Video Card vs. Onboard Graphics

A

atldragonz

New Member
It really depends on what you will be using your computer for. Look up the minimal requirement for games you want to play before you buy

it wouldn't hurt to buy the separate video card since its pretty cheap.
 
H

HybridGoomba

New Member
Yeah I don't plan on playing many recent games like Crysis or anything, maybe like SW Battlefront 2 as the most recent game. Otherwise just plain internet browsing, email, web design, and yeah. Nothing too hardcore.

I figured I would just buy it cause it's so cheap, but the quesiton is, how good exactly is a 7300GT? Since the Geforce 8 series is pretty good, I figure that the 7 series won't be too much worse... Any ideas?
 
JLV2k5

JLV2k5

Active Member
This GPU will most likely fullfill all of your needs if you are only casually gaming and running games that are not as demanding. I say just go ahead and order the GPU.

good luck
 
O

oregon

Active Member
I played Battlefront 2 with my radeon 9200, and it worked okay, not great though. I would think that is equivalent to the onboard.
 
sg1

sg1

New Member
jnskyliner34 said:
7300GT will play BF2 on high. i played it on med/high on a 7300GS.
Click to expand...
I have the 7300GS and it works great for me, although I don't play high end games as such, I do a "bit of light CAD work and always have my tv card playing on my second monitor even with dreamscene video playing in background with Vista's full aero settings enabled whilst also displaying FF and MSN messenger all which runs at about 1.15GB of my rams2GB resources and 17% load on my 4200 x2 AM2(stock) without any glitches or hiccups with graphical visuals.

I guess the 1GB turbocache of the card is doing its job pretty well ;)
 
Iluvpenguins

Iluvpenguins

New Member
Generally onboard video is crap compared to an actual video card. Though ofcourse, some actual outdated video cards can be crappier than onboard on newer motherboards.
 
kookooshortman55

kookooshortman55

New Member
I would look at the 8600GT. They're pretty cheap now and it plays COD4 on highest settings. Of course you may not play COD4, but at least you know you will be set for the future. And I would think any video card would be good since it takes the load off your chipset and CPU. At least a minimal load. Correct me if I'm wrong.
 
elitehacker

elitehacker

New Member
Call of Duty is not that hardware intensive. If you want to get an idea of what future games would be like, take a look at Crysis, that game will stress even the best system and that is what your should benchmark against. Call of Duty can be played on the highest setting with most mid range cards. Another upcoming game that may be as hardware intensive as Crysis would be Farcry 2.
A card dedicated to graphics will always be better than a onboard chip. Integrated graphics uses system RAM for textures and most of the work is done by the CPU, so yeah if you have integrated graphics don't expect eye popping results. Basically even the cheapest budget graphics card would be better than integrated graphics, and if you want to play recent games, then integrated graphics does not cut it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top