Graphic card comparison.


Status
Not open for further replies.

reachme2003

Senior Member
Oct 6, 2003
3,735
0
0
#1
hi, i am thinking of getting a low-end Dell PC with Intel Integrated Extreme Graphics 2. Compared to a mid-range PC with a 128MB PCIe 16 ATI Radeon X300 SE. Although I do not do online gaming, will ATI Radeon help in any way with my intended activities of viewing digital pics and doing Photoshop. views appreciated.
 

ericp

New Member
Apr 27, 2003
577
0
0
Visit site
#2
I think an external card will, the extreme graphics shares your system memory, while a separate card has its own memory.

If you're not too worried about having a single source of support, a cheaper option may be to "build" a system from ground up. What you actually do is go to a shop in Sim Lim Square, pick and choose which components you want, and the shop will build the system for you in about 1-2 hours. Only thing is that if any component fails, you need to go to the correct place for warranty service, eg. DVD with TDK, memory with Kingston, etc.

But in most cases, you'll get better bang for the buck with this approach.

However, when retailers like Dell have a sale, the prices could be very competitive.
 

May 24, 2003
334
0
16
Singapore
Visit site
#3
Viewing images and photo manipulation only require 2D graphics. Using shared memory should have negligible effect on 2D graphics performance. I believe the difference in quality of the RAMDAC for 2D graphics between different graphics chips should not be discernable these days.

The limitation of Intel Extreme 2 graphics is with very high resolution displays. For instance, the RAMDAC suppors the following resolutions:
  • 640 x 480, 16M colors (60, 72, 75, 85, 100, 120 Hz)
  • 800 x 600, 16M colors (60, 72, 75, 85, 100, 120 Hz)
  • 1024 x 768, 16M colors (60, 70, 75, 85, 100, 120 Hz)
  • 1152 x 864, 16M colors (60, 75, 85, 100 Hz)
  • 1280 x 1024, 16M colors (60, 75, 85, 100 Hz)
  • 1600 x 1200, 16M colors (60 Hz)
  • 1920x 1440, 64K colors (60, 75 Hz)
  • 2048 x 1536, 64K colors (60 Hz)

If you have a large CRT monitor that supports 1600 x 1200 or higher resolutions, you will be getting a headache from the low refresh rate.
 

Wai

Senior Member
Jan 17, 2002
5,270
0
36
39
South Pole with Penguin
singastro.org
#4
It depends how much RAM you allocate for your graphic card, you can have up to 2048 x 1536 32bit true colour at 75Hz


At 1600 x 1200, you can have as high as 120Hz too


One of my PC is using Intel Extreme Graphic, this is the older one, not the Extreme2 or GMA900. I have hook it up to 21" CRT and 20" LCD that support 1600 x 1200, I can run at 1600 x 1200 @ 85Hz without problem, that's the highest that my CRT can support, but many low to mid range 21" CRT can only do 1600 x 1200 @ 60Hz, therefore the refresh rate is never a problem if you allocate enough RAM for graphic, most of the time it is the monitor that cannot take the high refresh rate, that's why these settings will be hidden, just in case you accidentally set the wrong refresh rate and mess up everything
 

reachme2003

Senior Member
Oct 6, 2003
3,735
0
0
#5
what you said is missing me. not a techie, sorry. i am planning to get a low end dell 17'' crt. Ram 512MB. any issues?
 

Zerstorer

Senior Member
Jul 8, 2002
3,437
0
0
#6
The RAMDAC only determines the output display frequencies at a supported resolution.

The maximum resolution and colordepth depends on the available video memory on the card.

The ATI Radeon might have a mild improvement in 2D redrawing speed when viewing realtime adjustments on huge image files, scrolling the image windows and such, especially when you are working at high resolutions. ATI and Matrox have traditionally excelled at 2D rendering speed and image quality.

If you have to budget for it, why not?
 

Wai

Senior Member
Jan 17, 2002
5,270
0
36
39
South Pole with Penguin
singastro.org
#7

Zerstorer

Senior Member
Jul 8, 2002
3,437
0
0
#8
Wai said:
i
Featureing 3Dlabs' VPU, it is suppose to make photoshop...etc run faster than normal ATI and nVidia cards
It requires the software to support it. Adobe has not announced any support so there will unlikely be any improvements.

The only thing that works with it now is its own bundled panaroma maker software.

OT:This product has taken way too long to market since the 3dlabs acquisition and judging from the lack of buzz is unlikely to garner any serious support from the main software companies.
 

zod

New Member
Mar 30, 2003
1,279
0
0
#9
the pro has spoken....
all bow

Wai said:
It depends how much RAM you allocate for your graphic card, you can have up to 2048 x 1536 32bit true colour at 75Hz


At 1600 x 1200, you can have as high as 120Hz too


One of my PC is using Intel Extreme Graphic, this is the older one, not the Extreme2 or GMA900. I have hook it up to 21" CRT and 20" LCD that support 1600 x 1200, I can run at 1600 x 1200 @ 85Hz without problem, that's the highest that my CRT can support, but many low to mid range 21" CRT can only do 1600 x 1200 @ 60Hz, therefore the refresh rate is never a problem if you allocate enough RAM for graphic, most of the time it is the monitor that cannot take the high refresh rate, that's why these settings will be hidden, just in case you accidentally set the wrong refresh rate and mess up everything
 

Wai

Senior Member
Jan 17, 2002
5,270
0
36
39
South Pole with Penguin
singastro.org
#10
Anyway, just tried 2048 x 1536 32bit true colour at 75Hz on a 15" CRT

It works!

But there is a "crop" factor, the monitor is still running at 1024 x 768, but the desktop resolution is 2048 x 1536, so you have to move the mouse to the side of the screen, then the desktop will scroll accordingly, quite useful if you have to work on high res photo, no need to scroll so much
 

reachme2003

Senior Member
Oct 6, 2003
3,735
0
0
#11
thank you very much for your inputs. appreciated.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom