Recommendations for a Quiet Video card?

ces · Post by **ces** » Thu Mar 11, 2010 12:17 pm

I want to get a low end graphics card... but it is so confusing.

I want something quiet. Fanless is good. Something that will run cool regardless of whether it has a fan or not.

Something reliable, stable and not likely to cause installation problems.

I don't do games. I will likely run two 24 inch LCD screens showing an extended desktop.

I want a card that will be around a while and supported for a while. A "Classic" if there can be one in this area of technology.

I mostly want silence, no muss no fuss, and the ability to continue to use the card for some time.

Please share your wisdom with me.

PS: Tell me: Am I interested in one of these new Eyefinity cards?

QuietOC · Post by **QuietOC** » Thu Mar 11, 2010 12:40 pm

You could do worse than a Radeon HD 5450. It won't have any problem driving 2 24" LCDs. A $20 Radeon HD 3450 or 4350 wouldn't either. You'll might want a HDMI to DVI-I adapter in addition depending on your 24" monitors. I think you can even run two monitors off integrated motherboard video as long as you use an analog cable for one of them.

The software side of Eyefinity is just for gaming and the only thing unique about the hardware part is being able to drive more than 2 monitors with a single GPU. Most video cards have supported running 2 monitors for a long time.

FWIW: I used to use two 20" LCDs at work but it gave me headaches (two much eye movement, I think). Resolution >> size, so you might want to reconsider.

atmartens · Post by **atmartens** » Thu Mar 11, 2010 4:09 pm

Maybe you should opt for integrated graphics.

ces · Post by **ces** » Thu Mar 11, 2010 10:18 pm

atmartens wrote:Maybe you should opt for integrated graphics.

Yes, that is an option I am considering. But I really want a four core i5-750 in a micro-atx configuration. I think I need a video card to do that.

ces · Post by **ces** » Fri Mar 12, 2010 11:17 am

QuietOC wrote:You could do worse than a Radeon HD 5450. It won't have any problem driving 2 24" LCDs. A $20 Radeon HD 3450 or 4350 wouldn't either.

1. There are multiple manufacturers of the Radeon HD 5450, HD 3450 and HD 4350. How do I choose between them?

2. There were a number of installation complaints on newegg about the HD 3450 and HD 4350 cards. How can I determine which complaints are valid?

Parappaman · Post by **Parappaman** » Fri Mar 12, 2010 2:47 pm

Get a passive Sapphire HD4350 and you're good to go.

ces · Post by **ces** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 12:16 am

Parappaman wrote:Get a passive Sapphire HD4350 and you're good to go.

1. What sets it apart from the others?

2. How does that compare to the MSI implementation?

3. What might cause me to choose the HD 5450. And if I did, which manufacturer would I choose?

ces · Post by **ces** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 12:31 am

1. Do the various specific brands of video cards have any brand specific reputations for certain design or performance attributes?

2. Do you prefer and specific brands of video cards over others? Which ones and why?

BlueSwan · Post by **BlueSwan** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 3:30 am

Good questions ces. I'm looking for the same answers. I believe I have the same needs (or lack thereof) as you do, except that I want to be able to watch HD video and about once a year I do some VERY basic editing of family videos. I'll be using 64 bit Windows 7.

No 3D gaming.

Been reading loads of users reviews on newegg but it seems with EVERY model, somebody is complaing about the card in question running hot or whatever.

ces · Post by **ces** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 9:21 am

How do we get some people to post their opinions? For whatever reason, this thread isn't getting listed on the front page of the website.

atmartens · Post by **atmartens** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 1:55 pm

ces wrote:
atmartens wrote:Maybe you should opt for integrated graphics.
Yes, that is an option I am considering. But I really want a four core i5-750 in a micro-atx configuration. I think I need a video card to do that.

Well, I'll just throw this out there: the faster dual-core Clarkdales also have hyperthreading, which in some situations will be close to 4 cores - you'll have to consult the benchmarks out there to see how they compare. Mine shows up in the CPU usage charts as 4 separate ones. The i5-750, by contrast, does not have hyperthreading. Also, the i5-750 lacks a few other features I think, such as virtualization, which may or may not matter to you (the 661 also lacks virtualization, just part of Intel's market segmentation craziness).

Originally I was considering going for an i7 + a video card, but then realized that for my needs fast graphics aren't as important as they used to be (less time for video games), and so I saved 2 slots and some $$ in my micro-ATX build by going Clarkdale.

ces · Post by **ces** » Sat Mar 13, 2010 3:28 pm

atmartens wrote:Also, the i5-750 lacks a few other features I think, such as virtualization, which may or may not matter to you (the 661 also lacks virtualization, just part of Intel's market segmentation craziness)..

