Dedicated or Integrated graphics card for what I do?

Just wondering whether I need a Dedicated graphics card, or if an Integrated card will suffice.

Stuff I do:

* No Games. Period.
* Firefox is always open, with at least 15 or so tabs open at all times (often more than that, actually).
* MS Outlook is always open, Excel & Word occasionally.
* Adobe Photoshop (occasionally).
* Adobe Lightroom (usually open whenever Photoshop is open).
* Adobe Premiere Elements - I don't do any Video Editing currently, but I'd like to get an HD camcorder at some point.
* I currently run XP, but wouldn't mind trying Vista on my next laptop (is a dedicated card needed for Vista??).
* plus the usual odds and ends open every now and then...

So... would a Dedicated card help me, or is it completely useless for what I do? It's not so much a money issue, it's more about battery life, heat, etc.

Thanks!

 

A dedicated card is always recommended.

dont make your whole descision on my comment also read others

 

No matter what?

What exactly does the dedicated card actually help with?

 

Not no matter what but if he intends to run Vista a dedicated graphics card such as the 8400m will run it smoother then integraded x3100. There have been posts in the past about this with dozens of pages of arguing

 

Purely from a requirements perspective I'd say internal graphics would suffice. But another way of looking at it would be a dedicated (and higher power) card would be designed to run much tougher, battery consuming and heat generating applications so for your work it wouldn't break a sweat whereas a lesser card might have to put in some effort, hence heat and battery draining. I'm probably rambling but thats how I'm looking at it.

Grand Admiral

 

An integrated card shares video memory with the computers RAM or rather it uses RAM as its video memory, meaning there's less to go around. In todays computers usually not enough to worry about losing unless you're running high powered games but still, every little bit counts I suppose.

Grand Admiral

 

vista will run smoother on more powerful graphic card.. dedicated graphic card is always recommended when price is no concern since it also improve speed and quality of the picture.

if you have the money get a dedicated card, something like the 8400m (as X2P mentioned). battery life will take a little hit when choosing a dedicated graphic card option.

the x3100 is an adequately powerful card for your needs. if you need a bit of luxury then go the dedicated graphic card route.

 

internal, cheaper and more mobile, you say absolutely no gaming? you can live with an intel card and play solitaire on max settings.

 

NO GAMING = DEFINATELY NO NEED TO FOR DEDICATED GRAPHICS.

Simple as that.

x3100 is more than enough to run Aero smoothly. It wont run much better on 8400gs. I have both and actually feel like the desktop is smoother on a x3100

You will still be able to play simple games and games created around 2005 or earlier'

 

Well, the only "games" that get played on my laptop are the ones my son plays on websites (like on DisneyChannel.com or Nick.com). If I'm not mistaken, those are mostly Flash based games... so I don't think they really count as true computer games.

 

If heat and battery life are primary considerations then integrated is the right route. If the Vista Experience Index is anything to go by then the X3100 is as good for 2D graphics as the 8400M. The difference between integrated and dedicated comes with the ability to process 3D graphics but all that extra processing capability leaks power when it is idle. It's not for no reason that Sony put both integrated (for stamina) and dedicated (for performance) graphics in the SZ series with a changeover switch. And for real stamina get something with the Intel 945GM graphics. Disable Vista's eye candy and it will run fine (as on my Sony G11).

John

 

What about HD Video editing? (just family stuff, not pro work) Is that considered 2D? 3D? Would a dedicated card help here, or not at all?

Nice feature indeed. It's one of the reasons why I'm considering an SZ -- but I'm more of a Dell guy at heart.

 

i always reccomend a dedicated card just because it prolongs the life of the laptop and gives it better resale value plus you dont lose ram to video card but in your case an intergrated card will make no diffrence. i personaly see no diffrence between an intel GMA 950 and an 8800gt in photoshop

 

x3100 is powerful enough to run Half Life 2 on fair settings, it has quite a potential for certain games.

IGP will be the best way to go. More battery life, cooler notebook plus longer overall notebook life

 

that is soooo not true!

