Passive video card for the non-gamer?

karmasalad · Post by **karmasalad** » Wed Oct 10, 2007 9:20 am

I'm putting together a new PC, and I'm wondering what the best, most cost-effective video card would be for my rather basic needs.

I run dual monitors at 1650x1050 and 1280x1024 (I would like more headroom than this in case of monitor upgrades). I primarily use my PC for Web development work, so crisp, clear 2D performance is critical. Graphically, about the most intensive things I do on my PC are Photoshop and DVD playback. I do not game. I'd like it to be capable of running Vista's Aero interface with ease if/when I finally upgrade.

I've done some research, but I'm still a bit confused on just how much video card I really need. How much memory? Do I need 128-bit? I'd like to keep it under $100, but if a $50 card can meet my needs, then all the better.

If one can pick out some models from Newegg's list of fanless PCI Express cards, that'd be really helpful.

If it matters, the rest of the system is likely to be a C2D E6750, Ultima-90 HS + 92mm Nexus, Gigabyte P35 mobo, 2GB RAM, and housed within an Antec Solo case. I plan to run two case fans, one 120mm (Scythe) in the rear and one 92mm (Nexus) in the front. PSU will likely be a Corsair 450VX.

Thanks for very much for any help.

Arvo · Post by **Arvo** » Wed Oct 10, 2007 10:20 am

Do you need dual DVI? 1280x1024 resolution actually doesn't need DVI output; starting from 1600 pixels DVI is preferred.

If you need dual DVI anyway, then Radeon X1300 is good and not expensive card.

If you can go with VGA+DVI combo, then any passive ATI HD2400 card would be sufficient; Vista and HD media compatibility is better too.
Or you may look at NVidia offerings - they may have even lower power consumption.

Unfortunately I can't say much about these cards image quality. I personally prefer ATI over NVidia for 2D, but I've seen image problems with some of their cheaper cards (old 9200, X300SE and similar) too. X1300Pro (we have some in our company) has good 2D quality. For HD2400 you should look at reviews.

autoboy · Post by **autoboy** » Wed Oct 10, 2007 1:56 pm

Get a motherboard with onboard video and two outputs. It will probably be one DVI for the primary monitor, and one VGA. This will suit your needs. If you must have a video card, anything will do. Check for Dual DVI if you want both digital connections.

karmasalad · Post by **karmasalad** » Wed Oct 10, 2007 9:04 pm

Thanks for the replies. I couldn't find any motherboards I liked that had dual video outputs.

I would prefer to get a Dual DVI card. Although one of my monitors is VGA-only, I will probably upgrade it within the next year. I can use one of those DVI-to-VGA adapters in the meantime.

Would an 8600GT be overkill for my purposes? I'm concerned about being able to run Vista's Aero glass.

If I were to get a DVI+VGA card, would a 7300GT be okay? I've been an ATI over nVidia guy, but the reviews of passive HD 2400 cards over at Newegg are underwhelming.

Should I consider 7200GS cards?

GnatGoSplat · Post by **GnatGoSplat** » Thu Oct 11, 2007 5:09 am

If you don't mind DVI+VGA and if you're in the US, how about Geforce 8400GS, $34 shipped after $20 rebate. There's an extra $10 off if you use Google Checkout as well. I picked one up yesterday for $30 shipped from ZipZoomFly, but they're out of stock at the moment.

You don't need 128-bit, it makes for a faster gaming card, but you said you don't game. Vista Aero runs well on any Geforce 6-series or higher.

crabnebula · Post by **crabnebula** » Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:25 am

If you plan on watching HD-DVD or Blu-Ray eventually with this card, you should get at least the nVidia 8600 or ATI 2600 series of cards for proper decode acceleration and optimal image quality.

Sizzle · Post by **Sizzle** » Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:37 am

crabnebula wrote:If you plan on watching HD-DVD or Blu-Ray eventually with this card, you should get at least the nVidia 8600 or ATI 2600 series of cards for proper decode acceleration and optimal image quality.

The 8400, 8500, and 8600 should all be the same in this aspect shouldn't they? I like the looks of the XFX Force 8500 passive card.

crabnebula · Post by **crabnebula** » Thu Oct 11, 2007 10:33 am

I'm not very familiar with the limitations of the 8400/8500 series compared to the 8600, but I wouldn't take that for granted without checking first. Total bandwidth and processing power are important to achieve smooth playback + post processing with high bit-rate codecs, and the lower cards might have narrower memory buses for example. I'm sure there is a clear answer somewhere around the web.

