On-board graphics or graphics card - which is cooler?

[hymerman]

So I'm just building a server machine using very efficient, quiet and cool components. It'll be headless, so graphics performance matters not one jot.

First of all, I'm right in thinking I do need some kind of graphics device, right? I can't just get a motherboard without on-board graphics, no graphics card, and expect it to work?

Assuming that's right, I'm just wondering whether to get on-board graphics (the one I'm looking at is the ASUS P5QL-CM, chipset Intel G43 Express / Intel ICH10, Intel GMA X4500 graphics) or to get a motherboard without and get a super-cheap, passively cooled card.

Which do you think will be less noisy/hot? I'd always assumed on-board would be cooler, but since I've had to work my way up the price range of motherboards to get one with enough SATA connectors, I'm now into "quite good" on-baord graphics territory, and I'm now thinking it may be a good idea to get an actual card, albeit unused...

Any thoughts?

 

[blaineoliver]

In terms of temperatures, the onboard will be hot regardless. A passive cheap gfx card wont add much heat, but should be tonnes better performing.

 

[Engram]

In terms of temperatures, the onboard will be hot regardless.

I think you're probably right there. So I would say, just use the onboard graphics. No point buying something you don't need.

 

[marley82]

The onboard gfx chip often uses your RAM so as its going to be used as a server id go for a ~£20 gfx card

 

[J.B]

Personally if its headless I wouldnt bother spending the extra money on a card. We're not talking huge amounts of heat for the onboard one.

 

[PermaBanned]

There's always this:

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=HS-016-AL&groupid=701&catid=57&subcat=399

 

[hymerman]

Thanks guys, I'll go for the motherboard with on-board graphics. Hopefully it won't run too hot