Just wondering aloud.
The on-board, shared-RAM Intel Graphics Processor is a low-cost modern solution... but I also know that older machines came with video cards that had paltry (by today's standards) of VRAM.
There has to a point of diminishing returns for low VRAM, as neilencio pointed out that even YouTube videos can stutter without a good video accelerator -- in my case, my 32 MB nVidia isn't helping my 1.5GHz process YouTube any more. Should I still be looking at 2005-model single-core machines with low VRAM, or a 2010-model with dual-core and IGP?
Which is worse for notebooks, IGP or sub-64MB of VRAM?
Which is worse for notebooks, IGP or sub-64MB of VRAM?
My scheduling skills have died of dysentery; I hope to visit at least on a monthly basis.
Still, don't forget to tip your waitress.
Still, don't forget to tip your waitress.
Re: Which is worse for notebooks, IGP or sub-64MB of VRAM?
The Flash version of Youtube can run like crap even on newer systems. At best, they will cause your fans to kick on and/or fry your balls. I personally do not have Adobe Flash installed and use a Safari plugin which allows me to view all of Youtube in the native h.264 format. Granted, I am on a Mac which has h.264 hardware acceleration, so it's probably the best case scenario.
I am not too familiar with 2010 Windows machines, but the integrated graphics from that year are more than capable of running HD video smoothly. The shared RAM is not a problem.
I am not too familiar with 2010 Windows machines, but the integrated graphics from that year are more than capable of running HD video smoothly. The shared RAM is not a problem.
Selling half my NES/SNES/PS1 collection (ending Dec 1):
http://tinyurl.com/zingebay
http://tinyurl.com/zingebay