Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is an integrated graphics card suitable for a 40" HD TV?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
October 11, 2011 9:07:08 PM


Hi All,

I am looking to switch from my old tower build to a new mini-box build. However, I currently run my PC through my TV and I don't know if the switch from a discrete graphic card to an integrated one will have a knock on effect on performance or quality - I will only be using it for iTunes, firefox etc. NO games.

The integrated MB I'm looking at runs an Intel GMA 3150 graphics controller. From the website it shows these features:

400 MHz core frequency
DX9.0c
1.6 dual texture GigaPixel/s max fill rate
Software DVD at 30 fps full screen
DVMT support up to 256 MB
Supports analog displays up to 2048 x 1536 at 75 Hz refresh (QXGA)
Supports LVDS displays up to 1366 x 768 (single channel, 18 bpp)

I don't know what LVDS display is though... will this MB controller run 1980x1080 on my 40" TV?

(Current card is a Geforce7300SE - old I know!)

Thanks in advance!
a c 214 U Graphics card
October 11, 2011 9:10:35 PM

Are you building a whole new min-box or are you just transfering over the CPU and RAM to a mini-box?

Usually most intergreated GPU's can run simple video playback and internet flash on 1080p but you might find it to be a bit sluggish at time(or at least I do).
m
0
l
October 11, 2011 9:22:15 PM

Thanks for the reply! It'll be a total new box.

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

So is what you are saying that stuff like Youtube or other video files might lagg a bit? or will it affect everything (ie. such as moving the mouse around lol) ?
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 214 U Graphics card
October 11, 2011 9:27:40 PM

No it should play fine but I found that playing 1080p movies in fullscreen may lag a bit.

If your building a totally new system I would suggest going with a AMD build.They made CPU's exactly for this.They call them APU's.A CPU with a descrete GPU built in.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
m
0
l
October 11, 2011 9:33:23 PM

Ah I won't be playing movies so that doesn't matter I guess...

Thanks for that link. I'm not building this myself (I've done it before but I can't be dealing with that atm lol) so I guess I'll have a look around to find some mini-box builds that are running AMD.

I might still consider the build I was looking at though for £300 it pretty good value... LINK
m
0
l
a c 214 U Graphics card
October 11, 2011 9:36:49 PM

Yah it is.I was just looking at the AMD based ones and they are asking for $450.
m
0
l
October 11, 2011 9:52:18 PM

Yeah, I'm not looking for 1080p... I've got my PS3 for bluray / dvd etc. so I think the Intel is coming out as better value. Thanks for the answer!
m
0
l
a c 217 U Graphics card
October 11, 2011 9:57:50 PM

tomengland said:
Yeah, I'm not looking for 1080p... I've got my PS3 for bluray / dvd etc. so I think the Intel is coming out as better value. Thanks for the answer!


If you are looking at IGP's, definitely look at AMD's APU's. Intel has the superior CPU's, but their integrated graphics chips are far inferior to AMD.

If you plan to build something with a discrete card, then the Intel CPU is a good way to go.
m
0
l
a c 214 U Graphics card
October 11, 2011 10:03:18 PM

Yah if your not planning on using it for video it will be fine.
m
0
l
October 11, 2011 10:04:37 PM

Actually having done a proper comparison on one specific build identical (apart from the MB base obv) it looks like £364 Intel v £437 AMD so it's pretty close and boils down to a

MB/Processor: 1.8ghz Intel D525 v 1.6ghz AMD Zacate E350
GPU (integrated): Intel 3150 v AMD Radeon 6310

Which poses other questions...
1) is the reduction in processing power (1.8ghz v 1.6hz) a big deal for the work it will be doing (1980x1080 res - but not movies or games)?
2) And is it worth the swap for an AMD based GPU?

my initial reaction is 1) no... and 2) yes... but what do people think?
m
0
l
a c 214 U Graphics card
October 11, 2011 10:11:54 PM

Go with the Intel build.
The GPU on the AMD build is about the same as the Intel.The Zacate is the really low end stuff.Only on the A8 series is the extra money worth it.
m
0
l
a c 217 U Graphics card
October 11, 2011 10:13:20 PM

If you don't plan to do anything graphical, be it games or video, then the Intel chip's are generally faster. Your resolution should have 0 relevance to the choice. The AMD's offer might have a more graphical horsepower, which is still rather weak, but it won't matter if you are not doing games or graphical programs.

And is anyone else seeing 18 after every post?
m
0
l
a c 214 U Graphics card
October 11, 2011 10:14:33 PM

Yes.I think it has something to do with Bulldozer.
m
0
l
October 11, 2011 10:20:23 PM

lol I'm seeing a 14?

The only graphical stuff will be Youtube / Flash and other internet based avi type stuff.

So I guess Intel it is then... which is nice because the build is cheaper!
m
0
l
a c 214 U Graphics card
October 11, 2011 10:24:37 PM

14 is for Europe because of the time difference.

Yes at that price the Intel is superior.
m
0
l
!