do i need a dedicated video card?

[steven_woody]

my computer is too old and stoped to work yesterday. i am hence now considering

buy in a new mother board, DDR memory and a cpu. but i am not sure if i should

use a mother board with embedded video chip or buy in a dedicated video card

such as ATI's. my most heavy duty are scanning and PS processing, so my

question is that, for these kind of jobs, does an on-board video chip fast

enough or whether a dedicated video card will provide any extra benifit?

 

thanks in advance.

 

-

woody

[raymond_ocampo]

It will always depend on how much PS processing you are doing. However, why limit

yourself with the capability of the graphics card. It is there to help you be more creative.

The faster it is, the more you can do. If it bogs you down and you constantly have to wait,

then you won't be inclined to experiment further and be more artistic.

 

Modern operating systems pass on the visual processing to the graphics card. Hence they

are termed GPU. Because graphics cards is a dedicated processor, it is actually more

powerful than a CPU and relatively cheaper to replace when an even better card comes

along.

 

How long do you want to wait before that 8MB, 10MB, etc. RAW or TIFF photo file is drawn

on the screen.

 

The only reason one should go on-board is if it's to be used for portables.

 

True you can shut off that on-board video card and upgrade to a dedicated PCIe in the

future, but you've just wasted space on the controller to use for another PCIe slot.

 

My two cents.

[emre]

No need to buy a dedicated card if the on-board card provides satisfactory refresh rates.

[don_cooper]

I've been running a MB with an embedded video chip for the last couple of months. Redraws with 35-70mb files are instantaneous. Photoshop or other image editing programs do not require much video power.

[steven_clark]

Yet. If the GPGPU trend keeps going the way it is, it may not stay that way for long. Just look at Aperture.

[raymond_ocampo]

As a Mac user, we've been relying on faster processing since Mac OS X came out. It's very

much evident when an application makes use of both CPU and GPU for visual processing

or when you don't have the graphics horsepower and it passes it on solely to the CPU.

 

As was pointed out by Steven regarding Aperture, it may not be the choice for

photographers, but it's certainly the future as to how other photography software should

go in terms of speed in handling, viewing and processing files.

 

Windows users don't see the benefit at this stage as Vista is their full introduction into the

GPU world. Most Windows applications still rely on CPU processing power and don't see a

difference if they upgrade video cards. It won't be long until this view on the graphics

cards for the Windows community will change.

 

In fact I only use Aperture for photo management, but I've been using a wonderful

software built by photographers for photographers and it's certainly the future that

Photoshop should be looking into to.

 

Photoshop and other Window's based image editing programs don't require much "video

power" is probably because it relies on editing photos via pixel-based technology.

 

Try working in 16-bit linear colorspace 100% of the time for your RAW images and you'll

know what GPU really means and can do for you.

[steven_woody]

thanks for all your inputs.

 

Raymond,

 

to IBM compatiable system, a MB with an embedded video card normally has a BIOS options which also called video aperture, does it has anything to do with what you said 'aperture'?

 

-

woody

[raymond_ocampo]

Steven,

 

The Aperture I mentioned is Apple's software program.

 

However, regarding your on-board video card...think of it as a virtual memory like hard

drive used as a swap disk as extension for more memory.

 

Without going into the technical aspects of it, "video aperture" found on the BIOS refers to

the amount of system memory that can be "extended" for usage by the video card. This

was cleverly created since older video cards had more expensive built-in memory and

hence were equipped with puny amounts. Remember when 128MB was a killer video card

already? Anyway, allocating more memory via other means THEORETICALLY enhances the

video function by not running out of data to process.

 

The question next will be how much aperture should you set it to? Lots of theory in the

old days, set it half the actual size of the video memory, match the actual memory, double

the size of actual memory. etc. The truth is it depends on the program harnessing this

memory. No matter how much memory you set it, if the programming doesn't call for

harnessing the virtual memory it won't happen.

 

Also video cards with massive memory storage built-in may not matter these days, unless

you were into gaming. But then again, isn't that where SLI comes in. In any case, 128MB

video aperture is still an acceptable practice. It won't hurt, actually to allocate more if you

really have that much system memory. Because remember it will use it if it's instructed to.

 

Raymond

[t_n1]

I've built computers for university labs, including those that belong in the digital media and art schools. You definitely do not need a video card for photoshop. You can simply use the onboard graphics for 2D work. The only time you need to buy a separate video card is if you are dealing with 3D work or using an operating system that hogs resources. If you're still planning on using Windows XP, you won't need the graphics card.

 

You can always buy a graphics card down the line later. Again, you do not need a graphics card for Photoshop and Win XP.

[t_n1]

"True you can shut off that on-board video card and upgrade to a dedicated PCIe in the future, but you've just wasted space on the controller to use for another PCIe slot."

 

That does not make any sense whatsoever since all the PCI express x16 slots are dedicated for video graphics anyway. You would not be wasting that slot for anything else.

[raymond_ocampo]

I said "space on the controller" which could be used to create another expansion slot. An

integrated video chip on a MB uses one less slot. For example rather than have 4

expansion slots, you end up with 3. More expensive MB can obviously create more

expansion, but again at a higher price. Which means if you're willing to pay for more

expansion, then you should be willing to pay for a better VPU.

 

And to continue with interpretations, most Windows user know PCIe x16 slots are

"dedicated" for the video card. This is the early and cheaper way of doing things. But PCIe

slots in Macs and other high end PC boards are configurable depending on how much

bandwidth allocation is needed for the inserted slot. Quad Fibre Channel cards, anyone?

