Looking for a "pretty good" PCI-E video card ...

[Bert Hyman]

I'm getting ready to build another PC and am looking for a "pretty
good" PCI-E video card. It needs to be rock solid under WinXP Pro and
reasonably quick. Cheap would be nice, but I'm prepared to spend more
than $150 if I have to.

I'm a software developer and spend a lot of time staring at Visual
Studio or Eclipse, and the machine also gets a lot of use as the main
household computer, with occasional use for Word and PowerPoint
documents. Nobody in the house plays video games of any sort.

I'm crossposting to the ATI and Nvidia groups because I've had good
luck in the past with cards based on both chipsets; I have no
religious feelings about either. I'll admit that I've paid no
attention to the field for the last few years.

Suggestions?

 

[Augustus]

I'm getting ready to build another PC and am looking for a "pretty
good" PCI-E video card. It needs to be rock solid under WinXP Pro and
reasonably quick. Cheap would be nice, but I'm prepared to spend more
than $150 if I have to.

I'm a software developer and spend a lot of time staring at Visual
Studio or Eclipse, and the machine also gets a lot of use as the main
household computer, with occasional use for Word and PowerPoint
documents. Nobody in the house plays video games of any sort.

I'm crossposting to the ATI and Nvidia groups because I've had good
luck in the past with cards based on both chipsets; I have no
religious feelings about either. I'll admit that I've paid no
attention to the field for the last few years.

Suggestions?

You are not gaming or doing AutoCAD. I would consider upgradability to run
Vista Aero down the road at some point, but really this doesn't require a
whole lot of juice either. So you can get an excellent card for your needs
for less than $100. I would avoid cards with 64bit memory, and ones with
small amounts of discrete dedicated RAM. Something like an X1300 Pro from
ATI or the Nvidia 7300GT series with 128 or 256Mb. There's a lot of choice
in this range. Just avoid the 64bit memory and turbocache/hypermemory
variants.

 

[Cessna 310]

You are not gaming or doing AutoCAD. I would consider upgradability to run
Vista Aero down the road at some point, but really this doesn't require a
whole lot of juice either. So you can get an excellent card for your needs
for less than $100. I would avoid cards with 64bit memory, and ones with
small amounts of discrete dedicated RAM. Something like an X1300 Pro from
ATI or the Nvidia 7300GT series with 128 or 256Mb. There's a lot of choice
in this range. Just avoid the 64bit memory and turbocache/hypermemory
variants.

I've got a little very recent first-hand experience with several
computers and graphics cards. With the last few weeks, I've installed a
7300GT (fanless Gigabyte ~ $78 inc. shipping from ZipZoomFly), two
7600GS (one fanless Asus and one fan-cooled eVGA @ ~ $100 from newegg)
and a 7600GT (fan-cooled BFG from newegg ~ $144 from newegg). All were
256mb cards.

All cards were installed on Asus A8N-VM CSM boards as upgrades to
onboard video. Three of the four systems had 2 gig memory, the HTPC has
one gig memory.

The 7300GT went into a general use / student computer (browser, email,
MS Office applications, nothing "demanding") that sometimes plays DVDs
or streaming movies. Works great even though it may be a little overkill.

The 7600GS's were for a HDTV HTPC (fanless) and a second computer doing
a lot of CAD. Both systems work great.

7600GT went into a general use PC that also runs MS Flight Simulator
2004. Maybe a little overkill, but definitely no complaints.


Not much change in perceived "general" performance. Maybe a slight
improvement in image rendering, maybe not.

None of these cards share memory from the main system. So if the system
has one or two gig, its not shared with video.


I'm not sure I agree with the need to upgrade to Vista. It doesn't fix
anything that's broken.

 

[Augustus]

I'm not sure I agree with the need to upgrade to Vista. It doesn't fix

anything that's broken.

I wouldn't upgrade to Vista until SP1 and other issues have been addressed.
But it doesn't hurt to get your budget card Aero capable. He may have it for
3-5 years.

 

[Cessna 310]

I wouldn't upgrade to Vista until SP1 and other issues have been addressed.
But it doesn't hurt to get your budget card Aero capable. He may have it for
3-5 years.

XP will be supported that long.

 

[Bert Hyman]

(e-mail address removed) (Cessna 310) wrote in

XP will be supported that long.

Unless my employer loses its collective mind (they've done it
before), I'll be running XP for a long time

 

[Barry Watzman]

In the ATI product line, you can get an X1300 based product for about
$100, or an X1600 based product for less than twice that. Really, the
X1300 with dedicated memory (at least 128MB if not more) is all you need
for typical desktop use, and it will support Vista's Aero interface (I
should add here to check that the BOARD has drivers for Vista with Aero
support (WDDM drivers) .... the chip is capable of doing it, but the
drivers can be come board specific rather than just chip specific).

 

[Barry Watzman]

Hey, Sky King: It just doesn't make to get a card that's not Vista
(Aero) compatible when one that is doesn't cost any more. Without
regard to whether or not one has current plans to actually use Vista
(plans change).

