stand alone vs integrated

zebra26.DeleteThis@gmail.com wrote:

>
> I am looking at a new computer purchase and I am a little confused
> regarding the graphics.
>
> The unit is an HP desktop 1330 which has an integrated ATI radeon
> xpress 200 graphics with 256k shared video memory.
>
> I am assuming this memory is shared with the memory installed in
> the computer which comes with 1 GB but is expandable to 4GB?
>
> I intend to expand to 3 or 4GB on this machine. What would the
> graphics capability be like compared to a seperate graphics card
> of say 256 or 128 meg? There is 1 PCI express slot available in
> the machine. Z.

Built-in video is notorious for being slow compared to a video card.
Its graphics capability depends on your application. If you
are a gamer or a graphics artist, you don't want to use built-in
video.

The built-in video probably won't hurt since you can add a video
card, but it's a waste of money and mainboard resources if you want
performance.

All of the cool stuff on a high-performance video card aren't on
your mainboard.

Good luck.







--
beyond that, you will have to ask the regulars here
 >> Stay informed about: stand alone vs integrated 

"John Doe" <jdoe RemoveThis @usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9788E6AEAF90Ffollydom@207.115.17.102...
> zebra26 RemoveThis @gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>> I am looking at a new computer purchase and I am a little confused
>> regarding the graphics.
>>
>> The unit is an HP desktop 1330 which has an integrated ATI radeon
>> xpress 200 graphics with 256k shared video memory.
>>
>> I am assuming this memory is shared with the memory installed in
>> the computer which comes with 1 GB but is expandable to 4GB?
>>
>> I intend to expand to 3 or 4GB on this machine. What would the
>> graphics capability be like compared to a seperate graphics card
>> of say 256 or 128 meg? There is 1 PCI express slot available in
>> the machine. Z.
>
> Built-in video is notorious for being slow compared to a video card.
> Its graphics capability depends on your application. If you
> are a gamer or a graphics artist, you don't want to use built-in
> video.
>
> The built-in video probably won't hurt since you can add a video
> card, but it's a waste of money and mainboard resources if you want
> performance.
>
> All of the cool stuff on a high-performance video card aren't on
> your mainboard.
>
> Good luck.
>

Check out the reviews for the chipset, it runs surprisingly well, just gets
outdated too quickly that's all.
 >> Stay informed about: stand alone vs integrated 

"abc" <a b.c> wrote:

>
> "John Doe" <jdoe usenet.love.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Xns9788E6AEAF90Ffollydom 207.115.17.102...
>> zebra26 gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I am looking at a new computer purchase and I am a little
>>> confused regarding the graphics.
>>>
>>> The unit is an HP desktop 1330 which has an integrated ATI
>>> radeon xpress 200 graphics with 256k shared video memory.

>
> Check out the reviews for the chipset, it runs surprisingly well,
> just gets outdated too quickly that's all.

For what applications?

The user is talking about the idea that increasing mainboard/system
memory will increase the performance of the built-in video. He
hasn't specified an application, but we can assume he wants fast
video.

I replace my mainboard more frequently than my video card. I spent
more on my last video card than I spent on my last mainboard.

Please pick any mainboard with built-in video and point
to comparisons to video cards. I have never seen or even heard of a
review like that.

It might be an interesting subject, IMO, if it made sense. If it
were true that mainboard video compares with videocard video, that's
what I would base my mainboard choices on. They don't make them that
way probably because the vast majority of users (wordprocessing,
financing, and Internet browsing) don't need high-end graphics.






>
>
>
>
> Path: newssvr14.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm05.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm03.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!news.moat.net!nntp.waia.asn.au!203.59.27.186.MISMATCH!newsfeed.iinet.net.au!newsfeed.iinet.net.au!per-qv1-newsstorage1.iinet.net.au!per-qv1-newsstorage1.iinet.net.au!per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au!not-for-mail
> From: "abc" <a b.c>
> Newsgroups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati
> References: <1142545374.360845.296620 j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <Xns9788E6AEAF90Ffollydom 207.115.17.102>
> Subject: Re: stand alone vs integrated
> Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 18:01:12 +0800
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2670
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2670
> X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
> Lines: 39
> Message-ID: <441a89aa$0$18553$5a62ac22 per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.59.13.152
> X-Trace: 1142589866 per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au 18553 203.59.13.152
> Xref: prodigy.net alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati:205966
>
 >> Stay informed about: stand alone vs integrated 

And isn't cost effective either. There is just no sense what so ever to
add 300-400$ worth of graphics capabilities to a motherboard (which is
about the average price for a high-end gfx, not the most high-end
though). Who in their right mind would buy one...

>
> It might be an interesting subject, IMO, if it made sense. If it
> were true that mainboard video compares with videocard video, that's
> what I would base my mainboard choices on. They don't make them that
> way probably because the vast majority of users (wordprocessing,
> financing, and Internet browsing) don't need high-end graphics.
>
 >> Stay informed about: stand alone vs integrated