Graphics: dedicated or not (office/development use)

Hi,
I am getting a NC6400 for work use. Can anyone give the definitive advise on integrated vs. dedicated graphics? I do heavy multitasking, typically with a development environment (Eclipse + jboss), database tools, excel, word and many tabs in firefox open simultaneously. I do not play 3d games on this machine. I use a 20' external display at work, and will use a basic docking station.

I travel a lot, and use the machine at meetings, so light and silent is good.

Can anyone tell from experience if the ATI x1300 option will yield better performance in such a setting? Will it degrade battery life significantly, and will it make much more noise? Cost is not an issue (the option is rather cheap).

I actually got my nc6400 with the ati card last friday. I am returning it due to hardware errors (probably the ati card, screen goes black after a while, machine dies). Apart from the hardware errors, my gripes are:

delivery: 2 months from order! jeeez - dont get me started... Norwegian users, stay away from Ementor!
screen: i got the wxga+ screen, despite ordering the wxga. I can confirm the impressions from other users in this forum, this screen really sucks. Light leakages abound, viewing angle is very narrow. I would have returned the machine anyways because of this.
noise: slightly more fan noise than i expected - tolerable, but more than the dell next door (still, heaven compared to my old nx7000).

Other than that, perfect for my needs: great performance, small and light, great keyboard, good security features etc. And i just loved the dedicated powerpoint button

Regards,
- Bjug Boyum

 

If you don't use graphich development tools, then the integrated card will be just fine for you. Yet, if your company plans on switching to Vista, you need at least ATI X200 or better Ge6150 (both integrated). ATI x1300 is not a very powerful card but still capable of some 3d gaming. This means that you will experience a somewhat shorter battery life (not more than 15min difference, I guess) and some more heat (can't estimate that, depends on ambient temps).
Yet, the Atix1300 will probably do better on the 20'' screen!! ATI x200 (non-dedicated version) is known to have problems with external screens.

 

Also, while the ATI & nVidia IGPs (integrated graphics processors) would be better, the Intel GMA 950 (with 1GB system RAM or more) would also fit your needs. From what you are describing, the X1300 would probably be overkill (especially if you want the max battery life).

 

Nothing from what you mentioned requires a dedicated video card, so you will be fine with the GMA950.

Vista Aero runs on the GMA950 if that's what you're trying to say...

 

I wouldn't recommend this card to anyone who wants to see (and use) Aero.

 

Yup...we have reports that the GMA950 runs all Vista GUI extras (Aero) when equipped with 1GB or more of system RAM.

However, I personally think an ATI or nVidia IGP would be better if the notebook is within your price budget. While the GMA950 should be fine, the other IGPs will provide a little additional power (more so than the GMA) if it is ever needed. Better to get a little more and pay about the same than find a year or two later your notebook isn't powerful enough anymore.

Ultimately, the choice is yours but I think it comes down to '$$$ vs. Extra Capability in the Future (if needed)'. If the price difference is small I'd stick with ATI/nVidia.

 

That's really your problem then...

 

Thanks a lot for the replies. I am getting 2 gigs of ram, so i gather the GMA would be sufficient to run Vista/Aero. As my impression is that the ATI card won't produce much more heat (and noise), i am going to keep it for the cases when it is needed (our support staff also recommended this). Who knows, maybe minesweeper for Vista will be 3d.

 

Most of the Vista games are in 3D (I've messed with Beta 2, RC1, and RC2). I don't see why the GMA950 couldn't handle them since the graphics are really simple, but the X1300 would be better.

 

The dedicated card will really shine on the 20'' screen. With my ATIx200 I have problems with higher-resolution external displays.

 

There is no practical reason to get the ATI chip. Intel graphics have more stable drivers, less power usage, etc. and performance for real world usage.

We're talking about the GMA 950 here, not the crappy ATI Express 200.

the GMA 950 will have no trouble with an external display at high resolutions. a 20" will most likely be 1600x1200 or 1680x1050, both of which will work without issue.

Aero performs well. From my experience, the Vista WDDM drivers for Intel work better than ATI's.

I don't think you've ever used Aero on the GMA 950, so until you do, I kindly request that you do not comment on the matter.

The games run perfectly on any card with 3D acceleration, even if it is not Aero compatible. The X1300 will not be better; there will be no appreciable difference at all.