Video card selection - ATI or Nvidia and memory size

[Alan T]

Hi,

I am building a new pc, considering the video card:
1)Choose the card
ATI 4670 or
Nvidia 9600GT

Which card is better?
What I usual do is web browsing, avi or rmvb movie watching, and
programming.


2)
Then select the memory
512MB or
1 GB

Since the price difference between 512MB and 1GB is not significant.
Does the memory size will affect the system memory usage by XP 32 bit?

 

[Paul]

Hi,

I am building a new pc, considering the video card:
1)Choose the card
ATI 4670 or
Nvidia 9600GT

Which card is better?
What I usual do is web browsing, avi or rmvb movie watching, and
programming.


2)
Then select the memory
512MB or
1 GB

Since the price difference between 512MB and 1GB is not significant.
Does the memory size will affect the system memory usage by XP 32 bit?

"Better" is usually measured in 3D gaming context. (The advertising server
used on this page, is currently slowing things down. I had to wait a minute
or two for the page to render. Reminds me of being on dialup at 1200 baud.)
The 9600GT might be a little faster, but I couldn't really look at enough
charts to say for sure.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/...-charts-2009-high-quality/Far-Cry-2,1321.html

They say here, the 4670 is about the same as a 9600GSO.

http://www.gpureview.com/Radeon-HD-4670-card-579.html

The HD 4670 (RV730) has UVD 2.2 for video decoding, as mentioned here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Video_Decoder

The 9600GT has VP2 video decoding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nvidia_PureVideo

Note that the video decoders don't accelerate any arbitrary
video types (because code must be created for each format).
They're intended for popular video formats which
might exist on DVD or Bluray discs. If you have some favorite
format, it is going to take a lot more research to figure out
whether it is supported in hardware. Also, the "driver" if you
will, for video, is part of the player application. So if you
want the "acceleration" feature, you get it when you buy
"PowerDVD" or the like. The acceleration is not exposed in a
general way, for Windows to use. At least, not that I've been
able to determine.

(Announcement of VP2 support)
http://www.cyberlink.com/eng/press_room/view_1365.html

(Announcement of UVD support)
http://www.cyberlink.com/eng/press_room/view_1367.html

(Announcement of UVD2 support)
http://docs.cyberlink.com/eng/press_room/view_1756.html

So when you're buying a video card with video acceleration
in hardware as an objective, you only really know for sure,
when using the Task Manager while playing your movie. It
may not be possible to verify in advance with any certainty.
A lot of people get to see the "software" decoder used
instead, and the CPU utilization ends up higher.

WinXP 32 bit has a limited address space available. Out of
that address space, comes room for PCI and PCI Express buses,
as well as the system memory.

If there isn't room for it all, they shave the top off the
system memory. If you don't really need a 1GB video card,
a 512MB card may allow more of your 4GB purchase of RAM
to be used. If you have a tiny complement of system RAM,
it might not make any difference at all.

For example, my system has 2x1GB sticks, and a 1GB video
card would not affect me (I could continue to use all of
my 2GB total memory). If I installed my 2x2GB memory kit
in its place, then I'd see 2.75GB declared as free, when
running WinXP 32 bit and the 1GB video card. The loss would
be 1GB for the PCI Express video card, plus 0.25GB for the
PCI bus odds and ends. Bus allocations tend to be done in
crude 0.25GB blocks of address space. My 2.75GB number
is just a rough guess - some BIOS do stupid things.

There is one video card on the market which has 4GB
of memory on board. I'm still waiting for some joker
to plug it into a WinXP 32 bit system, just to see
what happens

Paul

 

[Singapore Computer Service]

Hello,

If you are only web browsing or movie watching, and your programming is not
based on game programming languages such as OpenGL or DirectX, you can get a
motherboard which comes with an integrated card and save money.

The cards you mention are for gaming and use up additional power. They don't
provide performance enhancements for what you are using the system for
unless you are gaming or running 3D (DirectX) based applications.

For memory, go for as much as possible, since RAM is cheap nowadays. 4GB is
the maximum supported under XP 32-bit but note that you will only get to use
about 3gb - 3.2gb .

Regards,
Singapore Computer Home Repair Service
http://www.bootstrike.com/ComputerService/
Video Conversion VHS Video8 Hi8 Digital8 MiniDv MicroMv
http://www.bootstrike.com/VHSVideoConvert/

 

[Andrew E.]

