Integrated vs. Dedicated

Is the ATI Mobility Radeon 3640 w/ 256 MB significantly better than the Intel GMA 4500? Is the ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3450 w/256 MB? Is the ATI Mobility Radeon 3470 (doesn't say how many MB)?

The reason I ask is because if these dedicated cards don't actually show a significant improvement over the Intel GMA 4500, it might not even be worth getting them.

 

There's no contest. The Intel GMA 4500 would get blown away by the Radeon 3470. Night and day. Black and White. There's just no comparison.

 

. <--- X4500

............................................................................. <--- Radeon 3470

There's your benchmark comparison.

 

good post lol it made me Laugh and its very true

 

What about the other ones i said in my first post? ATI Mobility Radeon 3640 w/256 MB, ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3450 w/ 256 MB?

 

AFAIK the 3640 that comes with the T400 is a typo for the 3470, which is a bit better than the 3450.

 

On Chaz's mobile GPU performance thread it says that the 3450 is faster than the 3470.

 

The 3470 and 3450 are close, but the 3470 has slightly higher clockspeeds.

 

yeah I thought the 3450 was faster than the 3470.

 

Another question: How much does MB make a difference? The T400's video card says it has 256 MB, but the Vaio SR says (when you select "more info" under ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3470):

"With ATI® Radeon HD 3400 Series graphics with 128MB of dedicated video RAM, you'll experience the power of HD."

 

Well, assuming that the 3640 is infact the 3470 it won't be able to use all 256MB of dedicated memory due to its 64-bit bus.

 

So it doesn't matter if it says 64 MB, 128 MB, or 256 MB when I'm configuring a PC, it'll all work the same?

 

That was great!

We need an "All Time Great Responses" Stickied Thread, and start it out with THIS one!


T

 

bumping...

 

It wouldn't. What that number means is how much RAM the card comes with.

RAM pretty much only dictates the resolution of the textures you will potentially be able to use. For lower-range cards, 128 MB is probably enough, as you probably wouldn't be able to run resolutions high enough to be able to see the higher quality textures. Still, in all honestly, the ram your card has isn't the most limiting component.

Also, check out this list for rankings of all the cards:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Graphics-Cards-Benchmark-List.844.0.html
The numbers to pay attention to are the benchmarks at the end.

 

I am very confused...I just looked at the link posted above. It says that the memory bus for the 3470 is 64. Why does it say then "With ATI® Radeon HD 3400 Series graphics with 128MB of dedicated video RAM" on the Sony website?

 

Unfortunately that's also the comparison of my male unit with most African Americans.

 

I believe that a 64 bit bus can address 128 mb of vram, if I am not mistaken?

I know a 128 bit bus can fully address 256 mb vram.... So I would think that 64 bit would be half of what that is?

A 256 bit bus can address 512 mb Video Ram if I am not mistaken as well.

It's really the bit busses that are the limiting factor of a graphics card it seems.

 

I have a similar question as the OP. I understand the discrete graphics are "better" than the integrated, but better how and for what?

I'm currently configuring a T400, (w/WinXP) but I'm not a gamer, I'm not looking to watch movies and the most graphics intensive use I think I would have would be refreshing maps using National Geographic TOPO and some Excel charting.

The extra $ is a minor issue, but so is battery life. Given these issues, is there still a compelling reason to go discrete?

Thanks.

 

Well obviously, dedicated graphics are better than integrated ones since they can process faster with the integrated RAM

I do wonder if the difference between an Integrated and a low-end dedicated is that much? Because there still is a 100$+ difference in some cases.

I myself am not a heavy gamer, think the most demanding game I'd play would be the Sims 2, yet I've still been told to go dedicated for that since the second I mentioned gaming, integrated was out of the question, but I really don't intend on paying so much just for dedicated graphics >.> (woo for el cheapo? XD)

I mean, when comparing stuff like GMA X4500 or ATI HD 3200 vs Nvidia 8400M GS(I'm using those since the price on a laptop wouldn't vary TOO much with those parts in it), is that performance difference really that huge to be worth 100$+?

 

if you plan on gaming at all, get a dedicated graphics card, period.

 

Hmm but it feels like such a waste to pay the extra cash when I know I won't be gaming a lot and that what I plan on gaming is more than 3-4 years old(i.e doesn't require much power).