GnatGoSplat · Post by **GnatGoSplat** » Thu Oct 11, 2007 11:58 am

Looks like 8500GT supports the same HD-DVD/BD acceleration as the 8600GT.

http://www.nvidia.com/docs/CP/11036/Pur ... arison.pdf

autoboy · Post by **autoboy** » Thu Oct 11, 2007 2:52 pm

Any modern DX9 card is capable of dealing with the aero interface. Even a 6200 would be more than enough.

smilingcrow · Post by **smilingcrow** » Thu Oct 11, 2007 3:17 pm

I used to have a Leadtek 7600GS 256MB with dual DVI which was fanless and had low power consumption; Iâ€™m not up on Aero glass support.
Iâ€™m not sure if theyâ€™re still available but I can recommend them. They even do a version with DVI/HDMI with HDCP which is also fanless.

Apart from that the Radeon HD 2x00 series seem the obvious choice but they will consume more power than the 7600GS at idle if that matters to you:

7600GS - 10W
HD 2400 xx â€“ 23W
8600GT â€“ 33W
HD 2600 Pro â€“ 34W

The numbers can never be that accurate as there are too many variables but it gives a good overview from what I can tell.

klankymen · Post by **klankymen** » Thu Oct 11, 2007 4:42 pm

I'm on a laptop with an intel GMA 950 onboard graphics chip (up to 128MB of shared memory) and aero glass runs fine on it. so just about any discrete graphic chip should do.

nyc_paramedic · Post by **nyc_paramedic** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 2:23 pm

I picked up a Nvidia Quadro NVS 285 PCIe (with both sets of cables) from eBay this week for twelve bucks. It has 128mb RAM and a DMS-59 connector which can output to 2 DVI or 2 VGA. Supports resolutions of 1920x1200 on 2 DVI displays or 2048x1536 for two VGA displays. Card is half height and passively cooled.

NVIDIA's website states that the card consumes a maximum of 18 watts; just one of the reasons I picked up the card. Runs Google Earth just fine on a LCD of 1600x1200. Works on my Linux box flawlessly with the NVIDIA driver or the the open source NV driver. I'm going to stick with the NVIDIA driver so I can use Google Earth at times.

This replaced a eVGA 7800GTX (I don't game anymore) and the Kill-a-Watt meets registers a savings of 40 watts at idle.

The cards, in a any flavor of PCI, AGP, and PCIe, are plentiful on eBay. Can't lose with a twelve dollar card.

The NVS 280 is the same card with 64mb of ram.

good luck

~El~Jefe~ · Post by **~El~Jefe~** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 5:42 pm

well.

2600 or lower in that line I feel are better purchases. low power, super strong and clear hd viewing, all around good cards. easy to cool passive.

8600 is kinda rip off and runs hot, the 8500 lacks strength

Greg F. · Post by **Greg F.** » Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:56 pm

I tried a MSI Radeon RX 550 and my eyes couldn't take it. I went back to my XFX 7600 GS. I was looking for sharper text. I don't know if it would pay to buy a higher priced card for what I use a computer for, but my eyes need all the help they can get on the computer.
I am thinking I will have to have a higher grade monitor than the Sceptre I have now. I don't game, but general purpose and hope to use for HDTV. Does anyone else out there think they have sensitive eyes and pay special attention to screen quality in that regard.
I like the Sceptre, but I think it is a notch down on quality and I need a Samsung or HP, or ?

Tommy Jefferson · Post by **Tommy Jefferson** » Sun Jan 13, 2008 4:42 pm

smilingcrow wrote:7600GS - 10W
HD 2400 xx â€“ 23W
8600GT â€“ 33W
HD 2600 Pro â€“ 34W

Dang!

nyc_paramedic wrote:This replaced a eVGA 7800GTX (I don't game anymore) and the Kill-a-Watt meets registers a savings of 40 watts at idle.

Very cool.

smilingcrow · Post by **smilingcrow** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 2:28 am

It turns out that the HD 2x00 cards vary a lot depending on the BIOS features and driver version so this data isnâ€™t consistent at all.
Look at this thread for more info on this as it shows that if you get a properly implemented ATI HD 2x00 card they are very low power at idle; less than any Nvidia PCIe card that Iâ€™ve tested.

Tommy Jefferson · Post by **Tommy Jefferson** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 4:36 am

GnatGoSplat wrote:If you don't mind DVI+VGA and if you're in the US, how about Geforce 8400GS, $34 shipped after $20 rebate.

Sold out. But that was a good price.

Sizzle · Post by **Sizzle** » Mon Jan 14, 2008 7:29 am

*cough* here is a good 8500GT for pretty cheap.

viewtopic.php?t=45602

Passive video card for the non-gamer?

Passive video card for the non-gamer?

there is a difference