Mulling over the spec for a new Ivybridge based computer for Photoshop CS6.
Would I get any significant benefit from adding a graphics card rather than relying on the integrated graphics on the processor? The integrated graphics appear to be approved as compatible by Adobe - but they don't comment on their effectiveness.
If I would - what sort of spec would be required or would a low range card be equally appropriate - (for example Gigabyte HD 6450 Silent 1GB DDR3 DVI VGA HDMI PCI-E Low Profile Graphics Card)
Paul, I can't say definitively, however I believe that you'll find the integrated graphics up to the task. Certainly it will work, and will likely work quite well. What I can't say for certain is whether a medium to high end graphics card would give you a performance boost. What I would recommend is to go with the integrated graphics to start. If you find that it's lacking, you can always add a dedicated graphics card later.
I'm a big fan of the dedicated graphics card. I had a W520 workstation for a month or so and had the ability to run on either the integrated or dedicated. Suffice to say ... there was a difference @ smoothness working off dedicated.
Granted that was laptop and Sandy Bridge ... but I'll always opt for a dedicated card ... doesn't need to be some "wicked awesome" gamer card, but I have yet to be impressed (for our purposes) by a MB solution. The diff has always been noticeable for me. Your workflow/demands might be diff ... but I'll always suggest the dedicated card.
Bob's point @ upgrade / add later is valid for a tower/desktop ... but if you're looking at laptops, I go straight to the dedicated card.
BTW .. I'm of the non-gamer persuasion as well. The dedicated card just seems to make things run smoother.
Also, with Win 8 on the horizon (its a bit more of a "hog") ...
I like the idea of dedicated graphic card too. It's so cheap now aday, you can get a 1GB DDR3 card for $50 or so which is better than most of the built-in ones.
Practical difference ... yup, I can vouch for it does make a practical difference.
On routine stuff, maybe not so noticeable ... but when you start "pushing" things a bit, more so. Of course, it's when you're really pushing things that you really don't feel like waiting for the graphics to catch up ... what's your frustration level worth to you
Maybe you can find someone nearby whose system has a dedicated card already in it ... disable the card and feel the difference for yourself, once you realize the diff for yourself it becomes a "no brainer" imo.
I wouldn't put too much stock in the Ivy Bridge GPU claims of better than Sandy Bridge GPU. Sure, it'll be better ... but it still isn't likely to be enough to bridge the gap @ dedicated cards. Kinda like comparing a "new & improved" four cylinder 2.0 engine that is touted as having more torque than the older model vs. a 12 cylinder jag or rolls ... yeah, its better ... but it still isn't "built for speed".
Having that extra GPU memory on the dedicated card can't be matched by the "on chip" GPU. The fact that you are concerned @ sufficiency ... go dedicated and rest easy.
Ditto what RB said. Get a graphics card with, say 2GB, of dedicated RAM and you will see a definite performance boost. Such cards can be had for less than $100. Other factors, such as the speed of the RAM also come into play, but I would think that the quantity of the RAM would be more important.
Next, here is the closest thing I could find to an apples-to-apples benchmark covering GPU performance on CS6. Notice the marginal difference between the Mac Pro using the old nVidia GT 120 GPU vs. the one using the much newer, much faster AMD R5870 GPU. http://www.barefeats.com/pscs6.html
And then once you have viewed the third link, go back to the second and look again at the marginal difference in speed gain when using the new powerful GPU vs. the old weak GPU. I'm just not entirely convinced that a typical user will see tangible benefits from installing a dedicated graphics card in their system vs. the "fairly competent" HD3000.
Basically put, I think you will see significant acceleration by enabling OpenGL acceleration and using any supported GPU. You can get it faster by getting a dedicated card, but there are significant diminishing returns.
I'm not going to say that it won't be better with a dedicated card, but how much better it is really going to depend on how heavy your workload is, and what filters you are using regularly. And also consider that you may not see noticeable benefits from a dedicated GPU unless you invest in a higher end model, and not a cheap $100 entry level one.
I will also say that the new CS6 supports OpenCL, and as such I would recommend getting an AMD card which supports that feature. That supposedly brings about additional acceleration benefits. And lastly, getting a dedicated card also gives you the opportunity to edit in 10-bit color mode, if you are running CS6 on windows and have a monitor capable of supporting 10-bit output. (To get 10-bit output you will have to buy one of the "professional" line of graphics cards- i.e. the FireGL or Quadro series.)
Just my $0.02. I often hear people quip about how high end dedicated GPUs are way better for photoshop and that everyone needs one, but I have never seen anyone back it up with definitive proof. Only a lot of "it seems faster/smoother/better to me!" Here I have shown evidence that may suggest the contrary- if anyone would like to provide some facts to dispute what I have found after a brief 10 minutes of research I would be more than willing to listen.
Norman can you say placebo effect, I believe thats whats at work here a improvement is expected so that is what is perceived. I too await definitive proof to prove me wrong but suspect it will be a long long wait.