 

It's true PS is a 2D app. You don't have to limit in terms of running with the minimum

requirements. A dedicated video card will give "extra benefit" in terms of being able to

run larger monitors, a dual set up or simply being able to draw those huge RAW images

faster and still be able to leave multiple programs and windows open.

 

Looking forward, Windows Vista's Aero feature harnesses 3D. So now your graphics card

also competes with the OS needs.

 

PS CS3 Extended is, again, looking forward as to where Photoshop is going. Surprise! It

now uses 3D acceleration.

 

You want to run minimum requirements or look a little ahead where your OS and

applications are heading. If you don't see upgrading software or OS soon, then minimum

requirement is the answer.

[t_n1]

<p><i>PS CS3 Extended is, again, looking forward as to where Photoshop is going. Surprise! It now uses 3D acceleration.</i></p>

 

<p>The 3D acceleration applies only if you're using 3D layers. As I've already stated, you do not need a video card (or 3D acceleration) when doing 2D work.</p>

 

<p><i>An integrated video chip on a MB uses one less slot. For example rather than have 4 expansion slots, you end up with 3. More expensive MB can obviously create more expansion, but again at a higher price. </i></p>

 

<p>I don't know where you shop, but there are several medium priced motherboards at newegg.com with integrated video that have 3 and 4 expansion slots. There are also several medium priced motherboards with no integrated video that have 3 and 4 expansion slots as well.</p>

 

<p><i>simply being able to draw those huge RAW images faster and still be able to leave multiple programs and windows open.</i></p>

 

<p>I just compared two similar spec machines side by side (same processor, same RAM, same FSB). One has onboard Intel GMA 950, while the other has nVidia 7800GTX card. Both computers loaded and processed the same 16-bit TIFF image with 30 layers at identical speeds. This was with an internet browser and winamp loaded in the background. If the machine has 2 gigs of RAM (smarter investment than video card), multiple programs/windows won't make any difference whether or not you have a separate video card unless you're blasting video games.</p>

[raymond_ocampo]

Of course there are various MBs with 3-4 slots and each will fall within the same price

point if you want it to. What features are you looking for in the first place - over-clocking

stability, PCI slots, chipsets, host controllers, or even name brand. So telling me medium-

priced MBs all have 3-4 slots is a moot point. What do each specifically have to fall within

that price range. And that isn't even an argument I'd like to partake especially with you.

 

It's not - integrated video - you only get 3 slots. Period. I stated "for example..."

Comparison is for within the same manufacturer with the same specs and component for a

particular board model. They add one feature here, they take it from another component.

 

The problem is that you like quoting a line and taking it out of the whole context in order

to make your point valid.

 

I use Macs and have been for more than a decade. But as a previous PC enthusiast (I only

remember my SCSI days, so forgive me), digging up an example with only one

manufacturer with a particular MB design. I've attached an Asus P5B design with

integrated video and one without. As you can see, it's not hard to guess what they took

out in order to integrate the video.

 

We all know 2D processing does not need a 3D card. And more memory will help a

processor. We don't have to argue on the obvious. An application or operating system

that is programmed to make use of the CPU for visual processing will obviously not make

use of the GPU. It's just like the old days where apps did not make use of Intel's Hyper-

threading technology and there was an update to PS to harness such. The same is true

for the lag in Window's use of GPU. With the launch of Windows Vista soon other

programs will learn to by-pass the CPU for any visual processing.

 

A smart investment is laying the foundation for breathing life into the computer as it ages.

You start with the MB.<div></div>

[raymond_ocampo]

Same motherboard design with integrated video.

[raymond_ocampo]

Hey, how come the 2nd pic came in as an attachment when they're both 450x450 pixels and

under 100kb.

[emre]

Did you title the image?

[steven_clark]

Actually, it looks to me like one of those boards is an ATX, one a Mini-ATX. They didn't just pull off a slot or two, the physically shortened the board!

[steven_clark]

I just checked. One's a full ATX the other's a microATX. Motherboards in the microATX form factor are smaller and frequently used in lower-end compact machines where onboard video is a plus. Probably the only reason both boards are P5B is because they use the same chipset, not because they are different versions of the same board.

[raymond_ocampo]

Aargh! Thanks for clarification and help, guys.

 

See! Integrating a video chip requires shortening the PCB and not just losing a slot! Aha!

Okay, just kidding on this one. I'm rusty on the PC side. :(

[t_n1]

Peace, Raymond. I am not being argumentative with you. I state things as they are very dryly. This is what I do for work, recommending and building computer systems not just for individuals, but for labs and offices. Based on previous clients, most do not upgrade but buy entire new systems every 3-4 years since things evolve so quickly.

 

I don't mean to be offensive in any way. I just don't want anyone who may come across this thread to falsely believe that they need to spend more than necessary to get the job done. And I understand how technology may quickly evolve/change within a short amount of time. I too have a hard time keeping up. ;-)

[steven_clark]

About the only performance worry I can think of would be contention for memory badwidth and there should be more than enough of that to go around. Not that I'll ever use onboard graphics myself, but then I'm a gamer too.

[raymond_ocampo]

It's all good, T N. Apologies for my worked up replies. Your arguments are valid and very

sensible. My arguments are coming from an over-spending consumer...in debt, I might add.

:P