Integrated Intel Graphics vs nVidia Graphics

Discussion in 'Dell' started by Chris, Sep 12, 2007.

  1. Chris

    Chris Guest

    How much faster is the nVidia 128 meg graphics card over the
    integrated intel that ships with the inspiron 1520. I mainly use my
    computer for office work and bringing up photos in microsoft
    publisher. Will the 4 meg photos I open in microsoft publisher open
    quicker? I guess I'm asking why would someone need the nVidia over the
    integrated? It used to be for the Aero interface in vista but since
    both support that I don't see the need. I plan on getting 2 gigs ram.

    Chris, Sep 12, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. Chris

    Journey Guest

    Because battery life is very important to me I would not want a
    dedicated graphics card.

    I don't think it would make any difference for bringing up photos. I
    think it would make the most difference with gaming.
    Journey, Sep 12, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. Chris

    Tom Scales Guest

    Intel's integrated video is surprisingly good. I use it to drive HDTVs
    at 1920x1080p resolution and they work flawlessly.

    The only area of weakness is games. If you don't play high end games,
    the integrated graphics is fine. You won't see ANY difference for what
    you describe.

    Tom Scales, Sep 12, 2007
  4. Chris

    Tom Scales Guest

    What makes you believe there would be a difference in battery life?
    Video is video regardless of where the chip resides.
    Tom Scales, Sep 12, 2007
  5. Chris

    Journey Guest

    I have read numerous reviews of laptops that have indicated that
    battery life is shorter with a dedicated rather than integrated video
    card. I don't know the technical reasons why but Intel makes some of
    the integrated video that runs with intel processors so there may be
    some synergy there.
    Journey, Sep 12, 2007
  6. Chris

    Chris Guest

    I've configured both the vostro 1500 and the inspiron 1520 which are
    both similar computers. The vostro 1500 is less expensive, still
    haven't figured out why. It also doesn't give me the option for the
    integrated video unless I want to choose a less expensive
    configuration and by the time I add everything its more expensive.
    $968 for the vostro with dedicated nVidia 128 vs $1,171 for integrated
    graphics. I wish Dell had a standard pricing for there computers but
    maybe theres more demand for the dedicated cards thus a lower price.
    Oh the inspiron 1520 for similar configuration is $1,300 for
    integrated and over $1,600 for dedicated graphics.
    Chris, Sep 12, 2007
  7. Chris

    Jay B Guest

    if you're spending anywhere over $1100 for a laptop, then consider a
    Latitude D630. fully loaded nicely configured systems start around
    $1100, with 3 yr warranties. i would never buy a low end vostro and put
    so many options into it to bring it up to the price of a latitude.
    Jay B, Sep 12, 2007
  8. If he were to add a 3D graphics card, I would expect it to increase the
    power demands and thus decrease the battery life...


    Hank Arnold
    Microsoft MVP
    Windows Server - Directory Services
    Hank Arnold (MVP), Sep 12, 2007
  9. Chris

    RnR Guest

    Here is just one article that does mention that integrated video
    improves battery life....

    I'm sure there are others (I just didn't bother to look harder).
    RnR, Sep 12, 2007
  10. Chris

    RnR Guest

    IMO, I think it might make a "small" difference but I more or less
    agree with you.

    For the benefit of the OP, I found this 2 year old post on the net by
    another person....

    * For still digital editing you need two things:

    1. True color fidelity video card that support 32-bit color pallette
    at the highest horizontal refresh rate comparable with your monitor.
    16-bit color pallette is acceptable.

    2. 17" or larger monitor that support 32-bit color at the color
    pallette size you want (32-bit); the screen resolution you want
    (1024x768) or larger; the smallest dot pitch that you can afford to
    buy; and the highest supported horizontal refresh rate at the screen
    resolution and color pallette size you want.

    Video card works in tandem with your monitor. Don't waste your money
    buying a high-end video card when your monitor can only support
    low-end resolution.
    Check the specification of your monitor before buying video card.

    Horizontal refresh rate of 75 HZ or higher is strongly recommended if
    you were to spend alot of time editing pictures. Higher rate may be
    required for some people who're more sensitive to "flickering screen".
    Higher refresh rate (horizontal) helps reduce eye straint/fatigue.

