Graphics card for low-power PC
Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee
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.
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.
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.
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.