Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Onboard vs discreet GPU, 2600K

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
August 17, 2011 4:22:22 AM


Hey folks
I'm in the early stages of sketching out
a modest (300~400 Watt) SFF Daw (Ableton Live + assorted VSTs)
and Graphics (Photoshop (3D), Lightroom, Painter XII & Illustrator) wrkstn
w/ some video editing & transcoding the odd time, but definitely no gaming,
OCing or LAN parties in my future any time soon
and already i am facing the inevitable fork in the road.

Because i need HyperThreading in the DAW & because the on die GPU is
(supposedly) better than the 2600, i'm leaning towards the 2600K
(mobo.. H67 ? not sure).

So...my question (from the Wishful Thinking Section of my brain) is;
Can i get by (away, actually) with using only the onboard GPU in the 2600K ?

Not having to research & choose amongst the 3 trillion discreet V cards out there
& not having to deal w/ temp & power issues would be so...nice.

Btw, i already own a pretty decent
monitor (the Asus PA246, 1929x1200 native res, 24" iPS)

Well ? I'm thinking someone will hit me in the face
w/ the dead, cold fish of reality, in no time
but, still i gotta ask.... what do you think O Wise Ones ?
a b U Graphics card
August 17, 2011 4:34:28 AM

I don't see any real reason to have a discrete card for any of that, your onboard graphics should suffice. The 2600K, lots of memory, and large fast hard drives are where to put your money.
m
0
l
August 17, 2011 5:18:00 AM

...seriously ?
MAN!Thats a relief
i Thank U, Mr jitpub


indeed, i am planning on a 120GB SSD
& a 2 TB Samsung F3, plus 16GB RAM
that takes care of any bottleneck (i hope)


Still not settled on H67 or Z68 tho
Anyway...thanks again for your input

Anyone else ? Dont be shy!
Im a man... i can take it!
m
0
l
Related resources
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
August 17, 2011 5:26:38 AM

I Don't, For Photoshop and illustrator you need a decent graphics card for real time rendering, (CS5 introduced GPU Optimization) So I Mean you don't need anything amazing, A GT 220/430/240/440 should been fine, and would work great for those programs and would work fine on that small of a PSU. Don't get anything higher than those cards, or lower. Nvidia is pretty reliable for cards lower than $100 as opposed to ATI IMO. As for everything else I Agree. The 2600K, at least 3gb of ram, and a large HDD (7200rm 16mb cache at least) would be great. You can find the cards i mentioned for extremely cheap (below $60/70)
m
0
l
August 17, 2011 5:33:41 AM

That's an idea...
a sml less muscular card..
on H67 or Z68 ?

Thnx wahmtwo

m
0
l
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
August 17, 2011 5:46:59 AM

TelegrumpSam said:
That's an idea...
a sml less muscular card..
on H67 or Z68 ?

Thnx wahmtwo




H67 Would be fine. I Don't recommend getting the 220 or 240 just because they are aging, I know i put it on my list a sec ago for you, but Unless your not looking to spend a little bit more, I Would go with the GT 430 or GT 440, They are get cards and are cheap. 200 series is fine but aging, 400 series is still newer, DX11 Support, and great performance for the value. Heck if you got the GT 440 and the 2600K ect you would have a little Entry level Gaming PC, but of course as gaming isn't really one of your requirements the GT 430 is perfect. I Recommend Gigabyte or EVGA For the Manufacturer, they have the best build quality on the GT 220/240/430/440. Good luck!
m
0
l
August 17, 2011 5:54:07 AM

Hey wahmtwo

You know ...I was thinking earlier before posting, that IF i had to get a Vcard, i would NOT go any higher than the 460....but your saying, even that is ovrkill ?
m
0
l
August 17, 2011 6:13:27 AM

Yes, a 460 would definitely be overkill. It really is a gaming oriented card. I would also recommend getting GT 440 from EVGA.
m
0
l
August 17, 2011 6:18:16 AM

soccerdocks said:
Yes, a 460 would definitely be overkill. It really is a gaming oriented card. I would also recommend getting GT 440 from EVGA.


Thnx soccerdocks
it's getting better (cheaper) all the time

and you also recommend a outboard gp, i assume

m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
August 17, 2011 4:27:28 PM

Quote (Photoshop (3D), Lightroom, Painter XII & Illustrator)"
Buy the H67 and kick yourself in the Hindquarters later for not buying the Z68.

From one of my post, See: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4199/lucids-virtu-enables...

From: http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/1756491
Quote
Z68's give you the best of both worlds plus even more features.

- Fully featured CPU overclocking
- Access to the on-chip GPU
- QuickSync which use's the on-chip GPU for better video encoding performance.
- Virtu which allows your PC to auto switch between the on-chip GPU and a dedicated GPU depending on what your doing (on-chip when websurfing, dedicated when playing games).
- SSD caching which allows you to use a small SSD as a cache drive for a large HDD, greatly speeding up its performance.

And Yes, since not a gamer, a low end GPU would be great. And you Do not need a High end Z68 MB - You don't need Pci-e X8,X8 as X16, X4 would be fine. And unless you stick to your guns and do not OC do not need the stability of the High end for High OC. But if you do change your mind, a mild OC is very easy on a mid level Z MB - Only extra would be a Better HSF - BUT with the Z68 you HAVE that option a year from Now - H67 - No way

m
0
l
August 17, 2011 7:55:59 PM

Quote (Photoshop (3D), Lightroom, Painter XII & Illustrator)"
Buy the H67 and kick yourself in the Hindquarters later for not buying the Z68.

Understood

Z68's give you the best of both worlds plus even more features.

