Integrated graphics vs Dedicated?

I cant seem to decide if I need a dedicated card or if I should go with integrated, which would create many more options for me.

I do not play games. Once in a while I may play some flash-based game on the web, but that's about it.
I need to smoothly play 1920x1080 HD video files.
I need to do stuff in Photoshop.
And I need to do some light video editing.

I'm going to have 4GB of RAM. Maybe if I go with integrated, then I should get 6GB and set up the system to reserve 2GB for graphics? Can that be done?

 

For video EDITING, you'll probably have a much better time with a dedicated card.

 

Not really...most vide editing programs don't support GPU acceleration. Besides most video editing will not require it unless you use complex effects creation programs.

But yeah, chances are if you video edit you will do some work with 3D effects whose performance can be improved via the use of a dedicated card.

However, a FAST CPU, A LOT of RAM and a TON of hard drive space are more important when it comes to video editing. Try going Core i7 and at least 6GB DDR3.

EDIT: Forgot you said "light video editing", a fast Core 2 Duo and at least 4GB of RAM should suffice. Dedicated card not really needed.

 

Integrated card is way to go for your purposes. It takes up like 16MB most of the time (it will automatically adjust as needed), so don't bother wasting money getting more than 4GB.

 

I use Premiere CS4.

I tend to mostly edit by cutting/pasting DV video and adding transitions & titles, and compress to MPEG/DVD. That's about the gist of it. Haven't done HD size video yet, but I expect to do it sooner or later. I guess this is mostly CPU work.

I do play 1080p video though, and I expect to buy an external bluray drive soon, so maybe a dedicated card will be needed here?

I'm probably going to have the Core2Duo 2.53 Ghz/3MB Cache CPU. This is going to be a 13-14 inch notebook, so i7 is out of the question. DDR2/DDR3 depends on the brand I go with. Some offer DDR3, while some still use DDR2. I'll definitely have 4GB RAM, and hopefully will go up to 6, depending on price.

Speed for video editing doesn't worry me too much. I don't mind waiting a bit longer for encoding to finish. Whatever it is will still be a hell of a lot faster than my old computer. What I'm more concerned with is the ability to smoothly play HD video.

Can someone explain to me when exactly does a dedicated card come into play and what activity utilizes GPU vs CPU?

 

Go with integrated. Video editing/ photo editing are CPU bound.

GPUs are for mainly games, like L4D, MW2, Borderlands, Fallout, etc. Programs have to specially be written to take advantage of them. Otherwise, their utility will sit idle.

Flash is still CPU bound. I'd just go with integrated graphics, for less heat and better battery life.

 

here we go again.......

 

I used to think like many of the posters here that an integrated video card was not important to me (no games, ever), but after using my VAIO with it's GeForce 9300M capabilities, I know that's not true any more.

Not when Vista, Win 7 use the hardware to draw the desktop, and not when CS4 is using the power of its GPU (graphics processing unit) more and more.

If you want to future proof your notebook, get a dedicated card.

 

Get a Dell Studio 14z with the Nvidia 9400M chipset/IGP since you're already planning to get an external Blu-Ray. Currently the best integrated option that will give you access to CUDA-based video editing software, will support hardware accelerated Flash, and gives smooth full 1080p HD playback (on an external monitor...no 1080p resolutions on 13-14" screens ).

Or find an AMD Tigris option with the HD4200 IGP.

 

The 9300M barely qualifies as a dedicated card. Also, I bet the upped GPU was not the only upgrade you had between what you were using before your VAIO and your VAIO.

Modern IGPs handle HD video just fine, all the OP's tasks will benefit primarily or exclusively from a boost in CPU speed, RAM capacity, and HDD speed, not GPU power. On top of that, going with an IGP will give him better batt life and free up more budget for a better screen, which is far more important to PS/video editing work than a GPU.

 

But that's my point. A 9300M is barely a dedicated card and its made such a difference to how responsive the computer is - especially with Win 7.

You can save a couple of buck now, because 'thats all you currently need', or spend 2% to 3% more today and still be happy with the performance in a few years time.

 

If your looking for a notebook for photo editing and light video editing, why do you need more battery life?
And i would go for a dedicated gpu.
You never know when either CUDA or ATI Stream will come in handy.

 

a major consideration is driver stability and hardware reliability.

Nvidia has a horrible record with their driver releases and everyone here should be familiar with recent NVidia hardware/gpu failures.

 

True, but as long as you stick with manufacturer's drivers then you shouldn't have an issue, as I haven't either in one year with my nVidia GPU (I too though would have preferred ATI graphics).

 

It will be another two years before CUDA or STREAM become mainstream. Especially considering how powerful current CPUs are. The demand just isn't there.

 

Nothing wrong with either ATI or Nvidia.

 

that was quite a long time ago and ive never had instability problems with drivers and ive used tons of different ones. i'd go with and ati or nvidia IGP rather than an intel one and the ati and nvidia ones perform quite well and you never know when you might need the extra power in future.

intel igps are terrible in comparison and done use all that much less power. also consider low end dedicated cards if they are cheap as they dont use all that much more power