Both cards are ok,however if you purchase a true ATI card (not 2nd party),
ATI offers a free dvd encoder for youre dvd playback.Nvidia offers them but
also charges for its use...

 

[Alan T]

Hi,

It looks like I should buy a motherboard has integrated video card as I may
not spend too much time on application developement using my new PC. I won't
spend more than 1 hour a week on gaming.

What if the on-board video card is dead, can I disable that and buy a
standalone video card then?
The on-board video card will use up the system resources (RAM?) and will the
video card perform good?

 

[Alan T]

Thanks for your detailed comments.

"Better" is usually measured in 3D gaming context. (The advertising server
used on this page, is currently slowing things down. I had to wait a
minute
or two for the page to render. Reminds me of being on dialup at 1200
baud.)
The 9600GT might be a little faster, but I couldn't really look at enough
charts to say for sure.

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/...-charts-2009-high-quality/Far-Cry-2,1321.html

They say here, the 4670 is about the same as a 9600GSO.

http://www.gpureview.com/Radeon-HD-4670-card-579.html

The HD 4670 (RV730) has UVD 2.2 for video decoding, as mentioned here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Video_Decoder

The 9600GT has VP2 video decoding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nvidia_PureVideo

Note that the video decoders don't accelerate any arbitrary
video types (because code must be created for each format).
They're intended for popular video formats which
might exist on DVD or Bluray discs. If you have some favorite
format, it is going to take a lot more research to figure out
whether it is supported in hardware. Also, the "driver" if you
will, for video, is part of the player application. So if you
want the "acceleration" feature, you get it when you buy
"PowerDVD" or the like. The acceleration is not exposed in a
general way, for Windows to use. At least, not that I've been
able to determine.

(Announcement of VP2 support)
http://www.cyberlink.com/eng/press_room/view_1365.html

(Announcement of UVD support)
http://www.cyberlink.com/eng/press_room/view_1367.html

(Announcement of UVD2 support)
http://docs.cyberlink.com/eng/press_room/view_1756.html

So when you're buying a video card with video acceleration
in hardware as an objective, you only really know for sure,
when using the Task Manager while playing your movie. It
may not be possible to verify in advance with any certainty.
A lot of people get to see the "software" decoder used
instead, and the CPU utilization ends up higher.

WinXP 32 bit has a limited address space available. Out of
that address space, comes room for PCI and PCI Express buses,
as well as the system memory.

If there isn't room for it all, they shave the top off the
system memory. If you don't really need a 1GB video card,
a 512MB card may allow more of your 4GB purchase of RAM
to be used. If you have a tiny complement of system RAM,
it might not make any difference at all.

For example, my system has 2x1GB sticks, and a 1GB video
card would not affect me (I could continue to use all of
my 2GB total memory). If I installed my 2x2GB memory kit
in its place, then I'd see 2.75GB declared as free, when
running WinXP 32 bit and the 1GB video card. The loss would
be 1GB for the PCI Express video card, plus 0.25GB for the
PCI bus odds and ends. Bus allocations tend to be done in
crude 0.25GB blocks of address space. My 2.75GB number
is just a rough guess - some BIOS do stupid things.

There is one video card on the market which has 4GB
of memory on board. I'm still waiting for some joker
to plug it into a WinXP 32 bit system, just to see
what happens

Paul

 

[Bennett Marco]

What if the on-board video card is dead, can I disable that and buy a
standalone video card then?

Of course.

 

[Singapore Computer Service]

Hello,

It is very rare for an onboard vga board to be dead, if it is dead, it is
more likely your motherboard needs to be replaced. Unless it is something
like a broken connector.

Now that you mention 1 hour per week on gaming, what kind of games do you
play? Miniclip or viwawa kind of flash games? Like I said, if you play 3D
games, a dedicated graphics card will help alot.

Regards,
Singapore Computer Home Repair Service
http://www.bootstrike.com/ComputerService/
Video Conversion VHS Video8 Hi8 Digital8 MiniDv MicroMv
http://www.bootstrike.com/VHSVideoConvert/

 

[Alan T]

Hi,
What do you mean by 2nd party of ATI graphics card?
So Gigabyte, Asus 2nd party card?

