Integrated Intel Graphics vs nVidia Graphics

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.

Thanks,
Chris

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 23:19:27 -0000, Chris
wrote:

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.

Thanks,
Chris

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.

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 22:38:02 -0400, "Tom Scales"
wrote:



-----Original Message-----
From: Journey ]
Posted At: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 8:14 PM
Posted To: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell
Conversation: Integrated Intel Graphics vs nVidia Graphics
Subject: Integrated Intel Graphics vs nVidia Graphics

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 23:19:27 -0000, Chris
wrote:

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.

Thanks,
Chris

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.

What makes you believe there would be a difference in battery life?
Video is video regardless of where the chip resides.

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.

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.

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.


Chris wrote:
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.

Tom Scales wrote:

-----Original Message-----
From: Journey ]
Posted At: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 8:14 PM
Posted To: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell
Conversation: Integrated Intel Graphics vs nVidia Graphics
Subject: Integrated Intel Graphics vs nVidia Graphics

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 23:19:27 -0000, Chris
wrote:

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.
Thanks,
Chris
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.

What makes you believe there would be a difference in battery life?
Video is video regardless of where the chip resides.

If he were to add a 3D graphics card, I would expect it to increase the
power demands and thus decrease the battery life...

--

Regards,
Hank Arnold
Microsoft MVP
Windows Server - Directory Services

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 21:48:26 -0500, Journey wrote:

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 22:38:02 -0400, "Tom Scales"
wrote:



-----Original Message-----
From: Journey ]
Posted At: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 8:14 PM
Posted To: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell
Conversation: Integrated Intel Graphics vs nVidia Graphics
Subject: Integrated Intel Graphics vs nVidia Graphics

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 23:19:27 -0000, Chris
wrote:

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.

Thanks,
Chris

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.

What makes you believe there would be a difference in battery life?
Video is video regardless of where the chip resides.

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.


Here is just one article that does mention that integrated video
improves battery life....
http://www.pinoygamer.org/2006/10/26...de-for-pinoys/

I'm sure there are others (I just didn't bother to look harder).

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 21:48:26 -0500, Journey wrote:

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 22:38:02 -0400, "Tom Scales"
wrote:



-----Original Message-----
From: Journey ]
Posted At: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 8:14 PM
Posted To: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell
Conversation: Integrated Intel Graphics vs nVidia Graphics
Subject: Integrated Intel Graphics vs nVidia Graphics

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 23:19:27 -0000, Chris
wrote:

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.

Thanks,
Chris

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.

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",
etc.).

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
Rate
==========================================
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
down.

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

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 23:19:27 -0000, Chris
wrote:

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.

Thanks,
Chris


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
others.

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" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 21:48:26 -0500, Journey wrote:

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 22:38:02 -0400, "Tom Scales"

-----Original Message-----
From: Journey ]
Posted At: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 8:14 PM
Posted To: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell
Conversation: Integrated Intel Graphics vs nVidia Graphics
Subject: Integrated Intel Graphics vs nVidia Graphics

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.

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
CRT,
I don't notice any difference at all on my LCD.

Tom Lake