Search
Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Integrated Graphics through 42" TV

Last response: in Systems
Share

Hi All,

I have recently decided to replace my old desktop system that I now only use for the internet, I-tunes and low level applications (Word, Adode PDF maker, Powerpoint, Skype etc.).

Currently it's hooked up through my TV (40" Sony Bravia KDL40W5500U) and working well, however, it is power hungry and noisy. I have been looking at various small form builds but I've never had one before and I'm not sure about how the integrated graphic units will cope with up-scaling onto a big TV or whether or not the new build will actually have any performance issue for the type of stuff I use it for.

Current System:
Vista Ultimate SP2 32bit,
Microstar MS-7519 with Intel Core2 6600 @ 2.4ghz (2403mhz),
2GB Ram,
Geforce 7300SE (Currently running @1920*1080),
500Gb Sata2.

Proposed System: (custom from here LINK )
Vista Ultimate SP2 32bit,
Intel D525MW with Dual core Intel atom D525 @ 1.8ghz (667mhz)
4GB Ram,
Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 3150 (integrated)
80Gb 320Series SSD3

Thank you for any advice or comments in advance!

More about : integrated graphics

Register or log in to remove

This is a little out of my league, but I had a dell with very similar specs to your current pc. I very much doubt the new system you have proposed will be any better, and may actually be worse.

Thanks Ares, Yeah I think the system will be worse (but also less than a 1/4 of the size!) on paper but do you think that will actually make a difference for what I'm using it for?

I used to be a PC gamer but I've switched to PS3 for less hassle lol

I just don't know if there are any differences in running integrated graphics on such high res (40" @ 1080)?

tomengland said:
Thanks Ares, Yeah I think the system will be worse (but also less than a 1/4 of the size!) on paper but do you think that will actually make a difference for what I'm using it for?

I used to be a PC gamer but I've switched to PS3 for less hassle lol

I just don't know if there are any differences in running integrated graphics on such high res (40" @ 1080)?


As long as you don't ever consider running games on it, integrated graphics does its job. Its horrendous for graphical performance, but you don't need a whole lot to run firefox :p  The fact that it is on a 40" should not make any difference, again assuming you are not running anything graphically demanding in the least.
Related ressources
Ask the community

jmsellars1 said:
Integrated graphics should cope but it would be a bit more smooth with some form of dedicated graphics.


No, no games! Jm, what are you referring to when you say "it would be a bit more smooth"?

I mean running videos and moving around the desktop will be a bit nicer. You basically have netbook graphics there and they sometimes won't even stream a normal definition video completely smoothly.

Outlander_04 said:
and intel Atom will run a 1080p monitor like a 3 legged dog

dont waste your money



Outlander, I'm just looking to use it for firefox, you tube etc. not movie streaming... you reckon that will be an issue then?

Like I said, even with Youtube, yes would be ok for the most part but probably not completely smooth. Personally it would be enough to piss me off on a desktop, maybe consider an i3-2100T, the integrated graphics on that are awesome for 1080P and stuff and it's only 35W.

tomengland said:
Outlander, I'm just looking to use it for firefox, you tube etc. not movie streaming... you reckon that will be an issue then?


youtube/flash videos will not playback smoothly

I use an atom based netbook for emails when Im traveling . Its a frustrating experience at the best of times .
You click on [ pretty much] anything and then wait a couple of seconds for it to open

The AMD FM1 suggestion is the best value for money for your usage . The onboard graphics are strong , and the cpu's very power efficient
Register or log in to remove
 
Ask the community
Read discussions in other Systems categories
!