I am thinking of buying a 1GB 4670 video card, since the price difference of
512MB and 1GB 4670 is only $6.

But back to my original question:
If I have 2x2GB RAM (total 4 GB RAM), any differences in the system RAM that
will be used(or available) by XP 32 bit for 512MB or 1 GB video card?

In addition, how much differences in the performance of the video card with
512MB and 1 GB? There are huge differences in memory (512 MB differences).

 

[Paul]

Hi,
What do you mean by 2nd party of ATI graphics card?
So Gigabyte, Asus 2nd party card?

I am thinking of buying a 1GB 4670 video card, since the price difference of
512MB and 1GB 4670 is only $6.

But back to my original question:
If I have 2x2GB RAM (total 4 GB RAM), any differences in the system RAM that
will be used(or available) by XP 32 bit for 512MB or 1 GB video card?

In addition, how much differences in the performance of the video card with
512MB and 1 GB? There are huge differences in memory (512 MB differences).

If you have 4GB of memory installed in the motherboard, and change
the video card from a 512MB to a 1GB one, the "free memory" reported in
Windows will be 512MB less, due to the limitations of addressing space
in WinXP. It is unclear whether this is an advantage to you, in terms
of video card usage -- if the card is used for GPGPU type calculation,
rather than as a video card, the extra memory might help, but for
non-game usage, the extra video card memory might never get used.
So making the video card memory too large, subtracts from the
amount of system memory that is registered. You might see "3.25GB free"
with the 512MB card, and "2.75GB free" with the 1GB card, as a guess.

The minimum video card memory you might want, is at least 128MB. IF you ever
run something later than WinXP (Vista, Windows 7), then the memory can be
used for Aero compositing. Even 512MB in that situation should be plenty.

It looks like $6 of unnecessary baggage to me. If the card was a HD 4870 and
you were a gamer, it would be a different matter, and only some games
would show improvement. Not every game needs 1GB of texture memory.

Paul

 

[Alan T]

If you have 4GB of memory installed in the motherboard, and change

the video card from a 512MB to a 1GB one, the "free memory" reported in
Windows will be 512MB less, due to the limitations of addressing space
in WinXP. It is unclear whether this is an advantage to you, in terms
of video card usage -- if the card is used for GPGPU type calculation,
rather than as a video card, the extra memory might help, but for
non-game usage, the extra video card memory might never get used.
So making the video card memory too large, subtracts from the
amount of system memory that is registered. You might see "3.25GB free"
with the 512MB card, and "2.75GB free" with the 1GB card, as a guess.

So will such 512MB memory 'less' be used by XP? Or just goes elsewhere?

I used to thinking about buying a motherboard has built-in video card but
not sure how good it will be.
Such as watching movie (movie file eg. .mkv, .avi, .rmb) or playing CBT
(computer based traing video file)...

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

So will such 512MB memory 'less' be used by XP? Or just goes elsewhere?

The paragraph above talks about the use of the address space, not the
memory. The amount of the address space that can be used is restricted
by the hardware installed, which uses some of it (usually *around*
3.1GB is available for use). Any memory over and above that 3.1GB (or
whatever amount your system uses) isn't used by anything. It's
entirely wasted.

Here's my standard message on that subject:

All 32-bit client versions of Windows (not just Vista/XP) have a 4GB
address space (64-bit versions can use much more). That's the
theoretical upper limit beyond which you can not go.

But you can't use the entire 4GB of address space. Even though you
have a 4GB address space, you can only use *around* 3.1GB of RAM.
That's because some of that space is used by hardware and is not
available to the operating system and applications. The amount you can
use varies, depending on what hardware you have installed, but can
range from as little as 2GB to as much as 3.5GB. It's usually around
3.1GB.

Note that the hardware is using the address *space*, not the actual
RAM itself. If you have a greater amount of RAM, the rest of the RAM
goes unused because there is no address space to map it to.

Also see the other point mentioned below.

I used to thinking about buying a motherboard has built-in video card but
not sure how good it will be.

If the motherboard has built-in video support, and you use it instead
of adding a video card, the amount of memory available to Windows is
decreased by the amount that the video support uses. This is a
completely different issue from the address space issue talked about
above.

