Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

A very basic question

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
July 7, 2012 8:53:00 PM

I'm working on the details of a low-end PC ... CPUs like Celrons or Pentiums. The PC is general use ... internet, streaming video, DVDs, Excel and mp3s.

My question (using specifics to help explain) ... I build a PC with a Celeron G530 CPU and I get built-in graphics (lower-end to be sure but better than my current 2005 ATI Radeon 200 IGP). If I were to then add a $30 GPU (a PowerColor Radeon HD 5450 (Cedar) 512 MB 64-BIT DDR3 PCI Express 2.1 x16 HDCP is the cheapest newwegg has to offer right now) which is 4 tiers higher on Tom's GPU list ...

1> Would I see a difference with a 23" - 24" HD screen on the highest resolution (so specific screen in mind)?

2> Would the PC be "faster" overall with a discrete GPU as compared to the intergated graphics, since I'm adding more processing ability?


Taking this one step futher ... suppose the CPU were a I3-2105 which has the Intel HD 3000 graphics on the CPU. The card above is on the same tier on Tom's GPU list ...

3> Would the I3 chip with integrated graphics perform about the same as the Celeron CPU/HD 5450 GPU combo?

4> Would putting the discrete GPC in the PC with the I3 make the PC "faster"?


Looking forward to replies as I understand how to make good choices!

JimR

More about : basic question

a b U Graphics card
July 7, 2012 9:18:17 PM

jrau said:
I'm working on the details of a low-end PC ... CPUs like Celrons or Pentiums. The PC is general use ... internet, streaming video, DVDs, Excel and mp3s.

My question (using specifics to help explain) ... I build a PC with a Celeron G530 CPU and I get built-in graphics (lower-end to be sure but better than my current 2005 ATI Radeon 200 IGP). If I were to then add a $30 GPU (a PowerColor Radeon HD 5450 (Cedar) 512 MB 64-BIT DDR3 PCI Express 2.1 x16 HDCP is the cheapest newwegg has to offer right now) which is 4 tiers higher on Tom's GPU list ...

1> Would I see a difference with a 23" - 24" HD screen on the highest resolution (so specific screen in mind)?

2> Would the PC be "faster" overall with a discrete GPU as compared to the intergated graphics, since I'm adding more processing ability?


Taking this one step futher ... suppose the CPU were a I3-2105 which has the Intel HD 3000 graphics on the CPU. The card above is on the same tier on Tom's GPU list ...

3> Would the I3 chip with integrated graphics perform about the same as the Celeron CPU/HD 5450 GPU combo?

4> Would putting the discrete GPC in the PC with the I3 make the PC "faster"?


Looking forward to replies as I understand how to make good choices!

JimR


Streaming videos doesn't take much gpu power at all Intel HD 4000 graphics is all you really need!!

Just get a cpu with Hd 4000 graphics and thats all you need, of course you can also put in a radeon 5450 if you decide to get a cpu with Hd graphics 3000.

What is your budget for a new cpu?
m
0
l
a c 291 U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
July 7, 2012 9:35:38 PM

1. Depends where. You will ONLY see difference in 3D graphics modelling and playing computer games.
2. No it will not.
3. i3 is faster than G530, so it will be faster in general use.
4. Not really.

Graphics card does not increase overall PC performance. And you don't need HD 4000 graphics at all. That G530 built in IGP is good enough for general use! The only thing you'd ever want to put discrete card is when you want to play new games or do 3D modelling.
m
0
l
Related resources
July 7, 2012 9:40:33 PM

maxh22 said:
Streaming videos doesn't take much gpu power at all Intel HD 4000 graphics is all you really need!!

Just get a cpu with Hd 4000 graphics and thats all you need, of course you can also put in a radeon 5450 if you decide to get a cpu with Hd graphics 3000.

What is your budget for a new cpu?


My goal is the cheapest PC I can build that is significantly better than the 2005 PC I have now. I'm looking for upgradeability (something I currently don't have) so I'm thinking start slow and try not to toss any parts out down the road if I can.

