Would a super cheap pcie 3.0 graphics card give better performance than intel integrated graphics controller?

Raxnic · 11-09-2022, 10:33 PM

Ubuntu 22.10
8 gigs memory
2TB hd
Intel i3

I think this intel graphics controller is either part of the mother board or on the actual processor.

I just installed Ubuntu 22.xx and a new monitor, the graphics are not all that sharp, they actually are kinda crappy, I am not gaming just plain internet stuff.

At 1920x1080 at 60hz things do not look smooth. When I scale up the monitor settings to 125% or 150% it is a big improvement but everthing on the screen is giant.

I am considering getting a cheap card to see if that would give any performance upgrade over the built in controller.

mrmazda · 11-09-2022, 11:56 PM

Which model i3? All but the oldest i3s have the GPU on the same module as the CPU. An older one may not compare well, but a more recent one could be considerably better. I'm typing this from a i3-4150T around 8 years old. I have several newer, yet this is just fine for what I do, which does not include any kind of gaming.

Whether 1920x1080 should be good looking or not depends very highly on the size of the screen, and how far away you sit. Scaling to make things bigger tends to be degrading, while raising DPI to make things bigger does the opposite with text, so-so with images. If you want bigger text without losing text quality, try forcing DPI up from the usual 96 to 120. It can make a world of difference. Lowering resolution to make things bigger makes everything more granular, which is expected from the words resolution and lowering.

If the super cheap GPU is more than 4-5 years older than the the i3, and the i3 isn't ancient, and you're not a gamer, odds are you're better off saving your money.

Raxnic · 11-10-2022, 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrmazda

Which model i3? All but the oldest i3s have the GPU on the same module as the CPU. An older one may not compare well, but a more recent one could be considerably better. I'm typing this from a i3-4150T around 8 years old. I have several newer, yet this is just fine for what I do, which does not include any kind of gaming.

Whether 1920x1080 should be good looking or not depends very highly on the size of the screen, and how far away you sit. Scaling to make things bigger tends to be degrading, while raising DPI to make things bigger does the opposite with text, so-so with images. If you want bigger text without losing text quality, try forcing DPI up from the usual 96 to 120. It can make a world of difference. Lowering resolution to make things bigger makes everything more granular, which is expected from the words resolution and lowering.

If the super cheap GPU is more than 4-5 years older than the the i3, and the i3 isn't ancient, and you're not a gamer, odds are you're better off saving your money.

The intel is a i3-4170 fourth generation core processor. Maybe 6 to 7 years old.
How do I increase DPI, theres no option in the settings, (that I can find)
When I change the scaling the edges of text and borders are much smoother, right now I am at 1920x1080 60hz 100% scale and the text is not smooth.
Is there a different driver I can try for the built in intel graphics?

Thanks.

mrmazda · 11-10-2022, 01:13 AM

Yours is 9 months newer than mine with identical GPU but slightly faster CPU.

If you're using the standard Desktop Environment for Ubuntu, Gnome, I can't provide specifics, as I never install Gnome on anything. What I do know is that DPI is the mechanism that Gnome uses for scaling, while normal adjusting of DPI is done in the graphics system Gnome sits on top of. The xrandr command line utility can set DPI, but normally it only affects anything that is opened after its use, which means it normally needs to be utilized in desktop session startup. Arandr is a GUI utility that uses xrandr and can build a script to be employed on startup. DPI can also be configured via files in /etc/X11/xorg.con*, not something for beginners to get involved in. What size is your 1920x1080 display, and how far away from it are your eyes? Sit too close and everything looks less smooth.

There are only two competent drivers for Intel IGPUs, intel, and modesetting. Modesetting is the upstream default and newer technology, while the intel hasn't an official release since before your CPU was new. Two fallback drivers, fbdev and vesa, are are pretty crude, and usually incapable of resolution as high as 1920x1080. Run inxi -SGaz in a GUI terminal and paste its input/output here so we can see which driver you are using and if there are any obvious configuration issues to be addressed.

