What's so bad about integrated graphics?

Discussion in 'iMac' started by n459umb4786ers, Sep 9, 2009.

  1. n459umb4786ers macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    #1
    Why do people say integrated video cards suck? Aren't they the same as other video cards? So the NVIDIA GeForce 9400M isn't as great as Apple blabbers about?
     
  2. Bill Gates macrumors 68020

    Bill Gates

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2006
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    #2
    Nothing is terrible about integrated graphics. A lot of people tend to extrapolate qualities of one or more bad products to a whole group, and have done so with the Intel GMA series and integrated graphics as a whole. You also have to realize that integrated solutions at the level of quality that the Nvidia GeForce 9400M delivers have not been around for very long, at least not at this level of exposure, and many aren't willing to give them a chance. The 9400M is a very good GPU and is definitely capable of meeting the needs of a large portion of Apple's customer base.
     
  3. Wheaty macrumors regular

    Wheaty

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    Location:
    Cheshire, UK
    #3
    Once upon a time integrated graphics was the cheapest way to get pictures on your screen.

    Memory was expensive and a separate card just for graphics with its own ram stuck significant £££ on to the price of a computer. On the downside it was stealing memory from your programs to use and slowing things down.

    These days technology has changed allot both hardware and software. Integrated graphics is very well planned out, rather than just a budget option. The increase in laptop popularity has helped as well everything is integrated more or less, so huge leaps have been made.

    So, Integrated graphics bad? No! I currently love it, I have a fab little mini sat on my desk quietly doing its job. rather than a huge power hungry behemoth on the floor.

    Unless you plan on seriously intensive games, or work in some lab, modelling complex fluid dynamics around the latest oil-rig that you have just designed... then I suspect integrated will be just fine.
     
  4. Flybye macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #4
    There is nothing wrong with integrated graphics...for the average user who does nothing but check emails and browse websites. For anyone else, it is absolutely painful. Take me, for example. I am a PC gamer and I tend to change out my video card almost every year or so to get the maximum performance, and I'd do the same once I get a Mac Pro. For professionals doing lots of video editing, 3D animators, etc, it is equally important for maximum performance.

    Unfortunately, the only Macs that have the ability to upgrade video cards are the Power Macs and Mac Pros. I can hardly even run a Mac version of one of my games on my Mini just because the 2yr old integrated Intel GMA 950 is slower than my 1992 electronic organizer :rolleyes:.

    I'd say for 80-90% of the computer users out there, integrated graphics is just fine and dandy. :)
     
  5. Thunderbird macrumors 6502a

    Thunderbird

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2005
    #5
    What about for things like photoshop? Is onboard graphics good enough?
     
  6. alphaod macrumors Core

    alphaod

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Location:
    NYC
    #6
    Photoshop is predominantly processor intensive, so onboard graphics do not matter.
     
  7. AAPLaday Guest

    AAPLaday

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2008
    Location:
    Manchester UK
    #7
    The 9400m in the new macs is better than the old intel GMA series and for an average user will suffice. I do feel however the only macs that should have the 9400m is the minis and the white macbook. There is noway it should be in any of the current imacs IMO
     

Share This Page