Graphic Cards Does a dedicated GPU make your desktop (and movies) look better?

ch@ts

ch@ts

Guide
My brother and mother went laptop shopping for him, and they saw a bunch of laptops. They saw a laptop with an AMD 6670m GPU and one running on an Intel HD3000.
They're absolutely convinced that the desktop looks better because of the GPU, and video as well.

I tried telling them that the desktop should be getting rendered by the Intel HD3000/4000 even if the laptop has a dedicated GPU, because of switchable graphics. I may be wrong, and maybe the AMD GPU was enabled because the laptop was plugged in, but still I see no reason why the desktop should look any different, or behave any differently. Unless one laptop was running windows home edition, and the other home premium with Aero enabled. But I don't think that was the case.

Regarding movies, shouldn't they look the same? Once you adjust the contrast, brightness etc, shouldn't everything render equally?
I haven't used an Intel in years, am used to tinkering around in AMD's CCC, and nVidia's control panel, but can't most of the options there be duplicated in software?

My mother is now planning on buying either a laptop with a 6670 gpu or a new gaming quality desktop. Her main usage is watching youtube and other non-HD videos, using iTunes, reading pdf's, downloading a lot ( a lot!! 2-4GB/day, everyday)
She currently has a 2GB dual-core Atom set-up running XP, which I believe should be enough for her usage, or would be if she added more RAM and upgraded to Windows 7 64-bit.
She's convinced that youtube videos stutter because her computer is slow. Can that actually be the case? They've got a 2mbps MTNL connection with no FUP.
I don't live with them, and the only video I loaded at their place was on my smartphone, and it stuttered like crazy until the buffering finished, so I can't say for sure that it's a network issue, but I do believe it is.

So, my question is - does a dedicated GPU make your desktop (and movies) look better?
 
@ch@ts, the answer is two-fold Yes and No --

Depending on the desktop you are using, especially effects like Windows Glass and smooth transitions in Windows Vista and above are very taxing on the GPU. Heck my HD 5770 is not considered appropriate enough under load for powering these transition.

Also yes, the drivers of the Intel HD series iGP's are poor, this fact doesn't help the fact that anything below the HD3000 in the Intel lineup is next to useless for graphics intensive situations [that includes stuff like Windows Glass et al]. This must the big difference your cousins must have been noticing between the two laptops --> one running of the HD 6670M and the other of the HD3000 / HD4000.

For your Mum I do agree that the Intel ATOM CPU is anaemic for handling any current generation content, HD-content even more so. Even the AMD Brazos lineup needs a refresh, though the base iGP included in the latter allow it to decode most common HD-codec's. I am not a 100% if this is applicable to your Mum's situation, if Youtube is still majorly flash dependent then the anaemic CPU + iGP of the ATOM setup are to blame.

In this scenario I advocate that your Mum goes for an AMD Trinity based laptop, the APU although not a great CPU in itself completely ravages Intel's iGP componenet. For your other cousins they will be better served by an Intel CPU equipped laptop with a discrete GPU of at-least the nVidia GT630 lineup OR above.

Most HD Rips are decoded by basic GPU / iGP units easily these days but lack of this can force the CPU to come into play and older single-core offerings, ATOM and older AMD Athlon offerings [even with very high clocks] are easily decimated by such loads.

Hope this answers your query, Cheerio!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Running netbook with atom processor for 3 years and no such issue, in fact it smoothly runs HD videos which are higher quality than youtube ones. So, adding a GPU might better the response time for your pc(especially when you use things like aero)..whatever, it doesnt make sense to movies...
 
@ALPHA17 Thanks for your reply.
It answers it in part, where you talk about the Atom being anaemic. I know it's not the fastest cpu in the world, but it's a dual-core with hyper threading, and can handle 480p videos. I suppose with all the downloads and iTunes running in the background the system can begin to crawl.
However, I use the machine when I'm at my parents place, and I find it very responsive. However my own machine at home isn't the fastest, it's an AMD Athlon II X3.
I agree that the Atom isn't very powerful and my mother may be unhappy because it's not fast enough. But, if she decides to dump the machine, yayyy for me, because I absolutely love it! 40watts at max load, good enough to watch high quality rips, powerful enough to surf on, 2 cores/4 threads so it's quite responsive, I'll pick it up without a second thought if she no longer wants it.

