Intel GMA 950 vs. ATI Radeon 16MB

[sonoma]

Just wondering which graphics option will be more suitable for me. I don't play any games on laptops at all - it's purely used for work (MS Word, Internet Browser, Remote Server Connection, Powerpoint, Excel, Photoshop, Visual Studio, SQL etc). I don't do any heavy graphics work either. I occassionally use Photoshop to do just basic 2D image editing. (FYI my work is project management. I mainly need Office suites and Internet connection). Therefore, I guess Intel's Integrated Graphics should be sufficient enough for my usage. I understand that a discrete graphics card such as ATI Radeon will give a better performance than an onboard graphics such as GMA 950.

But what happens if an application like Vista, say, (or a group of applications) require more than 16MB of Graphics memory to run. As far as I know GMA 950 supports DVMT and can "dynamically" allocate upto 224MB whereas those ATI Radeon's that are typically featured on X series can only support upto 16MB of video RAM. Does this mean those X series which boast 16MB of FIXED video RAM would not be able to run such applications? If this was the case, wouldn't GMA950 be a better choice than a slightly faster discrete (dedicated) graphics card which has a limit of 16MB of VRAM?

I'm not sure if my understanding is correct. I'd appreciate it if someone could confirm this for me. I'm very curious. What would be a better choice if speed wasn't of big concern to me. Futureproof-ness will be a more important consideration as I normally use a laptop for at least three years. Thanks in advance

PS. I'm also wondering if Intel GMA will be more power-efficient (i.e. consume less power, therefore, longer battery life) than discrete graphics. I've noticed that those with discrete graphics are roughly 300-400 grams(cannot remember the exact figure) heavier than those with integrated graphics, all other things being equal such as same model, spec etc. Then, what about the power consumption or battery life? Which will be slightly better? Full of curiousity. Thanks, guys.

[dr_st]

GMA 950 hands down.

The overall consensus is that when comparing contemporary integrated and dedicated graphical solutions, the latter is always superior. But in this case you're comparing the state-of-the-art integrated solution, which is the GMA 950, to a several year old, totally outdated dedicated card, which is the 16MB Radeon. I dare say that the GMA is going to perform better everywhere, perhaps in battery life too.

The only thing is that you should make sure to get a lot of RAM (at least 1GB, maybe more), since the GMA is going to eat up your system memory (and you want it to, for maximum performance).

Future-proofness is a vague term. If you're talking about basic 2D tasks, I believe the GMA 950 is going to be just fine for a while.

[sonoma]

Hi dr_st,

thank you for your feedback. But I don't think you understood my question correctly. I'm not interested in speed or performance. My question was given that I have "Video RAM" intensive applications or OS to run which of the following would be the winner?

1. a discrete graphics card with a limited VRAM, let's say 64MB.
2. Integrated graphics chipset with DVMT (dynamic VRAM allocation upto 224MB).

Let's make an assumption that the application requires more than 64MB of VRAM for whatever reason. Then, can #1 (discrete) run such application?

I guess my question is which of the above can run future applications which might require a lot of VRAM. The keywords here are "FIXED, DEDICATED but SMALL CAPACITY memory" versus "DYNAMIC, SHARED but LARGE CAPCITY memory". As you can see from my signature below, I'll have at least 1.5 GB of system's main memory so there should be plenty for integrated graphics to utilise.
Simply focus on the VRAM requirement itself of applications in answering my question, not on the speed or performance required to play games and stuff.
I'm not interested in benchmarking results or comparison of the two options. All I want to know is whether discrete graphics card with a limited, fixed capcity of 64MB or 128MB or whatever of VRAM can run applications that require more than its fixed capacity?

I'm a business user who does not require or expect great performance. My focus is to buy a laptop that can be my partner for a very long time. I'm quite happy with low resolution such as 1024x768. I'm quite sure I'm happy with the graphics performance of my old X22 running Windows XP. As you can see my issue is not performance but reliability and longevity of my lovely tool. This is partly my reason why I prefer laptops to PC's. Laptop technology does not change that quickly. Once I buy a cutting-edge laptop, such as X60s, it can last a very long time as my business partner. I'm still using X22 Pentium III which does everything I require. Believe it or not, it boots quicker than my T43.

Thank you for helping me.

