video memory - which option?

[BT]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Is it better to choose the dedicated video card even though it only has 64 MB
whereas the shared memory would be up to 128 MB? The laptop comes with 512 MB
RAM. Here is what the Dell video options show:
Intel® Graphics Media Accelerator 900 (up to 128MB shared) or
ATI MOBILITYTM RADEON® X300 with 64MB DDR video memory

In the past I've seen recommendations to go with a dedicated video card, but
since in this case it is less memory, I'm not sure which way to go. Would
appreciate your advice. Thanks.

Bob T.

 

[BigJim]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

what do you want to do with the laptop, video is determined by the use.
if just 2d applications, integrated is fine.
if 3d then a separate video card and laptops in general are not made for
gaming unless you get the high-end one.

"BT" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news😛EBUe.25848$vN.928321@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Is it better to choose the dedicated video card even though it only has 64
> MB
> whereas the shared memory would be up to 128 MB? The laptop comes with
> 512 MB
> RAM. Here is what the Dell video options show:
> Intel® Graphics Media Accelerator 900 (up to 128MB shared) or
> ATI MOBILITYTM RADEON® X300 with 64MB DDR video memory
>
> In the past I've seen recommendations to go with a dedicated video card,
> but
> since in this case it is less memory, I'm not sure which way to go. Would
> appreciate your advice. Thanks.
>
> Bob T.
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

> Is it better to choose the dedicated video card even though it only has 64 MB
> whereas the shared memory would be up to 128 MB?

"onboard" gfx take their memory out of the main pool of RAM the computer
has, and is generally slower than any seperate card.

A side-effect of sharing the gfx memory is (I believe) that, while not
only reducing the amount of memory the rest of the computer can use, the
constant accessing of the shared memory can drag the rest of the machine
down, slowing down normal use you would get out of whatever memory was
left.

--
Please add the word "newsgroup" in the subject line of personal emails
**** My email address includes "ngspamtrap" and "@btinternet.com" ****

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Colin Wilson" <void@btinternet.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:MPG.1d8cfe7a8b86837798b3f5@news.individual.net...
>> Is it better to choose the dedicated video card even though it only has
>> 64 MB
>> whereas the shared memory would be up to 128 MB?

> A side-effect of sharing the gfx memory is (I believe) that, while not
> only reducing the amount of memory the rest of the computer can use, the
> constant accessing of the shared memory can drag the rest of the machine
> down, slowing down normal use you would get out of whatever memory was
> left.

By the new Intel 91x the inter bus bandwidth is higher than needed so there
is more room for shared memory- by now you can forget about the shared
memory issues. They are now as good as any. Only you should check the MHz of
the graphics processor. The Intel one has max 312MHz. If the other schip has
more u know what to do.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Colin Wilson" <void@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:MPG.1d8cfe7a8b86837798b3f5@news.individual.net...
>> Is it better to choose the dedicated video card even though it only has 64 MB
>> whereas the shared memory would be up to 128 MB?
>
> "onboard" gfx take their memory out of the main pool of RAM the computer
> has, and is generally slower than any seperate card.
>
> A side-effect of sharing the gfx memory is (I believe) that, while not
> only reducing the amount of memory the rest of the computer can use, the
> constant accessing of the shared memory can drag the rest of the machine
> down, slowing down normal use you would get out of whatever memory was
> left.

There is the potential for that. You've got the processor, GMA 900, and
other devices competing for main memory bandwidth and there is arbitration
overhead. I seem to recall coming across a couple of benchmarks that
compared memory bandwidth on 915G boards and which revealed some
performance degradation when utilizing integrated graphics. This was probably
one of them:

http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/motherboards/article.php/10703_3379011__6

I can't confirm their results, and I suppose it is worth pointing out that those
benchmarks were run on a 915G (desktop) board equipped with a fast 800
MHz FSB processor and dual channel DDR2-533. If you run them on a
915GM (mobile) board equipped with a 533 MHz FSB Pentium-M and the
same kind of RAM, I'd expect different results. You'd have more breathing
room to begin with due to the slower 533 MHz FSB. Whether you'd get
the same performance as you'd get with a dedicated graphics solution, I
don't know. If anyone has found such a comparison, I'd be interested to
see it.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, BigJIm wrote:

> what do you want to do with the laptop, video is determined by the use.
> if just 2d applications, integrated is fine.
> if 3d then a separate video card and laptops in general are not made for
> gaming unless you get the high-end one.

