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

For what it is worth, you can turn off all the eye candy in Vista much like Vista home basic is out of the box. This would solve any proposed problems if they do in fact occur. I think as long as you manage what you have loading on start up, you will be fine with your configuration. I doubt the graphics will end up being the bottle neck if you start experiencing slower than expected performance in PS.

I'd probably go separate, just because maybe it'd help and you can get a decent card for $100. Then again I might just wait and see how the onboard ones work. Check out this and this.

MaxxuM wrote in post #7871417
If your example were true then we would simply need a 64MB video card to drive two monitors @ 1680x1050 - it cannot.

That is strange, I used to use an ATI 7000 Video card with 32MB of ram and ran both screens at 1600x1200. This was back in 2000/2001.

Zepher wrote in post #7873231
That is strange, I used to use an ATI 7000 Video card with 32MB of ram and ran both screens at 1600x1200. This was back in 2000/2001.

With Windows Vista & Aero running? XP's desktop is extremely light. Running a non-3D desktop at 1600x1200 isn't very difficult. You can take a look HERE for Vista's minimum requirements (Premium).

What I am impressed with is a monitor that went to 1600x1200 almost nine years ago... Must have cost a pretty penny.

scottoliver wrote in post #7871407
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.

This is the plan.. Just upgrade when I feel the need.

Well I am up and running using the on-board video right now. So far so good, but I havent got my pics from my old computer to really do much performance testing.

I am also using Windows 7 x64 RC.

My Spyder3Pro is not working because the driver isn't signed. I'll have to workaround that so I can get my monitors calibrated.

Thanks for all the suggestions.

B

MaxxuM wrote in post #7873410
With Windows Vista & Aero running? XP's desktop is extremely light. Running a non-3D desktop at 1600x1200 isn't very difficult. You can take a look HERE for Vista's minimum requirements (Premium).

What I am impressed with is a monitor that went to 1600x1200 almost nine years ago... Must have cost a pretty penny.

Used Sony 20" GDM for $40 and a used 19" Viewsonic for free.