Why Get a Video Card?

[Guest]

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

I've been looking at the computers on the Compaq and Dell web sites more
and more. Also been looking at the computers being sold on amazon.com.
I've been looking at new computers for the last six months. Once I upgrade
to DSL I would like to take my main computer (my Compaq Presario) and turn
it
into a second computer going wireless, and throw it in a another room.

Anyway, when I go thru customizing my new future computer I always keep in
mind the price. I don't feel like I need a $1,500 computer when a $1,000 or
even a $700 computer will do.

One thing I look at is the video card. Do I need one or not? I do not
play high end games on my computer and have no desire to. The only games I
play are internet backgammon and chess. If I want to play high end games I
play on my X-Box. As far as video goes, I may play DVD's on my computer
once in a while. Also, I would will probably be doing a lot of video
chatting with my family and friends.

So, when I order my new computer this summer should I just get one that
uses a built in video (allocated video memory) or should I get a video card?
Does a video card improve the graphics on web sites? Does it help when
watching DVD movies? Does it effect video chatting? If not, then why
shouldn't I get a computer that uses allocated video memory only?

Thanks

 

[Guest]

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

My response may draw flames, but I think that the typical built-in Intel Extreme
Graphics or ATI Radeon graphics on a motherboard is perfectly adequate for just
about everything except heavy-duty gaming. The only drawback is that the
on-board graphics "shares" main memory, which really means that it steals the
memory from the overall complement of memory in the system and does not give it
back. Some sharing!!! ... Ben Myers

On Sun, 15 May 2005 19:38:48 GMT, "Von Fourche" <monaco6178@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> I've been looking at the computers on the Compaq and Dell web sites more
>and more. Also been looking at the computers being sold on amazon.com.
>I've been looking at new computers for the last six months. Once I upgrade
>to DSL I would like to take my main computer (my Compaq Presario) and turn
>it
>into a second computer going wireless, and throw it in a another room.
>
> Anyway, when I go thru customizing my new future computer I always keep in
>mind the price. I don't feel like I need a $1,500 computer when a $1,000 or
>even a $700 computer will do.
>
> One thing I look at is the video card. Do I need one or not? I do not
>play high end games on my computer and have no desire to. The only games I
>play are internet backgammon and chess. If I want to play high end games I
>play on my X-Box. As far as video goes, I may play DVD's on my computer
>once in a while. Also, I would will probably be doing a lot of video
>chatting with my family and friends.
>
> So, when I order my new computer this summer should I just get one that
>uses a built in video (allocated video memory) or should I get a video card?
>Does a video card improve the graphics on web sites? Does it help when
>watching DVD movies? Does it effect video chatting? If not, then why
>shouldn't I get a computer that uses allocated video memory only?
>
>Thanks
>
>
>
>
>
>

 

[hh]

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

No flames here. I agree. Unless one is into fairly graphic intensive games
or very serious photoshop work, the integrated graphics in today's
desktop/laptop is perfectly adequate.
HH

<ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers)> wrote in message
news:4287ac48.3373686@nntp.charter.net...
> My response may draw flames, but I think that the typical built-in Intel
> Extreme
> Graphics or ATI Radeon graphics on a motherboard is perfectly adequate for
> just
> about everything except heavy-duty gaming. The only drawback is that the
> on-board graphics "shares" main memory, which really means that it steals
> the
> memory from the overall complement of memory in the system and does not
> give it
> back. Some sharing!!! ... Ben Myers
>
> On Sun, 15 May 2005 19:38:48 GMT, "Von Fourche" <monaco6178@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I've been looking at the computers on the Compaq and Dell web sites
>> more
>>and more. Also been looking at the computers being sold on amazon.com.
>>I've been looking at new computers for the last six months. Once I
>>upgrade
>>to DSL I would like to take my main computer (my Compaq Presario) and turn
>>it
>>into a second computer going wireless, and throw it in a another room.
>>
>> Anyway, when I go thru customizing my new future computer I always keep
>> in
>>mind the price. I don't feel like I need a $1,500 computer when a $1,000
>>or
>>even a $700 computer will do.
>>
>> One thing I look at is the video card. Do I need one or not? I do
>> not
>>play high end games on my computer and have no desire to. The only games
>>I
>>play are internet backgammon and chess. If I want to play high end games
>>I
>>play on my X-Box. As far as video goes, I may play DVD's on my computer
>>once in a while. Also, I would will probably be doing a lot of video
>>chatting with my family and friends.
>>
>> So, when I order my new computer this summer should I just get one
>> that
>>uses a built in video (allocated video memory) or should I get a video
>>card?
>>Does a video card improve the graphics on web sites? Does it help when
>>watching DVD movies? Does it effect video chatting? If not, then why
>>shouldn't I get a computer that uses allocated video memory only?
>>
>>Thanks
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

 

[Guest]

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

ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers) wrote:
> My response may draw flames, but I think that the typical built-in
> Intel Extreme Graphics or ATI Radeon graphics on a motherboard is
> perfectly adequate for just about everything except heavy-duty
> gaming. The only drawback is that the on-board graphics "shares"
> main memory, which really means that it steals the memory from the
> overall complement of memory in the system and does not give it back.
> Some sharing!!! ... Ben Myers
>
> On Sun, 15 May 2005 19:38:48 GMT, "Von Fourche"
> <monaco6178@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I've been looking at the computers on the Compaq and Dell web
>> sites more and more. Also been looking at the computers being sold
>> on amazon.com. I've been looking at new computers for the last six
>> months. Once I upgrade to DSL I would like to take my main computer
>> (my Compaq Presario) and turn it
>> into a second computer going wireless, and throw it in a another
>> room.
>>
>> Anyway, when I go thru customizing my new future computer I always
>> keep in mind the price. I don't feel like I need a $1,500 computer
>> when a $1,000 or even a $700 computer will do.
>>
>> One thing I look at is the video card. Do I need one or not? I
>> do not play high end games on my computer and have no desire to.
>> The only games I play are internet backgammon and chess. If I want
>> to play high end games I play on my X-Box. As far as video goes, I
>> may play DVD's on my computer once in a while. Also, I would will
>> probably be doing a lot of video chatting with my family and friends.
>>
>> So, when I order my new computer this summer should I just get
>> one that uses a built in video (allocated video memory) or should I
>> get a video card? Does a video card improve the graphics on web
>> sites? Does it help when watching DVD movies? Does it effect video
>> chatting? If not, then why shouldn't I get a computer that uses
>> allocated video memory only?
>>
>> Thanks

I agree. The computer itself (CPU) is not in most cases being run hard
enough that the additional video is much of a load. I would, though,
configure 512MB RAM so that the on-board VRAM allocation is not a drag
on the OS requirement.

Q