Lol Hardware Test

For all the boasts of Intel and other MB manufacturers of improving motherboard graphics options, it would seem that my fear of motherboard graphics and my belief that they ARE 100% horrible can be verified easily. I found a super low price on a new HD 4550 graphics card that Passmarks at around 250 and dropped it in an i5 2400 (Passmarks about 6000) PC to see what the Windows experience index would say in Windows 7. The standard graphics for this machine are Intel's illustrious Intel 2000 graphics, and they are basically awful. Anyway, after refreshing the index, sure enough 512 MB of AMD 4550 did push the index up, from 4.6 to 5.0.

I actually expected the index to fall some, considering the best cards today are benching at 10,000+. All said, this is the 100% proof I needed that standard graphics options have never made the grade, I knew of the gajillion claims of its abysmalness, but I have a card in all 5 of the PCs here (haven't run a PC without one since 2009), so this test helped me to realize how much so they are unacceptably poor. As far as I am concerned that applies even to simple office use. Anyone using MB graphics, get yourself any sort of PCI-e option with 512 K or up. I paid $8.00 delivered for the 4550, so no excuses...

 

Well, of course, this is 100% wrong. Today's integrated graphics are perfectly acceptable for many many tasks. Note many notebooks (and AiO computers) only support integrated graphics and many people are using them as game machines.

Note the Window Experience Index was disabled from later versions of Windows because even Microsoft acknowledged it was 100% horrible for any sort of benchmarking comparisons. So you verified nothing. But if you wish to use those results, a gain from 4.6 to 5.0 is hardly anything to write home (or here) about.

When it comes to integrated graphics, there are many other variables that come into play. This includes the CPU, the GPU, the amount of system RAM, the amount (if any) integrated dedicated graphics RAM, bus speeds, and of course, the task being performed. Even disk performance can affect graphics performance. Simply adding more system RAM can significantly improve integrated graphic performance - depending on how much RAM is installed to begin with.

So like all blanket statements like yours, they tend to be wrong because there are just too many exceptions.

Now of course, the best integrated graphics don't hold a candle to a good graphics card - but that is due much in part because cards come populated with a big chunk of dedicated RAM already on the card. But that does not mean, in any way, that all integrated is horrible - because it's not.

Finally, when did Intel 2000 come out? Over 6 years ago! Times (and integrated graphics) have changed quite a bit since then. Sorry, but you need to too.

 

Here's a snapshot of my basic onboard graphics. Total RAM is 3 GB and I'm running Windows 7 Ultimate. I can watch HD videos and run Bluestacks which didn't want to install until after I updated the drivers for the onboard graphics.

 

I hope it's a DDR3 not DDR2 card. Paying cash for that little performance increase plus increased power consumption just doesn't make sense to me.

 

32-bit or 64-bit W7? It does not really matter in your case since there is only 3GB total. But on systems with 4GB of RAM installed, just moving from 32-bit to 64-bit can significantly improve integrated graphics performance because the full 4GB will be available to system.

 

32-bit. The next re-install will be 64-bit after a RAM upgrade.
I really have no excuse using 1 + 2 GB RAM and 32-bit.

 

Digerati...

System has 8 GB of RAM. That should be plenty for motherboard graphics.

Yes, it's a older PC (September 2012), but to match an i5-2400 with Intel 2000 graphics was basically an injustice in my opinion after using the PC equipped both ways. This is not the first PC I have run across with this problem, though. Almost everything i-series pre-2013 or 2014 is totally lopsided with underpowered graphics. And this trend goes all the way back to core 2 and dual core processors, with highs and lows in there at times. Generally, the onboard graphics have been sorely mismatched with the processor and amount of RAM. Board graphics that haven't been hopelessly mismatched have still been far and away less of an option to even bottom of the line PCI-e options.

Honestly, the point I was making was about this specific test is that an HD 4550 from 2008 outperforms motherboard graphics in a 2012 PC. There are a ton of angles on this, you're right about that, but all of them count against the motherboard graphics. It uses system RAM. It processes graphics on the processor (these days (and on this PC too)).

