Graphics card for low-power PC

Got a shopping cart of parts that you want opinions on? Get advice from members on your planned or existing system (or upgrade).

Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee

Post Reply
wumpus
Patron of SPCR
Posts: 946
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Berkeley, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by wumpus » Thu Jul 15, 2004 6:55 pm

Definitely the ATI 9600. By far the best blend of features, performance, and ultra-low heat output (trivial passive cooling). I'd go with the regular "non-pro" version in your case since you won't be gaming.

I have a whole thread on the 9600, search for it in the video forum.

tragus
*Lifetime Patron*
Posts: 356
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2003 11:19 am
Location: Baltimore, MD

Post by tragus » Thu Jul 15, 2004 7:16 pm

As usual, I'll put in my word for the Matrox line *I*F you primarily do 2-D or pedestrian 3-D (no heavy Half-life or other fancy gaming that clock frames-per-second rendering). Excellent resolution, native DVI (for 550 and above; dual DVI for 650), passive cooling, and quite cool in any case. For our auditory physiology lab (where sound is our business), I only get Matrox. In particular, all the systems I've built/ordered in the past year have had the P650. As a footnote, ARM Systems started carrying them on my request.

You should be able to get specific power requirements from the Web site.

I don't have any experience with recent ATI cards (e.g., 9x00) , so cannot empirically compare; my personal past experience with ATI has been less than memorable.

mathias
Posts: 2057
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2004 3:58 pm
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Post by mathias » Tue Jul 20, 2004 7:25 pm

How about a radeon 9550? I think that's a reduced core speed 9600.

wumpus
Patron of SPCR
Posts: 946
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Berkeley, CA, USA
Contact:

Post by wumpus » Tue Jul 20, 2004 7:52 pm

Personally I would not get the SE cards, they cripple the memory bus by cutting it in half. It may be 40% cheaper, the downside is that you will lose 50% (or more) of your performance in 3D games.

Unless you are absolutely sure that you will never ever, ever play a 3D game, it's not worth it.

mathias
Posts: 2057
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2004 3:58 pm
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Post by mathias » Tue Jul 20, 2004 10:16 pm

I never saw the SE's for 40% less, if the difference is that big, I'd expect it to be because of other stuff cut back like DVI, TV out and ramdac. 64 bit ram is a huge handicap, even gefore2mx's had 128 bit ram.

mathias
Posts: 2057
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2004 3:58 pm
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Post by mathias » Wed Jul 21, 2004 10:15 am

It's only a drop from 325 to 250. 200mhz ram is already very slow, so that should be much more of a bottleneck. A 9550 has the same core and ram speed as a 9200, and a 9200 outperforms a 9600se. And that core speed reduction will result in even less heat, ram crippling won't.

If you want to play some old games, a 9200 might also be a good option. Also, keep in mind that even with old games, you can use antialiasing.

mrzed
Patron of SPCR
Posts: 281
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 4:01 pm
Location: Victoria, Canada

Post by mrzed » Wed Jul 21, 2004 1:38 pm

cactusinvasion: What socketA integrated mobo are you running down to 1.1v? I'm currently on the hunt for a very similar mATX system for a custom case project.

Post Reply