What is more productive: 2 monitors connected to a video card or to a video card and an integrated video card?

Question

Iron

Hello!
Given: 2 monitors, mat. Intel DQ67SW board, proc. Intel i5-2500, 16 GB RAM, graphics card: Asus HD4850 ​​512 MB memory.
Which option is more productive and why:
1) 2 monitors are connected to the Asus HD4850 ​​video card
2) 1 monitor will be connected to the Asus HD4850, 2 monitor will be connected to the video output on the mat. board DQ67SW, i.e. the signal to the second monitor will be transmitted by the Intel HD Graphics 2000 integrated in the processor. Intel i5-2500
My opinion: Intel HD Graphics 2000 is less productive than the Asus HD4850 ​​discrete video card, and if so, the latter will lower the frequencies in order to synchronize the signal with the integrated card. And since HD Graphics 2000 is 6.5 times slower than HD4850 ​​(found here:https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-HD-200... ), then the performance of the second option will drop by 6.5 times compared to the first option. But all this is purely my theory, I would like to hear the opinion of professionals in hardware ..

Answer 1

There is no difference, the output of the image as such does not load the video card. There is no synchronization between video cards: only AFR/SFR "joint" rendering , but it needs a bridge - SLI\NVLINK or Crossfire. Of course, this is not your case.
So connect wherever your soul desires. It is desirable, of course, to the most powerful - some applications, for some unknown reason, try to use the video card to which the monitor is connected, on which they are located.