Video Cards = Do They Matter?

[paul_mcevoy]

Hi There,

 

I'm building a new computer and just wondering, with a PC...does it matter what

kind of video card you use? If you use some sort of onboard video from your

motherboard, is there any problem with that? It seems like most aftermarket

video cards are geared towards gamers. Not sure if it's worth putting any money

into that.

 

Thanks

Paul

[franklin_polk]

You don't want to use integrated because it will suck up system resources far more than an add-on video card, and can slow down your computer when you are using intensive apps, like Photoshop. The other thing is that on-board video cards usually don't have dual-link DVI connectors, which are necessary for ultra high resolution monitors (above 1920x1080). However, you don't need to spend any more than about $100 on a video card, as there are many that are under $100 that provide a dual link connection, such as the Nvidia 7300 GS or 7600 GT, or the ATI x1600 or x1650 (the x1300 series doesn't provide dual link).

[rainer_t]

-- "You don't want to use integrated because it will suck up system resources far more than an add-on video card, ..."

 

It doesn't need any more system resources than a plug-in card with the same chipset.

 

-- "... and can slow down your computer when you are using intensive apps, like Photoshop."

 

Photoshop isn't 'intensive' at all if it comes to videocard usage.

[howard_owen]

Most integrated video uses "shared" RAM (a certain amount of system RAM is available to video). So from that standpoint, such an arrangement *does* use more resources than a plug in card (which has its own RAM). And, since any RAM claimed by the video sub system is unavailable to Photoshop, it can be true that Photoshop will run more slowly as a result.

[rainer_t]

If an embedded card allocates 64MB ram as video ram in a system equipped with 1GB of ram, the effect is negligible.

[lars69]

For Photoshop and other graphic software the graphic card doesn't really matter unless you want to run a dual monitor set.

 

BUT I would still get a proper card, a reasonably cheap one will do.

 

First of all Vista is quite graphic hungry, it works with some of the build in Intel cards but then takes a lot of memory. So if every think of upgrading to Vista, get an external one.

Secondly you might want to add a second Monitor in the future or maybe play a game or maybe do some 3D cad where it might matter or video editing etc.

My point is graphic cards are cheap, get an ATI 1350 or so, and it is not worth saving on that end as it might limit what you can do with your PC.

Spend most money on fast harddisks, lots of memory and an ok graphics card and save on the processor. That one really doesn't matter very much.

[sim]

Just to add one point: if you're using a typical CRT monitor or some other monitor with analog input, having a good-quality video card will have a big impact on your image quality.

 

Then again if you're using a digital connector like DVI-D, the card doesn't matter.

[bruce_rubenstein]

If you don't play games then the high end video cards are a waste of money, since you are really buying 3D performance. For under $100 is is worth it to get a video card. They do faster 2D fills (which is noticeable in PS) and depending on the GPU/card you may get sharper screen images. I recently upgraded my computer and went from a ATI 9550 AGP based card to a PCIe Nvidia 7300GT card. The 7300 produces a sharper image driving a NEC 2070 monitor via DVI-D. Just because the signal is digital doesn't mean that circuitry doesn't count. The Nvidia also calibrates very well.

 

BTW, don't skimp in the main processor. Using Window's Performance monitor, I watched the processor load and memory usage while batch converting RAW files in Lightroom. Processor load was between 80% - 90% on a E6600 running at 3.2 Ghz, and memory usage was under a Gb.

[debra_gillilan]

I can tell you from my personal experience with a shared video memory on a laptop, that it will not allow hardware calibration for color. This is very important to me. Therefore, when I Print, I have to go to my desktop with dedicated video memory and which is thus hardware calibrated. My laptop is a rather expensive HP ZV5000, 3 years old, cost about $2000 at that time. I was quite disappointed to learn that the shared video prohibited me from hardware calibrating for color. This issue is documented on the Huey website forum and the Spyder 2 website user forum at the respective mfr sites; updated software to the drivers at least in my case, is not available to solve this problem, and with a machine over 1 year old, you don't get mfr updates, at least HP stops after about a year of age on a PC/laptop.

Good luck, Debra

[kaiyen]

Another thought - if you're going to get a big screen, make sure your card can handle it. I have a 20" widescreen, and it's like 1690xsomething or other. My card only did 1600x1200. So I had to get a different card.

 

allan