Thinking about what you are telling me I sort of get here ...

option a) Celeron G530 with HD graphics ... $50

option b) Celeron G530 plus Radeon 5450 for $80 ... is this significantly better for $30 more?

option c) I3-2105 with HD 3000 graphics for $135 ... another $55 ($85 more than option a), is it significantly better than option b?

option d) I5-3570K with HD 4000 graphics for $229 ... another $94 ($179 more than option a) ... is this going to be a huge leap over the other choices (at over 4 times option a) or because of what I do with a PC will I not even notice the difference in any of these options?

Which also makes me wonder is this discussion better posted in another part of the forum???

JimR
m
0
l
a c 291 U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
July 7, 2012 10:18:14 PM

i5-3570k is much faster. However, ever G530 would be a huuuuuuuuge upgrade over your 2005 PC. However, you never told us what you will use the PC for. General PC use is very inaccurate, because for some people their general use is gaming, while for others browsing the web, and for some others - typing in text.
m
0
l
July 7, 2012 11:34:06 PM

Sunius said:
i5-3570k is much faster. However, ever G530 would be a huuuuuuuuge upgrade over your 2005 PC. However, you never told us what you will use the PC for. General PC use is very inaccurate, because for some people their general use is gaming, while for others browsing the web, and for some others - typing in text.


The PC is general use ... internet, streaming video, DVDs, Excel and mp3s. I specifically am not gaming and not doing video capture/processing/content creation ... two things that seem to need serious GPU horsepower it seems.

When you say "huuuuuuuuge upgrade" are you thinking twice as fast, maybe four times, eight times maybe?

One way I would see "faster" is that every time I move to another topic in this forum or back out of a topic after reading I have this huge wait. I'm thinking that is PC-related.

m
0
l
a c 291 U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
July 8, 2012 12:33:13 AM

I'd say around 6-8 times for things that are managed by the processor. However, I'm afraid the huge wait you're experiencing is not related to the CPU.. That's most likely your internets fault. What data plan do you have?
m
0
l
July 8, 2012 1:22:34 AM

Hope I understand your issue. Sorry if I have misunderstood...

If you want to upgrade down the road, wouldn't it be better to stay away from the high end built-in graphics and just go with a graphics card (for the uses you have in mind, especially)?

If the discrete graphics is more powerful, you WILL experience improvement at normal usage levels as you described (over the built-in graphics) so long as your processor doesn't become a bottleneck. Doesn't sound likely to me based on the way you say you will use the machine.

Just 2 cents worth, but I think I would go with b, try it for awhile, and then upgrade if I found I need more. Why not spend the $30 now?...it's just once. I just have an old 256 MB NVidia graphics card, but no way would I use built-in graphics. In your case, I would get the card for sure. PCing is just a dismal experience for any use I have found (general use too) without a graphics card.

If you are on a pentium 4, the PC you are building, even with the Celeron processor, will perform in the big picture magnitudes better than than what you had when you consider improved RAM, HDDs, graphics, processor, and mother board. Your overall satisfaction will be like 6-8^5 of what you had...

I just have a core2duo. It's fine for the net and Excel, but I would rate it easily 10,000 times better all things considered, even with this little 256 MB graphics card I have, than the P4 2.4 GHz (onboard graphics) I had before. It had 3 GB ram, so it wasn't completely unusable, but with 4 GB ram in this old core2, this machine does so much better. I think you would be very surprised and satisfied with the Celeron for your purposes...
m
0
l
July 8, 2012 3:02:59 AM

imho there's an objective answer and an alternative subjective answer - which, imho, is worth considering.

objectively, option b = solid bang per $. no doubt.

then again, the more modern architecture and all related processing attributes of the Sandy Bridge i5's are vastly superior - in all areas of performance. while ymmv and while your appreciation of these enhancements can only be assessed by you, personally, I would take a hard look at the venerable i5-2500K (overclockable) or "non-K" (not so oc-able). cheaper than the ivy bridges, these i5s run cooler and - for many - continue to represent the "sweet spot" in consumer cpu technology.

