Do I need NVIDIA GPU, or i5 2500 integrated good enough?

[RobS10]

I am going to be purchasing a new Dell Vostro with an i5 2500 in the next couple days. I have little experience in hardware selection as I'm typing on a 10 year old Dell and use a Latitude laptop at work currently. As much as I've read, the new integrated graphics on the Sandybridge chips are decent (and would save me about $100 over the NVIDIA card), but had initially planned on getting a NVIDIA GT420. I'm not a gamer, but do use Photoshop and eventually CorelDraw. I may do a little video editing. I'm hoping to get at least 5 years out of this system, so want to be able to handle some future graphics demands that always seem to come up. Is the onboard graphics "good enough" and save the $$ (assuming I can add a card later), or will my uses see an improvement with the dedicated, OEM quality card?

 

[Numenorean]

I think you could see an improvement with CS5.

However, I can't seem to find anything to confirm.

I changed from an older 256MB GTS 8600 to a newer 460 GTX and saw a difference in CS5.

However, I am running at 2560x1600 resolution, so maybe that has something to do with it.

I have tried to find somewhere that compared the Sandy Bridge integrated graphics to a discreet solution in CS5, but apparently nobody can be bothered to do that, or it's hard to find.

 

[RobS10]

I think you could see an improvement with CS5.

However, I can't seem to find anything to confirm.

I changed from an older 256MB GTS 8600 to a newer 460 GTX and saw a difference in CS5.

However, I am running at 2560x1600 resolution, so maybe that has something to do with it.

I have tried to find somewhere that compared the Sandy Bridge integrated graphics to a discreet solution in CS5, but apparently nobody can be bothered to do that, or it's hard to find.

I've been looking for those comparisons too. Guess it's all a little new for those kind of tests to trickle out.

 

[jjmIII]

so want to be able to handle some future graphics demands that always seem to come up.

Planning for the future....go the extra power. With a laptop you won't have the chance to later.

 

[RobS10]

Planning for the future....go the extra power. With a laptop you won't have the chance to later.

My rational too...guess I forgot to mention it will be for Desktop.

 

[PingSpike]

For a desktop I'd just go with the IGP and if it doesn't seem like enough, buy a graphics card later. I bet you'll be happy with just the IGP though. Graphics cards are about the easiest upgrade there is.

 

[Stuka87]

I take it you are looking at the Vostro 460? Pretty sure its the only one with Sandy bridge right now. If you want the Dell warranty, and a faster card, then go with the Radeon 5670.

But if you don't care, go with nothing and go out and buy a 5770 or the like to throw in for a lot less than what Dell is asking for the 5670.

 

[TomBk]

For a desktop I'd just go with the IGP and if it doesn't seem like enough, but a graphics card later.

The only problem with that is the H67 mobos that support the integrated graphics don't support overclocking the CPU. If you don't care about OC'g, that would work.

 

[RobS10]

The only problem with that is the H67 mobos that support the integrated graphics don't support overclocking the CPU. If you don't care about OC'g, that would work.

No OC on this box. I went stripped...no GPU and 2GB of RAM.

Feels pretty slow, using 70% of RAM fairly regularly. Using 1GB with 1 IE window (3 tabs) open (+ the usual background crap running). Now I've been vacillating over whether to add 4GB (2X2GB) for a total of 6GB of DDR3 RAM, or spend an extra $45 that could go to wards a GPU on a 8GB (2X4GB) RAM kit for an overkill of 10GB...I know, I could see if anyone on Ebay would buy my lowly 2X1 GB of OEM RAM.

 

[yottabit]

Some Photoshop CS5 filters are CUDA accelerated. If you plan on using those than you could benefit from an NVIDIA card, otherwise I think you will be fine with the integrated graphics if you are running 1080p or under. The bad thing is the i5 2500 only has HD2000 graphics which isn't too great. If you use Premiere I believe that program is actually CUDA accelerated.

So I think you can skate by with the integrated graphics, if you want a surefire solution and DON'T care about CUDA then you could get something like a 5750, and if you do care about CUDA you should probably get something like a GTX460.

EDIT: Just saw your post- I definitely think you should go with the 8 GB of ram if you are going to be doing mostly photo editing and video editing.

 

[Gooberlx2]

I went stripped...no GPU and 2GB of RAM.

Feels pretty slow, using 70% of RAM fairly regularly......

Yeah, 2GB was never going to be enough. 8GB is a nice sweet spot, but more never hurts.

 

[RobS10]

Some Photoshop CS5 filters are CUDA accelerated. If you plan on using those than you could benefit from an NVIDIA card, otherwise I think you will be fine with the integrated graphics if you are running 1080p or under. The bad thing is the i5 2500 only has HD2000 graphics which isn't too great. If you use Premiere I believe that program is actually CUDA accelerated.

So I think you can skate by with the integrated graphics, if you want a surefire solution and DON'T care about CUDA then you could get something like a 5750, and if you do care about CUDA you should probably get something like a GTX460.

EDIT: Just saw your post- I definitely think you should go with the 8 GB of ram if you are going to be doing mostly photo editing and video editing.