Are you sure about the lack of virtualization. That would mean that you can't use an i5-750 to emulate XP under WIN7, correct?

mkk · Post by **mkk** » Sun Mar 14, 2010 12:47 am

All i5's support virtualisation (VT-x, the commonly referred one, VT-d is an extension that is not common yet).
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=42915
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=43553
Hyperthreading is not much to loose. For instance people still have to disable it in some situations.

ces · Post by **ces** » Sun Mar 14, 2010 12:21 pm

mkk wrote:Hyperthreading is not much to loose. For instance people still have to disable it in some situations.

When would you want a chip not to have multi-threading... other than to avoid heat buildup?

tima · Post by **tima** » Sun Mar 14, 2010 2:45 pm

ces wrote:
mkk wrote:Hyperthreading is not much to loose. For instance people still have to disable it in some situations.
When would you want a chip not to have multi-threading... other than to avoid heat buildup?

Hyperthreading is a very poor approximation to multiple cores, and when multiple cores are available, I wouldn't pay a premium for hyperthreading.

atmartens · Post by **atmartens** » Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:20 pm

Sorry, I was flat out wrong about the virtualization

ces · Post by **ces** » Sun Mar 14, 2010 11:28 pm

BlueSwan wrote:Been reading loads of users reviews on newegg but it seems with EVERY model, somebody is complaing about the card in question running hot or whatever.

Can someone help me and Blue Swan sort all this noise out?

dutchie · Post by **dutchie** » Fri Mar 19, 2010 4:17 pm

Hopefully someone with experience of your required setup will respond.

But if not, in the past when I've been unsure about which runs quietest or coolest, I've ordered from QuietPC.com who have a 30 day money back guarantee, and they specially cater to our market. Never had to use the guarantee but they were always helpful with advice when I emailed or phoned them.

Dutchie

~El~Jefe~ · Post by **~El~Jefe~** » Fri Mar 19, 2010 4:41 pm

anyways, i was going to write a lot but best card is

ATI: 5450. It looks cool too

very low height card, very low wattage, offloads cpu very well. Also, you want to get the most modern era for a card. A 4000 or 3000 series card is not being focused on. UVD2 is on 4000 and 5000 as well.

ces · Post by **ces** » Fri Mar 19, 2010 7:00 pm

~El~Jefe~ wrote: UVD2 is on 4000 and 5000 as well.

What is UVD2?

ces · Post by **ces** » Fri Mar 19, 2010 7:05 pm

~El~Jefe~ wrote:anyways, i was going to write a lot but best card is ATI: 5450. It looks cool too ... A 4000 or 3000 series card is not being focused on.

I am coming to that same conclusion. But mostly because others are expressing that opinion. I don't know why. But your arguments for it make a great deal of sense.

But what older cards use even less power.

What about older Nvidia cards? No one seems to be talking about them at all.

~El~Jefe~ · Post by **~El~Jefe~** » Fri Mar 19, 2010 7:34 pm

older nvidia cards use more power. 65nm at best for what you want. Now they have 55 but nothing in your category.

3 years ago ati went to 55nm. then 40. you hardly use power with a 5450. You can do things like offload youtube video to the video card if you go 5000 series. It might work on earlier, i havent heard about that though. 1080p stuff hits the processor like a truck without an ati card or nvidia modern one offloading it.

UVD1 is the main thing. UVD2 is BD live stuff. it decodes "two streams" at once for special things like BD live. I dont think it can do two sources at once but i duno who would use it that way anyways.

Most 4000 things use it. theres also 2.2 i just read about. Basically its same thing and all 4000's and 5000's that have uvd2 are now uvd2.2.

UVD though is the main reason for an ati card. Nvidia has similar things, but not so neatly packed and low power to my knowledge.

ces · Post by **ces** » Tue Mar 23, 2010 7:58 pm

Power Consumption of Contemporary Graphics Cards
The graphics cards power consumption is always of interest to gaming fans and as the new GPU generations come out, we do our best to respond to this interest in the most extensive manner. So today, time has come for another update on this popular topic. by Alexey Stepin of XbitLabs.com
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/ ... html#sect0

Recommendations for a Quiet Video card?

Recommendations for a Quiet Video card?

Integrated

Re: Integrated

Re: Integrated

Re: Integrated