Should I use motherboard's built-in video card?

I am building a new PC for photo editing.

Since I don't game I was considering using the motherboard's built in video card instead of buying a separate card. The motherboard has DVI + VGA outputs for dual monitor support & 128MB intergrated memory so it won't share my system's RAM.

I use DPP, Lightroom 2, & GIMP. I will probably upgrade to Photoshop at some point. No 3d work.

Motherboard:
http://www.tigerdirect​.com …Details.asp?Edp​No=4408236

The system will have 8GB of DDR2 PC8500 RAM & the AMD Phenom II X4 940 Quad core processor.

Is there any reason I should consider a 512MB PCIe2.0 video card?

Thanks
B

No reason why you can't use it for those applications. If you do experience any issues an ATI or Nvidia card will serve you well.

Windows Vista is a real hog when it comes to eye-candy. To fully take advantage of Aero I would personally recommend a GPU that scores higher than 3.5 in the MS Index and a 4 if you like to scroll through open windows. Otherwise, you could just turn off Aero and trim the GUI down (turn off slide, shadows...) and run really fast. So I would recommend something in the low 4000 range like the ATI 4650 range. It's tons faster than the one you pointed out and will only be around $50. You could try the one on the montherboard and if it's fine then just stay with it. Otherwise, you could always get one later.

Windows Vista won't hog your video RAM with 8gb of RAM . You'll be fine with 128.

I run a 3450. Like you I don't game, but my mobo didn't have on board video. I spent $20 on the card and it works fine. I turned off Aero, simply because I didn't want all the fluff and LR 2.3 runs great, as do all the typical stuff like FF, Office, etc.

cosworth wrote in post #7865962
Windows Vista won't hog your video RAM with 8gb of RAM . You'll be fine with 128.

Microsoft's 'Vista Premium Ready PC' states that 128MB is the minimum requirement to run Aero Glass. Here are three reasons not to go with the 'minimum' requirements:

1. Microsoft low-balls their minimum requirements. When has anything programed by Microsoft run well at minimum specs?
2. As you open more windows Aero will use more and more of the GPUs resorces. Once the GPU memory is taken Vista will start to use system RAM which adds more memory requests (to the controller/bridge) which will increase latency.
3. LR does leverage the GPU for tilts, zooms and things like that (from what I've read) - but not editing - that's for the CPU. Adobe CEO Shantanu Narayen recommended 128MB in the past for the GPU (for CS4/LR). Again, this is minimum.

I would say away from minimums, unless of course you turn off Aero and some of the other bells and whistles so your other software won't have to compete with video RAM. You really don't want to have to rely on system RAM for any graphics.

Here is the thing guys. That motherboard has an onboard ATI Radeon HD3300 which has a dedicated 128MB of sideport memory AND it can use 512MB of shared memory. With 8GB of system memory using some of this as video memory is really not a big deal. This is not your average on-board video solution.

This will run Vista admirably. In fact, probably better than a $20 PCI-E card would.

dalto wrote in post #7868824
Here is the thing guys. That motherboard has an onboard ATI Radeon HD3300 which has a dedicated 128MB of sideport memory AND it can use 512MB of shared memory. With 8GB of system memory using some of this as video memory is really not a big deal. This is not your average on-board video solution.

This will run Vista admirably. In fact, probably better than a $20 PCI-E card would.

This is the longer version of my "Don't worry."

This mobo's 128 and Vista is fine.

dalto wrote in post #7868824
Here is the thing guys. That motherboard has an onboard ATI Radeon HD3300 which has a dedicated 128MB of sideport memory AND it can use 512MB of shared memory. With 8GB of system memory using some of this as video memory is really not a big deal. This is not your average on-board video solution.

This will run Vista admirably. In fact, probably better than a $20 PCI-E card would.

Yea, start opening up multiple 20MB images, zoom, tilt, filter, crop... then add Aero Glass ontop of that and you'll be into system memory quickly. If you go past 1680x1050 you'll be into system RAM with the first 2-3 RAW images.

The issue has never been memory, but what 'type' of memory. Once you start using system memory you involve the memory bus which adds steps to processing images onto the screen - that means increasing time. Keeping more of the imaging processes on the video card typically means getting one with more memory. The current sweet spot is 512MB.

But, like I said. Try it out and see what happens. If you have a friend with an extra video card try that one out too.