Debian6to11 · 11-10-2022, 11:41 PM

Some information for you. I have an older cheap laptop, HP 650 with a dual core Pentium, which has GT1 graphics (or Intel 2000). I had this one running for two years with Windows 8. Its monitor is 1366x768 and I also had attached to it a 1920x1080 external monitor. The graphics (for 2D and not games of course) were at least good to very good provided that this is just integrated graphics.

Arnulf · 11-11-2022, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raxnic

Ubuntu 22.10
8 gigs memory
2TB hd
Intel i3
[…]
At 1920x1080 at 60hz things do not look smooth.

Which connection (DVI, VGA, …) is in use?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raxnic

I am considering getting a cheap card to see if that would give any performance upgrade over the built in controller.

May be or not. There isn't any general answer to your question. One advantage of a graphics card is that "shared memory" can be disabled. This improves system memory performance. If you buy a graphics card choose an AMD nee ATI. Don't buy Nvidia graphics cards because FOSS drivers (nouveau) are very slow or don't work due to Nvidias anti FOSS strategy.

I'd insert a graphics card like a Radeon HD5450 or similar into this system.
[OT]: I'd insert a budget SSD for the OS into this system.

WhyLinux0 · 11-11-2022, 05:29 PM

My system is older than yours AMD 64 X2 5000+, 4GB ram and 256mb on board shared graphics. I thought it a no-brainer to upgrade to a cheap used PCI-e ATI card with its own GPU. How could I go wrong, after all ATI is the preferred card for Linux. Well, tried a HD3450 and HD4350(4330) and the RGB is so bad its unusable despite the higher resolution. Linux just can't handle anything other than simple graphics in many situations. X.org even shows my card as one that works, yet it doesn't. In my case, it was a waste of time to add a card to Linux. Maybe your situation will be different, I hope so.

haertig · 11-13-2022, 12:06 PM

If you are not gaming, integrated graphics will be just fine. You won't see any improvement by buying a separate graphics card.

My first guess is that the resolution chosen in your computer settings does not match the native resolution of you monitor. If your monitor is 1920x1080, you need to set your computer options to use that resolution, and ONLY that resolution. If your monitor is 1920x1200 (for example), then you need to set your computer for that and ONLY that resolution. If you need to change the size of things, do that using other means than by twiddling with the resolution. With an LCD monitor, mismatched resolutions look horrible. Don't do it.

If the above is not the cause, then next thing I'd check is your cables. Do you have other monitor connection cables on a different computer that your could "borrow" for a few minutes to test with? Also, check different connectors. Most computers and most monitors have at least two different connectors to choose from. VGA, DVI, HTML and Display Port are the typical choices. So if your computer/monitor allows for a different connector to connect with, try that. VGA - if you are using that - would be the most suspicious, since it is an analog connection. However, some DVI connections support analog, so you might have an analog connection while using DVI (the presence of a DVI-to-VGA adapter on your cable would be a dead giveaway of that).

[edit] p.s. - Your monitor or your computer could be hosed, causing display issues, but that would be a rarer occurance. Check the obvious stuff first. [/edit]

business_kid · 11-13-2022, 12:51 PM

"An Intel ... Controller" isn't clear enough. The latest intel controllers are better than their earlier efforts. What have you got?

Raxnic · 11-21-2022, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrmazda

Yours is 9 months newer than mine with identical GPU but slightly faster CPU.

If you're using the standard Desktop Environment for Ubuntu, Gnome, I can't provide specifics, as I never install Gnome on anything. What I do know is that DPI is the mechanism that Gnome uses for scaling, while normal adjusting of DPI is done in the graphics system Gnome sits on top of. The xrandr command line utility can set DPI, but normally it only affects anything that is opened after its use, which means it normally needs to be utilized in desktop session startup. Arandr is a GUI utility that uses xrandr and can build a script to be employed on startup. DPI can also be configured via files in /etc/X11/xorg.con*, not something for beginners to get involved in. What size is your 1920x1080 display, and how far away from it are your eyes? Sit too close and everything looks less smooth.

There are only two competent drivers for Intel IGPUs, intel, and modesetting. Modesetting is the upstream default and newer technology, while the intel hasn't an official release since before your CPU was new. Two fallback drivers, fbdev and vesa, are are pretty crude, and usually incapable of resolution as high as 1920x1080. Run inxi -SGaz in a GUI terminal and paste its input/output here so we can see which driver you are using and if there are any obvious configuration issues to be addressed.

Here is the output. Thanks.

Graphics:
Device-1: Intel 4th Generation Core Processor Family Integrated Graphics
vendor: Hewlett-Packard driver: i915 v: kernel arch: Gen-7.5
process: Intel 22nm built: 2013 ports: active: HDMI-A-1 empty: VGA-1
bus-ID: 00:02.0 chip-ID: 8086:041e class-ID: 0300
Display: x11 server: X.Org v: 1.21.1.4 with: Xwayland v: 22.1.3 driver:
X: loaded: modesetting unloaded: fbdev,vesa gpu: i915 display-ID: :0
screens: 1
Screen-1: 0 s-res: 1920x1080 s-dpi: 96 s-size: 508x285mm (20.00x11.22")
s-diag: 582mm (22.93")
Monitor-1: HDMI-A-1 mapped: HDMI-1 model: INSIGNIA-TV serial: <filter>
built: 2022 res: 1920x1080 hz: 60 dpi: 70 gamma: 1.2
size: 697x392mm (27.44x15.43") diag: 800mm (31.5") ratio: 16:9 modes:
max: 1920x1080 min: 720x400
OpenGL: renderer: llvmpipe (LLVM 15.0.2 256 bits) v: 4.5 Mesa 22.2.1
direct render: Yes

Raxnic · 11-21-2022, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arnulf

Which connection (DVI, VGA, …) is in use?
May be or not. There isn't any general answer to your question. One advantage of a graphics card is that "shared memory" can be disabled. This improves system memory performance. If you buy a graphics card choose an AMD nee ATI. Don't buy Nvidia graphics cards because FOSS drivers (nouveau) are very slow or don't work due to Nvidias anti FOSS strategy.
I'd insert a graphics card like a Radeon HD5450 or similar into this system.
[OT]: I'd insert a budget SSD for the OS into this system.

I am using HDMI Connection. Yes I have heard AMD is better for linux but for my gaming setup I have Nvidia.
Thanks.

Raxnic · 11-21-2022, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by haertig

If you are not gaming, integrated graphics will be just fine. You won't see any improvement by buying a separate graphics card.

My first guess is that the resolution chosen in your computer settings does not match the native resolution of you monitor. If your monitor is 1920x1080, you need to set your computer options to use that resolution, and ONLY that resolution. If your monitor is 1920x1200 (for example), then you need to set your computer for that and ONLY that resolution. If you need to change the size of things, do that using other means than by twiddling with the resolution. With an LCD monitor, mismatched resolutions look horrible. Don't do it.
If the above is not the cause, then next thing I'd check is your cables. Do you have other monitor connection cables on a different computer that your could "borrow" for a few minutes to test with? Also, check different connectors. Most computers and most monitors have at least two different connectors to choose from. VGA, DVI, HTML and Display Port are the typical choices. So if your computer/monitor allows for a different connector to connect with, try that. VGA - if you are using that - would be the most suspicious, since it is an analog connection. However, some DVI connections support analog, so you might have an analog connection while using DVI (the presence of a DVI-to-VGA adapter on your cable would be a dead giveaway of that).

[edit] p.s. - Your monitor or your computer could be hosed, causing display issues, but that would be a rarer occurance. Check the obvious stuff first. [/edit]

Resolution is set to what is recommended and ive tried playing with it but makes everything look large. The monitor is a TV and Computer monitor in one and only has HDMI connections. The monitor is new and the computer has good memory and a new HD and is in good condition. Thanks.

