How much difference does the GPU/IGP make in Windows XP?

How much difference in performance would be seen between an Integrated card such as Ati X200M Express and a dedicated card such as a 7600 GO, X1300 etc??

I am reffering ONLY to regular applications. For example when running the following:

Microsoft Office 2007
Utorrent
Firefox 2
Windows XP SP2 with Windows Classic/XP Default theme

I am NOT reffering to gaming as I KNOW there is a MASSIVE MASSIVE difference in that respect. But is there really any noticeable difference in Windows or is RAM the main factor in this area.

 

None.

*filler*

 

Ditto on that. None.

 

Um...I'm gonna say...none.

The only exception is if you need all of your RAM and the IGP is using some of it.

 

None, pretty much. Get at least an ATI or NVIDIA card though, not an Intel one. The Intel chips don't do the video processing that helps with DVD's and other video files.

 

None. I have run XP perfectly happily in an 8mb Intel 852 and a 16mb trident cyberblade (possibly the most lame gpu ever created).

For worry-free XP i'd say get something with at least 64mb of v-ram and preferably not SiS or S3 etc., so ATi, Nvidia or Intel.

 

How about Vista?

 

Opinions are divided. From what I remember the min requirements are 128Mb v-ram and recommended 256Mb v-ram, but I'd imagine it'd run ok on 64. A decent 128Mb IGP should do fine I'd guess but I am no vista guru!

 

The Intel GMA950 runs Vista fine. If the GMA950 can run it, the ATI X200M definitely can run it.

 

Xp will run on anything. I've run it on a 2mb Card fine.

 

This is totally overblown. The million of laptop owners with Intel GMA out there and I have yet to hear of even one who was unable to watch a DVD, or even one who had trouble watching DVD normally on their laptop.

And all the folks out there ripping burning DVD's - what are the vast majority of them using; Intel graphics that comes on every laptop.

There is a huge difference between marketing hype and reality of life. All the folks selling graphics cards would like you to believe that we all NEED a discre graphics card and bla bla, but it iant true - nor will they admit that it in fact eats up battery life and increases the weight/size of the device ie it aint exactly optimised for laptops. Which is why Intel came up with theirs - its a win-win for them and consumers.

Im no Intel fan boy or anyhting, but lets call a spade a spade

 

I never said they couldn't watch DVD's (read it again). I said that they don't do the offloading of motion compensation and other calculations to the graphics chip (aka video processing), so with an Intel graphics card your CPU runs a lot more when watching a DVD as compared to watching it on an Intel or ATI card, and from different tests you will typically get better video quality out of and ATI/NVIDIA card with PureVideo or whatever they call the technologies, and at lower CPU usage. I am calling a spade a spade.

 

Pita's right. Nvidia and ATI cards have things like CineShader and other branded technology that smooths out frames on DVD playback. The difference is small, but there is a difference.

 

No one doubts there is a differnece - one has to assume there is some tradeoff for the extra weight, size and cooling that a discrete graphics chips makes.

But the tiny degree of this quality- added to its offsetting disadvantages - is exactly why many volume laptop makers dont bother.

I mean if you are that discerning and nitpicky about the quality of your DVD movies, one would presume you would do that kind of connoisseur-type stuff on a 50" plasma, not while squinting at pokey 12", 13" laptop LCD or even hooked up to a 19" LCD? Right?

I dont have any beef if someone is editing movies on their laptop and claiming it is necessary for them. But there are a lot of myths shuttled around in computer buying about CPU speed and graphics chips that just dont match the reality or needs to the average laptop user, for whom such things are really overblown.

 

Well, I'm not too concerned about needing IGP acceleration to run DVDs since MPEG2 decompression and things like motion compensation really don't stress even the lowest modern CPU nowadays. What is useful though is HD video support. Granted it is still a bit touchy since there are so many standards but things like WMV HD, DivX HD, H.264, etc. do benefit from dedicated GPU acceleration. Note that even this is changing since the latest AMD IGP the X1250 while based on the X700 core has AVIVO support. Also, the Intel GMA X3000 also has some decent hardware video decoding capabilities, although I've seen reports that it's either the best out there or that it's the worst.