Integrated Video on Motherboard

[Mildew]

Does anyone know the advantages\disadvantages of buying a motherboard with the video integrated on the motherboard ?? Mainly, does it run slower than one using a video card if they both use the same amount of video memory ?
Thanks for any answer.

[mjc]

One of the main drawbacks with onboard video is the lack of an upgrade path. Another is that the memory for the onboard video is shared with the rest of the system, which is not good for serious gaming, where you want the maximum available system RAM along with as much video memory as you can grab.

If you are primarily interested in surfing or doing word processing then onboard video might be ok...but anything that really requires serious interact between the video card and the program (like a 3d game)...



------------------
mjc
Links list:Computer Links (http://www.dreamwater.org/tech/mjc/index.htm)

Celts are the men that heaven made mad, For all their battles are merry and their songs are all sad.

[Mildew]

OK... Thanks for the input, mjc. I appreciate it.

[BigBlue66]

Hey,

Just thought I would post my experience with integrated video. I have been using a socket A motherboard that came with an onboard 128-bit AGP graphics accelerator. It provided for shared memory up to a max of 64mb.

I had plenty of RAM, so I ran it at the max shared memory. I have to say that the video was perfectly adequate for 2D as well as some light to medium duty 3D applications. I played Unreal Tournament, Half Life Day One, Redline Racer, Need for Speed II and Driver. Not once did the video system choke on any of those games.

The key is to get at least the 128-bit accelerator. Anything less will leave you wanting for more.

I have yet to see integrated video that couldn't be either disabled or overridden, so that an add-in video adapter could be used. In fact, on this very system that I'm talking about, I installed a GeForce2 MX400 32mb video card and while there is some improvement, there isn't a lot.

If you want to save a few bucks now on a motherboard, go with integrated video but make sure to get at least 128-bit. Then later, you can add in a video card if you want.

Cheers,

Big Blue 66

------------------
This space reserved for highly intelligent observations and witty remarks.

[mjc]

Along with what I said before and BB's post, a board that has an AGP slot and onboard video is one that the onboard can be disabled...many lower end/cheaper boards do not have that feature...

------------------
mjc
Links list:Computer Links (http://www.dreamwater.org/tech/mjc/index.htm)

Celts are the men that heaven made mad, For all their battles are merry and their songs are all sad.

[Mildew]

Great.. Thanks Bigblue66. I guess I will choose a motherboard with Onboard video. That will suit my purposes fine.
Mildew

[Jonny5]

Hi Guys!

I have a question for BB - what Socket A motherboard do you have?

The reason why I'm asking is I'm also thinking of embarking on an upgrade to my poor old P233MMX system ( I guess like Mildew?). The AMD-based MBs seem to be great deals plus I'm getting sick and tired on Intel (oops...too much editorial content there ;-)!)

I'm tempted by a deal I saw at AberdeenInc.com for a "barebones" system based around an MSI board with a 900MHz Duron on it. The board comes with integrated 128bit S3 Savage4 AGp 4x video plus audio and seems too good to be true.

My current system is a P233MMX desktop type (mini AT form factor) but I've thought for a few years that a tower would be nicer to work inside plus would free up some desktop space! So, an upgrade to an ATX-based MB in a tower is in order.

Ahh....decisions...decisions

------------------
"One good test is worth a 1000 expert opinions!"
- Von Braun

[BigBlue66]

Hey Jonny,

The board I was referring to in my previous post is a PCCHIPS M810LMR 200Mhz. Have had it for a little over a year with no problems. But I have upgraded just about everything on it. Actually I have two of those boards and both run well.

I also run an FIC AZ31 EOM version 200/266Mhz with a 1.0GHz Athlon.

If either of those two motherboards die, then I have a couple of spares on hand. An MSI K7T Turbo2 and a Soyo SY-K7VTA Pro, both with the KT133A chipset and 686B Southbridge. These are both 200/266Mhz boards that will handle the higher speed Athlons. The MSI will even handle the Athlon XP.

I realize that most of my stuff is old technology, but hey, it works and works well. I have spare processors, both Duron and Athlon, that will work for a long time yet, and I will have the board to put them in if I need to.

