What is a discrete graphics card?, and some say both shared & dedicated graphics

[Red_Rattler]

I've seen some computers, especially laptops using the specifications of "discrete graphics". Is discrete graphics just the same as dedicated graphics?
And then their are some that use the words "hybrid graphics", and some using "X size & brand of shared graphics + X size & brand of dedicated graphics".

 

[JCitron]

Yes, this is correct. A discrete graphics card is a separate video card that does not use the system RAM which as you know is a no-no with Trainz.

When looking at laptops, you might be interested in looking at this website here as it gives the specifications on the video cards and chips that are used in the different mobile systems.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/FAQ-Tips-Technics.123.0.html

This page has a link for the different graphics chips. The main page has other good stuff on it.

You'll be surprised by what the specs spell out for instance some of the ATI game chips really are lousy and are really dumbed down compared to others. Some of the really expensive mobile workstations have really lousy chips as explained by the specifications which say whether the card is good or not for games as well as cad work where even they're considered mediocre for cad work as well.

John

 

[sniper297]

A discrete graphics card is one that won't call the media when it sees you getting into a cab with Heidi Fleiss.

Seriously, seems to be another name for a dedicated video card;

http://www.ehow.com/about_4759498_graphics-cards.html

As for hybrid, been a long time since I had an AMD computer but the AMD CPU used to have something called 3D NOW, and it looks like combined with an ATI card that's something similar;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATI_Hybrid_Graphics

 

[Red_Rattler]

I thought broadband was meant to be faster, not slower!

Would this indicate a dedicated or shared?: Intel HD Graphics 3000, or would it depend. I have a feeling it may be a low end card.

 

[norfolksouthern37]

hybrid i believe is what my own system is. i have a single nvidia 9400M when i want to save power, and 2 nvidia GTX 280M cards for primary use. if i will be on batt power for some time, i can switch to the other card.

 

[JCitron]

hybrid i believe is what my own system is. i have a single nvidia 9400M when i want to save power, and 2 nvidia GTX 280M cards for primary use. if i will be on batt power for some time, i can switch to the other card.

There are a lot of systems like that now. My Alienware 17m has only a discrete video card.

Older Lenovo T400s have an older ATI video card as well as the built-in Intel integrated graphics chip. We ran into a problem with this setup when the company rolled out McAfee Endpoint Encryption (EPE). This software boots up first ahead of the OS load and disrupts the initialization of the discrete video when Windows boots. This caused black screens instead of video and drove a lot of the techs nuts. We figured out that we needed to swap the chip to the built-in Intel chip before installing the software. If not it was a pain to install the drivers for the Intel chips afterwards because we had to go into safe mode, uninstall the ATI and install the Intel from a thumbdrive.

John

 

[norfolksouthern37]

mine's an m17x, you mean they come with only one card?

 

[sniper297]

Not an actual video card, not an onboard graphics chip either;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_HD_Graphics

From what I'm reading there it's integrated graphics built into the CPU itself, which best I recall was the original idea behind the AMD 3D NOW CPU.

Basically, for playing 3D video games, you want an actual plug in PCIE video card, anything integrated generally shares the system RAM. That not only reduces the available RAM for programs, it's also slower for video processing, because a real video card uses VRAM which is designed specifically to process graphics faster that regular system RAM.

Notebooks/laptops are always a compromise - with a desktop (misnamed these days since most are in tower cases that sit on the floor rather than on the desk) you can get a big honking heavy power supply that dims all the lights in the house and costs $500 per day in electric bills, along with the fastest most powerful components money can buy. But you can't lug it around with you without a wagon full of car batteries and an AC inverter, which would let you play for about 3 minutes before the batteries needed recharging.

A laptop sacrifices performance for portability, in order to make them smaller and lighter weight and have the battery last for a while, they have to use components that are smaller, lighter, and generate less heat. With electronics speed = heat, smaller size = heat, add big cooling fans and the laptop gets kinda clunky and needs a bigger battery to power cooling fans meaning more weight and clunkiness - so the only way they can go is make it slower.

You can get fast powerful laptops that will play games just fine, but dollar for dollar you'll spend a lot more to get the same performance as a desktop and reach the upper limit a lot sooner. Ergo, unless you spend a lot of time on the road, don't get a laptop instead of a desktop. Got enough money for both then go for it, but the laptop will cost a lot more for the same performance.

 

[JCitron]

Not an actual video card, not an onboard graphics chip either;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_HD_Graphics

From what I'm reading there it's integrated graphics built into the CPU itself, which best I recall was the original idea behind the AMD 3D NOW CPU.

Basically, for playing 3D video games, you want an actual plug in PCIE video card, anything integrated generally shares the system RAM. That not only reduces the available RAM for programs, it's also slower for video processing, because a real video card uses VRAM which is designed specifically to process graphics faster that regular system RAM.