    First, find out the size of your monitor (14", 15" 17", 18", 19", 21",

    Next, find out the horizontal refresh rate of your monitor at the
    16-bit color pallette and screen resolution of 1024x768 and at
    1280x1024 resolution.

    Repeat the above step with 32-bit color pallette, if applicable.

    You should see a table similar to this:
    Monitor Screen Color Horz
    Size Resolution Pallette Refresh
    17" 800x600 16-bit 120 Hz
    17" 1024x768 16-bit 90 Hz
    17" 1280x1024 16-bit 75 Hz
    17" 800x600 32-bit 85 Hz
    17" 1024x768 32-bit 72 Hz
    17" 1280x1024 32-bit 60 Hz
    17" 1600x1280 32-bit 55 Hz

    Next, for your monitor size, select the highest color pallett bit, the
    highest screen resolution you want to use (I strongly recommend the
    minimum of 1024 x768 for 17" or larger monitor, and the maximum of
    1280x1024) and the highest horizontal refresh rate. Write this info

    Now you're ready to buy a video card that is best suite your monitor
    from budget perspective and technical perspective.

    Additional Consideration:

    It's often easier to find video card driver for various OS platforms
    from major video card manufacturer than from lesser known and
    "cheaper" video cards. So depends on which OS you run, weight this
    factor accordingly in your buying decision.

    Microsoft's newer OSes include supports for major video card vendors,
    thus saving you time to look for the driver each time you install
    Windows or update your system.

    PS: The headings for the columns in the table was messed up in this
    posting system. They are (from left to right):

    1. Monitor size
    2. Screen resulution
    3. Color pallette
    4. Horizontal Refresh Rate
    RnR, Sep 12, 2007
  11. Chris

    RnR Guest

    Chris before I begin, I will admit I don't have experience to prove or
    disprove what I will say next but it's based on a lot of reading from

    That said, I really think the function of bringing up these photos
    faster is more a function of system ram than video card. The
    exception is likely if you open too many of these photos at once or
    much larger size photos, then the video card might make a difference
    because you might overwhelm or use up the system ram. I don't know
    how many 4 meg photos you will open at one time but my guess if you
    are like most, 2 gigs ram will be adequate with no added video card
    necessary. If I were in your shoes, I'd get more system ram first
    before getting the added video card.
    RnR, Sep 12, 2007
  12. Chris

    Tom Lake Guest

    For a CRT that's true but on my 19" widescreen LCD, I have a choice between
    60 Hz and 75 Hz. Even though lower refresh rates bother me terribly on a
    I don't notice any difference at all on my LCD.

    Tom Lake
    Tom Lake, Sep 12, 2007
  13. Chris

    Tom Scales Guest

    This is an area I do know, very well. Photos require minimal video
    cards. Most important for OPENING files is:

    1) Hard drive speed
    2) Memory
    3) CPU

    For working on files:

    1) CPU
    2) Memory
    3) Hard drive speed

    Memory moves to number one in both cases if you don't have enough.

    My photos are 12mp (Nikon D2X) and I often have 6-8 open on a reasonably
    powerful machine without problem.

    Big monitors are nice, but not an absolute requirement. I've worked in
    the field on a 12" screen and gotten the job done. When I want
    perfection, though, I use my 24" Dell that has been calibrated.

    Detail is important to me, as I print as large as 24"x36" (Epson 7600).

    Doesn't matter how many you open, the video card only displays what's on
    the screen.

    Tom Scales, Sep 12, 2007
  14. Chris

    RnR Guest

    Time for a Nikon D3 Tom.....

    I'm just kidding. I don't even know what the differences are between
    the D2 or D3 but I guess if you have that type printer and camera, you
    are pretty knowledgeable about this stuff. I think the OP more or
    less got the same answer from many of us so he should know now the
    answer to his orig post. thanks.
    RnR, Sep 12, 2007
  15. Chris

    Journey Guest

    I agree with Jay -- consider a Latitude. I have had Latitudes in the
    past and loved them, and a friend recently purchased a D520 which I
    relly like. The D630 is smaller and lighter, and if it's as good as
    the D520 I recommend it. I don't know if the D630 had a modular bay
    that could accept an extra battery, and I think the extended battery
    sticks out the front, which might be a good thing.
    Journey, Sep 12, 2007
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.