graphics cards, quad cores, cache

[Beest]

I'm looking at a new desktop, sizing up decent enough, low cost, but will last a few years, I'm seeing what I judge to be decent enough HP's and Dells in the $500-$600 range.

Q. Are Intel integrated graphics cards any cop, compared to something that says NVidia or Geforce card, if they have the same dedicated video memory. I worry that being 'integrated', means shared and somehow lacking, or are they just as good as the seperate cards, they've just saved by building them allon the same board.

Q. For a couple of hundred more you can go quad core, is the average user really going to notice any benefit from this.

Q. I am paying attention to bus speed and cache, I'm thinking picking soemthing with more cache will help things run smoother, especially down the line with whatever more bloaty applications may come.

Currently the kids are not power users, miniclip games and webkinz, I like FPS and flight sims, but don't have the time to dedicate to this and demand the highest performance, but would like to dabble.

Any constructive comments?
Cock?

[Bullitt]

Originally Posted by Beest

I'm looking at a new desktop, sizing up decent enough, low cost, but will last a few years, I'm seeing what I judge to be decent enough HP's and Dells in the $500-$600 range.

Q. Are Intel integrated graphics cards any cop, compared to something that says NVidia or Geforce card, if they have the same dedicated video memory. I worry that being 'integrated', means shared and somehow lacking, or are they just as good as the seperate cards, they've just saved by building them allon the same board.

Q. For a couple of hundred more you can go quad core, is the average user really going to notice any benefit from this.

Q. I am paying attention to bus speed and cache, I'm thinking picking soemthing with more cache will help things run smoother, especially down the line with whatever more bloaty applications may come.

Currently the kids are not power users, miniclip games and webkinz, I like FPS and flight sims, but don't have the time to dedicate to this and demand the highest performance, but would like to dabble.

Any constructive comments?
Cock?

Integrated is fine if you don't plan on playing many current games. Current graphics-intensive games greatly benefit from dedicated graphics cards, but many also have options to tone downs the graphics settings in-game to help ease the load on the computer. It's a trade off. Integrated is just fine for watching movies and basic photo editing. Not so much for video editing or games with modern graphics like Call of Duty 4, etc.

No the average user will not benefit from the added cost of a quad-core processor.

Yes cache and bus speed are important factors to consider. Don't over look this detail.

If you are running Vista, a decent dual core and a good bit of RAM is essential. Ex: my laptop run Vista Home Premium with an Intel Core2Duo T8100@2.1Ghz with 3gigs of RAM and works just fine. I can pop in a flash memory card and utilize ReadyBoost to gain an addition near gig of RAM. This helps because I have integrated graphics, but play Command and Conquer 3 often, which can be a graphically demanding game. That said, I still have to tone down the graphics settings in-game to half their potential in order for it to run smoothly and maintain a good framerate.

[Beest]

Thanks Bullitt, that helped a lot.