DVI/PCI video card for old PC?

[sinister]

I bought an LCD monitor for my home PC, and I've read that it's better to
have a video card with DVI output to get crisper text and so forth.

My PCI is pretty old though, a Dell L800r. It has on-board video; the only
slots for a card are PCI.

The main problem is that the power supply for the box is only 145W, and the
cards I see when I casually browse want a lot more than that.

Are there any cards out there that don't need so much power? (I'd be
willing to buy an old card off of e-bay, too.) Obviously I don't want to
spend much money (e.g. on card or power supply) because in that case I might
as well upgrade the whole PC.

TIA,

S

 

[Frank McCoy]

I bought an LCD monitor for my home PC, and I've read that it's better to
have a video card with DVI output to get crisper text and so forth.

My PCI is pretty old though, a Dell L800r. It has on-board video; the only
slots for a card are PCI.

The main problem is that the power supply for the box is only 145W, and the
cards I see when I casually browse want a lot more than that.

Are there any cards out there that don't need so much power? (I'd be
willing to buy an old card off of e-bay, too.) Obviously I don't want to
spend much money (e.g. on card or power supply) because in that case I might
as well upgrade the whole PC.

Um ....
A. Power supplies are (relatively) cheap.
Especially compared to video-cards and motherboards.
B. My present "2006 All In Wonder" card uses *far* less power than
the previous model did (and the next generation) and runs fine
on my mobo, being an AGP model. The previous one had a fan ....
That failed; bringing the video card to a dead-short when the
processor got too hot. The 2006 AGP model doesn't even HAVE
a fan; and the heatsinks don't even get noticeably hot.
This while running close to twice as fast as the previous model.

145 watts sounds a bit low; but it depends on many other things than
total power rating. I've got a 200-watt power-supply back in my junkbox
that I trust more than a 450-watt supply in the same box for checking
out systems with.

Yes, the card I'm using *does* support the LCD screens; though only
through the VGA connector. However, the screen is *incredibly* sharp;
and I don't think using the other connector even could improve it by
much. The important thing is being able to run at native resolution.
for that, you usually have to download the latest drivers for your
board. (I had to for mine.)

ATI can be a PITA sometimes to install though; especially if you've had
ATI boards of any stripe in the computer previously. Their "ATI Removal
Tool" sucks. Often you have to go into C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32 and delete
ATI*.* before installing the new software (or even upgrade off the net)
before the thing will properly install the new stuff. That's AFTER
running their removal-tool.

 

[Paul]

I bought an LCD monitor for my home PC, and I've read that it's better to
have a video card with DVI output to get crisper text and so forth.

My PCI is pretty old though, a Dell L800r. It has on-board video; the only
slots for a card are PCI.

The main problem is that the power supply for the box is only 145W, and the
cards I see when I casually browse want a lot more than that.

Are there any cards out there that don't need so much power? (I'd be
willing to buy an old card off of e-bay, too.) Obviously I don't want to
spend much money (e.g. on card or power supply) because in that case I might
as well upgrade the whole PC.

TIA,

S

L800r - P3?/800, 64MB SDRAM, 6MB Intel 810E graphics, 9.5GB hard drive, CD-ROM
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,26811,00.asp

For zero extra power consumption, you can buy an LCD monitor with a
VGA connector on it, and enjoy it. No need to go looking for a replacement
for the power supply. 17" and 19" monitors are available with native 1280x1024,
so it would help if your VGA output could manage that much. LCDs look sharpest
when used at their native resolution. Windows has an option to make the fonts
look larger, if that is a problem. For example, I use the larger fonts
option on my 1280x1024 17" monitor.

810e graphics

"The GMCH directly drives a standard progressive scan monitor up to a
resolution of 1600x1200."