full disclosure - I currently run an i5-2500k - although with a discrete card (HD 6870), and rarely am I not impressed. and I do mean rarely.

shop carefully - as I snagged this cpu at the egg for <200. the "non-k" should run another $10 less.

prior to running the hd 6870, I was able to do all that you describe (and considerably more) - using the integrated Intel grapics (HD 3000) using a Dell U2412m as a primary and a Samsung P2770HD as a secondary monitor/cable box. now I use a 3rd monitor via eyefinity using the discrete grapics card.

imho, today - there are many affordable options to create amazingly effective performance at relatively inexpensive prices. my thought was to maximize the quality of the basic, structural parts (mobo, case & psu - respectively asus p8z68 pro/gen3, graphite 600t, ax850), then hit sweet spots in other components.

not necessarily going for the cheapest box, my system seldom fails to pug a big smile on my face. two more comments - again, imho - the cm 212+ evo is ok. my core temps (using the evo) idle between mid 30s and low 40s (C) - depending upon ambients. also, ram is cheap. load up. with the 212, consider low profile sticks.

final thought - if doing over, I'd downgrade my optical drive from a blue-ray burner to an dvd burner. while I watch I a considerable amount of 1080p, I've never once had a blue-ray disc in this drive. imho, looks like dead technology. rain-"clouds" and bandwidth have been dual, lethal blows.
m
0
l
July 8, 2012 3:15:11 AM

Sunius said:
I'd say around 6-8 times for things that are managed by the processor. However, I'm afraid the huge wait you're experiencing is not related to the CPU.. That's most likely your internets fault. What data plan do you have?


I currently have 3.0 MBps access
m
0
l
July 8, 2012 3:30:16 AM

defg0003 said:
imho, today - there are many affordable options to create amazingly effective performance at relatively inexpensive prices. my thought was to maximize my investment in the structural parts (mobo, case & psu), then hit sweet spots in other components.


I was actually thinking I would build a PC with a mobo that supports an IB CPU, one nice GPU and HDMI/DVI/VGA connections for video ... but put a cheap CPU in to start ... hoping that would be a lot better than what I have now. I'm assuming that a new HD, faster RAM (4-8GB) and Win7 would all be big improvements.

This would leave me with three improvements (in order) ...

1> new CPU, and IB I5 thinking there may be faster versions available before Haswell ... which gets me HD 4000 graphics

2> GPU, nothing crazy but much better than HD 4000 graphics when the time comes

3> an SSD, assuming this would offer a major leap in performance to extend the useful life

I would hope to get 5-7 happy years out of this before a new mobo and CPU (reusing all the other parts).

Assuming this makes sense the CPU is what has me stumped ... Cwleron (G530) or Pentium G6xx or Pentium G8xx ... jumping to the I3 makes me think I would be tossing too much cash away in a few years.
m
0
l
July 8, 2012 3:38:05 AM

jrau, your plan sounds to me like a solid plan for the uses you mentioned. Prices will come down, but I don't think performance requirements will go up all that much over the time you say you would like to have this PC. When you upgrade, you should be able to do it for less than you could do it now, and you can still bask in all the improvements until then whatever you choose...

Personally, I think you're about to be very happy, considering how long you have waited for the upgrade...
m
0
l
a c 291 U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
July 8, 2012 9:17:44 AM

SSD is really worth it. It's one PC part that really makes a difference. It makes the PC look like lightning. I think celeron along with SSD would be a very nice upgrade, and if you have to spend a bit more cash, jump to Pentium. You don't really need anything more powerful than that for your uses, because you won't even come to its limits with the tasks you use.

As for AtlBo, I don't really understand why you say graphics card improves performance. For the tasks OP mentioned, there's is absolutely nothing that will use discrete graphics card.
m
0
l
July 8, 2012 9:55:41 AM

For me, it's about those times where you drag a browser window with a video in it or a loaded down Excel file window...it's about response time at those times for those kinds of uses. It would be crazy to me to save $30 at the expense of laggy graphics during those times.