I think you can't go wrong with an MSI board. It should prove to be stable and reliable for you. As long as you're not a heavy gamer, the onboard 128-bit graphics should do you fine. You may not like the onboard sound, but soundcards that would sound better are not that expensive.

I say go for it. That 900Mhz system will seem like a rocket ship compared to your 233Mhz system.

Cheers,

Big Blue 66



------------------
This space reserved for highly intelligent observations and witty remarks.

[Jonny5]

BB,

Thanks for the info. By "heavy gamer" what do you mean? I *do* play a fair number of games. Actually, one of the prime frustrations that drove me to the decision to upgrade recently was the embaressment that I could not get my 6-year-old's recent Xmas gift (Harry Potter game) to run on the 233MMX!! Also, there is a kick-ass freeware space simulation (Orbiter) that rocks on systems with 16MB 4x AGP type video. The later barely runs on my current system - and very poorly.

Quick question - how would the onboard S3 Savage4 128-bit graphics compare, say, with a Diamond Viper II, which has the S3 Savage2000 chipset?

------------------
"One good test is worth a 1000 expert opinions!"
- Von Braun

[kayofcircles]

Thanks, Mildew, for this question. My husband received a game that won't play well on his system, so I am thinking of giving him the MSI mobo we bought for me, and going with onboard video for my new board. Have onboard now and haven't noticed any problems with the graphics I work with, and not into gaming other than lowly card games. But, aren't I looking for an Athlon chip rather than Duron?

[BigBlue66]

Hey Jonny,

By "heavy gamer", I mean the type of person that is playing a game and thinking, I want more FPS, I want more speed, I don't want my system to choke, I want better graphics, etc.

As long as the game runs correctly and smoothly, whatever video you're using should suffice.

The difference between those two video systems you mentioned lies in the fact that one is onboard and shares system memory and the other one is not. Both have the same chipset, but how the system communicates to that chipset/controller is key here.

Let's say you have the onboard video, and it can share up to a max. of 64mb of system memory. Let's also assume that you have tons of RAM and a fast processor. All things equal, you won't see that much difference in 2D performance, but you will probably see a slight improvement in 3D performance when using the add-on video card. It all depends on what add-on card you're adding though.

If all things are not equal, say you can only let the video card share 16mb of memory because you don't have a lot of RAM and just a mediocre processor. Then you should see quite a bit of difference between the onboard and the add-on card.

As I mentioned previously, I had the onboard graphics kicked up to 64mb of shared RAM, along with a 1.2GHz Athlon. Then, thinking that I could do better, I purchased a Gainward Cardexpert GeForce2 MX 400 AGP 4X 32mb. I can't really tell that much difference, although the graphics are better with the add-on card. Also, if I were to overclock the GF, which is something I have been wanting to do, but am waiting for some cooling solutions that I have ordered, then the difference should demonstrate a wider gap yet. Or, maybe I will install the Abit Siluro GF2 MX400 AGP 4X 64mb card that I have ordered for the wife and give her the Gainward. There I should see an improvement because of the additional memory.

Bottom line. Get the system you're looking at with the onboard video. It should do you fine for quite awhile. By the time you get ansy about better graphics in games, etc. the GeForce2 will be dirt cheap and the GeForce3 will be surpassed by at least the GeForce4 if not the GF5! Or, the S3 Savage 2000 cards will be dirt cheap as well. I am more of a GF fan than anything.

Have fun.

Big Blue 66


------------------
This space reserved for highly intelligent observations and witty remarks.

[BigBlue66]

Kay

Yes, you should go for an Athlon. It has a larger L2 cache than the Duron, hence, better performance.

Cheers,

Big Blue 66


------------------
This space reserved for highly intelligent observations and witty remarks.

[kayofcircles]

Thanks, Big Blue . I couldn't remember "why" we were going for the Athlon. Also, thanks mucho for the detailed posts you made on this thread..am printing it up for future reference and current purchasing planning.

[BigBlue66]

Um, thanks Kay. Just keep in mind that I was referring to all things equal concerning the differences between onboard and add-on.

Wasn't trying to compare 128-bit onboard with a GeForce3 Ti 500. http://www.PCGuide.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

Cheers,

Big Blue 66


------------------
This space reserved for highly intelligent observations and witty remarks.

"So much in love with us are we, you could kiss you and I could kiss me"

---- Tommy Smothers