PDA

View Full Version : [ubuntu] Graphics - Intel 965GM vs Nvidia 8600M GS



colinnwn
April 30th, 2008, 08:41 PM
Hi All,

I'm planning to buy a Dell Vostro 1400 and ixnay Vista for Hardy. Thanks GB43 (Dell and their Chinese vendors should thank you too!). Does anyone have an opinion on whether the Nvidia card is worth the $100 or $75 (depending on the day) extra for either Linux compatibility or service life?

I know the generic advantages to integrated vs. discrete graphics. It is my understanding you can't take the Intel and upgrade to Nvidia on this laptop later. I want to use this as my primary computer for a long time. I don't want the laptop to get laggy feeling after a few years and a few Ubuntu updates.

My current desktop running XP and Hardy is over 5 years old (various upgrades) and runs fairly well with an older Nvidia card. There is a point of diminishing returns for better hardware and I haven't decided if $100 extra on a $600 laptop is worthwhile.

I was also planning to get the base 1.4g Core2Duo, 2 gigs memory, Intel 4965AGN wireless N card, Bluetooth, and webcam.

Any advice or opinions on this is appreciated!
Thanks.

thorcik
April 30th, 2008, 08:50 PM
As for the main question I have no idea, I bought my Dell with the nVidia card and I am very satisfied with it, however I cannot compare it to the Intel card so won't be of much help. As for the other options - 2gb ram makes it run faster than Roadrunner, Intel wireless is fine (had to install drivers from Intel site, but it was in gutsy), bluetooth works and webcam too (but it is the m1330 that I'm using).

jvinoku1
May 4th, 2008, 01:40 PM
The 965GM chipset is not a terribly powerful graphics processsor, asn 3D acceleration make not function. I have a USB disk running Kubuntu Gusty, on various Dell laptops, and they all work. However, I cannot get the Latitude D400 to work well with open GL. If you want to use things litle Google Earth, Blender 3D or any of the 3D games, then stick with NVIDIA. The INTEL Chip will cause you grief now, and might lead t oa short life-span for the laptop.

crossy
May 5th, 2008, 05:39 PM
Hi colinnwn, my kneejerk reaction is to say "Intel graphics sucks, head for the green team!". ):P

But a more sensible approach is to ask "what are you going to use your new Vostro for?"

From your sig, it looks like you're a bit of a multimedia freak - in which case it probably won't make much difference. The other aspect is what a more "powerful" graphics card would do to your battery life? Since you're getting a pretty portable lappy I guess this is an issue. Score one for the integrated chipset!

If, on the other hand, you want a lot of 3D work, or major video acceleration, then it's Nvidia. Or maybe a laptop isn't the best choice after all... :confused:

I can empathize since I've been through this recently - but I decided to save on the graphics bill and spend that saving on getting a better processor. So I started out looking at 1.8GHz Turions, but ended up getting 2.16GHz Core2Duo - which is pretty snappy when I'm trying to post-process some DVB-T footage. :D

Okay, this is arguable I know - but I feel that graphics technology has a pretty pathetic "shelf life". In comparison cpu's are longer lived. So maybe my approach - focus on memory and cpu instead - would be better. I've got Debian (which remember is the basis of Ubuntu) running on some real old kit - Celeron700 and PentiumII/266 - and those two systems are still relatively usable, (the PII one less so - obviously!)

Remember, this Linux, so it's much kinder to the hardware than OS's from a certain 5eattle-based vendor. ;)

All the best, (the best thing about Texas is the people :))
crossy.

OffHand
May 5th, 2008, 08:24 PM
Take the Nvidia. You will not regret it. Check the benchmarks online.