The Windows Experience by the way may be a crude benchmark, but the main reason for that is that users with very highly benchmarked cards get no credit for having a very/extremely powerful card. The index stops at 7.9 for anything above say an NVidia GTX 570 or 580. That's a ton of cards that fall outside the range of the index, so that explains why so many hated it and why MS scrapped it. However, this is a comparison of graphics options that are clearly within the index's ability to measure, including the motherboard option, which is 100% horrible.

Share your processor, share your RAM....yeah, go ahead. The results are very disappointing as far as I am concerned. And Intel's 3000 or 4000 or later option is supposed to be any better? I don't think so when one considers the hardware they're being matched with. OK, maybe for the Pentium G processors it's not so much of an issue. Otherwise, Intel's 3000 graphics Passmarking at 312 and the 4000 graphics at 450 are going to be enough? Seriously, not for a processor that Passmarks over 2500 and not for any use as far as I am concerned. People deserve better, and I think they should know so...

I do think it's helpful for anyone who may be running one to be able to know that a PC running Intel 2000 or 3000 graphics can be made much better with a small investment, which I feel is well worth anyone's time. Intel 4000? I wouldn't take much to beat that option, either. Also, let's not forget that these PCs won't have to share their RAM and processor anymore with graphics. That's a huge bonus...

 

satrow...it is DDR 3, but the benchmark takes that into account, anyway. I mean it's reflected in the final benchmark number. Don't forget, though, I released all the RAM that was designated for graphics to the system. Also, the processor is no longer responsible for graphics. It's a much better type of performance as well as generally better. For me, $8 was too good to pass on, although I admit I hadn't planned on using the card in this PC. It was a new card and a bargain. When I got the card, I decided to test it and was very surprised that the index went up.

Oh, also this is only a 20w card...

 

Some times, we just use the RAM we have laying around. Perhaps it came with 2GB, you had an extra slot and an extra 1GB stick laying around. I have seen that scenario dozens of times.

@AtlBo - You are still comparing apples to oranges, and frankly (with no disrespect intended) from a very narrow-minded point of view.

I am NOT, in any way, saying integrated is as good as a decent card.

What I am saying is for millions and millions and 100s of millions of users, integrated graphics is more than adequate. You don't need superior graphics to compile a huge database or spreadsheet. You don't need superior graphics to watch a 1080p Blu-Ray movie or HD video with no skipping or buffering with full 7.1 surround sound on a big screen TV. You don't need superior graphics to surf the Internet, create or view a PowerPoint presentation, update Facebook, watch YouTube, read or compose emails, create and read Word documents for work or school projects or read or create .pdf files, listen to music, or to stream music or videos. Do I need to go on? The point is, these are not mismatched components. They work perfectly fine together for the tasks the majority of users perform. Not everyone, or even the majority of PC users are gamers, graphics designers/editors, enthusiasts, or power users.

If a buyer wants superior graphics, they can always upgrade - at least with a PC. But it is not always as simple (or inexpensive) as just buying a card and slapping it in. GPUs are often the most power hungry devices in computers - often much hungrier than even many power hungry CPUs. This means to upgrade the graphics, a new PSU is often needed too.

Cards, even budget cards, cost money. Many users don't have the budget, don't want to spend the money, or in the case of 100s of millions of computer users, just don't need to. The integrated solutions work for them just fine. Just as it does in their notebooks and AiO computers (which you seem to keep overlooking).

And again, the WEI is not worth discussing because as I noted, it does not reflect real-world actualities.

Do I have a graphics card in my computer? Yes - and I'm not gamer. But for what I do (pretty much everything but gaming), I don't need it. I just wanted it and am fortunate enough to have the excess discretionary funds to spurge when I want to.

 

Every part depends on what you want to do with it.

I my self spent a lot of money this year on a expensive laptop and desktop.

My Laptop was about 700 dollars at the time be cause the HP laptop i bought had a AMD A10-8700P and a AMD Radeon R6 Graphics.

The performance can be up and down with a integrated card.