Notebooks/laptops are always a compromise - with a desktop (misnamed these days since most are in tower cases that sit on the floor rather than on the desk) you can get a big honking heavy power supply that dims all the lights in the house and costs $500 per day in electric bills, along with the fastest most powerful components money can buy. But you can't lug it around with you without a wagon full of car batteries and an AC inverter, which would let you play for about 3 minutes before the batteries needed recharging.

A laptop sacrifices performance for portability, in order to make them smaller and lighter weight and have the battery last for a while, they have to use components that are smaller, lighter, and generate less heat. With electronics speed = heat, smaller size = heat, add big cooling fans and the laptop gets kinda clunky and needs a bigger battery to power cooling fans meaning more weight and clunkiness - so the only way they can go is make it slower.

You can get fast powerful laptops that will play games just fine, but dollar for dollar you'll spend a lot more to get the same performance as a desktop and reach the upper limit a lot sooner. Ergo, unless you spend a lot of time on the road, don't get a laptop instead of a desktop. Got enough money for both then go for it, but the laptop will cost a lot more for the same performance.

Nice summary of it all, Jim. I like your description of a honking desktop machine.

The newer Intel processors, the K-series such as the new Ivybridge, have complete HD graphics on the CPU. In the olden days, such as a few years ago or less, you could actually see the Intel GPU on the motherboard. I know because it said GM45 (c) intel on it.

Like everything else these days, the parts are becoming smaller and smaller and more integrated. I remember when I/O circuits were on boards the size of a 13 x 19 paper. Today they put all that stuff on a single speck located in the upper corner somewhere on the CPU or bridge chip.

John

 

[BD1]

placemarker

 

[sniper297]

Parts are smaller and more integrated, I was thinking about that a few months back while cleaning dust out of my two Dells. Seems to be a matter of bragging rights or something, we got 1 million transistor circuits in this 2 inch square chip, we got 10 million, 100 million, 1 billion, 500 billion, etc. The overall size of the CPU isn't much bigger than the 16mhz 80286 I had back in 85, and it's much faster and more powerful, wow! Except if you really look at it, that little chip needs a monster heat sink that could be used as an emergency boat anchor, a fan that almost causes the case to hover, and ducting shrouds that take up 1/4 of the space inside the case. True, they have crammed a lot more speed and number crunching into about the same size chip over the last 25 years, but to keep it cool requires a lot more square inches of hardware bolted onto that little chip. Makes you wonder if it would be more efficient to redesign CPUs to be a lot larger in size.

 

[JCitron]

mine's an m17x, you mean they come with only one card?

This is correct. The Alienware only has the discrete video card and no built-in Intel, or at least that's how they used to be. I have the same machine.

It looks they've changed the video card completely to NVidia from ATI now. At one point it was only ATI, later on they had a choice between ATI and NVidia, and now it's only the NVidia 680m.

John

 

[JCitron]

Parts are smaller and more integrated, I was thinking about that a few months back while cleaning dust out of my two Dells. Seems to be a matter of bragging rights or something, we got 1 million transistor circuits in this 2 inch square chip, we got 10 million, 100 million, 1 billion, 500 billion, etc. The overall size of the CPU isn't much bigger than the 16mhz 80286 I had back in 85, and it's much faster and more powerful, wow! Except if you really look at it, that little chip needs a monster heat sink that could be used as an emergency boat anchor, a fan that almost causes the case to hover, and ducting shrouds that take up 1/4 of the space inside the case. True, they have crammed a lot more speed and number crunching into about the same size chip over the last 25 years, but to keep it cool requires a lot more square inches of hardware bolted onto that little chip. Makes you wonder if it would be more efficient to redesign CPUs to be a lot larger in size.

The old 80286 was quite the processor in its day. I skipped over that one and went right for the 80386 which operated at 1MIPs or 1 million instructions per second! That was the same speed as the VAX 11/780 which was out at the same time. That was blazingly fast in its day and was quickly superceded by the '486 and then up. Today both the processor and the machine are in the scrap pile somewhere or are museum pieces.

I agree. The cooling requirements for the newer processors is getting absurd. The heat sink I put on my new chip, which actually runs pretty cool compared to the older i7s, is about the size of my refridgerator. The procedure for connecting the heatsink to the motherboard was close to assembling an automobile with all the gazillion little screws, buttons, and twisty-knobs needed to hold everything together.

When I was a hardware tech, I worked on old Ontel OP-series intelligent terminals. They had heat sinks on their power supplies that weighed more than I did. They were so heavy that one of the managers kiddingly said that they were used as boat anchors during WWII! The power supplies themselves had capacitors that had bleeder resistors across the poles. When the caps were disconnected, they had to be discharged and these resistors were placed between the two poles. They were 110,000μF caps the size of soda cans which were pretty scary to work around!

https://www.msu.edu/~mrr/mycomp/ontel/ontframe.htm

https://www.msu.edu/~mrr/mycomp/ontel/ontframe.htm --- Here's my contribution on this product line.

John