It's also when you scroll really fast down a web page or drag scroll a large Excel file. These functions make use of the graphics engine. If you want to add any graphically oriented features to your PC such as multiple desktops or multiple monitors, where open windows can be dragged to a separate desktop, these kinds of functions will also be supported by the graphics engine. There are numerous examples of common PC functions that make use of the graphics engine. Again. it's hard for me to imagine that I would let $30 stand between myself and good performance at the times when any PC features that make use of GPU power would be in use...

If you don't believe me, here's a test. Turn on the onboard graphics on your PC, start dragging windows, and watch the graphics (including desktop graphics updates, etc....another PC feature that makes use of the GPU) lag...
m
0
l
a c 291 U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
July 8, 2012 10:01:37 AM

No they don't really.. That has nothing to do with the graphics card.
m
0
l
July 8, 2012 10:44:39 AM

UNTRUTH
m
0
l
a c 78 U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
July 8, 2012 11:29:19 AM

Sunius said:
As for AtlBo, I don't really understand why you say graphics card improves performance. For the tasks OP mentioned, there's is absolutely nothing that will use discrete graphics card.

This is true.

AtlBo said:
UNTRUTH

This is not. There is no reason to get a discrete GPU for this build and there is ABSOLUTELY no reason to get a CPU just for HD4000. saying your excel window will lag or you browser wont scroll fast enough is insane

Sunius said:
I'd say around 6-8 times for things that are managed by the processor. However, I'm afraid the huge wait you're experiencing is not related to the CPU.. That's most likely your internets fault. What data plan do you have?


His huge wait COULD be his CPU/memory/machine on a 7 year old machine. my cell phone loads these forums in a second or two, in desktop mode on cellular data that is slower than his internet. I wouldn't be surprised if it was the machine.
m
0
l
July 8, 2012 11:49:01 AM

Sunius and unksol...you guys are wrong. The GPU assists with graphics updates such as the changes seen on the monitor when you move a window and different icons appear that were previously beneath the window (I'm not talking about system desktop refreshes). It does the same thing with speed scrolls and pull scrolls, assisting with the rendering of the new data in the window (the rendering of the new screen image). When you do anything that causes the appearance of the desktop to change even slightly (open a window, move a window, scroll a window, move about in a game, activate the start menu...anything), the GPU assists with the rendenng of the change frame by frame. That's what GPUs do...assist your PCs processor with graphics rendering frame by frame...

For $30 jrau would have a significantly better PC and better PC experience with improved graphics rendering, even for just the uses he mentioned...
m
0
l
a c 78 U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
July 8, 2012 11:59:20 AM

AtlBo said:
You guys are wrong. The GPU assists graphics updates such as the changes seen on the monitor when you move a window and different icons appear that were beneath the window. It does the same thing with speed scrolls and pull scrolls, assisting with the rendering of the new data in the window. That's what GPUs do...assist with graphics rendering...


No... GPUs do not "assist" in graphics rendering. they DO ALL the graphics rendering. And HD2000 is more than capable of doing this for 2D workloads. even old motherboard integrated chips usually are, except occasionally for HD video playback.
m
0
l
a c 291 U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
July 8, 2012 12:02:51 PM

+1 to unksol. That's what integrated graphics do: they render. However, modern integrated solutions work as fast for 2D tasks as you may ever need. One would not notice a difference between discrete and integrated card in excel nowadays. It's not 2000s anymore.
m
0
l
a c 78 U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
July 8, 2012 12:21:23 PM

the only reason you might see lag like your thinking would be if you did not allocate enough memory to the onboard GPU, and your system did not have enough memory and was pushing onto the page file so windows could not allocate the extra shared memory to the gpu it normally does. that's either user error or an obvious memory problem. With 4GB its not an issue.

I can tell you for a fact my work laptop which.has an older t series CPU and motherboard integrated graphics worse than HD2000 works fine running a 1920x1200 screen, plus its own with dozens of tabs, Unix and database connections, and excel spreadsheets or text files with over a million rows. you can grab the bar and go straight through a million rows.
m
0
l
July 8, 2012 12:39:51 PM

The CPU does play a role in graphics rendering.

