PearlJam
Expert Member
What requires a good gfx card other than games? IOW if you don't play games why would anyone buy for instance a 7900gtx?
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: What's the most interesting small town you've visited in South Africa?
Graphics Cards
- Thread starter PearlJam
- Start date
Ratwiz
Dealer
CAD is one use and decoding of HD video (making it offload work from CPU, making the video smoother and giving it better quality) is another.
PearlJam
Expert Member
So the gpu takes over a bit of the work on video decoding. I am just trying to work out the ideal gpu for me in future with my limited game playing habits. Video decoding (non-hd at this stage) is something i do, but no cad.
Roman4604
Executive Member
With Vista, MS are moving the desktop from a flat 2D canvass to a 3D object oriented one.
While the OS & 1st gen apps (e.g. Office 2007) barely make use of the new Aero interface (e.g. frosted glass effect on windows borders & the win key + tab 3D apps flip), it is likely in the next few years developers will start integrating more of Aero's 3D abilities into common desktop apps.
So even if one doesn't game, one may require a reasonably powerful 3D card to get the best desktop experience.
While the OS & 1st gen apps (e.g. Office 2007) barely make use of the new Aero interface (e.g. frosted glass effect on windows borders & the win key + tab 3D apps flip), it is likely in the next few years developers will start integrating more of Aero's 3D abilities into common desktop apps.
So even if one doesn't game, one may require a reasonably powerful 3D card to get the best desktop experience.
I personally wouldn't buy a gfx card based on the fact that my OS needs it to look good. I normally just turn all the OS eye candy off. I find that all the eye candy just uses memory and makes my pc slower.
Not much other stuff that needs a gfx that hasn't been mentioned above.
I've been using my onboard 6100 for a while now and it seems to do the job if you don't play games that often. I payed between R500 and R600 for my mobo with onboard gfx. So if you really don't need a high end gfx then I would suggest this set up, you could always upgrade your gfx at a later stage and keep the mobo. The great thing is that these mobo's with onboard gfx are normally cheaper than other mobo's without.
Not much other stuff that needs a gfx that hasn't been mentioned above.
I've been using my onboard 6100 for a while now and it seems to do the job if you don't play games that often. I payed between R500 and R600 for my mobo with onboard gfx. So if you really don't need a high end gfx then I would suggest this set up, you could always upgrade your gfx at a later stage and keep the mobo. The great thing is that these mobo's with onboard gfx are normally cheaper than other mobo's without.
Ekhaatvensters
Executive Member
But none of this stuff (Besides 3D rendering, if you were doing that you would know) requires anything liek a 7900GT, you'll just basically need any mid range type card.
I really dont think you will want to pay R6000 for the small improvement in HD video quality that a 7900GTX has over a 7600 for example.
I really dont think you will want to pay R6000 for the small improvement in HD video quality that a 7900GTX has over a 7600 for example.
PearlJam
Expert Member
See, i have a 7800gtx 512mb at the moment and are looking around to maybe upgrade my pc next year after vista comes out as i want to get vista aswell. I bought this card just as i caught on to gaming, but i found that i am not a huge gamer as such. I will be getting into video editing a bit of photo editing and general web design type stuff. I don't really want to upgrade the card. But if my performance on the pc as a whole can benefit then i'll do it. (i'm a bit impatient 
)
)
Roman4604
Executive Member
Well all depends on the richness of experience your willing to pay for ...
Imagine a scenario where you're running Vista with dual 1600 x 1200 (or higher) screens, have a multitude of 3D enhanced & HD video media apps opened with full 'eye candy' enabled (e.g. fades, scrolling, translucency, dynamic colour shading & shimmering), and of course to elliminate diagonal jaggies 4x anti-aliasing.
Suddenly the 7900GT is breathing quite hard to keep the desktop(s) smooth and responsive all the time.
PearlJam
Expert Member
So basically the 7800gtx should take me a distance before i will upgrade say in 2 years time to DX10 if necessary? Basically i only want to upgrade the MB & CPU next year.