 

As I said, I don't think it's onboard graphics is a bad idea...just not a great idea. Unfortunately, I do also feel that the delivery on the idea has been pretty poor to date. Necessary for laptops and notebooks, yes, this is true. Also, newer options are more powerful, and that's a good thing for notebook/laptop users, especially. Nonetheless, there are many PCs that I would say are running graphics that aren't adequate for anything. I don't think it's narrow minded, because some of the 3-5 year old+ PCs out there are actually bad without better graphics. And there are tons of these computers whizzing away around the world.

As I mentioned, I do have cards in all 5 PCs here. That goes back to 2009, when I bought an HP DC 7700 with an NVidia NVS 290 in it from the factory. I had always wanted a card in a machine, so I was really looking forward to seeing the difference. Well, it was alot better a machine than what I had before (2.4 GHz Pentium 4). Unfortunately, I really couldn't know where to attribute the improvements fully, other than the processor was 5 times better and then that the graphics weren't the weakness on the machine they had always been before. When the graphics card died after about 3 years, then I saw how rough the onboard graphics were. That trend is something I feel continued, unfortunately. By the way, the NVS 290 is a 15w card that I can get now for like $7 delivered on ebay. Also, it only benches at like 98 I think. This is not a powerful card, but it was a dramatic improvement over the MB option. I now have an NVS 300 in that one, which is a good bit better, benching at about 200 I think. I also have a dual core PC with 2 GB and a Radeon HD 4350. That PC was delivered without a card. When I bought the r7 240 for the i3 PC, I moved the 4350 that came with it to the dual core. Wow, was it better. Well, now that card (used) is less than $10 delivered on ebay, and it only benches at around 175 or so.

I always go for low power cards as that's my thing. I don't game, either. Actually, from what I have seen, the card I like the most to date is a 2 GB Gigabyte Radeon r7 240 @35w. This card I bought for $42 PPD brand new in the box, and it benchmarks at around 950. It's in an i3 540 powered PC, and I think it's a pretty good match.

Well, I can at least say that the Intel 2000 graphics are a disappointment to me. And I would like to say to anyone out there running an 2013 or before PC, adding a graphics card is worth the few dollars it takes, if you don't have money for a new machine.

You know, maybe I am being a little bit narrow minded. You may be right about that, but I didn't intend to come across a know it all about this subject. However, I really do think everyone with an i series PC dating prior to 2013 should look into a graphics card. It may not take as much money as you think, and you will have remarkably better balanced performance...not just more frames in video. Everything is better. Don't forget to consult Passmark and go for anything that benches at I would say 500 or better and look for low power (under 50w). Oh yes, btw the frames in video are nice too...

 

Oh? Where did you say that? I just read over everything you said in your previous post and everything suggests you did indeed say they were bad. You may not have said the word "bad", just,

You didn't - or at least I did not take it that way. But you did (and still pretty much do) make a blanket statement about integrated graphics that was not, and is not true - especially with today's Intel CPUs with integrated graphics, and AMD APUs.

 

wile e, I would have thought the r6 graphics would be really good. I was thinking of the Radeon options for mb graphics as a positive trend (along with the gtx 750 option in some PCs). I think onboard options tend to be a little bit better on most laptops, because everything is so close together inside and also because the screen is so much smaller and less demanding in many cases on rendering (depending on the refresh rate and ppi). Also, I do think they have gotten better over the last few years.

They really get to me on desktops though. Gives me the shakes to think about going back on a desktop...

 

I think abysmal and horrible are the words you are looking for. I mean here that the idea of onboard graphics in general and in concept is not a bad idea to speak of. Then I did say this:

You say you prefer PCI-e graphics, and I agree with you on that. I don't know what if any motherboard option your card is replacing or what your card is, so I can't speak on that issue. However, I do believe that generally speaking there isn't a single reason with the way hardware has gone to not go with PCI-e graphics when it is an option. That means you need a slot and some $$$. You, yourself do admit you are fortunate to have a better option. Free your processor and RAM when you can!

For many PC users, a simple HD 4550 will do the job. I think that's a good reason to do something about adding a card for many many PC users these days. These outdated video cards are better than the O/B graphics in many instances in the PCs they are running. In the case of the HD 4550, it predates Intel 2000 by 4 years for goodness sake. Also, for $60 or so why not grab a Radeon r7 240. It's only 35w peak power.

