Do I need a dedicated graphics card?

I am planning to get a laptop for my undergraduate in computer science.
I was wondering if i need a dedicated graphics card for my laptop . I would be using it for college purposes and games like counter strike and fifa only.
Also if i do have a dedicated graphics card does that rule out any major difference between 2nd gen and 3rd gen processors ?
Thank You.

 

The newer the better the dedicated GPU, and trust when it comes to dedicated GPU's you sure as hell want the best CPU around, with a decent amount of RAM and at least 1600MHz RAM speed (as it boosts the GPU power)

Enjoy, and yes 3rd gen CPU is without a doubt recommended

 

there's another member on here that sounds like you, i.e. always get best of the best ... heh. While not bad it is usually way expensive considering the other options.

for what you've listed then you probably dont need a dedicated GPU, or get a laptop with the least expensive one.

if you're going with Intel processors, the major difference between the 2nd and the 3rd generation chips is that the last come with more powerful GPU, compared to the 2nd generation chips, that could actually play older games fine at medium settings. The speed of the CPU is roughly the same, with the 3rd generation running a bit cooler due to the smaller manufacturer process used to make those. So if you're going with Intel and no dedicated GPU then look for 3rd generation chips.

However you also might want to look at AMD chips that might better suite your needs. While not as fast as the Intel offerings CPU-wise, those pack much better integrated graphics that will sure come handy with many things besides gaming. Considering that CPU power is plenty nowadays for the majority of the users, I'd pick the better integrated graphics of the AMD before I go for Intel 3rd gen chips.

while this is a generalized comparison I hope you can get the idea. A nice note to that would be that AMD powered laptop is usually cheaper than the Intel equivalent.

 

*discrete GPU. a VGA/GPU, be it integrated or discrete, is always dedicated to processing graphics hence the name.

really depends on how fancy looking and at what resolution you want to play counter-strike (source/GO?) or FIFA, OP. of course a dGPU will typically outperform an iGPU, but will also generally cost more, require more power, run hotter overall, etc. if you don't mind playing your games on low-medium settings at high definition (1280×720) or less, you can probably get away with an ivy bridge cpu that has hd 4000.

 

Oh wait I ghostwrote completely!

I meant integrated gpu, the one that comes with the CPU itself, my bad! I you read carefully you'll see what I mean.

The iGPU is way stronger than my old 8600M GT, that I used in my M1530 XPS... and trust me with the power today one will easily be able to play CS on if not highest settings, and again Fifa doesn't require much. Also you save a lot of battery power this way.

P.S. My apologies for writing the wrong thing !

 

It depends on how utterly low your budget is. Right now you can have an i5-3210M and GT 630M for $529.99.

I believe in always taking a dedicated card, because it's not about the games you play now, but the ones you might want to play in the future.

 

If you strictly only want to play CS:GO and Fifa, and you're willing to play in low resolution and low settings, you can get by without a dedicated graphics card if you get a decent ivy bridge processor.

If your gaming interests go beyond that at all, I would recommend any modern intel GPU (sandy bridge or ivy bridge) and a dedicated graphics card.

AMD might be a reasonable option if your budget is very low, as you can get slightly better integrated graphics per cost with AMD, but you sacrifice a lot of CPU performance and performance/watt.

 

do you have a budget?

 

I would completely disagree with this statement. AMDs integrated GPU is, as notebookcheck put it, "miles ahead of intels HD4000 integrated GPU". As far as CPU goes, unless you're doing video work, any Intel CPU from the last ~3 years would do just fine, which equals to the current (or last year) AMD CPU offerings.

besides, this laptop would be for college purpose. Now I dont know how many of you have been through college, but I can ensure that gaming is pretty big part of the "college laptop", heh. Also should one start taking some architecture classes then GPU performance will be needed for sure. And Intel driver support sucks big time, not just little bit.

so I'd put the choice this way:
- intel sandy/ivy bridge and no dedicated GPU: lots of not-needed-for-college CPU power and disappointing GPU performance, rather expensive;
- AMD last offerings and no dedicated GPU: just fine CPU power and pretty decent GPU performance, rather cheap, perfect for college IMO;
- intel sandy/ivy bridge + dedicated GPU: plenty performance on both sides, expensive, weak battery life (?);

on that note, Intel realized that they need to pack much more GPU in their chips and are making the right steps, as the HD4000 is the first that can actually do some decent gaming but more is needed. Unlike the HD3000 that is still weak.

and AMD needs to fit their last A10 chips into smaller laptops with decent screens, as this will bump their sales big time. They could bump their CPU speed a bit too.

while decent on specs dont forget that this is Acer .. and I'm sure most know the quality of their laptops.

 

thats some very lite gaming you're going to do and well computer science major wont need a high end laptop (in my case at least) so yeah get one with integrated graphics since you will only play casually.

 

If you're doing Computer Science, you'll probably be programming and compiling code. If I'm not mistaken, compiling is a CPU task, and longer codes can take a while to compile. Intel's HD4000 will handle CS and FIFA while running faster on CPU-bound tasks than an AMD APU. However, if you're not going to be compiling heavy code or doing other CPU-heavy tasks regularly, the graphics processor of an AMD APU will give you better graphics and/or performance in most games without detracting from system performance in everyday tasks such as MS Office use, watching videos, listening to music, and surfing the web.

Either way, for Counter Strike and FIFA, you shouldn't need a discrete GPU. Integrated graphics from the last couple processor generations - Intel or AMD - will suffice for acceptable performance with moderate visual quality.

 

Perhaps wait for Haswell, twice the performance of Ivy bridge HD4000. However HD4000 is good enough to handle CS and FIFA.

 

As someone with a CS degree, let me tell you that there will be occasional times when you will need as much CPU as you can get, you'll be extremely thankful that you picked a good CPU, and it will be much more important to you than counter strike or fifa.

if you have a reasonable budget, you can get an intel cpu + dedicated GPU. Most options today have switchable graphics.so there isn't an impact on battery life. It's more expensive, but it's unilaterally the best option. Again, if your budget is very tight and you cant afford a dedicated GPU, you can consider an AMD chip for the improved low-end graphics performance.