 

when he meant prolongs the life.. he meant futureproof

 

I agree with Flipfire, If you arent gaming, there isnt any need for a deticated GPU. A "powerful" or at least one of the more powerful intergrated cards, such as x3100. You will be able to play the games you want with ease.

@ Flipfire: +7 rep

 

More than what you guys said... no gaming = GET integrated. who cares about ram sharing, you can adjust it on most computers and if you cant, get 4GB of memory and let the video card take 0.5GB of it. You'll get more battery life with integrated since it consumes far less power.

 

That's kinda what I thought.

 

I would just suggest you get some good RAM though.

 

i think 2GB would be sufficient. Maybe 3GB for extra speed.

 

Based on what you do, you need a fair ammount of processing power. So you need a fast CPU, at least a T9300 to start with, then at least 2 GB of ram and a 7200rpm drive.
A dedicated card would help make vista look better, but as far as anything else, if you don`t game or do video editing, a dedicated GPU would not be required.
BUT as you never know, I recommend getting at least a 8400 GS or an ATI 2400, or 3450.

 

I completely agree. Current generation integrated graphics are more than capable for your needs. Actually, an integrated solution has some distinct advantages--lower cost, better battery life and cooler running.

 

Wow some high specs there. X3100 should be just fine.

 

Yeah, those specs do seem rather high.

What about HD video editing? Just family stuff, not pro work. Would that require a dedicated card?

 

I thought that was CPU intensive?

 

I kinda thought so too... but Eleron said "if you don`t game or do video editing, a dedicated GPU would not be required."

 

Eleron seems to be trying to spend your money. Remember T9300 and 7200 HDD? I hope he doesn't recommend 8800m GTX. Hi Eleron.

 

Well apparently the x3100 graphics card only has hardware support for MPEG-2 and does not support more advanced codecs like H.264 and VC-1 which means you will not get any Blu ray or HD-DVD support.

The x3100 does run cooler than other dedicated cards. A mid level graphics card can take a hit from 15 minutes-45 minutes approx depending on settings when compared with a x3100 graphics card when it comes to battery life.

I think that the SZ would be quite a good choice for you as you could use both options in a light weight package.

 

My usual advice for video processing is to get an external HDD so you read from the internal and write to the external (or vice versa). Otherwise the HDD I/O may be the performance bottleneck.

I wouldn't compromise on everyday necessities (low heat, long battery life) for possible better performance that a dedicated GPU may give occasionally (if it does help with the video processing). If necessary, you can leave the system running overnight once you have sorted out what you are trying to do. If you were crunching video everyday for a living then i would recommend differently.

John

 

Yeah, good point. Thanks.

 

Well I figured he needs a pretty good power to run his programs.
The reason I mentioned the T9300 and 7200rpm hdd is that he won`t be limited,slowed down or bothered by low speeds.
But heck, if you don`t mind waiting, a 2.0Ghz Cpu(T7250) and 4200rpm drives are enough.
But having experienced insane load times with my 5400rpm drive,I cannot recommend it anymore.Unless you want the most of your battery.
T7250 and X3100 are more than enough them. Heck, a Vostro 1500 is enough

 

even a cheap Acer Aspire 5315 will do all you need... they can be had for under $400 US with a Celeron and 1gig...

i've taken a Aspire 5315 and upgraded it to acceptable levels especially considering what my total cost has been...

acer aspire 5315 ----------------$348 (walmart 1 day sale)
NEC 6550A d/l 8x dvd burner ------$50 (geeks.com 1yr warranty refurb)
T5450 Core2Duo CPU upgrade -----$50 (bought from NBR member)
(2) 1gb pc 5300 DDR2 ram ---------$47 (crucial ram new on Ebay)

so for $495 i have a sweet XP machine running dual cores at 1.66Ghz each,, an NEC 8x DVD, 4x DVD-RW, and 2.7x? dual-layer DVD burner,, and 2 gigs of PC 5300 Ram..... not bad for the price and i've even played Halo on it back when it still had vista an only 1 gig of ram.. (yeah, it lagged),, but it played it decently well

just my $495 dollars and 2 cents,

bigO

 

If those specs seem high, then you really aren't looking for a speedy computer. It's a question of price/performance, like John says you can setup your render and then run it overnight or while at work. However for transistion previews and such you want more power, and in many new apps that's also more graphics power. For the ones you've listed though they are still CPU-centric.