OK, maybe the newer O/B graphics will suffice for some, but I do believe that there should be a discussion about the hoards of pre-2013 desktops there are out there. Intel 2000 is abysmal...seriously, and I don't think 3000 is much better, although I haven't gotten my claws into one yet.

By the way, I should add that all of the power stats I have quoted are peak power requirements. Actual usage is going to be nil in comparison at most times (except for gaming). The cards I have mentioned are not GTX 780s and what not requiring 285w by themselves and a 650-700w PSU. These low power cards don't require over a 250-300 watt PSU, so long as you aren't running 3 drives inside the PC. I do have a 500w Rosewill that I swapped from the dual core when I got the r7 (to use with it), but the 300w PSU Seasonic in the PC would have done the job fine I am sure. I now do have 3 drives in the PC, so I guess it was the better decision...

 

Some OEM mainboards/SFF rigs can only handle sub-25W cards, they're PCI-E power-limited.

There haven't been drivers with anything new for the Radeon HD 4xxx series for some years now, the weaker ones will still struggle on some of the heavier web pages and playback on the latest codecs (eg. H.265), where much of the work will need to be offloaded to the CPU, even on relatively mainstream 1080/1200p resolutions at fullscreen. I'd stretch to a 5-series or 730/740 GT (with GDDR5) for a decent chance of getting a few years of useful life from a PC.

My usual test for a crap graphics component is simply dragging a window around the screen and feeling for 'lag', whilst watching the Kernel usage activity in TaskMan's Performance tab (you need to enable the Kernel usage line), the weaker the graphics, higher the screen resolution, the more noticeable the screen lag and Kernel times are.

 

satrow...

Yes, I have a low profile PC with the 25w issue. I am using the 20w NVS 300 in that one, but a 4550 would work too.

All your tests considered, I do think the benchmarks are helpful, don't you? I mean there are very large samplings for the HD 4550 and some of these other cards that are low power cards. I think the Radeon 4xxx driver I am using is from 2013, which is old, but it's the latest one of the drivers used for those benchmark tests. Also, this being an experiment, I'm going to leave the card in here, but I hope to grab a r7 270 at some point. Gonna need a PSU for that, though.

Based on my usage of HD 4xxx, this is not a super powerful card for sure. But this 4550 actually is an improvement over Intel 2000. I get no lag at all spinning the page and about 30 frames/sec on 1080 p. This is a 1680 x 1050 22 inch, but I'm not sure about the ppi on it. It may be 720p instead of 1080p, which would make a big difference on rendering. Anyway, it's a relative thing (and something to know about your monitor when looking for a card), but on this PC, the graphics are definitively better with the HD 4550 I would say. Mainly, my RAM and processor are free! Also, it is kind of a chuckle too to be running such a stupid card that was $50 when it came out in 2008 and with an i5 2400 processor sold in September of 2012...

 

Just from my standpoint, I've got two laptops. One is an AMD A8 7410 with R5 Graphics and the other is an Intel T9550 C2D with an nVidia Quadro NVS 160M dedicated graphics card. Guess which one performs better and faster. If I could, somehow, put a dedicated graphics card in the AMD, I would. But, I can't.

 

Of course benchmarks are useful: http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/compare.php?cmp[]=5&cmp[]=3281

Your screen is a 16:10 ratio with just over 1.7k pixels, like a scaled down 1200p (1920x1200, just over 2.3k pixels), and it's bigger than 720p. FullHD/1080p is 16:9 (1920x1080, just over 2k pixels). PPI is irrelevant for 'benchmarking', it's a visual indicator, higher PPI = finer quality.

Mdonah, are the screen resolutions the same on both?

 

They weren't — the AMD is 1366 x 768 and the T9550 was 1440 x 900 but, I changed screen resolution on the T9550 to 1366 x 768 because it's easier for me to see. I have bilateral cataracts.

 

I should also mention that both laptops had their HDDs replaced by Samsung 850 EVO SSDs (1TB for the AMD and 500GB for the T9550) and both had their RAM maxed out (16GB for the AMD and 8GB for the T9550) and the T9550 (with the dedicated nVidia) was better and faster even at the higher resolution. The AMD Radeon R5 does reserve exactly 1GB (1,024MB) of my RAM for itself.

