integrated vs. dedicated graphics on laptop

[icewraith]

can anyone give me a good comparison between integrated and dedicated graphics cards on laptops? which would perform better?

specifically, I'm looking between a 16MB ATI Mobility Radeon (sony z1wa) and the Intel Integrated Extreme Graphics 2 (gateway 200x). I'm not planning on using any graphics-intensive applications (mostly Microsoft Office, some Photoshop/Dreamweaver, and web surfing), but I do want to be able to run DVDs and mess with digital photography without problems. also, I want to be able to play the occassional game, but i dont play much normally anyway so I think the few games I play have the minimum video card requirement of 16MB. would my laptop uses (as mentioned) work fine with either set of graphics?

[ECA]

On a laptop there have been 2 types.
1. is what you are talking about, they are about the same.
2. is SHARED graphics, which shares your onboard ram with the graphics card.

Integrated just maens its ON the mobo.
In there case, Dedicated probably means the same, or even that they gave it more processing power... Did they mention what mhz they are running it at?

[icewraith]

the intel integrated extreme graphics 2 is shared up to 64MB, at least thats what i got from the website (http://www.intel.com/design/graphics2/)

would this be better than the ATI Mobility Radeon 16MB dedicated card on the sony vaio z1wa? or just about the same?

[Ioman]

Originally posted by icewraith
the intel integrated extreme graphics 2 is shared up to 64MB, at least thats what i got from the website (http://www.intel.com/design/graphics2/)

would this be better than the ATI Mobility Radeon 16MB dedicated card on the sony vaio z1wa? or just about the same?

If you have a lot of memory on your system as a whole this can be a good thing for those large textures. If you do not have a lot of memory, then a dedicated graphics adapter would be best.

[ECA]

Shared memory, SHARES your ram on your system.
IF you have 512megs, and set 64 megs for video, 512-64=448 megs for your system.
MORE ram is better for both Video, and system.
BUT shared ram can be slower, as its not VIDEO ram.

[icewraith]

my laptop will have 512MB of RAM or maybe even 1GB of RAM, so sharing memory for graphics wont be too bad. but would the shared graphics perform better or worse than a dedicated 16MB card, seeing that although the dedicated card has less memory, it is dedicated? i've heard discussion going both ways, and when i talked to the guy at the gateway store today, he said that performance-wise, 64MB shared and 16MB dedicated would be about the same. on another forum, i've read that any dedicated graphics card will easily outperform any shared memory graphics. anyone know the real answer?

[ECA]

Shared memory is abit slower, but you can raise and lower it.
Go for 1 gig, esp with XP.
Even with 1 gig, you can set aside 64 megs for video, and do alot with it.

windows does a trick IF you dont have enough ram. If uses you system ram, THEN it will use your HD for ram.
When it uses the HD it uses 10 megs for every 1 it needs.

Say you wish to have a 1024x768 display.
Heres the math.
1024x768x bit depth. Bit depth for full color is 16bit. =12,582,912... WOW you already used 12 meg of video.

now you may see why MANY games run in 800x600x 16...just to SAVE ram, and NOT cache on the system ram. (=7,680,000).

If you are doing ART, or Games, you need the extra ram. That 16 meg card will use system ram ALSO, and it will run out QUICK. Even video cards that say 256 meg, generally only have 128 meg for the card and 128 meg for patterns and graphics storage, which is nice, but when you run out of video ram, it starts into your system ram.

[icewraith]

um ok so say i have the following two choices:

1. sony vaio z1 (1400x1050 res) w/ 1gb ram, 60gb hard drive, and a 16mb ati mobility radeon card

2. gateway 200x (1024x768 res) w/ 1gb ram, 60gb hard drive, and maximum 64mb shared graphics

which would perform better? mostly for DVD viewing, digital photo viewing and light editing, and maybe an occassional game or two which has minimum graphics card requirement of 16MB video card.

[ECA]

I would suggest 2..
The 1400x1050res of the sony still tells you that you will be cacheing OFF the System ram.
1400x1050x16 bit=23,520,000, so 16 meg+8megs off your system ram, ALREADY/anyway.
You aint saving any speed off video ram for the sony.

At least with the Shared graphics, you SET the 64 megs to goto the VIDEO and windows wont bother it, its NOT considered CACHE ram.

[Gatorhardware]

I would have to agree with ECA. Go with #2. Even though the Sony has the ati mobility the 64mb shared ram would work better for you. I run a 1400+ athlon laptop for my business work with a ATI mobility with 64 shared and I do great on everything but high end games.

[ECA]

yep,
High end games and FULL 3D graphics will always cause problems with Laptops.
Unless you wish to pay in the $15K price range.
I WOULD make sure you get the Fastest CPU you can afford and the MAX ram.
DVD, on a desktop, wants at LEAST a 1.5ghz CPU for Audio video sync. Anything less and they dont sync well.

[gr00vy0ne]

I'd actually recommend the Sony.

First of all, the ATI Mobility chipset is going to be better than the Intel Extreme Graphics 2 in terms of hardware acceleration features.

Secondly, It should be noted that Intel's Extreme Graphics 2 actually cheats to get to 64MB. By design, it can only access up to 32MB (in multiples of 4MB). To access 64MB, it has to use a DirectAGP mode interface which is essentially the same thing as any other video card accessing extra memory via a slower AGP interface.

So, if you look at it...it's more of a question of slightly better hardware + faster 16MB versus slower hardware + slower 32MB. Both will use the slower AGP interface if they need more memory.

What boggles my mind is that the lower end V505 series have the ATI Radeon 9200 chipset with 32MB of memory which is far superior to the chipset used in the "higher end" Z1 notebook. The Mobile Radeon is a DirectX 7 part while the Mobile Radeon 9200 is a DirectX 8.1 part.

[Ioman]

Originally posted by gr00vy0ne
What boggles my mind is that the lower end V505 series have the ATI Radeon 9200 chipset with 32MB of memory which is far superior to the chipset used in the "higher end" Z1 notebook.

I am pretty sure that is because the Z1 uses the Centrino chipset and the V505 does not. I thought this was weird when I reviewed the V505 several months ago.

[gr00vy0ne]

Actually, certain newer models of the V505 now use the Centrino chipset...along with a discrete graphics chipset.

[Ioman]

Originally posted by gr00vy0ne
Actually, certain newer models of the V505 now use the Centrino chipset...along with a discrete graphics chipset.

Ok... so maybe the Z1 is sticking to the standard Centrino chipset so it is not identical to the V505. It probably helps conserve battery life to stick with the Centrino chipset based integrated graphics card.

[gr00vy0ne]

Well, the Z1 is using a discrete graphics chipset as well...just a crappier one. I guess it's mostly surprising because the newer Z1 models (VA/WA) just came out and were released either around the same time or after the newer V505 models.

At any rate, with the impending release of Dothan based systems this summer and later in the fall, new models are sure to be released with better graphics choices (integrated or discrete) and higher performance all around. The new Intel Extreme Graphics 3 (or whatever it will be called) is dramatically better than the current stuff. Estimates are at least 4x the performance with DirectX 9 support. It still won't be the best but it's a huge step. Also, perhaps Sony will finally get around to using at least ATI Mobile 9600 chipsets.