How do you feel the Inspiron 9100 would be for gaming, or would th eonly
real practical option for such be the Inspiron XPS?? (I am *playing* with
the idea of getting one down the road if I can save up the $$$.)

Marilyn B.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"User N" <usern@invalid.invalid> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:vbGdnZ2dnZ3JIGOFnZ2dnTxpvt6dnZ2dRVn-yZ2dnZ0@comcast.com...
> There is the potential for that. You've got the processor, GMA 900, and
> other devices competing for main memory bandwidth and there is arbitration
> overhead. I seem to recall coming across a couple of benchmarks that
> compared memory bandwidth on 915G boards and which revealed some
> performance degradation when utilizing integrated graphics.

The maximum Bandwidth with the I915G board is 4GHz while the CPU cannot use
more then 2GHz the rest stays the integrated chipset, so the 'shared memory
issue' is no longer existing. So u need to look at the clockspeed the
graphic is running. The Integrated one has a maximum of 312MHz- that must be
compared to the 'standalone solution'..

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Kevin Rengo" <k.rengo@europe.com> wrote in message news:432416aa@news.uni-rostock.de...
>
> "User N" <usern@invalid.invalid> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:vbGdnZ2dnZ3JIGOFnZ2dnTxpvt6dnZ2dRVn-yZ2dnZ0@comcast.com...
>> There is the potential for that. You've got the processor, GMA 900, and
>> other devices competing for main memory bandwidth and there is arbitration
>> overhead. I seem to recall coming across a couple of benchmarks that
>> compared memory bandwidth on 915G boards and which revealed some
>> performance degradation when utilizing integrated graphics.
>
> The maximum Bandwidth with the I915G board is 4GHz while the CPU cannot use
> more then 2GHz the rest stays the integrated chipset, so the 'shared memory
> issue' is no longer existing.

Lets look at a 915G diagram:

http://www.intel.com/products/i/chipsets/915g/915g-flowlarge.jpg

You've got up to 8.5 GB/s between the 82915G and main memory. Vying
for that you have the processor accessing memory through the 82915G over
the 6.4 GB/s bus, southbridge connected devices accessing memory through
the 82915G over the 2 GB/s DMI, plus the GMA 900 accessing memory
from within the 82915G. Where do your 4GHz and 2GHz numbers fit in?

I believe the SiSoft memory benchmarks attempt to measure sustained
bandwidth between the processor and main memory. If you look at the
link I provided you'll see a P4 hitting 4.966 GB/s on a 915G with the GMA
900 disabled, and only 3.663 GB/s when it is in use. What are your thoughts
on my take and their results?

> So u need to look at the clockspeed the
> graphic is running. The Integrated one has a maximum of 312MHz- that must be
> compared to the 'standalone solution'..

FWIW, the number I keep coming across is 333MHz.

 

[BigJim]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

nada on the 9100 for gaming unless you upgrade the video to 128 meg card and
1 gig of ram.
xps is the gaming laptop.
"Marilyn E. Burford" <burford@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote in message
news😛ine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.1050911082736.4397B-100000@halifax.chebucto.ns.ca...
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, BigJIm wrote:
>
>> what do you want to do with the laptop, video is determined by the use.
>> if just 2d applications, integrated is fine.
>> if 3d then a separate video card and laptops in general are not made for
>> gaming unless you get the high-end one.
>
> How do you feel the Inspiron 9100 would be for gaming, or would th eonly
> real practical option for such be the Inspiron XPS?? (I am *playing* with
> the idea of getting one down the road if I can save up the $$$.)
>
> Marilyn B.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005, BigJIm wrote:

> nada on the 9100 for gaming unless you upgrade the video to 128 meg card and
> 1 gig of ram.

Thanks - kinda figgered as much .

MB