- Fully featured CPU overclocking
- Access to the on-chip GPU
- QuickSync which use's the on-chip GPU for better video encoding performance.
- Virtu which allows your PC to auto switch between the on-chip GPU and a dedicated GPU depending on what your doing (on-chip when websurfing, dedicated when playing games).
- SSD caching which allows you to use a small SSD as a cache drive for a large HDD, greatly speeding up its performance.


Hey Chief

u read my thoughts on the Z68 (i.e. my doubts on H67)
not for OCing but for that great SSD caching feature which had me licking my chops
from the moment i read about it,
the option for QuickSync for a very quick & slightly dirty encoding (not archival, i don't think) is also
deliciously enticing

So...looking like, it's the 2600K on a Z mb, low end Vcard (440) and the heavy artillery
of a good SSD
16mB cache, 2TB 7200 rpm HD
and full barrel system RAM (16GB)
and i should be set for a long time
which works out to about 3 or 4 months in
Silicon Valley terms :-)

Thanks again
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
August 17, 2011 8:25:00 PM

Enjoy!!!
PS, SRT is really questionable. What I did is set up: (1) SSD for Operating system, (2) SSD for a work drive (transfer files from HDD to work on - when done back to HDD, and files I often revise). A large HDD.

Also an option, I created an 8 gig Ramdrive (Have 16 Gigs ram) - the Ram drive makes a SSD look like a slow boat to china (About 10x faster). You can set it to load on boot (It saves any work to HDD when you shut down, and reloads when power up). One draw backi is it slows down boot and shut down as it has to read/write this 8 gig image file. What I do is disable load on power up, But can enable as needed.

Above is more an experiment, not recommending - just letting you know what's out there. The program is free (upto an 8 gig ram drive, $15 if you want the paid version for larger than 4 gigs.

Added
On GPU - http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gaming-performance-...
Primarily aimed at Gamers, I'm not. But good for an Idea
And Compare cards: http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/
m
0
l
August 17, 2011 8:34:39 PM

Ramdrive ?....what a concept, thought u had to make one yourself, sounds good...had no idea...
will definitely check it out ....free up to 4 Gb is OK w/ me

also your workaround that flaky SRT iNTEL voodoo
sounds plausible... will have to figure it out how to implement it
when i'm up & running

may have to get back to you on that, later on

Thanks
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
August 18, 2011 12:26:04 AM

I honestly fail to see the need for a discrete graphic card for Photoshop, and Illustrator? Really? Would some please enlighten me as to why you need a 3D gaming card to render 2D Vector graphics? Not being a smart ass, I just really want to know why.
m
0
l
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
August 18, 2011 2:52:46 AM

jitpublisher said:
I honestly fail to see the need for a discrete graphic card for Photoshop, and Illustrator? Really? Would some please enlighten me as to why you need a 3D gaming card to render 2D Vector graphics? Not being a smart ass, I just really want to know why.



you didn't read his most. He does 3D In Photoshop and in general its just a good idea to have a Actually Graphics card rather than onboard as export, and render times go down.
m
0
l
August 18, 2011 3:29:14 AM

jitpublisher said:
I honestly fail to see the need for a discrete graphic card for Photoshop, and Illustrator? Really? Would some please enlighten me as to why you need a 3D gaming card to render 2D Vector graphics? Not being a smart ass, I just really want to know why.


jitpublisher

I sympathize w/ your head scratching, believe you me.

But Photoshop does have a basic 3D engine of sorts, nowhere near as
powerful as anything from AutoDesk, Pixelogical or DAZ but still serviceable.

Whether Adobe's renderer requires a dGPU or can get by
on the 2600K's iGPU ...i have no idea.




m
0
l
August 18, 2011 3:34:27 AM

Quote:
you didn't read his most. He does 3D In Photoshop and in general its just a good idea to have a Actually Graphics card rather than onboard as export, and render times go down.


Hey wahmtwo

Yeah...rendering times do shorten up w/ a dGPU along for the ride....
But you dont think the 2600k's iGP is up to the task, i gather

i dunno either :-)
m
0
l
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
August 18, 2011 4:28:39 AM

TelegrumpSam said:
Hey wahmtwo

Yeah...rendering times do shorten up w/ a dGPU along for the ride....
But you dont think the 2600k's iGP is up to the task, i gather

i dunno either :-)



Nope, Intel HD Graphics is horrid. Its basically there for windows vista/windows 7 Aero. I Love macs (yes I own 2, but Am not a fanboy, I Own 3 PC's also.) And I Was upset when the macbook pros ended up using the intel hd graphics. It is terrible! You could get away running Photoshop and ect on it but it is going to LAG LAG LAG. With the dGPU It Is going to run without an hassle (depending on what GPU you get..) And you wont end up regretting it. With the intel hd gpu your going to be scratching your head as to why you didn't get a actual graphics card.. My iMac's HD 4670 Barely gets by with Cinema 4D (3D Model Creator and things.. and its is more intensive than photoshop..) and keep in mind my iMac has a 3.06ghz i3 and 6gb of ram. Just Get a dGPU. A 9600GT Would Blow the iGPU Away and the GT 440 would destroy it. IMO Its worth it. Only reason to go with iGPU is if you end up not having enough to buy a dGPU or your just going to surf the web.
m
0
l
August 18, 2011 6:23:06 PM

2414141,19,948211 said:
Nope, Intel HD Graphics is horrid.

Well...i'm slowly coming around to the fact that i'm going to
have to go w/ a dGPU in the build...

Sooner or later that is...i could try it out w/out
one, for a couple months, see how PS & other sftwre behave
and go w/ a mid-level card, if they protest too much...or if
i find myself clipping & filing my nails between renderings
& exports :-(

Hey wahmtwo, thanks so much for yr input, really helpful.

That goes also for every other expert that chimed in w/
a suggestion or two. Good work guys!
m
0
l
!