Roman4604
Executive Member
Yeh, should be plenty good for quite a while. In the future, if you have any spare cash, rather invest in a kick a$$ widescreen LCD to get full benefit.
Ekhaatvensters
Executive Member
No.. I dont think thats a very likely scenario or that you will honestly ever need the top gaming card in the world just to run media apps.
Yep, no read it again, thats not going to happen. When will you have more than one HD video app open on both monitors, truth is that almost anyone will only ever use one screen (bit hard to use both) and you can hardly watch (never mind download) two HD videos at the same time.
I guess it is just an example, but the point remains that you dont need a better card than a 7800GTX, even for Vista and doing a bit of video editing. Youd be foolish to waste another R6000 on a new card.
nVidia n ATI have never made a secret about their graphics cards. They sell them to gamers and enthusiasts primarily, they also use that very crowd and graphics cards (X1900 etc...)for some R&D. Nothing else...
They work on the Halo effect of marketing graphics cards...
They work on the Halo effect of marketing graphics cards...
PearlJam
Expert Member
That is incidently something i am looking at currently. I have a 17" lcd and looking at a 20" widescreen. But i need money first
Roman4604
Executive Member
Not likely for all, but I for one already work this way, currently without the full potential of Vista/Aero's HD & 3D capabilities.
I've gotten so used to working with dual hi-res LCDs, anything less would be backwards for me, and I dont think this is too out of the ordinary for most 'power users'. Typical modus operadi ... Screen 1 is used for the task at hand, be it office apps, browser, video or game. Screen 2 is for backround re-active tasks ... email, calendar, IM, downloads, RSS feeds etc. This type of setup is a real productivity booster for me. There's a guy at my office who's taken this to the extreme ... 6 monitors off one PC.
And no, I dont watch 2 videos at once, that would be odd, but I could see myself watching one while occasionally monitoring a news channel coming in from a HD tuner on another screen.
As far as downloading goes ... thats a limitation of one's budget.
Yes, you would be going a bit overboard by getting a 512 GTX just for your desktop now, as current mid-range cards will handle this quite easily.
However when I extrapolate my environment to the full potential of what will be possible e.g.higher resolutions, far more 3D effects & functionality and HD media, the graphic horsepower starts climing quite rapidly.
If you can afford it, I dont see a problem with investing in hardware that will enable one to utilise the future possibilities as they come.
PearlJam
Expert Member
I already have the 7800gtx
I was thinking about the dual monitor or single large monitor. What would be the best option with Vista in mind. I like the idea of how you work and have the same idea for myself. I looked a bit at info of Vista and it seems from the limited info at hand that with a large widescreen you can basically operate nearly the same as dual monitor? If dual monitor is the way, then i suppose two 17" screen would do the trick. Space wise i like the idea to have one big widescreen. The issue is i have never tried dual beforeDual screen is very nice indeed. Used it for a little while and when I switched over to my onboard 6100 I couldn't use it anymore. I was so dissapointed and found it really hard to work with so little space. I haven't used widescreen before but I would definately give dual screen try to see if you like it!
Roman4604
Executive Member
I don't think it makes much performance diffs to Vista if you have one large widescreen or 2 smallers ones? There are however some trade-offs in this decision, so you're going to have to choose based on what important to you.I already have the 7800gtx
For desktop use I would say 1 large 16:9 is more flexible than 2 smaller 4:3 screens as there's no divider. However you can buy more desktop real-estate using 2 monitors. For the price of a 20-21' 1680x1050 you could by 2 17-19' 1280x1024.
For video/gaming the 1 large 16:9 is better as it is the form factor for DVDs and other HD type content & newer games. However you loose the ability to check on/do any backround work when in full screen.
As a compromise I run 1 x 16:9 (1440x900) as primary & 1 x 4:3 (1280x1024) as secondary. Would love 2 large 16:9s (1920x1200) but that would cost a bit more than I can spend now.
supersunbird
Honorary Master
Buy yourself a cheap 6200, then with the onboard 6100 you can have a 3 screens like me