Video memory is little consequence when opening multiple 20mb files.

Sure a 1gb video card would be grand. Yes, I would like to go get my groceries in an Aston Martin too.

That mobo and 8gb of RAM with Vista 64 is more than enough....

Me? 1Ds Mk.II, CS4, LR and 4gb of ram with 512 on a GeForce crammed into Vista 64. MORE than enough for me. Big files, lots of processing and I manage just fine with aero spinning...

When did Photoshop start putting images into the video memory on the video card?

cosworth wrote in post #7870723
Video memory is little consequence when opening multiple 20mb files.

Sure a 1gb video card would be grand. Yes, I would like to go get my groceries in an Aston Martin too.

That mobo and 8gb of RAM with Vista 64 is more than enough....

Me? 1Ds Mk.II, CS4, LR and 4gb of ram with 512 on a GeForce crammed into Vista 64. MORE than enough for me. Big files, lots of processing and I manage just fine with aero spinning...

Zepher wrote in post #7870824
When did Photoshop start putting images into the video memory on the video card?

Photoshop does not 'put' images into video memory, Vista does. Anything that does anything on the screen will draw from video memory. The more intense these things become the more memory/GPU power is necessary to accomplish this. Let me put it into other terms.

When you open up a program that program requires memory to open. If you open another then more memory is taken up. Eventually if you keep opening programs Vista will use up all available RAM and begin to use the OS's page file. This is over simplified, but gets the point across.

Now, Photoshop will open up an image and that image 'must' be drawn on the screen (in video memory). If Aero and the Sidebar are open then the video card's memory has those within it's memory as well. When you try to twist or turn the image it must be 're-drawn' onto the screen - taking more GPU and memory. The more images you open the more that must be stored into video memory to be called up. Once you use a filter the CPU must make the changes then the images are changed in video memory - using up a little more video RAM. Anything and everything that goes up on your monitor is also in video memory. If it relys on OpenGL or DirectX (video) then even more memory is used. Once all available video card memory is used the video card starts 'swapping' out information with the system memory which is slower. The video card will try to start putting older things (stuff in the background) onto system memory (going from GPU > bridge > memory controller > RAM then reversed to get back to the GPU). This slows tha process down a good bit. It starts getting more complex from that point as some processes need the CPU involved. ATI and Nvidia do things a little different with thier drivers which dictate how this process happens. Needless to say, a $50 video card will run more smoothly, require far less bus activity and be able to output more information than any on-board solution.

If the the OP want's to upgrade to Windows 7 there are more reasons. Win7 is said to be able to leverage the GPU for some screen rendering (desktop and other programs).

I'm not talking about upgrading to a 4870, there's no need. Just that I know they will get improved performance by upping the GPU 'slightly' so that they are not at the minimum specs.

No, Vista uses RAM to help video rendering. Not the other way around.

Vista never uses Video ram for application addressing. It does the reverse. The RAM shares memory with the video card, not the reverse.

I could say it 40 different ways and I still don't think you'd get it. Why do you think that I have an older mobo that only addresses 4gb of RAM and Vista can only use 3.4 gb for applications? You do not understand memory addressing and Vista it appears.

I think you should try it out with the onboard card, and if you're not happy with video performance then buy a separate video card. I don't think Vista (especialy 64-bit, which is required in order to use 8GB of RAM) is going to choke.

cosworth wrote in post #7871296
No, Vista uses RAM to help video rendering. Not the other way around.

Vista never uses Video ram for application addressing. It does the reverse. The RAM shares memory with the video card, not the reverse.

I could say it 40 different ways and I still don't think you'd get it. Why do you think that I have an older mobo that only addresses 4gb of RAM and Vista can only use 3.4 gb for applications? You do not understand memory addressing and Vista it appears.

I think you're misunderstanding me. Yes, the CPU does the data processing, it even makes the changes to images (in most cases), but the CPU does not rasterize images. The CPU sends its solutions to the GPU and the GPU decides how to process this information and send it to the monitor. So, I am not debating that the CPU does not run the programs just that it does not process the images that are on the screen directly - the GPU does this. If your example were true then we would simply need a 64MB video card to drive two monitors @ 1680x1050 - it cannot. I think you are making light of the GPU's contribution to Vista and even 2D processing. You can take a look at How Stuff Works to get a better ideal of what I am trying [poorly] to get across.