Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Best video of the two.

  1. #1
    Gold Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Penna.
    Posts
    400

    Best video of the two.

    I bought a Dell Optiplex 380 Minitower. It has the integrated Intel GMA 4500 which only has a VGA out connection to my wide screen monitor. I also have a spare 128Mb Nvidia 8300GS video card that has both VGA and DVI outputs to the monitor. I am not into gaming etc, but which setup would be clearer for these old eyes ?? Thanks, Mike

  2. #2
    Gold Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Penna.
    Posts
    400
    No help or suggestions here ??? Maybe there is no noticible difference ??

  3. #3
    Succeded in braking Windo TZ Veteran Dehcbad25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    DE - USA
    Posts
    2,366
    Sorry. I have been busy at work braking Linux servers, and trying new backup methods (or the other way around??>..)
    Anyhow, I think the 8300GS is a better card.
    As a rule of thumb, discrete (add in) cards are usually better because they have their own dedicated memory.
    However discrete cards usually also use more power, so if you are looking into saving electricity then integrated is better. The 8300 should not use a lot of power either, and might be a good choice for your dell PC.
    One thing you need to check is if the 8300 requires a PCIe power conenction, most of the Dell Optiplex that I have seen have underpowered PSU, with no PCIe connectors, which was a big limitation when I had to upgrade the video card on my Optiplex 745.
    I don't know anything about the 8300 specifically, but if it is similar to the 7300 (which most likely is), then it should not require the extra power connector.
    In Toms hardware's web site you can find a Best video card for the money which is updated every month. This cart is for gamers, but you know if a card is better for video game it will be better for everything else
    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...rd,2544-7.html

  4. #4
    Gold Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Penna.
    Posts
    400
    Dehcbad25....Thanks for the reply. The 8300GS card does NOT require any power connections. I guess it gets the power fom the Motherboard, so I guess I should be OK there. As far as memory, the computer has 3 gig of memory, so I guess that is also sufficient. As mentioned in the first post, I am not into gaming or anything that would require a lot of power or resources etc. I am just looking for the clearest display I can get. I guess I just need to install the video card in the newer computer and see which is the clearest display, the card or just using the integrated video etc. Thanks again, Mike

  5. #5
    Titanium Member efc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    North Central Arkansas
    Posts
    2,293
    My recent experience with video, indicates that most modern hardware will provide acceptable video. The main limiting item is bandwidth. If you don't have ample bandwidth you are limited to small box video or video that stops every few seconds.

    My network currently consists of four computers. Two are ancient. One is a socket 774 w/ a Sempron 2800+, imboard graphics running Mint Linux. The second is even older running Athlon 1.1 gig with 512 MB cache running xp. The third is a dual core notebook running Vista Home Premium. And last my son's, a dual core with a high dollar video card capable of hd video w/ Windows7 Ultimate (sorry don't know the model # of video card and too lazy to go check).

    The interesting thing is that we cannot detect any difference in video on my linux box or my son's computer that cost him five times as much when he bought it a couple years ago. Both of us are limited by our bandwidth. I am paying for 3 gb service but rarely get above 2.5 gb and sometimes see speeds drop to 1.5 or 1.6 gb.

    I know that it is always tempting to buy the latest and greatest, but sometimes it is wise to buy only what will actually make a real difference. My comments were only about internet video. When I watch video on a DVD, it is on a HD TV.

    I guess what I am saying is to make sure that it is really going to make a difference before spending that hard earned money. You can put the money saved toward something really important, like a new 28 in lcd monitor.
    Linux Mint Debian Edition

  6. #6
    Security Intelligence TZ Veteran cash_site's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Software Paradise
    Posts
    3,735
    I guess the real question is "which setup would be clearer for these old eyes?"

    You might have to explain this further mike?

    1. No games, 2. What about Photo / Video editing? 3. Do you just need clearer vision for standard windows functions and emails and web browsing?

    I think the real measure you are after would be Monitor resolution, Dot-Pitch and Text size. Which will probably lead you down the path to getting a better quality LCD/CRT monitor.

    For 2D work, most video cards or on-board graphics are the same... the processing power is the main differences between the cards.

    What is your current monitor brand/model?

    Good luck!