[dr_st]

In your original question you mentioned a specific comparison of GMA950 versus a 16MB Radeon. My opinion, like I said, is that the GMA will be superior in everything, including VRAM-demanding applications.

Now, to your more general question of small discrete vs large shared.

I think that if an application requires more VRAM than available on the discrete solution, system RAM will be used for it, just like happens now. There are many apps (games mostly) that can benefit from 256MB of VRAM, but they run on 64MB video cards too, just not as fast - that's because system RAM is being used whenever video RAM doesn't suffice.

So far I haven't seen a single thing that failed to run on a 64MB card. And that's that.

[RS_003]

64mb is more then enough for any game... as long as you don't bump the resolution up (more ram helps! thats for sure )

Even beter: Most of the buyers today only look to the amount of ram, and end up buying a 256mb Radeon 9250SE.

While for the same amount the could have bought an Radeon 9600 with 64mb... now ... guess which one will be faster

[Brave_turtle]

Guys, I tried to look for more x60s video card (Intel media accelerator 950) and I found this link:

http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma950/

In one of the part I read this:

Upgradeability¹ : PCI Express* x16 port available. Single platform can be deployed for broad range of client user needs, allowing upgrades to higher performance 3D graphics cards if required.

Does this mean we can slap a x1600 in it?

[FRiC]

Does this mean we can slap a x1600 in it?

Not necessarily. It means that the 950 chipset allows third-party PCI Express cards/chipsets to be used. But the laptop builder might not have built a user accessible slot onto the motherboard.

[simscitizen]

The GMA is much, much better. Integrated graphics are getting better nowadays and a modern integrated solution is much better than an old and outdated discrete chip.

The Radeon 7500 was outdated when it came out, let alone 4 years later.

[dr_st]

The GMA is much, much better. Integrated graphics are getting better nowadays and a modern integrated solution is much better than an old and outdated discrete chip.

The Radeon 7500 was outdated when it came out, let alone 4 years later.

I'm not sure the GMA is better than the 7500, though. 7500 is still noticeably better than the original Radeon.

[Herr Yunta]

Aero Glass says it will require a dedicated 64mb video card of Radeon 9600 class performance and a 128mb card is recommended. However, it will run on the ATI X200 and GMA950 integrated parts with reduced performance.

For your choice with the x60 between the GMA950 and Radeon parts, get the GMA950.

[RS_003]

AGP or PCI-E doesn't mean much.

the AGP 8x bandwith still isnt being used fully.
But... the GMA is faster... thats for sure

[Brave_turtle]

Hi guys,

I've been a little itch about X60s video card.

I've been in Dell forum and found out that some guys can upgrade their GPU. Some of them even put a Nvdia 7800 GTX in their laptop.

I did a search in the whole forum and didn't find any relevant information about a Thinkpad having GPU upgrade.

I want to know if thinkpad can have GPU upgrade. Someone ever put a V3200 in their X40 or X41?

If T60p can support V5200 then will x60s be able to support it also with a little modification?

[christopher_wolf]

Well, as far as I know, all the GPUs in Thinkpads are soldered onto the System Board and are therefore non-upgradable.

I imagine it would be quite difficult to put a v3200 in an X40 or X41 ( ) just like that.

The X60s probably have the latest and greatest GPU that IBM/Lenovo could fit in there, so graphics shouldn't be too much of a worry on the X60.

[Herr Yunta]

The only Dell laptop that comes close in size to an X series is the Dell X1 which cannot take upgraded video cards. A select few of the "desktop replacement" sized dell laptops can.

[christopher_wolf]

Just a little thing I was thinking about; I think it would be just a tad inefficient if you were to come up with a specialized miniature system that could have a new card plugged into it. Considering the usages of the T Series and X Series, I don't think that we will be seeing new models with upgradable GPUs; too much complexity for little, if any, benefit and a significant risk. It makes sense for some of the larger desktop replacement systems because they dont move much, are used for things similar to gaming and entertainment, and they also have to worry less about battery life and supplying power to a beefier GPU.

[dr_st]

If T60p can support V5200 then will x60s be able to support it also with a little modification?

Yeah, with a little modification that will make it the size of the T60p.

[Brave_turtle]

WoWw"!"! Very fast and helpful replies.

You guys are right about the part that there's a lot of risk trying to mod it. I guess I will wait for a review to see how good is that GMA.

For now I will keep on dreaming about it