 

As you state it uses the 1280p PPI, so that's what I have been trying to determine. I guess this old rig is pushing more pixels than I thought. Thanks for the information.

This monitor is kind of an unusual one, not exactly like anything else I have seen from HP. I like the size, but it's a very plasticky case, and it looks cheaper than the business class ones or the gaming ones. I only paid $100 for it on clearance, so it was a good deal for me, and I feel lucky it hasn't broken yet. Also, the controls don't give me a whole ton of options which I wish I had, and it's only 60 Hz. That's why I was wondering if it used the 720 ppi or 1080 ppi (at the screen) due to the somewhat cheap look and feel of the unit...

 

Wow, it's great mdonah that you have such a good graphics option available to you for your laptop. That's similar to the NVS 290 I had in a DC 7700 SFF that I mentioned before. This is the part I love...Total Power Displacement: 12w. Some of these low powered cards are really amazing with the low requirements and heat output and all.

You know, I had been wondering if manufacturers might get back to making dedicated more available for laptops at some point. Not sure how available they are now, actually, since I haven't looked around much...

 

I had a feeling there was a higher res on the Intel/Quadro, you could perk up the graphics more if you could force 1360x768 = less than 4MB framebuffer, more efficient.

Those C2D Intels were very good performers for their day.

AtlBo, PPI = pixel density (pixels per [square] inch), regardless of the screen's resolution. 720p is 1280x720 pixels.

60-72 Hz is easy to drive and for the majority of users, it's comfortable viewing. Higher than that requires a lot more GPU processing power.

 

i was both surprised (and dismayed) by the difference in performance between the two. I bought the AMD because I THOUGHT the AMD quad-core would be somewhat faster than than the C2D but, its not. It's slower. The R5 graphics purportedly is capable of 720P @ 30 FPS. I don't know if that's the case. I don't deal much with high res video.

 

mdonah...

Just to say so and not to take away from Digerati's points, the problem I have had with integrated graphics is I guess first, the underwhelming amount of resources that were dedicated to them. It seems like they were designed more for emergency use as far as specifications go. Now it was awhile back when that was a big problem for me. I think the core 2 duo PC c2007 had 64 mb RAM dedicated on it for graphics, and the standard graphics do stutter alot when moving Windows. There are delays with menus and so on, too, that seem obviously connected to low specced native graphics, since the problem goes away after adding a PCI-e card. It's all the little maddening things. However, after that, once more resources started being dedicated to graphics, as with the Intel 2000, standard graphics still seems unstable to me. I think it's a matter of maybe the fact that Windows just doesn't have an answer for the i/o issues introduced with the interlacing of graphics with other normal PC operations.

Separating them does the trick for me on the desktops here. The chuckle I get over the HD 4550 is that I do think even that little $8 card, like the NVS cards do, too, delivers a style of performance that seems degrees ahead as far as the little naggy things are concerned. The LOL is that it seems ironic to me that such a small amount of $$$ these days can give a user this. Digerati's points don't quit being valid considerations, but I definitely do think that $8 or $10 can make many desktop users alot happier who may not really realize so.

I feel bad mdonah that the r6 graphics aren't better for you with the quad core laptop. Digerati enhanced a point that I felt was probably to a degree true, not having experienced the latest onboard options. That said, I really thought before the post that the r series and gtx o/b graphics and forward would have been more along the lines of what I would hope for from onboard graphics. Again, maybe there is some kind of i/o issue that manufs could look at for advancing drivers, but I'm not schooled enough to be able to say what the issue could be.

You know, I wonder if maybe it's a matter of too much tech for Windows. By this I mean that maybe the clever tricks of claiming and unclaiming memory and processor bandwidth are too much at such a deep level of a PCs activities. I don't know what all the tricks are these days with native graphics, like Turbo Scaling and core parking for energy savings with processors. I just wonder if what is there is just too much. At the end of it all, if $8-$10 or 15 is all it takes for someone to get to know dedicated graphics for the first time who has the option, then I say whole-heartedly go for it and give it a try. I think these little cards saved me from alot of digitally sourced pain over the years...