    --- 0wN3D by 3gG ---

  7. #7
    Succeded in braking Windo TZ Veteran Dehcbad25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    DE - USA
    Posts
    2,366
    For 2D work, actually the OS will dictate how important or not the video card.
    Yesterday I read an article in Toms Hardware very interesting for 2D
    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...-gdi,2539.html
    This explains why removing the visual effects make Vista and XP considerably faster since they don't have to be processed at the CPU. This also explains why Aero in 7 is so much faster than in Vista. I am curious to see what will be the difference once Nvidia and AMD fix their drivers for 2D performance.
    Mike, my suggestion of using the Nvidia 8300GS card is of course taking into consideration the difference on raw power. Games will take advantage of it, and regular day to day might not matter. Also as I noted, the internal will use less power most likely, so if you don't play games the onboard will be fine.
    The GMA also might not have enough power for sites like Hulu. This will determine more on the CPU side though. The Nvidia 8300GS might have CUDA (I don't know if it does, XFX has the logo on it, but Nvidia does not list it, and the minimum is 256 MB, so it probably does not)
    In short, try different applications. The intel onboard might be good enought. The Nvidia card has more power, but that doesn't mean you will need it.
    About the easy on the eyes...that is more subjective and personal.
    I don't like ghosting and jagged edges, but I have an excelent eye sight, so I set the resolution of the monitor to the highest, which is the native in LCD.
    EFC recommended a bigger monitor, but I have seen here at work, that sometimes is not a good idea. I put a 23" monitor in an accountant desk, but she can only see at 1024x768, which looks blurry. It makes my eyes hurt, but higher and she cannot see, so now we are going to replace her PC so we can use dual 17" instead.
    If you give us a more specific scenario we could probably recommend something more exact.

  8. #8
    Succeded in braking Windo TZ Veteran Dehcbad25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    DE - USA
    Posts
    2,366
    On a separate note: (I had to split the post because it became an essay :P)
    EFC 3 Gb Internet? Are you serious. I have 3 Mb and it is enough for me to watch video
    OK, seriously thought. I have 9 PCs at home, and only 1 is capable of running HD content from Hulu fine.
    2 of the laptops have GMA 4200 and 4500. The highest end laptop is a Core 2 Duo with GMA4500 and it skips a little (mainly audio is out of sync)
    My desktop is the only thing that runs the video well, but it has a Core 2 Duo E8500 (3.6 Ghz), and SLI Nvidia 8800 GT. SLI is not needed, but the 8800GT can run Flash from CUDA. If I run Hulu from the regular flash, the CPU usage is about 60%. That is awfully high if you consider the 3.6 Ghz. Not sure if it matters if it is a dual core or not, since not all apps can use multicore right.
    On the other hand, I built a PC last month with a Core i3 (the lowest one) using the integrated video on the CPU, and it runned fine the videos. Our Internet bandwidth at work is 2xT1 1.5 MB.
    My old Athlon XP 1.8 Ghz super overclocked with a GeForce 4 Ti 4200 also overclocked could run most games until 2007, but I had to upgrade to my current PC because it will have problems running mkv at 720p. My Atom PC at home also has problem running this videos as well, so I am eagerly waiting for ION2 to come in a PCIexpress package to upgrade it (Nvidia said it will release it)
    in short, 3 MB service should be good enough for internet HD content. After all you could pause it for a little bit so it has time to cache (if the network was slow)
    The main problem seems to be CPU decoding, and if part of that encoding can be passed to the GPU (most of the time it cannot).
    Having in consideration that the corei3 could play Hulu, I can also say that it is not a matter or Ghz on the CPU, but architecture as well.
    Update: I just run a test on the Core i3 530 @ 2.93Ghz. This is a dual core CPU with hyper-threading so Task manager reports 4 CPUs.
    The internet bandwidth is 3 MB. It is T1, so it is not shared like cable or DSL, but we have 40 users.
    I watched the office's latest episode on Hulu. With updated Flash
    Firefox:
    ~15%@360p Full screen
    ~20%@480p Full Screen
    IE 64 bit.....sorry, no flash support for 64 bit
    IE 32 bit
    ~3%@360p window mode
    ~11%@360p in Full Screen
    ~11%@480p in Window Mode
    ~15%@480p in Full Screen
    I was surprised that IE did better than Firefox.
    Have in mind that Flash is not multi threaded optimized, but it seems it can use 2 cores. I will test with our Phenom II X3 PCs later (they have the 4th core unlocked).
    Even though Task Manager reported 11%, that is total for all 4 threads, so it was using 22% per core,but on 2 Cores only. If you add it is 44% (if I set the affinity to 1 core, probably that is what I would see.
    I cannot test on my PC with 1 core and hyper threading because my CPU usage is always high (I have monitoring tools)

  9. #9
    Gold Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Penna.
    Posts
    400
    Thanks efc, cash_site, and dehcbad25... for the replies. Additional info, as I said I am NOT into gaming, or even picture editing (maybe occasionally), or 2D work. I just surf the web, and send emails. I watched the monitor with the onboard GMA 4500, and then installed the 128Mb. Nvidea 8300 GS video card. I believe there was a slight improvement with the Nvidea card, but can't really swear to it. I do know I have more resolution settings with the card. I deceided to leave the card in, so thats where I am.
    As I said in the first post, the computer is a Dell Optiplex 380 with 3 Gig. of ram, and running Windows 7 Professional. I have the resolution set at 1280 X 800 which is pretty good. The monitor is a 19" widescreen
    Hanns-G HW191D. Mike

  10. #10
    Security Intelligence TZ Veteran cash_site's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Software Paradise
    Posts
    3,735
    Well good to hear you got a solution that works well enough for you mike. As you've probably found out, most add-in video cards make a significant boost to your overall system score, meaning you can do the same work but easier and more smoothly. well done.

    --- 0wN3D by 3gG ---

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •