CPUs have been quite video capable since the original Pentium was introduced. Today it's more of a matter of how fast you want to go about your work? I'm still editing video projects and doing 24 track audio on a Pentium 4, 3.0 & 3.2 GHz machines with only 256 MB of video card memory on AGP and built-in motherboards. No big whoop. For a wonderful combination multitrack audio and multitrack video software package you might want to look into Sony Vegas. That package can be had for under $1000 and it's a powerful production environment. They are virtually isn't anything you can't do. And then they make a consumer version which is also quite nice and is merely a scaled back version of Vegas for I think around 100 something dollars? And it may be all that you need? With Sony Vegas, I produced 6 camera videos shoots with multitrack audio also simultaneously being captured. I capture the audio to a secondary outboard disk drive and I captured the video to another secondary outboard disk drive while making sure that my computer hard drive is only in performing the functions of the operating system and program. And even the hard disk drive-based virtual memory can be relegated to yet a third internal/external disk drive. When you try to make one computer do everything on a single drive, it just wants to puke all over you. So it's not unusual to see me sitting there with a laptop that is connected to 3 external hard drives with additional USB 2.0 ports. Then two FireWire inputs for one or two cameras and/or a multitrack audio computer audio interface device. And on a 6-year-old HP laptop with an early 32-bit dual core processor. It works great! Windows XP Pro, 32-bit, service pack 2. Of course I don't trust my life on that as I am also into redundancy. So all the camcorders are individually rolling and everything is passing through a 24 track standalone recorder. Because you know, things will fail.

I do the live stuff
Mx. Remy Ann David

Nice to hear from you Remy, To make my question more pointed: the gen 2 i5 2500 and up have some type of gpu embedded in the cpu. Thereby, I believe, improving onboard video without the need for a discrete video card.
So with this does it tax in any way the processor and cause issues when doing audio only tasks and using it for monitor video as normal?

Sorry, I have to apologize. I haven't been keeping up on all of the CPUs so I really can't say? Your computer may not have a discrete video card but it most definitely has a video GPU. And it's part of the motherboard as opposed to a separate card? There might be some tighter integration within the CPU? It's been designed to pass that video data through even faster. Gamers like that you know. It really doesn't affect our use or function much because we're not playing games. I've had reasonable 24 track screens with just a 2 MB PCI video card in the past. And it was totally adequate. Faster cars with more memory I like even better. It might be more efficient with faster screen redraws? Anything more efficient certainly shouldn't slow anything else down. But there could be other issues? I would have no way of knowing? If the machine is designed for audio purposes, it stands to reason, it should be more than adequate for your use. It is designed as a general-purpose computer, who knows what the heck it's been designed for? Most likely gamers? They are certainly not embedding anything into the CPU themselves that's Intel's job. You can't modify a chip of any sort. It has to be designed, grown and cooked and then it's sealed, forever. So your information is a little shaky. What you might want to know is whether the video is being powered by NVIDIA or someone else? There are two major competitors in that field and then there's all the rest. So while it's not on a card, it is on the motherboard and integrated into the motherboard. It may still have an AGP slot or a PCIe? And maybe not? If you need additional computer monitors, you might have to shove a card into a PCI slot? I'm not familiar with the motherboard for that machine. Not even sure whose chipsets they are using? So sorry, I'm no help.

Thankfully there's other better informed people here than me.
Mx. Remy Ann David

Yes that is what Intel has done embedded a gpu within the processor on 2nd Gen i5 chips.
With this cpu you definitely do not need a separate vid card. It's matching motherboards are designed to tie into the graphics part of the cpu therefore these MB's do not have onboard graphics chips like the other MB's have. they simply provide the video path to the connectors on the rear panel.
Still trying to research if there is cause for concern by utilizing that for general purpose video during use of the audio programs and some video rendering.

Interesting huh ?

