Which is bettter?

[Nerwin]

Also tell us why like Intergated graphics or video card

I dont know what I really like becasue I have only tried intergated graphics. but i'm going to vote for video card becasue i think it is faster than intergated graphics and i also think it improves your computer performace because its not using your ram. Intergated graphics just uses your ram and your processor for video processing. and of course video cards use there own processor and ram thats built onto the card.

if i'm wrong can someone please tell me.

[nmX.Memnoch]

It's true that integrated graphics do usually use part of your system RAM as video RAM, but they don't use the system CPU for video processing.

It really depends on your needs as to which one is "better". For enterprise use most standard integrated video solutions are just fine (for word processing, email, etc). If you're doing graphic design or gaming then an add-in video card is a much better choice.

It should be stated that if you want to go dual monitor in either situation it's almost guaranteed that you'll have to go with an add-in video card. ATI's RADEON Xpress 200 chipset can do dual monitor with the integrated video, but it's the only chipset I know of that can do this.

[ripken204]

a dedicated video card will always win

same with a soundcard

[Maleko]

video card

[LLXX]

Separate video card is always faster. Integrated chipsets are low-performance since they have to be cheap.

[jago_lfn]

AGP or PCI Express all the way. Intergrated graphics suck mostly. Only good intergrated graphics I've seen are nforce 410 and 430 chipsets (Geforce 6100 & 6150). The 6100 and 6150 graphics run pretty dang well for 3d games. Better than my radeon 9600 pro if that says anything