My mother's only considering i5 and i7 based laptops/desktops with 6670 or better graphics. She thinks that's the minimum she needs for her usage, while I believe that a 3rd gen i3 with HD4000 will easily see her through the next couple of years.

Regarding Aero - I'm running Windows Aero on my 5750, and experienced it running on my friends laptop with HD2000 graphics, and I haven't noticed any lag/difference/slowdowns on either.



The difference my brother and mother were talking about was in image quality not responsiveness. They've come to believe that pictures, the desktop, movies etc are more vivid, sharper, less pixelated, clearer, and generally nicer when displayed via a dedicated gpu. I still find that hard to believe.

My brother bought an i-5 based Lenovo ( don't know the model no) yesterday, and he says that when he switches over from Intels HD3000 to the 6670m the difference in quality is glaringly evident in movies, while viewing photos, and even on the desktop.
He told me he'll play around with the Intel settings to see if thats the cause and update me with the results some time next week.
However, I still have trouble believing that Intel's graphics are that bad.

---------- Post added at 03:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:39 PM ----------
Cybermad said:
Running netbook with atom processor for 3 years and no such issue, in fact it smoothly runs HD videos which are higher quality than youtube ones. So, adding a GPU might better the response time for your pc(especially when you use things like aero)..whatever, it doesnt make sense to movies...
Click to expand...

I agree. I think Atom's rock for non-gaming, everyday machines.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ch@ts said:
My brother bought an i-5 based Lenovo ( don't know the model no) yesterday, and he says that when he switches over from Intels HD3000 to the 6670m the difference in quality is glaringly evident in movies, while viewing photos, and even on the desktop.
He told me he'll play around with the Intel settings to see if thats the cause and update me with the results some time next week.
However, I still have trouble believing that Intel's graphics are that bad.

I agree. I think Atom's rock for non-gaming, everyday machines.
Click to expand...

Well about the quality factor, that is subjective and I would avoid getting drawn into it. But between a Intel HD iGP and a base discrete graphics card I would agree that the latter will provide you a smoother video decode performance [a lot depending on the format of the video].

And yes Intel HD series iGP's are bad, this is what had prompted Intel to make a revision in the iGP architecture when they released Ivy-Bridge. They had promised that gaming will be possible on a ultrabook but unfortunately AMD Trinity completely demolishes Intel here; the iGP is completely outclassed with over ~100% performance difference in certain scenarios, whilst the AMD CPU cannot compete head-to-head with Intel Ivy-Bridge in raw performance it is more than enough from the ultrabook form factor.

Please note AMD Trinity / Llano provide a longer battery life even with their iGPs' turned on.

People consider that the AMD Brazos platform to be better than Intel's ATOM and AMD plans to overhaul the same with Brazos 2.0 which will be later be superseded by Samara.

Hop this helps, Cheerio!!
 
GPUs "offload" the cpu which results in a faster PC. Movies looking good depend on the screen you're viewing it on. A low-end laptop with a TN panel and low reso will make a 1080P movie ordinary however the same movie will look amazing on a 22/24" IPS LCD with high reso.
 
I Have a Pc Powered by a gtx 560 ti and another powered by I3 proccy ,Believe me you can't tell the diff between desktops using windows 7.Regarding videos ati has dynamic contrast,superwhite and other post proccesing features but usually its better to turn these off.I aklso had an ati 5770hd and it had no problem handling windows 7 aero even near full load even though i used many themes and lastly its the Screen more than gpu which creates the illusion.
 
What they tell is true - atleast the movie part of it. Old motherboard based graphic chips have all kinds of weirdo bugs in DXVA implementations. Any modern AMD (fusion or higher) or Intel (sandy/ivy i3/i5/i7) would be okay though.

Atoms are best avoided since they can't decode hd video properly.

Also if you have enough graphics horse power, you can use high quality renderers like madVR which look far better than the usual windows media player junk.
 
I dont think its true, at least not for the HD4000 series. Anandtech has said it comes close to replacing entry level dGPU for HTPC usage.
 
Back
Top