 

[Alan T]

If the motherboard has built-in video support, and you use it instead
of adding a video card, the amount of memory available to Windows is
decreased by the amount that the video support uses. This is a
completely different issue from the address space issue talked about
above.

So if the built-in video graphic card has 'default' shared/build-in memory
of 512MB, then the 'usable' RAM used by XP (32 bit)
will be ~3.1GB minus 512MB ?

 

[Paul]

So if the built-in video graphic card has 'default' shared/build-in memory
of 512MB, then the 'usable' RAM used by XP (32 bit)
will be ~3.1GB minus 512MB ?

There is 4GB of address space.

Out of that, you have

4GB of RAM
512MB for the video card, of address space
256MB for PCI cards and their address space.
-----
4.75GB total

Obviously, you cannot address 4.75GB of stuff, so something
has to break. What happens, is you lose the ability to access
some of the RAM. If 3.25GB of RAM is addressable, the table
looks like

3.25GB RAM
512MB for video card
256MB for PCI cards and their address space
-----
4.0GB total

So by trimming back the reported memory, the important
resources are satisfied first, and the leftovers go to
allowing the memory to be addressed.

Try chapter 5 here, for some experimental numbers. They should
have updated this document, because there are plenty of examples
and details they could have provided. The example given, is
too marginal to help more mainstream users. This is actually
an Intel document, but I've lost the URL of the original copy.
The Intel file has a different file name.

http://dlsvr01.asus.com/pub/ASUS/mb/4GB_Rev1.pdf

We can compare that, to the datasheet for the 915G chipset.
Figure 11-1 on PDF page 207, shows how memory is squeezed
down by the size of address spaces reserved for other
hardware components. To save you downloading this doc,
I've redrawn their figure slightly. (As it isn't that
clear, as it is currently drawn.)

http://download.intel.com/design/chipsets/datashts/30146705.pdf

4GB PCI address decodes \____ As these grow...
PCI Express address decodes /

TOLUD System memory <---- This shrinks...

1 MB Legacy address range
0-640K DOS range

My guess is, your memory reported free, will be roughly

4GB - (256MB for PCI) - (512MB for video card) = 3.25GB free

Actually, it depends on how your BIOS sets it up. The BIOS
sets the TOLUD (Top of Low Usable DRAM). There have been cases,
where the BIOS actually allocates two segments for PCI Express
video cards, one cached and one uncached. So the precision with
which the memory map is set up, is determined by the BIOS writer.

The absolute worst I've seen, is a Dell system where there is
only 2GB of address space available. There are some hardware
justifications for that one, but I cannot help but feel they
could have done a better job if they tried.

The OS has the option of "ignoring" some of the free memory. So
the BIOS hands a number to the OS, but the OS is free to trim
some of that off if necessary. For example, the boot.ini option
MAXMEM, can reduce the memory reported free if required.

But I don't believe the OS attempts to change the address decoding,
once booting starts. The TOLUD is set by the BIOS and should last
for the entire time the OS is running. So if something dumb is
happening, a BIOS update may fix it. It really depends on how
customer focused the motherboard manufacturer is, as to whether
you get BIOS updates when they're needed.

Paul

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

So if the built-in video graphic card has 'default' shared/build-in memory
of 512MB, then the 'usable' RAM used by XP (32 bit)
will be ~3.1GB minus 512MB ?

No.

If you have 4GB of RAM and motherboard video support that uses 512MB
of it, you essentially have only 3.5GB of RAM for Windows. You still
have a 4GB address space and if your hardware uses the typical amount
of it (about .9GB) that leaves you with a usable 3.1GB of address
space.

So you have to fit your 3.5GB of RAM into 3.1GB of address space. It
doesn't fit, so only 3.1GB of your RAM is usable and the other .4GB is
wasted.

To put it another way, if your hardware uses the typical .9GB of the
4GB address space, the 3.1GB remaining is all the RAM you can use. If
you have exactly 3.1GB of RAM, you get to use 3.1GB. If you have more
than 3.1GB of RAM (after any amount used for the video card is
deducted) you still only get to use 3.1GB. And if you have less than
3.1GB, there is no problem, and you get to use all the RAM you have.

 

[Alan T]

So it seems no differences between if I have an onboard graphics card and
standalone graphics card, the OS will have the same amount of RAM to use?