A T9300 is perfect for what you want, good value, fast, high cache level, these are all things that Photo and Video editing use, as well as lotsa fast RAM and a fast HDD/SSD.

Main question is, are you buying this as your primary rig or as your mobile rig? If you are trying to save money then it will likely take you longer to perform tasks. You could get by with a core duo 1.66 or even single core 1.7ghz and 1GB of ram, but would you want to? Personally for the small price differential I'd pay the money to cut my render times sgnificantly and to allow for live previews and quicker task switching within and between apps. Quicker filter/effect application and undo sound tempting to you?

If this is what you use it for most, and it's more often plugged in (either through the AC, an inverter or an adapter) than not, then go for the powerful CPU and fast HDD (although the fast dense 5400s are a good compromise of throughput and battery life).

IMO concerning the original question I would not get an X3100, I would look to the GF8200 or 780G for intergrated or else a cheap GF8400/HD2400 to give you the flexability of having enough power for even the slightest hardware acceleration of the desktop or basic preview acceleration, to the future option of GPGPU co-processing, which the X3100 cannot offer.

I wouldn't worry about the HW HD acceleration because that's mainly for playback of ver high bitrate and encrypted titles where that matters most. For video editing those do not come into play, however the GPGPU potential can potentially help you with sometranscoding tasks.

Main thing as mentioned is to try and get some dedicated memory, and the AMD and nV intergrated solutions currently have dedicated memory models which are slightly faster than shared memory.

IMO avoid the X3100, and get the cheapest dedicated HD2K/3K or GF8/9 VPU you can as your minimum, and then in order of importance get a Fast CPU, 2GB+ memroy as fast as the interface will handle, and a fast (even if smal) HDD, you can always get a giant externall drive to dump data.

As always, just my two frames' worth from my experiences.

 

So I`m not the only one that thinks he needs a T9300
Exactly my point, TheGreatGrapeApe , unless he wants things slow as an Thanksgiving` dinner with all the family, he`ll get 2Gb Ram, a T9300 and a 7200 rpm drive

 

Well, I like Thanksgiving dinner... but I get your point.

With those specs I'll need a great coupon or an Outlet/Refurbished deal -- or both! I'll keep my eyes open.

Thanks for the help, guys. I appreciate it.

 

Keep a close eye on this subforum for it http://forum.notebookreview.com/forumdisplay.php?f=12
There are always deals that people spot. Good luck and happy shopping

 

Thanks!

 

I am a gamer ..i play CS,CZ, CSS ...all on Integrated card...coz less heat,less battery usage.

NO GAMING = NO DEDICATED CARD NEEDED

(apologies for caps but others are Geeks so they cant imagine life without dedicated card )

 

AMD will be releasing(if it has not already) the Puma platform, and their integrated sollution will be upto 2.5x the one in the competition(Intel,Nvidia).
http://blogs.pcworld.com/staffblog/archives/006185.html

 

As far as I know for editing HD video dedicated graphics is recommended to help out CPU.

 

I'm beginning to think that AMD is actually going to focus more on graphics power than processing power in the future, since any CPU nowadays is powerful enough for user needs. This is definitely a clever strategy, considering that Intel has little or no experience in this market to speak of; AND they don't have an asset like ATI. Nice, AMD.

 

This thread looks sorta
"Mary wanted to buy a comfy handbag to take to work everyday. Now she is planning to buy a fridge with a strap, because, apparently, she is taking some fruits from home for her lunch at work"

no, sorry, should sound like "Now she is ADVISED to buy a fridge with a strap......"