 

Yes, the DC 7700 SFF here has a E6400 @ 2.13 GHz. It's a low end one, but I that PC pulled me through for 5 years I guess. So glad it came with the graphics card in it (and 2 HDs). I doubt I would have bought one, otherwise. Being SFF, I probably would have been intimidated about looking into the issue, and really the cards didn't start coming down in price until I guess 2012-13. They were expensive at one time. Retail on the NVS 290 was over $150 and that for what amounts to a 2D card. BTW, I wrecked that card with Silent Hunter 4 (Pacific war sub game) and Quake Live LOL, but it went three years, and I was very impressed. It was really great with QL. Promise I'm not a dedicated gamer, but when I needed to think in those days, the games did settle me down some I admit.

Thanks for this satrow. I don't know that much, and I'm trying to put the pieces together, but the buff on the graphics requirements for more pixels/second (ppi and refresh combined) is what I was trying to get at as what I understand as what digs into graphics resources.

I have seen all kinds of info around the net about how 1920x1280 is more pixels to process and send and so on (than 1680x1050), and that makes sense to me based on what you said about monitors (the 1680x1050 I have and a 1920x1280) using the same ppi. The problem I have understanding is when the size of the monitor is larger (or different) than the natural say 1920x1280 but the resolution is still 1280p (Does this happen?). I guess the pixels are just bigger or smaller. Also, I am trying to put it all in perspective of where things have been and and so on to understand how ppi has advanced over the years. I haven't been able to find the exact presentation of the information that I have been looking for it seems. Most of it is either so simple that I end up feeling like a billion details have been glossed over, or the info is so technical that I end up feeling like many of the simple logic connections aren't available to chew on. I don't feel as intimidated as I used to by graphics, though.

I REALLY hope the manufacturers can come up with a way to present the graphics, especially for laptops now that I think about it, in a way where users really can know what they're getting easily when they buy. I think screen ppi for a small screen could be really important for seeing the screen, but it seems hard to determine with new laptops what the screen can actually deliver quality-wise. I guess it's hard for manufs, too, in a way. If a small screen is 720p or 1080p as far as pixels per inch goes, potential buyers might think that's not enough, considering 1280p is what is connected to their desktop. Then, I'm not even sure that the manufacturers are even describing small screens and larger screens by the same standard. That's the main thing I think that would help as far as I'm concerned. I can get used to whatever is there as long as it's in the quality range I seek. Small and big screens sure are different. That I will say while I am looking into this 1280x1024 17" screen...

 

I think you just have a bias against all integrated graphics based on very limited experience with them from years ago, that is, "awhile back". And you are assuming what was, still is. It's not. I also think you have limited knowledge of how resource utilization, and in particular memory management works.

As to the former, you seem to forget, or not realize, that the vast majority of computing tasks are CPU tasks, not graphics "processing" tasks. That is, the OS says, "I want a green dot here". The CPU tells the graphics solution to put a green dot there. That's it. It takes no GPU "processing", therefore very little graphics RAM resources at all. If the system were to dedicate more system RAM to the integrated graphics, not only would that RAM be wasted, sitting idle most of the time, but that would be precious system RAM that is now unavailable to the CPU where it is needed most.

Remember, the vast majority of computing tasks do NOT involve multiple, independent, animated objects moving about the screen at the same time. Even with graphics intensive games, the vast majority of pixels remain exactly the same, frame after frame. Additional resources are only needed when a pixel needs to change color or brightness. And even in intense games, most of the pixels are used to display "static" (not moving) backgrounds for many frames in a row.

As to the latter, I would venture to say that no one on this site has the expertise in memory management that Microsoft has. Microsoft has an army of PhDs and CompSci professionals on staff doing Windows development. Do not think for second that you are smarter than them. Microsoft has a vested interest in eking out the maximum performance from the hardware. So does Intel, AMD, and the motherboard developers too.

To illustrate the lack of knowledge and understanding, you say, notebook integrated graphics is better than PCs because, "everything is so close together inside". That's just nonsense! A µATX motherboard found in many PCs is just 9.6 x. 9.6 inches maximum. Many are smaller than that. And then there is mini-ITX. And with today's integrated systems, the GPU is on the same die as the CPU! On top of that, most of today's motherboards that support integrated graphics also have a large chunk integrated RAM mounted on the board dedicated for graphics processing.