Actually been able to get by with Photoshp Elements - CS5 is beyond what I need (or understand). So far, most of what I have been doing that's memory intensive is editing high res. scans of fonts and graphics. I've thought of making video clips of the making of some of my products, as well as a box of home movies on mini tapes as my home PC is only an old P4 1GB system, but that may be more down the road.

 

[RobS10]

Yeah, 2GB was never going to be enough. 8GB is a nice sweet spot, but more never hurts.

Do you know if memory usage is linear, i.e. if I'm using say 50% of 2GB, then I would be using 25% if I had 4GB? Does doubling physical memory available halve amount used?

 

[Gooberlx2]

Do you know if memory usage is linear, i.e. if I'm using say 50% of 2GB, then I would be using 25% if I had 4GB? Does doubling physical memory available halve amount used?

Smarter operating systems like, Windows 7, will analyze your usage patterns and try to schedule programs to put in to memory so that they load quicker, for example (SuperFetch).

RAM sitting idle isn't doing anything for you. Likewise, an OS that mismanages it, or doesn't have enough is bad too.

So the answer is "it depends". Put in 6GB and you might find the OS will naturally occupy around 4GB on average...but that usage number might not change if you up the RAM to 8GB. In your case, with Photoshop, I'd put in as much RAM as possible. And this assumes you're running a 64-bit operating system.

 

[RobS10]

Smarter operating systems like, Windows 7, will analyze your usage patterns and try to schedule programs to put in to memory so that they load quicker, for example (SuperFetch).

RAM sitting idle isn't doing anything for you. Likewise, an OS that mismanages it, or doesn't have enough is bad too.

So the answer is "it depends". Put in 6GB and you might find the OS will naturally occupy around 4GB on average...but that usage number might not change if you up the RAM to 8GB. In your case, with Photoshop, I'd put in as much RAM as possible. And this assumes you're running a 64-bit operating system.

I'm coming from a place where for the last 10 years I've been running an old Dell P3 512MB RAM ATI Radeon 32MB GPU machine. I never loaded anything memory intensive on it because of the hardware, so don't have a great grasp of how much memory is going to be enough to make it "fast" (and feel fast for at least 5 years), and how much is a waste of money.Trying to understand how the OS makes use of memory...so even though Win7 and a few running programs may only need say 3GB quickly, an additional 3 GB, (or 5GB if I had 8 total) would contribute to making everything run a little faster, rather than "hitting the wall" where the extra RAM doesn't get utilized, like if my OS were only 32bit? I read up on Superfetch a little. An interesting feature, and sounds like something that definitely likes more RAM.

This is my work computer, so I'll never do any gaming on it ;-). The version of Photoshop I use is Elements, V7 (for now), and don't think it's as big of a RAM hog as CS5. I do some photo editing, but haven't taken the time yet to learn all the bells and whistles on PSE to do serious stuff. Some of the scans I edit are high rez, so files can exceed 10MB easily. I am planning on loading QuickBooks and some kind of vector conversion program to work with converting old lettering books into usable font libraries. I may do a little video capture/encoding of Mini-DV tapes, but trying not to make this computer my primary place to do it. I hope to have enough money later this year to build my own for home and do most of the video stuff on it.
I do run XP mode on occasion (my OS is Win7 Pro 64), but that doesn't seem to be too hard on memory usage so far.

Whew, sorry to be so long winded!

 

[badb0y]

I think 4 GB is fairly adequate. You can always upgrade RAM easily later on if you need to, same with the GPU.

 

[catilley1092]

As long as you don't use the PC for graphic intensive processes, like running Folding@Home, the integrate graphics should be OK.

Being that you have a PC, you can always add the compatible video card of your choice, whenever your needs & budget allows.

Cat

 

[catilley1092]

No OC on this box. I went stripped...no GPU and 2GB of RAM.

Feels pretty slow, using 70% of RAM fairly regularly. Using 1GB with 1 IE window (3 tabs) open (+ the usual background crap running). Now I've been vacillating over whether to add 4GB (2X2GB) for a total of 6GB of DDR3 RAM, or spend an extra $45 that could go to wards a GPU on a 8GB (2X4GB) RAM kit for an overkill of 10GB...I know, I could see if anyone on Ebay would buy my lowly 2X1 GB of OEM RAM.

When I bought my PC in 2009, I accepted the "quick ship" model that had 2GB RAM, the minimum that's recommended by MS for 64 bit Win 7. It didn't take long to find out I needed more.

So I upgraded to 4GB (it's max), and videos loaded faster, I was able to run XP Mode, and the PC ran faster overall. 4GB by many, is known as the "sweet spot" for most, but not all, home users. This, I read in an article on Paul Thurrott's Super Site for Windows.

Many users feels they need 16GB or more RAM, when 4 to 8GB is quite plenty.

Cat

 

[RobS10]

When I bought my PC in 2009, I accepted the "quick ship" model that had 2GB RAM, the minimum that's recommended by MS for 64 bit Win 7. It didn't take long to find out I needed more.

So I upgraded to 4GB (it's max), and videos loaded faster, I was able to run XP Mode, and the PC ran faster overall. 4GB by many, is known as the "sweet spot" for most, but not all, home users. This, I read in an article on Paul Thurrott's Super Site for Windows.

