Which Graphics for You?

Onboard or external graphics? This is the most common question every computer user has in mind today. The root cause of this is the fact that most computers come with built-in graphics whose capabilities are fit for most day-to-day needs. So you can watch the latest movies, be it VCDs or DVDs. You can run 2D graphics applications such as Photoshop, or watch multimedia presentations and CDs. You can browse multimedia-rich websites or even play video games, all without really straining the graphics sub-system. Why then should one put in another graphics card? To play the latest 3D games? Well, that's what the graphics cards market seems to suggest today. It's flooded with 3D gaming cards (check out this month's shootout where we've reviewed 50 of them). 

But then gaming isn't everybody's cup of tea, so unless some other compelling applications come up, why should anybody spend extra on another graphics card? If the latest developments in 3D graphics are anything to go by, then the time isn't far when you'll have a visually more appealing desktop along with the applications.

Some traces of this trend are already visible in some third party desktop enhancement tools and even Win XP. Try using some 3D desktop environments if you haven't (available on Windows and Linux). You'll notice that though they're visually very attractive, they take a toll on your graphics sub-system. Ordinary desktops with onboard graphics just can't handle them properly. Win XP

itself has a long list of visualizations to enhance the desktop's appearance. These also require lots of graphics power. So in effect, with onboard graphics you can either have a more responsive desktop or a slow one that only 'appears' good. This trend of powerful applications will only expand in the future. 

Take, for instance, the upcoming release of Windows Longhorn. It promises some very compelling graphics capabilities, which would require far better hardware graphics than what's available onboard today. The graphics sub-system is code named Avalon, and has split the graphics capabilities according to the underlying hardware in a system. The full-fledged desktop, called the Aero Glass experience, will have 3D graphics and animation built in. The second one, called Aero Experience, will require hardware acceleration for some features, and third is the Classic experience, which is equivalent to what one sees in Windows 2000 desktops. While you could very well pick up the third scheme, you would miss out on a more visually appealing desktop. You would also miss out on hardware-accelerated graphics that are resolution independent and anti-aliased. You would also not see glitch free video playback, higher resolutions for larger computer screens, and much more. Besides Longhorn, even the general trend amongst many productivity and entertainment applications is to build in 3D graphics. 

So does this mean that onboard graphics are giving way to external graphics boards? It's unlikely, because onboard graphics will also become more powerful and will be able to handle some of the demands from the software side. However, they will loose a significant market share to external graphics cards.