You also claim notebook integrated is better because the screens are smaller. More nonsense. Many 15 and 17 inch notebook monitors support 1920 x 1200 resolutions - the exact same as many 24" monitors. And note all notebooks are designed to work with full size monitors, big screen TVs and projectors too. And the amount of rendering required is a function of the program being run, not the hardware.

Many integrated graphics solutions support much higher resolutions - for example 2048 x 1536 @ 75Hz. Or this mini-ITX (6.7 inch x 6.7 inch) board that supports 2560 x 1600 @ 60Hz.

You keep going on and on and on about this. I am sorry but all you are really doing is showing us over and over again that you don't really understand today's integrated graphics at all. I mean no disrespect - those are just the facts. And I certainly don't mean to single you out. Because it is also a fact that most users are not PhDs, CompSci professionals, or experts in memory management - nor do we need to be.

 

Digerati, do you know if manufacturers mean that the computer uses a 1920x1280 type aspect ratio or if they mean that there are actually 1920x1280 pixels there on the screen you mention? That's great if they do use the smaller pixels. However, I don't think manufs have come up with a way to explain this clearly to PC buyers. This is at least my perception.

One thing on core processing and graphics rendering. As you state correctly, all the components are on the die these days with many computers (especially laptops and on the HP 6200 Pro I have here, also). That I acknowledge. However, when you analyze the actual processing that happens in a PC, there can still only be one bit in and one bit out at a time with a PC, and all the bits have to then be sorted for a destination. It's an intensely fast stream for sure. At any rate, I feel that Windows native optimization may be geared more toward a dedicated graphics solution. By this I mean the timings of prefetch and so on. It refreshes it memory/cache assignment priorities at a certain rate. Closer proximity could be, coupled with advances that I am not aware of, because I haven't studied the issue, both a blessing and a curse. My experience is that the data does seem to crash on its way out of the processor with onboard graphics. I would have to say that the curse has ruined the experience for me to date.

I've done alot of research with core tuning that I wouldn't want to try to explain, but that's not important to me. Really, none of this is important to me, because I am not an expert of anything computers. If you are satisfied with what you have or anyone else, then fine. I do think, however, that dedicated are worth a look for anyone who can afford to do so.

This is up to everyone to decide. If what's out there not is perfectly acceptable to you, that's great, but I wouldn't mind seeing onboard graphics that perform like dedicated graphics. I am happy to hear that boards do have dedicated memory. The other system is garbage imo.

Good information, thanks.

 

Especially laptops? No! Basically all AiO computers and but most mid to higher end PCs use integrated graphics. And most of those today use Intel CPUs with integrated graphics or AMD APUs (note that "APU" is a AMD term, Intel just says "CPU with integrated graphics").

1920 x 1280 is not an aspect ratio. That is a resolution. 16:9, 16:10 and 4:3 are but 3 common aspect ratios.

 

The best of the recent Intel mobile processors usually have better graphics (Iris Pro, usually on ix xxxxHQ CPUs) than their Desktop siblings (except for some ix xxxxR CPU versions), also most recent CPU and APU graphics will perform better with faster (so called 'overclocked') RAM fitted. This combo would allow much better graphics than base versions, for some applications and game types, they're more than adequate at the regular 1080p 16:9 notebook screens (though this notebook type might be fitted with even higher resolution screens than usual, they can cope with it).

Using 'overclocked' memory in desktop machines with 'good' PCIe GPUs will barely make any difference to the graphics, even under benchmarking.

 

I go as far as saying virtually all applications and most games. There are exceptions of course. Integrated graphics may struggle with rendering with CAD/CAE applications - but then so would many cards. That's why serious "workstation graphics cards" cost much more than most computers. Using a notebook for such tasks is just the wrong tool for the job.

@ AtlBo - remember, Google is your friend. Many of your questions about aspect ratios and resolutions and how they relate to DPI can be answered there.

 

My ThinkPad has a 1GB Quadro card.

There's a reason for that...

 

@AtlBo,

I've got R5 Graphics not R6.