CPU renders initial poly, GPU fills in the rest. You need a good even mix of GPU power and CPU power, which onboard graphics don't typically provide during heavy CPU load. That's why they are so despised. If you are dragging a heavy file or scrolling heavily, the CPU, which sends instruction lists over and over to the GPU, can become burdened. A discrete GPU will make use of its memory and processing capabilities to relieve pressure on the CPU during those heavy CPU loads, so that the lists aren't slowed and so that the rendering occurs as fast as possible. Basically, it duplicates processes in the system RAM but makes them more available to the processor than the motherboard RAM does. It's an optimization process which occurs between the CPU and the GPU.

Are the tasks jrau listed heavy graphically? No, but if he uses large or even moderately large office files, he could run into some performance issues...not just rendering. Again a good discrete GPU subtly relieves some pressure off the CPU.

I know you guys are just trying to help jrau save money, which he did say was important. Overall, though, it's obviously jrau's decision, of course, etc., but $30 for much improved rendering seems like a bargain, and it could pay off big for him down the road. Hey, if you got the power coming out of your PSU, and if you can afford to, use it...
m
0
l
a c 291 U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
July 8, 2012 12:44:39 PM

Dude you're wrong in so many ways that I can't even name them all. Either you have never had modern integrated graphics solution, or you're just too ignorant. Onboard graphics even handle light 3D games, and office files will never strain them to their 100%. Also, CPU load has nothing to do with onboard GPU load.
m
0
l
July 8, 2012 1:35:48 PM

That's not fully the truth Sunius.

Yes they do handle light 3D games, you are right about that, but onboard graphics are seriously unimpressive at relieving burdened CPUs. That affects overall performance in little ways. Onboard graphics just aren't as good as a discreet GPU...everyone knows that. The hardware/circuitry isn't as sophisticated. Also, however, the drivers aren't the same as with discreet GPUs. The overall PC experience of 2 PCs using in one case the onboard graphics and in the other case a discreet GPU are not the same. The experience on the machine with the GPU will be better irregardless of uses.

CPU load doesn't affect GPU load is also true. However, load for both is usually higher at the same time. All that said, certain functions in large office files can put a burden on a CPU and cause annoying little things like a jumpy mouse cursor, slower refresh rates on the desktop, etc. (things just take a little longer to happen). jrau has lived with a passable PC for a long time as I had to. The one I have now isn't the best, but it's good for now, and it's a good machine. With the $30 graphics card, jrau can have better performance just like I got when I bought this current machine (which has a lightweight discreet GPU). Sounds to me like he's waited long enough to say he deserves it...that's for sure. So I would say it isn't about the onboard graphics being enough; it's about the overall performance being what jrau deserves...and for only $30. One other small point here...office softwares are improving and adding features. The GPU would give jrau a hedge against even more burdensome office files that are sure to come in the future.

One other thing is true...office files won't typically test onboard graphics to their 100%, but this fact doesn't address the overriding issue. Office files can put a heavy burden on a CPU, just like a game. Then when you speed scroll or pull scroll in a large office file, just like when you use a game controller to move around in a game, the graphics can become strained. When that happens frame rates decline and graphics are less impressive just like in a game. To complicate things, the CPU can become strained during these times, too, at least to a certain degree. This affects frame rates, too, and can lead to little annoying things like the aforementioned mouse cursor jumps and freezes. For me, it's unequivocally worth $30 to eliminate these little nags...based on my experiences.

Overall, all the processes on the PC work in unison, so that the user can have the best experience possible. This is accomplished though implementation of various optimization processes that happen between the "hard" elements of your PC...graphics processor, processor, RAM, hard drive, sound card, mouse, keyboard, motherboard, etc. Because of the optimizations in a PC, all the processes affect all the other processes...including graphics. Better RAM memory will indirectly affect graphics rendering in that it affects the overall performance of a PC, etc...