Raxnic · 11-21-2022, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by business_kid

"An Intel ... Controller" isn't clear enough. The latest intel controllers are better than their earlier efforts. What have you got?

OUTPUT of: inxi -sGaz
Not sure what most of this means, I can decipher a bit. Thanks.

Graphics:
Device-1: Intel 4th Generation Core Processor Family Integrated Graphics
vendor: Hewlett-Packard driver: i915 v: kernel arch: Gen-7.5
process: Intel 22nm built: 2013 ports: active: HDMI-A-1 empty: VGA-1
bus-ID: 00:02.0 chip-ID: 8086:041e class-ID: 0300
Display: x11 server: X.Org v: 1.21.1.4 with: Xwayland v: 22.1.3 driver:
X: loaded: modesetting unloaded: fbdev,vesa gpu: i915 display-ID: :0
screens: 1
Screen-1: 0 s-res: 1920x1080 s-dpi: 96 s-size: 508x285mm (20.00x11.22")
s-diag: 582mm (22.93")
Monitor-1: HDMI-A-1 mapped: HDMI-1 model: INSIGNIA-TV serial: <filter>
built: 2022 res: 1920x1080 hz: 60 dpi: 70 gamma: 1.2
size: 697x392mm (27.44x15.43") diag: 800mm (31.5") ratio: 16:9 modes:
max: 1920x1080 min: 720x400
OpenGL: renderer: llvmpipe (LLVM 15.0.2 256 bits) v: 4.5 Mesa 22.2.1
direct render: Yes

mrmazda · 11-21-2022, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raxnic

Code:

  OpenGL: renderer: llvmpipe (LLVM 15.0.2 256 bits) v: 4.5 Mesa 22.2.1
    direct render: Yes

This section reports your driver configuration is incomplete or broken. Mesa uses hardware rendering, while LLVM is software, thus slower. The only difference between your Intel Haswell CPU and my i3-4150T is 0.1GHz. Our IGPs are the same:

Code:

> inxi -C
CPU:
  Info: dual core model: Intel Core i3-4150T bits: 64 type: MT MCP cache:
    L2: 512 KiB
  Speed (MHz): avg: 2700 min/max: 800/3000 cores: 1: 2700 2: 2700 3: 2702
    4: 2700
> inxi -Gaz
Graphics:
  Device-1: Intel 4th Generation Core Processor Family Integrated Graphics
    vendor: Micro-Star MSI driver: i915 v: kernel arch: Gen-7.5
    process: Intel 22nm built: 2013 ports: active: HDMI-A-1
    empty: HDMI-A-2,VGA-1 bus-ID: 00:02.0 chip-ID: 8086:041e class-ID: 0300
  Display: x11 server: X.Org v: 1.20.3 driver: X: loaded: modesetting
    unloaded: fbdev,vesa alternate: intel dri: crocus gpu: i915 display-ID: :0
    screens: 1
  Screen-1: 0 s-res: 1920x1200 s-dpi: 120 s-size: 406x254mm (15.98x10.00")
    s-diag: 479mm (18.85")
  Monitor-1: HDMI-A-1 mapped: HDMI-1 model: Samsung SMS24A850
    serial: <filter> built: 2012 res: 1920x1200 hz: 60 dpi: 94 gamma: 1.2
    size: 518x324mm (20.39x12.76") diag: 611mm (24.1") ratio: 16:10 modes:
    max: 1920x1200 min: 720x400
  API: OpenGL v: 4.6 Mesa 21.2.4 renderer: Mesa Intel HD Graphics 4400 (HSW
    GT2) compat-v: 3.1 direct render: Yes
# rpm -qa | grep Mesa | grep -vE 'devel|32bit'
Mesa-gallium-21.2.4-150400.68.9.1.x86_64
Mesa-libva-21.2.4-150400.68.9.1.x86_64
Mesa-dri-21.2.4-150400.68.9.1.x86_64
Mesa-vulkan-device-select-21.2.4-150400.68.9.1.x86_64
Mesa-libglapi0-21.2.4-150400.68.9.1.x86_64
Mesa-libEGL1-21.2.4-150400.68.9.1.x86_64
Mesa-21.2.4-150400.68.9.1.x86_64
Mesa-libd3d-21.2.4-150400.68.9.1.x86_64
Mesa-libOpenCL-21.2.4-150400.68.9.1.x86_64
Mesa-demo-x-8.3.0-1.33.x86_64
Mesa-libGL1-21.2.4-150400.68.9.1.x86_64
> xdriinfo
Screen 0: crocus

