Video Card for non-gamer

[Adam S]

Hi all,

A friend has asked me to build a system for him. He is not a gamer at all,
(had a PC 5 years and doesn't even play solitaire), but he does do alot of
digital photography, and wants something that will cope with LARGE graphic
manipulations.

What would be the better card out of these two, they both cost exactly the
same:

256Mb ATI Radeon 9200

128Mb Asus Radeon 9600

Would the bigger memory be better, or the faster GPU?

Or can you suggest another card for a cost of under £100. (UKP)

Thanks Adam S

 

[Sooky Grumper]

Hi all,

A friend has asked me to build a system for him. He is not a gamer at all,
(had a PC 5 years and doesn't even play solitaire), but he does do alot of
digital photography, and wants something that will cope with LARGE graphic
manipulations.

What would be the better card out of these two, they both cost exactly the
same:

256Mb ATI Radeon 9200

128Mb Asus Radeon 9600

Would the bigger memory be better, or the faster GPU?

Or can you suggest another card for a cost of under £100. (UKP)

Thanks Adam S

IIRC, just about any card should handle what he wants to do. The extra
video memory probably won't add anything to the card. Have a look at the
features of the two cards and compare. The 9600 is the way I'd go, if I
could only choose between the two. Matrox have a very good reputation
for 2-D graphics performance and dual (or more) monitor support. Even
one from a few years back would probably suit your friends' needs quite
well. Can someone else confirm this?

 

[Conor]

Hi all,

A friend has asked me to build a system for him. He is not a gamer at all,
(had a PC 5 years and doesn't even play solitaire), but he does do alot of
digital photography, and wants something that will cope with LARGE graphic
manipulations.

What would be the better card out of these two, they both cost exactly the
same:

256Mb ATI Radeon 9200

128Mb Asus Radeon 9600

Would the bigger memory be better, or the faster GPU?

Or can you suggest another card for a cost of under £100. (UKP)

Matrox Millennium G450 or higher. Better 2D image quality and speed
than either of the above.

 

[Adam Strawson]

Hi all,

A friend has asked me to build a system for him. He is not a gamer at all,
(had a PC 5 years and doesn't even play solitaire), but he does do alot of
digital photography, and wants something that will cope with LARGE graphic
manipulations.

What would be the better card out of these two, they both cost exactly the
same:

256Mb ATI Radeon 9200

128Mb Asus Radeon 9600

Would the bigger memory be better, or the faster GPU?

Or can you suggest another card for a cost of under £100. (UKP)

Matrox Millennium G450 or higher. Better 2D image quality and speed
than either of the above.

I've found the Millenium G550 for £70 (70UKP) but it only has 32MB of
memory. Would that still be better than one of the other cards with 128 or
256MB on then?

The Millenium G450 AGP version only has 16MB of memory on it and is £50.
There is a G450 PCI version with 128MB of memory but its a bit too expensive
at £415 + vat (four hundred and fifteen pounds)

Some of the files he is working with are over 45MB in size.

Adam S

 

[Sooky Grumper]

I've found the Millenium G550 for £70 (70UKP) but it only has 32MB of
memory. Would that still be better than one of the other cards with 128 or
256MB on then?

The Millenium G450 AGP version only has 16MB of memory on it and is £50.
There is a G450 PCI version with 128MB of memory but its a bit too expensive
at £415 + vat (four hundred and fifteen pounds)

Some of the files he is working with are over 45MB in size.

These are kept in system memory (RAM and swap/scratch pad), not video
memory.

 

[DaveW]

Get the 9600 so he won't have to wait while the images draw.