Value of integrated graphics on mobo?

3D performance

BR,
C

most onboard graphics is pretty low end a card would cost in the 10-20$
range if you could find one that slow!

Wayne


"Lem" wrote in message
...
Approximately what would it cost to buy a seperate graphics card
offering the same sort of quality as the integrated graphics on a
quality motherboard like:

Asus A7N8X-VM (nVidia)
Asus A7V8X-VM (Via)
Gigabyte 7VN400M (Via)
MSI-K7M2G-L (nVidia)
etc

Lem wrote:
Approximately what would it cost to buy a seperate graphics card
offering the same sort of quality as the integrated graphics on a
quality motherboard like:

Asus A7N8X-VM (nVidia)
Asus A7V8X-VM (Via)
Gigabyte 7VN400M (Via)
MSI-K7M2G-L (nVidia)
etc

What do you mean with "quality"? 2D output quality? In that case, it's
hard to tell, since this depends almost entirely on the output filter on
the graphic card (or motherboard for integrated graphics). Most
motherboards though seem to have really crappy output filters (with the
exception of some intel boards IIRC). But the same is sometimes true for
cheap graphic cards unfortunately.
If you're talking about 3d performance / 3d quality, the nVidia
(nforce2) has a GF4MX integrated. Its performance is about in the middle
between a 64bit GF4MX (GF4MX420, often GF4MX440SE) and a 128bit GF4MX
(GF4MX440) - this is only true if you use the board in dual-channel ram
mode, otherwise the performance will be below a GF4MX420. This is a DX7
class chip (no pixel/vertex shaders, T&L).
The Via boards with integrated graphic today use AFAIK all a "Unichrome"
graphic core - basically a Savage4 derivative, about as fast as a TNT2.
So to beat the integrated Via solutions, a radeon 7000 will do (which,
btw, is also available integrated on some boards, with the name radeon
igp 340 and similar).
To easily beat the nforce2, you'd need a bit more, GF4MX440, GFFX 5200
(but only the 128bit versions will be faster!), Radeon 9200 (not the SE
with its 64bit memory interface!).

Roland

So almost any card costing upwards of $30 (or £20) would be better
than what is on a mobo? Is that generally a correct understanding?

They are fine for 2d and are awful at 3d gaming.

So if you are going to play games quite a bit get a separate card.

If you arent playing games get an on-board solution.
If you arent playing games now but may in the future get an onboard
solution and then get the latest/greatest choice of current cards when
you want them.

Lem wrote:

Roland Scheidegger wrote:



I am not too sure where filters fit into graphics but, essentially,
I am thinking of getting answers to questions like this:

Would the graphics integrated into on a half-decent modern mobo be
as good as my old graphics card ... nVidia GeForce2 MX/MX 400 32MB?

BTW is that card the same as what you call "nforce2"?

I have a Leadtek Geforce2 GTS about 3yo, and an Asus*A7N8X-VM has better
graphics.

gtoomey

Lem wrote:
Roland Scheidegger wrote:


Approximately what would it cost to buy a seperate graphics card
offering the same sort of quality as the integrated graphics on a
quality motherboard like:

Asus A7N8X-VM (nVidia) Asus A7V8X-VM (Via) Gigabyte 7VN400M (Via)
MSI-K7M2G-L (nVidia) etc

What do you mean with "quality"? 2D output quality?


Thanks for posting. I think I didn't make my use of the word
"quality" clear. I mean to refer to the integrated graphics on a
decent (quality) motherboard as opposed to the integrated graphics on
a very cheap budget motherboard.
Yes, but do you refer to 2d quality or 3d performance? Those are
completely different topics, you can have a card with top-notch 2d
quality, but awful 3d performance (for instance, a matrox g200 would fit
that category today). If you only use your graphic card for, say, word
processing, but use high resolutions (1280x1024 or above) then that can
be a problem with integrated graphics (or some graphic cards), the
picture will be fuzzy. This is completely independant to how fast the
graphic chip is, so for word processing that above mentioned matrox
would be great, but for gaming it would be awful.


In that case, it's hard to tell, since this depends almost entirely
on the output filter on the graphic card (or motherboard for
integrated graphics). Most motherboards though seem to have really
crappy output filters (with the exception of some intel boards
IIRC). But the same is sometimes true for cheap graphic cards
unfortunately.


I am not too sure where filters fit into graphics but, essentially, I
am thinking of getting answers to questions like this:

Would the graphics integrated into on a half-decent modern mobo be as
good as my old graphics card ... nVidia GeForce2 MX/MX 400 32MB?
an integrated nforce2 graphic (such as that in the a7n8x-vm) is faster
than your GF2 MX 400 (but the GF2 MX400 would likely be faster than the
integrated Via chipsets). I have no idea if the 2d (signal) quality is
better or not, GF2 MX cards weren't exactly known for good signal
quality, so it might be about the same.

BTW is that card the same as what you call "nforce2"?
No, nforce2 has an integrated GeForce4 MX - basically same features as a
GeForce2 MX, but faster.

Roland

"Lem" wrote in message
...
"Lem" wrote in message

Approximately what would it cost to buy a seperate graphics
card offering the same sort of quality as the integrated
graphics on a quality motherboard like:

Asus A7N8X-VM (nVidia)
Asus A7V8X-VM (Via)
Gigabyte 7VN400M (Via)
MSI-K7M2G-L (nVidia)


"wayne" wrote:

most onboard graphics is pretty low end a card would cost in
the 10-20$ range if you could find one that slow!


So almost any card costing upwards of $30 (or £20) would be better
than what is on a mobo? Is that generally a correct understanding?

YES, your understanding is correct.

The nvidia intergrated video is the fastest. It may be as fast as the
slowest nvidia cards.

--
Ed Light

Smiley :-/
MS Smiley :-\

Send spam to the FTC at

Thanks, robots.

"Lem" wrote in message
...
Approximately what would it cost to buy a seperate graphics card
offering the same sort of quality as the integrated graphics on a
quality motherboard like:

Asus A7N8X-VM (nVidia)
Asus A7V8X-VM (Via)
Gigabyte 7VN400M (Via)
MSI-K7M2G-L (nVidia)
etc

Graphics cards tend to be rather expensive - I can't find any for less than
$40USD locally. On the web, you can find some cheaper ones, e.g.:
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProduc...roperty&DEPA=0
but you have to be careful that the card will work with your mobo. For
example, the Sapphire listed on the above page is rated at 1.5V (as per
users' reviews) and thus will not work in all mobos. At a price point below
$30 or so, you're probably dealing with similar quality as most integrated
video.

Therefore, integrated video is a bargain if you're not a gamer, etc. Either
way, you can upgrade with a nice AGP card, then when your mobo needs
upgrading, you take the AGP card with you to the new mobo and sell/use the
old mobo w/ integrated video as part of a cheap bargain system.

On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 12:43:02 +0100, Lem wrote:

Approximately what would it cost to buy a seperate graphics card
offering the same sort of quality as the integrated graphics on a
quality motherboard like:

Asus A7N8X-VM (nVidia)
Asus A7V8X-VM (Via)
Gigabyte 7VN400M (Via)
MSI-K7M2G-L (nVidia)
etc

the onboard gfx cards are cheap, maybe $50 to get equivalent performance. You
are better off with a separate card.