I do see where you are coming from, but for $30 I believe the improved experience would be worth the money for me, again, even for these uses...
m
0
l
a c 291 U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
July 8, 2012 1:40:13 PM

Actually, the hard drive gets strained when you're fast scrolling through thousands of pages, not the CPU. I've worked with a computer without discrete card myself (Pentium G620), and I've never experienced the hiccups you seem to describe.
m
0
l
July 8, 2012 1:42:37 PM

I'd go for core i3 with a cheap compatible board like H77, if do a thorough research you'll find that older PC components are not exactly cheap. For the same price of those old parts you should be able to get newer parts
m
0
l
a c 78 U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
July 8, 2012 1:50:29 PM

lord. you contradicted yourself more times than I can count. "integrated gpus are unimpressive at reducing CPU loads" since CPUs do not have anything to do with it, and EVEN if they did they would be doing the EXACT same amount of work with a discrete GPU. you can't have it both ways.

first its "on board gpus dont perform well when the cpu is under heavy load." then its "CPU load doesn't affect the GPU" Just let it go. Office files do not load modern CPUs. dragging a window accross the screen does not cause a GPU to lag. you do understand this is an actual GPU, with its own cores right? it just happens to be on the same die.

When you work with actual large files maybe you'll learn. the fact you set up your PC wrong doesn't have anything to do with anyone else
m
0
l
July 8, 2012 2:01:26 PM

Again, I agree Sunius, but I would say that pressure is applied across the board during heavy loads...

jrau wants to go 5-7 years with this PC, so, if it were me, I would go with the overall best performance I could afford. That's all I can think of to suggest I guess, and I believe if he's going with a or b, b would be the best option. But I do see where you are coming from. For sure, you have assisted him in a way I would/could not have under the circumstances. That's because, even though I use a PC just like jrau says he'll be using his, I can't stand onboard graphics. All in all it's cool that he can take a look at your views on going with the onboard graphics. It helped me to think it through, too, so thanks...

m
0
l
a c 291 U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
July 8, 2012 2:13:14 PM

Well, he can always try without buying additional card and if he lacks performance, he can always get another card :p .
m
0
l
July 8, 2012 2:21:27 PM

Truth Sunius...I think he's going to be happy with whatever he decides is best, since he has waited quite some time. Wish I could lay out a plan like he does...thanks again...
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
July 8, 2012 2:33:05 PM

At AtlBo: you are dangerously ignorant about how computers work, in the sense not of not knowing things, but of knowing things that are wrong. My job involves using the GPU to accelerate applications and for the sort of operations you are talking about, scrolling office files etc., the GPU is not the bottleneck on any kind of desktop or laptop processor. The situation is different on a phone or tablet where the CPUs are so weak that we offload some stuff to the GPUs. Pressure is rarely if ever "applied across the board in heavy loads", it is almost always one component or another that is the bottleneck, and in scrolling it is as likely to be the RAM or the bus as the CPU and unlikely to be the GPU.

Dragging Windows around the desktop on Vista+ does use the GPU, unless you turn Aero off, but the recent integrated graphics solution (HD2000+) are more than capable of doing that. Ironically, your 256MB nVidia graphics card is considerably slower than a modern HD2000 for all tasks and *particularly* for scrolling and Window drags because you have copy the memory from system RAM to VRAM...whereas with integrated graphics you just change a bit that says the memory is now available for rendering.

I don't care if you are confused yourself, but don't give advice to other people that is bad.
m
0
l
July 8, 2012 2:43:51 PM

I would go for option C - I3-2105 with HD 3000 graphics for $135.

Never hurts to have a more responsive computer experience, and you should be able to find parts more easily then dated components.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
July 8, 2012 2:45:35 PM

Two things in your defense AtlBo:

1) Before HD2000, the integrated graphics on Intel were really bad...you probably had a bad experience and no question any discrete card is an improvement

2) The modern browsers (latest Chrome, FireFox and IE) do use the GPU for scrolling.
m
0
l
July 8, 2012 7:08:14 PM

I appreciate the exchange because I'm getting a lot more info than I had hoped for. This is a bit deep for me but it brings up a question I have ... in the Tom's benchmarking article of an AMD APU against an Intel/GPU combo of the same price there was a reference to the idea that you could put a GPU in the AMD APU PC ... but that would essentially be throwing away have the chip.

