How good (or bad) is integrated/onboard video?

[jcarle]

Ok guys.....

Onboard video chips have direct access to the cpu data lines, memory, and all that. That data transfer runs at the full, native speed of the chipsets. Additionally, the video chipsets are often integrated directly into the north/south bridge chips taking the GPU that much closer, logically and electrically, to the CPU and OS.

Even the fastest PCIe/PCIx video cards will be getting their data through buffered motherboard connections/card slots. These are at least two, and more often three electrical jumps from the north/southbridge chips through which the CPU and OS communicate. Lots of potential for wait-state there.

So assuming that the integrated video chipsets are capable of competetive rendering and frame rates, and the most recent ones are, there is no reason to aussume that on-board video will be slower than add-on cards. There is a lot of potential there for on-board video to be faster than add-on cards.

The difference you're speaking of is so minimal and so unimportant that it has no bearing whatsoever on the results. Unless they start including GeForce 6600 GTs on-board, then on-board video will always be slower then dedicated video cards. Today's NorthBridge and SouthBridge chips, as well as the interconnects are so advanced that the difference between on-board and slot is neglible at best. And by the way, most on-board components are directly wired to the south-bridge, the same chip to which the slots are wired to.

[LLXX]

Additionally, the video chipsets are often integrated directly into the north/south bridge chips taking the GPU that much closer, logically and electrically, to the CPU and OS.

Here is where your argument contradicts itself. The need to integrate the GPU circuitry on the same die as the chipset places constraints on how complex the GPU can be, since there are limits to how big you can make the die before production turnout decreases and cost increases to become prohibitive. A GPU also consumes a large amount of power, and combining it with the chipset circuitry creates additional restrictions thermally - chipset fansinks can't grow to the sizes normally found on dedicated video cards, and the chipset fansink has to cool both the chipset proper and the integrated GPU. Thus, the lower performance of the integrated GPU.

Unless they start including GeForce 6600 GTs on-board

The GPU die of the 6600GT is itself larger than the entire chipset's die. Edited November 23, 2006 by LLXX

[puntoMX]

Let’s see what AMD and ATI brings in the near future when all-in-one chips are produced and new chipsets, as far as we can speak of "sets", with integrated video. Sure there will be 8/4, 12/5 or even 16/5 pipelined versions soon vs. the 4/3 they have now.

[jcarle]

Let’s see what AMD and ATI brings in the near future when all-in-one chips are produced and new chipsets, as far as we can speak of "sets", with integrated video. Sure there will be 8/4, 12/5 or even 16/5 pipelined versions soon vs. the 4/3 they have now.

I won't be suprised to see powerful nVidia GPUs on-board one day either.

[Lost Soul]

Let’s see what AMD and ATI brings in the near future when all-in-one chips are produced and new chipsets, as far as we can speak of "sets", with integrated video. Sure there will be 8/4, 12/5 or even 16/5 pipelined versions soon vs. the 4/3 they have now.

im looking forward to that, im holding off alittle longer to reupgrade my pc for now im happy with what i have,

[bonestonne]

isn't arguing onboard vs card just like arguing PCI vs AGP? its mainly about what board you have, and what your use is. a PCI card can easily suffice to most users, but boards that have AGP cards are faster than PCI, which is something gamers aim for.

if you aren't a gamer, onboard graphics are more than enough.

if you are a gamer, its all in what you feel like spending the money on.