onboard graphics vs. separate graphics card

[nemesis]

I have a new eMachines PC that came with 512 MB of RAM. It includes integrated graphics (Nvidia GeForce 6100/410, IIRC) which shares 128 MB of that RAM, leaving me 384 MB of RAM. (I'm going to buy another stick of RAM, probably 256 MB or maybe 512 MB if I can afford it.)

I also have a graphics card pulled out of my husband's last PC, a Nvidia GeForce MX 440 (again, IIRC) with 64 MB of RAM.

I've heard that a separate card with its own dedicated RAM will be faster - but to what degree? Is 64 MB dedicated preferable to 128 MB shared system RAM?

In other words, would I be better off installing the separate graphics card (that particular one; I can't afford a better new one) and disabling the onboard graphics (which has the benefit of reclaiming that 128 MB of RAM for the system), or leaving it as is (which has the benefit of being easier :wink: )

Oh, probably helpful to note that I virtually never play games on this PC (except Solitaire, etc.) or watch DVDs on it. I do some graphics/photo editing, and I once in a while watch short videos (such as music videos).

Thanks for any advice!

Jamie

[PaulKroll]

If you're not playing games on the machine, you're not going to see a difference in performance from built-in to separate card. The regular 2D effects necessary to handle Windows applications are done so fast in even the cheapest graphics chipset these days, that a faster one is really pointless. For that. For 3D game graphics, sky's the limit. :)

[Tom E.]

I agree. I'm using a 2 1/2 year old Dell with 256MB ram and integrated graphics. Performance is zippy for everything I do, which includes photo editing. The only 3D game I've run is Marble Blast, and the 3d rendering is fast and smooth. I think you'll only notice a difference with newer 3d games which have lots of smooth curves and which render very complicated scenes.

[Mandi]

Yeah, that's my question too . . . what do you do with this computer? It takes heavier, graphics-intensive applications to really "feel" an upgrade or the differential between video/graphics cards. I am also not what I would call a graphics afficianado; I really fail to appreciate the finer points of detail offered on the "better" end, if you know what I mean. That's the sort of thing that is *very* individual though - a matter of taste, not computing theory or an argument of what's "better."

However - you probably WILL feel the difference in terms of getting the RAM freed up for your use, or getting that extra stick of memory. Programs will launch faster, the machine will boot/shutdown faster, etc. Those small things matter to me because, well . . . I'm not a patient person :P LOL. I always upgrade clients to as much RAM as they can afford/the motherboard will support. When you're ready to do that, I highly recommend you stick to crucial brand memory, too. Their own website is great: www.crucial.com - but sometimes the also-great NewEgg.com beats their prices a bit (but no free shipping usually - so add all that up.) RAM is one of those things you really, really don't want to go the bargain route on . . . I'd rather see you with 256 MB of crucial memory, than 512 of "bargain" memory, if it comes down to the pennies.

Are you new to optimizing your own computer? Forgive me if you're not, or have said so in other posts :confuz: LOL! There are some really great tweaks you can implement to maximize the resources you've got - I'd be happy to post about what I do to my own machines, and client machines.

And apropos nothing else: I've got a little e-Machines box right now too, that I picked up at a garage sale for $10 - the owner just couldn't be bothered with it since she got a new one. I stuck a video card in it that was a pull from another system (for an upgrade), found some more memory on my shelf, and gave it a pulled 30 gB hard drive. Voila, all free-to-me upgrades and a brandy new computer for $10. Hey, it's not exactly my main development workstation - but it runs XP and Linux in dual boot, and makes a second station to surf/email/use Word and makes for a happier household ;). I'm perfectly happy with it.

[Adam]

I stuck a video card in it that was a pull from another system (for an upgrade), found some more memory on my shelf, and gave it a pulled 30 gB hard drive.

I had to laugh at this. Lucky you to have that stuff lying around! I guess after you've gone through a few machines you just have this stuff - but I'd have to go out and buy it and that would be a lot more than $10! :rasberry:

[Andilinks]

I have an eMachines 2.3 GHz/512 that is coming up on three years old and consider it the best tech purchase I've ever made (knocking wood).

But the onboard video began distorting (stretching the image on the rh side of the screen) and I replaced it with a video card I purchased (~$30) for another machine. I don't play any video intensive games so I could have lived with the distortion, but freeing up some RAM is always a plus. 512 seemed huge 3 years ago but I have a few programs that choke it when processing big files.

I am mentioning this mostly as a vote of confidence in the brand for Jamie, I know it's something good to hear after a new purchase.

I don't think the coincidence of the video card adds too much to the discussion except to say it is very easily done, especially if you already own a card that's gathering dust.

Andi

[mag0358]

Interesting...

Not to veer off topic, but everything I've ever read on the Web about eMachines has been mostly horror stories about power supplies bombing out, coupled with really really bad tech support.

