy]

I've just been bowsing some passive VGA cards.
Sorry for my ignorance on this one.
I see a whole bunch with approx. 64M local (128M or 256M including system memory.)

If the whole idea in going with a card rather than on-board video is to leave the system memory alone and not get it bogged down, why are so many of these cards designed with small amounts of on-board mem. and then they share system memory after all their on-board is used?

[smilingcrow]

I've just been bowsing some passive VGA cards.
Sorry for my ignorance on this one.
I see a whole bunch with approx. 64M local (128M or 256M including system memory.)
If the whole idea in going with a card rather than on-board video is to leave the system memory alone and not get it bogged down, why are so many of these cards designed with small amounts of on-board mem. and then they share system memory after all their on-board is used?

Only entry level cards have this feature and since typically only games will use the extra RAM and these entry level cards aren’t much good for playing games anyway, it’s not much of an issue. For anyone in the grey area, just go with a card with 128MB or more of physical RAM.

[NoiseFreeGuy]

For anyone in the grey area, just go with a card with 128MB or more of physical RAM.

OK, thanks for that Smiling!

[VERiON]

I have experience with i815 onboard graphic card versus AGP radeon 8500.

I can see big improvement in GUI draw speed (windows, menus, buttons, etc.) when switching form onboard to AGP.

I have Ubuntu 6.06

[NoiseFreeGuy]

I have experience with i815 onboard graphic card versus AGP radeon 8500.

I can see big improvement in GUI draw speed (windows, menus, buttons, etc.) when switching form onboard to AGP.

Thanks Verion. And I imagine that PCIe cards would be even faster than AGP cards.

[Tibors]

You can't compare the ~5 year old i815 with current integrated graphics.

I'm not exactly up to date in my graphics performance benchmarks, but a new integrated graphics board (as long as it's not a VIA chipset) is probably faster than the ~5 year old radeon 8500 too.