 

[Augustus]

Hey, Sky King: It just doesn't make to get a card that's not Vista (Aero)
compatible when one that is doesn't cost any more. Without regard to
whether or not one has current plans to actually use Vista (plans change).

This is essentially my point.

 

[J. Clarke]

This is essentially my point.

I don't know what you people are on about. It's hard to find a
PCI-Express video board that is _not_ "Aero compatible". You'd have to
pretty much set out deliberately to find one. Seems to me that it's a
non-issue.

 

[Mr.E Solved!]

I don't know what you people are on about. It's hard to find a
PCI-Express video board that is _not_ "Aero compatible". You'd have to
pretty much set out deliberately to find one. Seems to me that it's a
non-issue.

I believe they are confusing 'Aero' compatibility or capabilities with
either HDCP or DX10 compatibilities, as you say, nearly every card will
run desktop compositioning, including non current cards.

DX10 compliance, a whole different issue. The mainstream GeForce 8
series will be available in about two weeks, so there will be more
options for those brave and foolish Vista early adopters.

Sorry ATI group for the crosspost, but you have your share of
misinformed folks over there too!

 

[Augustus]

I believe they are confusing 'Aero' compatibility or capabilities with
either HDCP or DX10 compatibilities, as you say, nearly every card will
run desktop compositioning, including non current cards.

DX10 compliance, a whole different issue. The mainstream GeForce 8 series
will be available in about two weeks, so there will be more

No, I'm not confusing Aero compatability with DX10 compliance. Vista Aero on
a low memory 64bit turbo-cache or hypermemory style card will wok but is not
desirable. It has sluggish performance compared to even the 1300 series and
7300 cards. And there's plenty of bottom feeder cards out there with 64bit
memory and low dedicated RAM. Vista Aero doesn't require much. But you will
defintely feel a difference between a 64bit 7100LE Turbocache or a 64 bit
1550 Hypermemory versus a "real" low end 7300 or 1300 series given the same
hardware.

 

[Cessna 310]

This is essentially my point.

In the context of the proposed use of the card, the 7300GT, 7600GS or
7600GT would be fine. All run in Vista. They use DirectX 9.0 with
backward compatibility with Vista.

So if there is some rational reason discovered to move to Vista, the
cards will run.

 

[Cessna 310]

No, I'm not confusing Aero compatability with DX10 compliance. Vista Aero on
a low memory 64bit turbo-cache or hypermemory style card will wok but is not
desirable. It has sluggish performance compared to even the 1300 series and
7300 cards. And there's plenty of bottom feeder cards out there with 64bit
memory and low dedicated RAM. Vista Aero doesn't require much. But you will
defintely feel a difference between a 64bit 7100LE Turbocache or a 64 bit
1550 Hypermemory versus a "real" low end 7300 or 1300 series given the same
hardware.

Who's talking about turbo-cached video cards? All three of the cards I
mentioned have their own dedicated on-board memory. No turbo caching.

But the issue is whether there is a real reason to migrate to Vista
within the expected life of an average computer (3 - 5 years).

 

[Augustus]

Who's talking about turbo-cached video cards? All three of the cards I

mentioned have their own dedicated on-board memory. No turbo caching.

But the issue is whether there is a real reason to migrate to Vista within
the expected life of an average computer (3 - 5 years).

The previous post was in response to the post about it being hard to find a
PCI-Express card that isn't Areo compatible. Which is true. But compatible
and desirable are two different things. There's a noticeable difference with
Aero on a bottom feeder 64bit card. Which was my point.

 

[No One]

I wouldn't upgrade to Vista until SP1 and other issues have been addressed.
But it doesn't hurt to get your budget card Aero capable. He may have it for
3-5 years.

A trully Aero capable card is gonna cost no less than $400.

 

[No One]

I don't know what you people are on about. It's hard to find a
PCI-Express video board that is _not_ "Aero compatible". You'd have to
pretty much set out deliberately to find one. Seems to me that it's a
non-issue.

More important is Direct X 10 compliant. Good luck finding one under $450.

 

[J. Clarke]

The previous post was in response to the post about it being hard to
find a PCI-Express card that isn't Areo compatible. Which is true.
But compatible and desirable are two different things. There's a
noticeable difference with Aero on a bottom feeder 64bit card. Which
was my point.

I don't see a whole lot of difference between a Radeon 9600 and a 1650.
There may be some ultra-crap cards that slow it down but I'd want to
avoid them for reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with Vista.

 

[Cessna 310]

A trully Aero capable card is gonna cost no less than $400.

I'll stick to XP, thank you.

What advantage does Vista offer that's worth the cost of upgrade? And
why does it require a $400 video card to run it?

 

[Cessna 310]

More important is Direct X 10 compliant. Good luck finding one under $450.

Why is it important to have a card that's DirX10 compliant? Won't the
current crop of 9 cards work?