Table 16. Partial List of Display Modes Supported
Bits Per Pixel (frequency in Hz)
Resolution 8-bit Indexed 16-bit 24-bit
320x200 70 70 70
320x240 70 70 70
352x480 70 70 70
352x576 70 70 70
400x300 70 70 70
512x384 70 70 70
640x400 70 70 70
640x480 60,70,72,75,85 60,70,72,75,85 60,70,72,75,85
720x480 75,85 75,85 75,85
720x576 60,75,85 60,75,85 60,75,85
800x600 60,70,72,75,85 60,70,72,75,85 60,70,72,75,85
1024x768 60,70,72,75,85 60,70,72,75,85 60,70,72,75,85
1152x864 60,70,72,75,85 60,70,72,75,85 60,70,72,75,85
1280x720 60,75,85 60,75,85 60,75,85
1280x960 60,75,85 60,75,85 60,75,85
1280x1024 60,70,72,75,85 60,70,72,75,85 60,70,75,85
1600x900 60,75,85 60,75,85
1600x1200 60,70,72,75,85

Yup, 1280x1024 is looking pretty sweet. A VGA cable, a 19" LCD with VGA input,
and you're in business, at up to 24 bit color. Select 60Hz display, for least load
on the share memory subsystem.

About 45 different units to choose from here. Check that they support VGA
and 1280x1024, then check the customer review comments to see if worth
buying. Then comparison shop at other sites, or try locally.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...09237+1233214217&Configurator=&Subcategory=20

There is no telling what kind of supply that 145W unit is. It could be microATX,
it could have a non-standard pinout. I checked PCpower.com , in their Dell
section, and that computer is not listed. Although I'm sure there are plenty
of web sites that do carry exact substitutes, if you had a complete failure
for example. Just don't expect any site to volunteer info about what
supply options are compatible (they hide that info, so you have to buy their
more expensive crap).

Yes, there are PCI video cards. Newegg has a list of them, but there are fewer
good ones than there used to be. And I'm not sure how much room would be
left on that 145W supply, to use one of those. Note that some low end DVI
outputs, won't do the full resolution, due to TMDS signalling issues on the
DVI output, so determining which card is a good one, is also a bit of a problem.

Since your existing VGA output is "free", start with it. And stick to the
resolutions in the above table, or other info you may have available to you.
Selecting a 1440xsomeodd wide screen, when 1440 is not in the above table,
would be a mistake. Intel chipsets are hard to fix, when it comes to
resolutions.

Paul

 

[Phisherman]

I bought an LCD monitor for my home PC, and I've read that it's better to
have a video card with DVI output to get crisper text and so forth.

My PCI is pretty old though, a Dell L800r. It has on-board video; the only
slots for a card are PCI.

The main problem is that the power supply for the box is only 145W, and the
cards I see when I casually browse want a lot more than that.

Are there any cards out there that don't need so much power? (I'd be
willing to buy an old card off of e-bay, too.) Obviously I don't want to
spend much money (e.g. on card or power supply) because in that case I might
as well upgrade the whole PC.

TIA,

S

Look at the video cards that don't have fans (they use less power). Of
course, you want to latest video card possible. Google "low end video
cards."

 

[sinister]

Um ....
A. Power supplies are (relatively) cheap.
Especially compared to video-cards and motherboards.

OK, point noted.

Yes, the card I'm using *does* support the LCD screens; though only
through the VGA connector. However, the screen is *incredibly* sharp;
and I don't think using the other connector even could improve it by
much. The important thing is being able to run at native resolution.
for that, you usually have to download the latest drivers for your
board. (I had to for mine.)

That's a second vote for VGA being OK. So maybe I'll just stick with that.

Cheers.

 

[sinister]

Thanks for the detailed, thoughtful reply.

L800r - P3?/800, 64MB SDRAM, 6MB Intel 810E graphics, 9.5GB hard drive,
CD-ROM

Yep, though I upgraded the RAM and HDD awhile back.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,26811,00.asp

For zero extra power consumption, you can buy an LCD monitor with a
VGA connector on it, and enjoy it. No need to go looking for a replacement
for the power supply. 17" and 19" monitors are available with native
1280x1024,
so it would help if your VGA output could manage that much. LCDs look
sharpest
when used at their native resolution. Windows has an option to make the
fonts
look larger, if that is a problem. For example, I use the larger fonts
option on my 1280x1024 17" monitor.

Sounds like you think the "DVI ==> crisper images" is overblown.

810e graphics

"The GMCH directly drives a standard progressive scan monitor up to a
resolution of 1600x1200."

Table 16. Partial List of Display Modes Supported
Bits Per Pixel (frequency in Hz)
Resolution 8-bit Indexed 16-bit 24-bit

1280x1024 60,70,72,75,85 60,70,72,75,85 60,70,75,85

Yup, 1280x1024 is looking pretty sweet. A VGA cable, a 19" LCD with VGA
input,
and you're in business, at up to 24 bit color. Select 60Hz display, for
least load
on the share memory subsystem.