Many users feels they need 16GB or more RAM, when 4 to 8GB is quite plenty.

Cat

Yeah, 2GB is pretty sluggish, but 16 would be nuts for me! I admit that, unless it's a black and white issue, I have trouble making up my mind. This topic has many good points on both sides. I wish the 80GB kit were either $10 more, or $100 more, than the 4GB kit. Then it would be simple ;-). $45 more is a fuzzy dollar amount for me.

 

[wirednuts]

in my experience with a win7/vista box- 1gb is bare minimum, any less and its a joke. 2gb works really well, just dont go trying heavy loaded games. 4gb plays any game i have tried at max settings, but i only run 1080p max so it will probably be different for others.

8gb would be overkill right now. i have an extra 2gb myself, but i was wondering if adding that would disable the dual channel 2x2gb i got going now... would 2gb+4gb>2x2gb DC?

 

[dclive]

For CS5 and such, I'd suggest simply getting 8GB, ensuring you're running a 64 bit flavor of Windows of some sort, and calling it a day. If you want to add a graphics card later, you can easily do so. For $45 more, and keeping your machines as long as you appear to do, it's worthwhile to get the extra RAM.

RAM sitting around doing nothing (idle) is worthless; don't take as an absolute Task Manager's RAM usage, pagefile usage, or other simple indicators; there's a lot more to the equation than that. RAM is set aside for caching and all kinds of other things, but can immediately be used directly by applications if required. Most people get 4-6-8 GB and they're perfectly happy. >4GB is diminishing returns for most people, but if you keep a PC for 10 years, it's likely good to spend a little more for more RAM.

I'd suggest an i5 with four digits (ie Sandy Bridge) in the name, 4 cores. For 20% more CPU horsepower, give or take, i7 is a nice upgrade; you need to decide if it's worth the extra $.

 

[darckhart]

frankly, ddr3 ram is so freakin cheap right now that there's no excuse to sit on the fence. sure, it may get cheaper (i jumped on 8gb for 90$ and now it's 8gb for 60$), but if you run win7x64, don't bother keeping yourself in 'what if' land. considering you'll be using it every day for the next few years makes it a great investment. really, what's an extra 30-50$ spread over a few years?

for your cpu and gpu, i think it's a good idea to see if you'll need a discrete card based on your usage patterns. for the software you will use, i'd spring for a card, but, yes it's a significantly more expensive investment, so i don't mind recommending the 'try it first' approach. however, if you're using any sort of large monitor (with res >1650x1080) then i'd definitely lean toward to a card...

 

[RobS10]

frankly, ddr3 ram is so freakin cheap right now that there's no excuse to sit on the fence. sure, it may get cheaper (i jumped on 8gb for 90$ and now it's 8gb for 60$), but if you run win7x64, don't bother keeping yourself in 'what if' land. considering you'll be using it every day for the next few years makes it a great investment. really, what's an extra 30-50$ spread over a few years?

for your cpu and gpu, i think it's a good idea to see if you'll need a discrete card based on your usage patterns. for the software you will use, i'd spring for a card, but, yes it's a significantly more expensive investment, so i don't mind recommending the 'try it first' approach. however, if you're using any sort of large monitor (with res >1650x1080) then i'd definitely lean toward to a card...

You're right, the extra money isn't huge, and it's for something I plan on hanging onto a while. I checked Crucial's website, and in the time I've been contemplating, the price has dropped $15...SOLD:biggrin:

 

[RobS10]

frankly, ddr3 ram is so freakin cheap right now that there's no excuse to sit on the fence. sure, it may get cheaper (i jumped on 8gb for 90$ and now it's 8gb for 60$), but if you run win7x64, don't bother keeping yourself in 'what if' land. considering you'll be using it every day for the next few years makes it a great investment. really, what's an extra 30-50$ spread over a few years?

for your cpu and gpu, i think it's a good idea to see if you'll need a discrete card based on your usage patterns. for the software you will use, i'd spring for a card, but, yes it's a significantly more expensive investment, so i don't mind recommending the 'try it first' approach. however, if you're using any sort of large monitor (with res >1650x1080) then i'd definitely lean toward to a card...

I was going to get 2x4gb sticks. I figure it gives me the option to later add more while only sacrificing my 2x1GB OEM sticks, whereas 4x2gb sacafices the OEM RAM and fills all 4 slots for the future. Does RAM run batter as 4x2GB sticks, all slots filled, or 2x4GB with OEM RAM pulled (probably leave it in unless it doesn't "like" the Crucial sticks)?

 

[Fayd]

Yeah, 2GB is pretty sluggish, but 16 would be nuts for me! I admit that, unless it's a black and white issue, I have trouble making up my mind. This topic has many good points on both sides. I wish the 80GB kit were either $10 more, or $100 more, than the 4GB kit. Then it would be simple ;-). $45 more is a fuzzy dollar amount for me.

i have 6gb here, on vista x64.

i never run out of ram, it's not even a concern for me.

i don't use photoshop, but i do do video editing.