Difference between Onboard graphics (384MB Shared) & External Graphics Card (128/256MB)

Hi!

My name is Apoorva. I am from India.

Now I would like to know the basic difference in terms of performance for an onboard graphics card and an external graphics card for a Laptop.

What could be a major difference?
Also, for Onboard graphics, it is said on all the branded website that the size of it is upto 384MB shared.

So, say for instance, if I go for an external graphics card for a new laptop which I am planning to purchase and the size of this external graphic card is 256MB or 128MB and as Onboard graphic card already provides 384 MB shared memory, therefore the question is that how could that external graphics card sizing 256 MB deliver better performance as compared to Onbard graphics which sizes 384 MB shared?

Also, how are the new laptops launched by HP in India in terms of performance, mobility & stability?
The Laptop which I am looking for falls under 6700 series and is a business series laptop.


Waiting eagerly for a reply...
Apoorva.

 

Okay, here's the deal:

By onboard graphics I'm assuming you mean integrated intel graphics or ATI. Those stink, pretty badly. External graphics cards aren't really worth it because
A. They're expensive (might as well spend it on a better laptop)
B. They aren't that good for the price.

Asus is supposed to release an external graphics card, but it's only equal to the 7600 GO by nVidia.

But, comparison wise, the external graphics is better than integrated performance wise, but not worth the price.

In all honesty, spend the money on a dedicated card inside the laptop. It's worth it.

 

I think the OP was refering to a dedicated Graphics card.

the amount of onboard memory is the last thing you look at when comparing GPUs.

 

Crimsonman, you really know how to confuse people... By external graphics card, the OP means dedicated.


Apoorva, read this guide for information about the different video cards:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=39568

 

I think what he(or she) meant by external graphics were actually dedicated graphics.. Anyway, as for the performance of integrated vs deicated cards, memory is a secondary issue . The integrated cards(mostly) share memory from the system RAM, whch is usually slower compared to dedicated graphics memory(VRAM). Besides, low end cards, and integrated graphics processors cannot utilise more than 128 MB or so of VRAM, so more memory is a redundant question...
Which specific model are you looking at? You could look at some reviews on this site, but personally, I feel the HP business class notebooks are pretty good, as far as build quality is concerned.
Do check out the support scenario in India though.. HP support for the consumer lines sucks here..

 

ok, just a quick terminology clarifier.

external graphics does not exist, not yet anyway

what i think you are trying to say is the difference be dedicated graphics (external in your words) and integrated graphics(on-board in your words)/

when measuring the performance of graphics cards, there are to primary measuring areas, first amount of video memory, and second overall clock speed. you can not have to much of one and not enough of the other if you want a good graphics card.

all current dedicated chips have higher clock speeds, and has dedicated memory.

There are 2 types of memory graphics cards can have,
1. dedicated
2. shared

if the card has 128/256 dedicated ram that is ram that the graphics is solely allowed to use, no other part of the computer can use it, therefore there is no bottleneck at the memory.

if the card has shared memory that means the memory that it has is 'borrowed' from the rest of the system. lets say you have 2000mb or main ram(pretty normal nowdays) and your graphics card is 384 shared that means you have really 1616mb main ram that is just for the system. and the extra 384mb the graphics card 'can' use, except the main system can use it as well, so you have 2 items addressing the same memory components, and the ram, is just not fast enought to supply both at full speed.

if that didn't make any sense I will summarize,

as of current, dedicated is MUCH better the integrated. doesn't matter how much 'shared' memory the integrated card has.

 

Well, actally external graphics do exist.. The Asus XG station, for one:

http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/08/hands-on-with-the-asus-xg-station-external-gpu/

http://www.asus.com/news_show.aspx?id=5369

 

... mind showing me a RETAILER with one?

 

Hi Sesshomaru,

As you said: "integrated graphics processors cannot utilise more than 128 MB or so of VRAM",

Could you help me with any links which proves this information or through any other facts. B'coz, If I am not mistaken, there is an option available through BIOS to increase the amount of share memory and therefore I really do not see any reason why an "integrated graphics processors cannot utilise more than 128 MB or so of VRAM"?

Anway'z, would like to know your answer for this.

Regards,
Apoorva.

 

Well, they are severely limited in their processing power, with the X3100 featuring just four pipelines, if I am not mistaken.. More than 128 MB of VRAM is useful in resolutions over XGA,or in very complicated maps with lots of evironment variables.. Both these things will cripple the card much before the vedeo memory is maxed out.. You can allocate any amount of memory you want by tweaking the bios, but the integrated cards are simply not good enough to use it all...
It also depends on what you are going to use the laptop for. If you are looking to play games, I suggest you check out benchmarks... For CAD/CAM applications, though, a low end dedicated card is usually sufficient..

@ yuio.. You are right, as I am.. The thing does exist, but I am sure it is not viable enough.. It was just an academic point..