A technical question

[Pinnacle-Project]

Just for fun, I thought I would post a technical question. It is good to have these every now and then on a technical forum.

Anyway, I need to build a new computer. My old one is well past due for being replaced.

I am looking at this processor.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819116987

I have not decided on a motherboard yet but here is one that will work for this discussion:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813132116

The processor description says, "Integrated Graphics -Intel HD Graphics 4600"

The motherboard description says, "Onboard Video Chipset Supported only by CPU with integrated graphic"


In the past, if a motherboard had an integrated video chipset, it did not matter what the processor was. And, by having that integrated video chipset in the motherboard, the user could skip buying a dedicated display adapter. Now, it appears without the proper processor, the integrated video chipset serves no purpose. Am I correct so far?

Further, this combination of hardware seems pretty common which leads me to wonder, how many people still build their computers with dedicated display adapters. I am NOT a gamer but if I was, would it be reasonable to build a computer without a dedicated display adapter?

Thanks for your help.

[CeeBee]

Having the GPU integrated makes it faster.And you are correct, you need the proper CPU to take advantage of the on-board video.
For mainstream usage this is fine. This is definitely NOT a gaming system; a gaming system would have dual video cards and an 8-core CPU... but this integrated video system would still be on par with the high-end machines from 3 years ago.

[Webhead]

Personally, if I was going to spend that much money, I think I might just spring a few more bucks for the dedicated GeForce card. Just to make sure to get the full use out of that CPU. In laptops and things like that, then this sort of setup would be great. But for a desktop? With a Haswell quad-core I7? That's a processor not being fully utilized imo.

Now for a powerful laptop, then this would make sense.

All that said, if you're not doing any gaming, then it might make more sense to spend a little less on the CPU and put the money saved towards an SSD. I think a decent setup (non-gaming) would be a I5/8GB/Intel HD/SSD.

By the way, isn't Broadwell supposed to be out soon? Might even be good to wait for that to come out. If anything it would drive down the price of Haswell based products.

[slgrieb]

I think the first question you have to ask yourself is always, "What do I want to do with the system?" If you mostly write short documents in Word or watch Netflix, I would definitely consider the system to be overkill. In most real world applications, I'd most likely go with an i5, a less expensive board, and use some of the savings toward fast memory and an SSD. Intel's onchip graphics aren't as good as AMD's, but most users find them adequate. I'd suggest taking a hard look at Crucial's SSD offerings. They seem like very good bang for the buck. Overall, I have to agree with Webby.

[Webhead]

By the way, there's a nice explanation of the differences between I3/I5/I7 if you lookup the "Techquickie" channel on Youtube. He also talks about the difference between Quadro and GeForce (hint: They are the same -- it's just that the Quadro costs a lot more).

[slgrieb]

By the way, there's a nice explanation of the differences between I3/I5/I7 if you lookup the "Techquickie" channel on Youtube. He also talks about the difference between Quadro and GeForce (hint: They are the same -- it's just that the Quadro costs a lot more).

My reaction is that if I ever met this guy, I would first stab him in the throat, then (if I didn't have a baseball bat) I'd stomp on him until I ruptured most of his internal organs. Not worth a bullet. WAY to much verbiage for too little real data.

I realize that I might be diverging from the topic a bit, but take a moment to look at this link from Tom's Hardware Guide.

Now, I realize that the article is specifically targeted at gaming performance, but I think these days that you might use it as a guideline to overall CPU performance, and Best Bang For The Buck general assessments. The entire post is worth a read, but the real meat of the story is on pages 4 and 6 of the article which address a lot of performance question, but page 4 really hits the meat of memory management and cache issues.

[Pinnacle-Project]

I realize that I might be diverging from the topic a bit, but take a moment to look at this link from Tom's Hardware Guide.

Now, I realize that the article is specifically targeted at gaming performance, but I think these days that you might use it as a guideline to overall CPU performance, and Best Bang For The Buck general assessments. The entire post is worth a read, but the real meat of the story is on pages 4 and 6 of the article which address a lot of performance question, but page 4 really hits the meat of memory management and cache issues.

Good read. Somewhere in there it mentioned futureproofing. Essentially, this is what I am doing. I don't build new computers very often so I don't mind spending a little extra.

[Webhead]

My reaction is that if I ever met this guy, I would first stab him in the throat, then (if I didn't have a baseball bat) I'd stomp on him until I ruptured most of his internal organs. Not worth a bullet. WAY to much verbiage for too little real data.

I realize that I might be diverging from the topic a bit, but take a moment to look at this link from Tom's Hardware Guide.

Now, I realize that the article is specifically targeted at gaming performance, but I think these days that you might use it as a guideline to overall CPU performance, and Best Bang For The Buck general assessments. The entire post is worth a read, but the real meat of the story is on pages 4 and 6 of the article which address a lot of performance question, but page 4 really hits the meat of memory management and cache issues.

Hmmm. 6 pages of highly technical literature describing every modern processor available, complete with colorful graphic comparison charts that will take several hours to read and by the time I'm done reading it, the next generation of cpu's will be out or a quick 2 minute video covering the basics. Yeah, I think I'm good with the video. But thanks.

[slgrieb]

Hmmm. 6 pages of highly technical literature describing every modern processor available, complete with colorful graphic comparison charts that will take several hours to read and by the time I'm done reading it, the next generation of cpu's will be out or a quick 2 minute video covering the basics. Yeah, I think I'm good with the video. But thanks.

I get the point, but I did suggest a couple of shortcuts to what I think are the most relevant portions of the article.

[slgrieb]

Good read. Somewhere in there it mentioned futureproofing. Essentially, this is what I am doing. I don't build new computers very often so I don't mind spending a little extra.

The problem with trying to future proof a system is that, by most measures, hardware costs vs. performance continue to see a price model that makes high performance hardware increasingly cheap. So, I think a high end system today, may look like a low end dog in five years. Generally, when I build a system, I tend to shoot for mid-range technologies and performance that will be viable for about 3 years. Outside of that window, it's just too difficult to predict where technologies are going, and what may be desirable and cost effective. So, I'm suggesting you could build a mid-range rig for a lot less money, and probably replace it in a couple of years or so, and still be money ahead.