After rereading that article I'm left thinking that when you put a GPU in a PC you are also "turning off" the integrated graphics on the die ... AMD and Intel alike. Unless you do the hybrid crossfire thing that the AMD APU supports with some GPUs.

Assuming this is true ... that is why I was thinking that if the CPU had the integrated graphics disabled it would improve CPU performance because there would be no "distractions" from the handling of graphics.

Or does it sould like I'm smokin' something and this is not how things work?!

JimR
m
0
l
July 8, 2012 7:15:42 PM

master_nz said:
I would go for option C - I3-2105 with HD 3000 graphics for $135.

Never hurts to have a more responsive computer experience, and you should be able to find parts more easily then dated components.


The PC I build will be new parts ... for whatever reason I can choose for hundreds of parts! I suppose choice is good if you know how things work, sadly I don't.

With the goal being the cheapest PC that is both better than what I have for what I do with it and upgradeable over the next 2-4 years I was thinking the I3 would not be a good choice because it is in the middle of the price range. I was thinking of my options as either (a) buy a $50 CPU (Celeron) and then a $225 CPU (Ivy Bridge) for a total of $275 ... or (b) just buy a $225 CPU now.

If I buy the $135 CPU now I'm thinking I still buy the $225 CPU later for a total cost of $360.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
July 8, 2012 7:43:19 PM

jrau said:


Assuming this is true ... that is why I was thinking that if the CPU had the integrated graphics disabled it would improve CPU performance because there would be no "distractions" from the handling of graphics

JimR

Short Answer: No, disabling the integrated graphics will not make the CPU faster

Long Answer: If both the CPU and the integrated graphics are running at full load, especially when overclocked, all those circuits working are going to heat the die up and potentially cause it to go into thermal throttling mode. This is why overclockers who know they are going to have a discrete graphics card buy chips with the integrated graphics disabled...it gives them more thermal headroom. But for normal usage, and assuming your CPU cooler is working, this wouldn't make your CPU faster.

In an even more limited sense, if you are a chip designer and you leave the GPU off the die, this gives you more room for cache or extra cores which will make for a faster chip on certain workloads. This is why server chips don't have GPUs built in...they have more appropriate things to do with the transistors they save.

Make no mistake: a decent modern discrete graphics card is faster than HD4000, often vastly, but except for very graphically rich apps (games, CAD, video editing), the integrated graphics are really quite good now.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
July 8, 2012 7:51:54 PM

jrau said:
The PC I build will be new parts ... for whatever reason I can choose for hundreds of parts! I suppose choice is good if you know how things work, sadly I don't.



This is hard even when you know a lot. There is a fine line between being blessed with options and paralyzed by choice. This is partially responsible for the success of an outfit like Apple that provides a very small selection of generally high quality units. With Apple you just decide your budget and buy the best laptop that fits...no need to sweat whether a 7970 is faster than a 680 or vice versa, let alone which of 100 Ivy Bridge motherboards to buy.

It doesn't sound like you are in a huge rush. Keep reading forums and watching Newegg for deals and choices will slowly become clearer.
m
0
l
a c 291 U Graphics card
a b à CPUs
July 8, 2012 8:41:39 PM

jrau said:
After rereading that article I'm left thinking that when you put a GPU in a PC you are also "turning off" the integrated graphics on the die ... AMD and Intel alike. Unless you do the hybrid crossfire thing that the AMD APU supports with some GPUs.

Assuming this is true ... that is why I was thinking that if the CPU had the integrated graphics disabled it would improve CPU performance because there would be no "distractions" from the handling of graphics.

JimR


Yes, it is the truth. When you add a discrete card, integrated graphics are disabled. Make no mistake though, it will not make the CPU faster. In essence, CPU isn't doing graphics. Integrated graphics processor, which is inside the processor is doing the graphics. When you add discrete card, that part gets disabled, so you're going really gaining anything in the CPU area. I hope this picture will clear things up for you, it's rough schematic of what is inside the CPU:
m
0
l
!