About 45 different units to choose from here. Check that they support VGA
and 1280x1024, then check the customer review comments to see if worth
buying. Then comparison shop at other sites, or try locally.

<snip>

I had already ordered a Samsung 940bx a couple days ago. Luckily its native
is 1280x1024. Didn't know about the video chipset compatibility issue
(thanks for letting me know).

There is no telling what kind of supply that 145W unit is. It could be
microATX,
it could have a non-standard pinout. I checked PCpower.com , in their Dell
section, and that computer is not listed. Although I'm sure there are
plenty
of web sites that do carry exact substitutes, if you had a complete
failure
for example. Just don't expect any site to volunteer info about what
supply options are compatible (they hide that info, so you have to buy
their
more expensive crap).

Yes, there are PCI video cards. Newegg has a list of them, but there are
fewer
good ones than there used to be. And I'm not sure how much room would be
left on that 145W supply, to use one of those. Note that some low end DVI
outputs, won't do the full resolution, due to TMDS signalling issues on
the
DVI output, so determining which card is a good one, is also a bit of a
problem.

Since your existing VGA output is "free", start with it. And stick to the
resolutions in the above table, or other info you may have available to
you.
Selecting a 1440xsomeodd wide screen, when 1440 is not in the above table,
would be a mistake. Intel chipsets are hard to fix, when it comes to
resolutions.

I guess lucked intervened, since I was thinking that wide screen aspect
ratio would have some advantages but then changed my mind. Phew!

 

[Paul]

Sounds like you think the "DVI ==> crisper images" is overblown.

At low resolution, they could well be indistinguishable.

When the resolution is high enough, then it is worth thinking
about changing interfaces. Even though a lot of video cards
are rated for 2048x1536 on VGA, between the filter components used
on the R, G, and B signals, reflections from cables and connectors,
the picture is hardly usable at that resolution. So somewhere between
1280x1024 and 2048x1536, it would be worthwhile to switch to DVI.

If you do decide to go shopping for a video card, try to find
solid info on the interfaces. For example, the table at the
bottom of this page, notes that one of the cards has a lower
DVI output spec than the others. Due to the fact that the
Taiwanese companies that make video cards, do so little work,
they are useless as a source of information. (You can find the
ATI and Nvidia "partners" web pages, and methodically go from
one video card manufacturer to another, looking for specs. Good
luck with that. I've tried that before.) And sometimes the cards
have shortcomings, that should be documented in the product specs.
But the specs are abbreviated to the point of being useless. If
only you could get even this level of detail for a lot of the stuff.

http://ati.amd.com/products/firemvseries/specs.html

Part of the reason why the video card drivers limit the output
resolution on DVI for some cards, is because of the quality of
the DVI outputs that come straight from the GPU. This is the
issue I'd be concerned with, if buying one of the older cards.
There was one other article similar to this one, that used a Tek
scope with DVI pulse template, to spot bad cards.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2004/11/29/the_tft_connection/page21.html

If all the cards worked at 165MHz maximum output on DVI, then
the resolutions listed in this article would be possible.

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

By the way - not all cards have dual-link DVI. That is two sets
of signals that work in parallel, on a single connector. The
X1550 spec, for example, claims one of the two DVI connectors
is a dual-link connector. In theory, you could drive quite a
high resolution over the DVI interface, if that is indeed
what ships on that card. But try and find an advert that tells
you that there is a dual-link connector on there.

All part of the fun, shopping for video cards

Paul

 

[Frank McCoy]

At low resolution, they could well be indistinguishable.

When the resolution is high enough, then it is worth thinking
about changing interfaces. Even though a lot of video cards
are rated for 2048x1536 on VGA, between the filter components used
on the R, G, and B signals, reflections from cables and connectors,
the picture is hardly usable at that resolution. So somewhere between
1280x1024 and 2048x1536, it would be worthwhile to switch to DVI.

My present LCD panel at 1680x1050 (a common native resolution for LCD
panels) has both inputs; but looks incredibly sharp on VGA. Of course,
I think the particular video-card picked might have a lot to do with
that as well. I doubt it would look near so good going through a switch
or expander.