Yes, that's very interesting. I would also be wondering what they are doing about video memory? Numerous video editing programs actually utilize the GPU and its memory for faster rendering and real-time effects. So the memory must be allocated through the RAM only? Of course everybody is packing a lot more memory these days in the multiprocessor CPU computers, designed for 64-bit operation. Maybe that makes all the difference? And if these are the second-generation core 2 processors, I'm going to have to start looking into this stuff again or rather more. I used to find Intel processors a lot more straightforward than these feature packed units today. It used to do just one thing. Now it's doing everything except, er, except audio. But are they putting all of the eggs in one basket? Of course I might be more inclined to purchase a smart phone if they start putting these in smart phones? I doubt I'll have long to wait? After all, in crappy little cell phones we already have voice-recognition.

This goes way beyond Star Trek.
Mx. Remy Ann David

Indeed ! As i am trying to put together my 'ultimate ' long range future proof machine and then i can stop any further need to research for countless hours, query forums on DAW PC components and record again. I have put off so much in order to wait for the prices to drop only to be confronted with newer technology.
And Good God, how bout those phones ! I remember when they didn't even exist !

I used to have fun with the old original analog cellular phones. I had a Motorola bag phone and I purchased the additional computer modem interface. I didn't use it for a computer interface. I had a good old-fashioned bell telephone desktop office phone that I would put on top of my dashboard. People couldn't believe when it started ringing and I answered it. Sometimes I would just stand outside the car holding the telephone and talking on it. People thought I was goofing around. Actually I was I was also talking to somebody when I'm on the phone. And then I got for $800, that Motorola 8000! The first portable handheld cellular phone! While working overnights for a couple of years at NBC, I also acquired the world's first laptop computer! RadioShack model 100. It had a 32 x 8 characters screen and as I recall, 15 K. of memory? I would sign on in the middle of the night to numerous local BBS folks. But I got tired using those acoustic couplers on the telephone handset. So I got a couple of modular jacks and made an adapter so I can plug my model 100 directly into the handset phone line with the handset removed. Circa 1982-3. Those were the good old days. Overnights, playing music, surfing BBS sites that you had to dial into directly. Lunch at 4 AM and news from five to 8 AM. It was so relaxing. None of this neurotic recording stuff.

I'M NOT NEUROTIC!
Mx. Remy Ann David

Hilarious, Mx Remy ! The old clunkers !

Bad idea!

There are a few things to say here. First of all CPU graphics along with 'Intel Insider' are an effort by Hollywood to do DRM in computers. It does nothing to improve performance. It does, however allow the designer to make a smaller machine. It may also have some power advantages. I'm not sure about that.

It is bad to use it just like the 'Intel Extreme' motherboard graphics are a bad thing. There are two reasons.

1. They steal main memory for video use. If you have a 64 bit OS, a 64 bit application (NOT PT) & lots of memory this may not matter to you.

2. This does matter. They steal bandwidth. They steal both CPU and memory bandwidth. Even if your CPU and memory are more than fast enough to deal with the load of video processing, the paths into and out of it are always limited and hogging them up with video slows down everything else.

Laptops have had motherboard graphics since it first came out and now the new CPU graphics are very appealing as they can be realized in less space. Yes, people have done audio on laptops but it is not the best thing to do.

If you have a desktop machine, I highly recommend that you do not use CPU graphics. Instead get a cheap card. As always, if you are a PT user be sure to check Avid's recommendations (get Nvidia).

Now the real question remains. Does the mere presence of the graphics processor degrade performance even if you are not using it? I'm sorry. I don't know. The jury is still out on this one. I have heard some negative comments but nothing substantial. If I stumble on anything other than personal opinion, I will post it here.

There is another similar concern. Intel CPUs now have internal memory controllers. That sounds like a good idea but some of the i series don't do ECC memory. That's really not too important for a casual user but for something intense like DAW use, I want to do ECC. This issue is really complicated in that there are so many different Intel CPUs and some do ECC and some don't.

Speaking of opinion. IMHO, don't do it. I am using an Intel Zeon (Nehalem) it doesn't have graphics in it. It also does ECC both in the caches and in the system memory. This is sort of a server kind of CPU but that's what we want for DAW use.