Apparently you don't have enough of Mesa installed, or it's broken.

Raxnic · 11-22-2022, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrmazda

This section reports your driver configuration is incomplete or broken. Mesa uses hardware rendering, while LLVM is software, thus slower. The only difference between your Intel Haswell CPU and my i3-4150T is 0.1GHz. Our IGPs are the same:

Code:

> inxi -C
CPU:
  Info: dual core model: Intel Core i3-4150T bits: 64 type: MT MCP cache:
    L2: 512 KiB
  Speed (MHz): avg: 2700 min/max: 800/3000 cores: 1: 2700 2: 2700 3: 2702
    4: 2700
> inxi -Gaz
Graphics:
  Device-1: Intel 4th Generation Core Processor Family Integrated Graphics
    vendor: Micro-Star MSI driver: i915 v: kernel arch: Gen-7.5
    process: Intel 22nm built: 2013 ports: active: HDMI-A-1
    empty: HDMI-A-2,VGA-1 bus-ID: 00:02.0 chip-ID: 8086:041e class-ID: 0300
  Display: x11 server: X.Org v: 1.20.3 driver: X: loaded: modesetting
    unloaded: fbdev,vesa alternate: intel dri: crocus gpu: i915 display-ID: :0
    screens: 1
  Screen-1: 0 s-res: 1920x1200 s-dpi: 120 s-size: 406x254mm (15.98x10.00")
    s-diag: 479mm (18.85")
  Monitor-1: HDMI-A-1 mapped: HDMI-1 model: Samsung SMS24A850
    serial: <filter> built: 2012 res: 1920x1200 hz: 60 dpi: 94 gamma: 1.2
    size: 518x324mm (20.39x12.76") diag: 611mm (24.1") ratio: 16:10 modes:
    max: 1920x1200 min: 720x400
  API: OpenGL v: 4.6 Mesa 21.2.4 renderer: Mesa Intel HD Graphics 4400 (HSW
    GT2) compat-v: 3.1 direct render: Yes
# rpm -qa | grep Mesa | grep -vE 'devel|32bit'
Mesa-gallium-21.2.4-150400.68.9.1.x86_64
Mesa-libva-21.2.4-150400.68.9.1.x86_64
Mesa-dri-21.2.4-150400.68.9.1.x86_64
Mesa-vulkan-device-select-21.2.4-150400.68.9.1.x86_64
Mesa-libglapi0-21.2.4-150400.68.9.1.x86_64
Mesa-libEGL1-21.2.4-150400.68.9.1.x86_64
Mesa-21.2.4-150400.68.9.1.x86_64
Mesa-libd3d-21.2.4-150400.68.9.1.x86_64
Mesa-libOpenCL-21.2.4-150400.68.9.1.x86_64
Mesa-demo-x-8.3.0-1.33.x86_64
Mesa-libGL1-21.2.4-150400.68.9.1.x86_64
> xdriinfo
Screen 0: crocus

Apparently you don't have enough of Mesa installed, or it's broken.

I guess I have to reinstall the graphics driver. I remember in the past I had a heck of a time getting the drivers to work but that was a long time ago.

Thanks.