Bah, guess I'll stick with the desktop for gaming, always was(and still is) better. And the graphics card is nearly the same price too lol >.>

Is there any reason to bother with discrete graphics card other than gaming btw? Like for movies or such? Or does the loading of video and visuals on the screen go any faster/smoother thanks to the separate memory?

 

My sony vaio sr is on intel gfx - i have no problem playing movies or older games like Company of Heroes.

I don't game much on the laptop so i went with the intel gfx card - runs cooler, use less power.

 

Very true, but the ATi 3200 beats out low end dedicated cards on top of being on par with 7600/1600 cards. So it may not be a true gamer, but it will be more then enough for casual gamers. Maxes tf2, plays UT3 at full res, ect.

 

I have the X3100 GPU and can play some games with nice graphics at decent frame rates. However, my laptop is for business apps, viewing photos, watching an occasional movie and encoding audio and video...for this I'll take the better battery life and the $200 saved any day.

However, if your using this laptop for gaming or take your gaming seriously then get the dedicated card...period.

Oh, on a side note, make sure you at least have 2-3 gigs of ram if your running Vista....whether your a gamer or not it's needed!!

 

I have read that a dedicated card is better even if you don't game, because they tend to be designed also to improve your DVD and video playback. Supposedly playing DVD's is tough on a lot of the integrated cards like the 3100.

I did note that with a 3100 graphics chip, I was getting hitches in my DVD's and crashing, whereas with a different notebook with a dedicated card, playback was smother and there was no crashing.

 

I never had this....how much ram do you have? What program were you using? Could be other factors involved...heck, I watched DVD movies on my 1.4 Ghz Celeron M with Intel's older "Extreme graphics" on 512 MB Ram with no "glitches".....sorry, but I do not think what your saying is valid.

 

intresting,this is problem i am looking at right now......I don't need dedicated GPU for gaming but am wondering about Video Playback of 1080P HD shows and quality of the play back of these intergrated GPU's.Right now i have found a hot deal on good laptop but the Intel 4500 GPU is making me think twice considering all the high def and blue ray rips i watch .

 

This was semi true in older laptops and integrated cards but for the last few years integrated cards have included the hardware support to view DVD's and movies. In other words, don't think you need a discrete graphics card to be able to view movies and DVD's.

The issue you described above was more than likely a driver issue.

 

even hd and blueray?

 

So a discrete graphics card is purely for the gaming part? I'd get no benefit from it if I was watching movies or doing multimedia on it?

Apparently, seems I'll be getting downsides more than anything with reduced battery life and heating issues >.> Mind you, I've had an experience with an integrated graphics card on a laptop and that one overheated a lot all the time >.>

 

Yes there would be the benefit of taking the workload away from the processor without stealing system memory. If all you want to do is watch a movie then discrete graphics would be overkill.

The best choice for any non gamer right now would be to stick to integrated graphics to save battery life.

Undervolt your laptop and then you won't have to worry about it overheating. My other laptop doesn't even have a heatpipe heatsink (just a copper slug) And I was able to get a decent overclock on it. Plus if you undervolt you may see better battery life.

 

i am able to watch those 1080p trailers you get on the net just fine.

the x4500mhd has a "hd" in it for a reason i suppose, it improves hd decoding...

 

I'm just relaying from what I read in an article. That deserves to be kept separate from the question of whatever my particular computer was like, probably. It was just an anecdote, not universal. Nevertheless, my reading was that dedicated cards do tend to do a better job at playing DVD's than integrated ones do.

 

Perhaps so, I don't know. But it was with laptops that were fresh out of the box from HP just this month. I'm just passing along what I read elsewhere but definitely am no expert.

 

Well I'm asking since I've had an older laptop with an integrated GPU and the loading of visuals (such as windows, changing tabs on Firefox and so forth) was really slow/blocky and since the GPU is supposed to be what loads visuals onto the screen, I figured that was the main issue more so than the core itself. I'll try undervolting the core though.

Btw, regarding 'integrated vs dedicated', I've heard that ATI's HD 3200 was able to perform on par with lower-end dedicated cards such as Nvidia's 8400M GS. Is this actually true for games and such because over here, they still charge a good 100$ difference between a laptop which has the 8400, so would it be worth it for me to pay that for the 128mb of dedicated memory if the performance is similar?