It's just what I've read, though. I have no preference for the brand one way or the other. :dunno:

[Andilinks]

but everything I've ever read on the Web about eMachines has been mostly horror stories about power supplies bombing out, coupled with really really bad tech support.

Then you haven't been reading lately because when I purchased mine in May '03 I researched that very thing because it had been a big problem with early eMachines. But by 5/03 that problem had been resolved to the point where there was already a large body of credible positive customer satisfaction feedback.

In 2004 eMachines was acquired by Gateway.

I can't say anything about eMachines' tech support because I haven't needed any. :smile: Since I bought it, it has been powered up almost continuously--I work it hard.

Andi

[Mandi]

Yeah, I can't say I've read good things about them either, but have now had two "castoffs" come my way and they've both been pretty solid for the purposes I used them for. I think their motherboards and CPUs are basically solid, and from there it's just a matter of taste. For example, their optical drives are proprietary to the case, so you have buy e-machines optical drives if you want to upgrade that at all - I'm am SO not a fan of proprietary anything.

I have a whole shelf unit in my office that exists purely to hold Pieces and Parts, if you know what I mean LOL - and it definately comes in handy. Just yesterday, I visited a client with a "broken monitor" who actually needed a new video card. (The monitor powered on as expected, but when I turned on the tower it went BEEEEEEEEEEEP beep beep beep instead of the usual single POST beep . . . and the client said, "Oh yeah - and it makes those weird beeps now too!") Gotta love shelves full of extras, to not make clients wait around - especially when it's right across the street.

I do an inordinate amount of Saturday/Sunday "Help, we're BROKEN!!!" housecalls inside my neighborhood, LOL! Weekdays are my quieter times.

[Randall]

Lucky you to have that stuff lying around! I guess after you've gone through a few machines you just have this stuff - but I'd have to go out and buy it and that would be a lot more than $10! I have a "collection" of my own, which is about to be put to the test.

I ordered a pair of 19" LCD monitors for my boss, who's decided that one screen is just not enough anymore. :rasberry: The machine has onboard video, which means it's going to need a video card to (a) augment the existing video or (b) replace it altogether.

If it's the first case, I can slot in one of my collected PCI video cards and make that the secondary monitor. Otherwise I'll be ordering a PCI dual-head video card.

OTOH, I may discover that the onboard video doesn't like to share and can't be turned off. In which case I'll be swapping her PC for mine and ordering an AGP dual-head card...

Randall

# Whaddaya know -- it was on topic

[Tom]

My son has a cheap-o machine that I built that has an integrated Intel AGP graphics chip that really wasn't cutting the mustard and couldn't play a couple new games he got for Christmas. I bought him a $49 PCI board (no AGP slots on his motherboard) with the ATI Radeon 9250 chipset and now it works perfectly plus he got the usable RAM back.

[Mandi]

I've never had a problem turning off onboard video . . . but I do have a problem with clientele forgetting that's the "dead" adapter, and calling me in a panic that "the computer doesn't work anymore!" when they've disconnected everything (ie, moving the computer, cleaning, disentangling cordage - you know) and put the video cable back in the dead spot.

Just a tip: Make a tiny little label and block the disabled adapter. "Not this one!" or "Use the other one (down arrow)"

Probably someone who is a sufficiently advanced user to want dual monitors, is not going to have this problem, but it's nonetheless a staple here.

[Randall]

Probably someone who is a sufficiently advanced user to want dual monitors, is not going to have this problem "Advanced" may be too strong a word. :rasberry:

The monitors arrived today, and I've got the first one hooked up to the onboard VGA port. Later when she goes home for the day I'll be digging around in the guts of her machine to install one of my PCI video cards (got three or four to choose from, but I think one of them doesn't work with XP). It remains to be seen whether it can run that and the onboard video at the same time.

Randall

[Randall]

Well, we're almost there. Two of the cards were a bust -- one of them wasn't even recognized by Windows -- but the old Matrox card worked on the first try.

Only problem is that it tops out at 1152x864, even in 16-bit. No 1280x1024. :hrmm:

Anyway, that will do until I can get a modern PCI card (and pray that the system sees it). It's got an Intel AGP chip like Tom's, so I'll try ATI first. I've always had better luck with them anyway.

Randall

[Randall]

I'm going with an ATI FireMV (http://www.ati.com/products/firemvseries/index.html) card. It's designed for multi-monitor workstations (dual DVI -- how cool is that?), not gamers; I gather that they left the 3D graphics stuff out altogether. That's just fine by us.

Basically, I'm hedging my bets. If the card doesn't play nicely with the onboard video, I can shut off the AGP and drive both monitors from the ATI card. If it does play nicely I can run both monitors off the ATI card ... and leave the onboard port available for a third monitor if she really loses her mind. :wink:

Plus, the software sounds like UltraMon (http://www.realtimesoft.com/ultramon/) on steroids. :eek:

Randall

[Randall]

For future reference: The ATI FireMV video card is not compatible with the Dell Dimension 2350's onboard video. :hrmm:

Randall