Best GPU for Graphic and Video Applications?

Hello,:clap:
I’ve been bouncing all over this forum trying to put together a new system.

All this talk about the fastest GPU’s. What’s so confusing is I am NOT a gamer, but most of all the graphic crads like XFXGeforce8600GT and all of the other series of cards tout their card as being the blazingly fast GPU’S to date.

As someone like myself, who uses photoshop mostly everyday to edit my digital Photographs, and going to deal with Macromedia Flash,and video editing my old Camcorder tapes and posibly buying a new new Digital Firewire Video Camera, (or not) what would be the bestest GPU card for what I would need?

All I ever hear is solely about the extreme gaming speed and effects of the new cards,and not so much about the graphic importance…are they the same thing? I was told that the 2600GT was a low-end,the middle of the road budget card,so should I be looking at the 8000 series of cards?


I was told on another forum…

“”“For now I’d say that Gigabyte GA-G33M-S2H is thebest board around, the only drawback is that the 16x PCI-slot is only 4x if you decide to get a video card later on. You should also have a look for the new G35-based motherboards since they have much better video performance”""

Then I thought…
Video performance? See what I mean? The board has a lot to do with the card too. I was also looking at the ABIT IP35-LGA775 Mobo,and people talk about overclocking…I am not going to do that, but I like all the features of this board…(like I know what I’m talking about)

For this rebuild…
Prematurely, I already pre-bought 4GB DDR2 PC6400/800 matched Corsair ram, but told that it’s fine whether with the Q6600 or E6850 CPU.

I will probably use WinXP (heard alot of stability issues with VISTA,

Two 500GB Internal Hard Drives, primary partitioned 40GB for O.S. and Applications,remainder for temp files.documents, and 2) second 500GB HD for Video files and PSD’s,JPG’s,MP3’s, and other stuff.

700w or 750w PSU Thermaltake or similar.

CPU - E6850 or Q6600 with a SCYTHE Ninja CPU cooler fan

I have a Viewsonic 22" Flat panel LCD.
I have a DSL Ethernet Modem,so I would need that on a board.

I have two older Roms, - 1) CD-RW/DVD-R Combo and 2) DVD-RW,DVD-RW About two years old…need I upgrade?

Then whatever the GPU would be. I don’t think about crossfire or SLi duo cards in my future at all,but maybe…just maybe. whatever card I do get, maybe a few games wouldn’t be out of the question,but I am not going to base the GPU on that.

Apps - NERO8,WINXP,CANON Digital Software, Adobe Photoshop,freehand,and Flash,Microsoft Office,Winamp media Library,etc.

I would like to get what I need to be prepared for VISTA if I would need more than 4GBG Ram, that XP can only handle 3.2GB, at present.

I have about $800.00 -$1100.00 budget to work with. (or whatevr works)

Any ideas? Thanks! oh…BTW…Happy Holiday!:smiley:

Again, you don’t need 700 watts, more watts doesn’t mean better quality, quality comes from the manufacturer, seasonic and corsair are the best right now. Only gamer’s running sli/crossfire need a big power supply, 400W is MORE than enough even if you run a quad core cpu.

The 8600gt is a great choice, get the 512mb version Link. The only reason to get a G35 motherboard is if you want to save money.

The Ram you have is fine. Some MB"s have issues running 4GB’s of ram before updating the BIOS. So I reccomend first installing 2gb, update the bios, then install the rest of the ram. Not a big deal.

The applications your running don’t really need a quad core processor. Even the e6850 is overkill. And since your not going to overclock, getting an aftermarket heatsink/fan will be a waste, and it will void your warrenty.

Vista isn’t so bad, but its a resource hog, which negates any benefits over XP.

Happy Holidays :slight_smile:

gonna sound dumb here but whats a gpu?

[QUOTE=pythonis;1960375]gonna sound dumb here but whats a gpu?[/QUOTE]

Graphics processor or video card :bigsmile:

arent they more commonly known as video cards? or does calling it a gpu just make people feel smarter?

[QUOTE=pythonis;1960380]arent they more commonly known as video cards? or does calling it a gpu just make people feel smarter?[/QUOTE]

nope, but if you feel smarter saying gpu, then by all means go ahead, lol :stuck_out_tongue:

Going by personal experience over opinion, the ATI based 3870’s are much better than the Nvidia based 8600’s. ATI has had the edge for sometime when it comes to video and applications. Nvidia just has the gaming edge.

If all your doing is editing pictures, video (mpeg2, avi) and other simple things then the graphics card will not make much difference no matter how fast it is. The main thing to look at is that it has enough ram (ideally 512 MB but 256 will be fine) and good colour render (not really applicable if you are using DVI connections as everything will be in the digital domain up to the monitor).

If you are going to be using HD video then look at the newer DX10 based cards, most of these help with playing back HD based video and will take a big load away from the CPU.

The main thing these super fast gpu’s are good at is applying 3D animation to items very quickly. When editing photo’s or video you wont be dealing with any 3D effects or animation so the processor speed will be going to waste on the really expensive gpu’s.

As we said before, integrated graphics WILL be fine. Just make sure you get a board with a DVI/HDMI connector.
Also, please stop making several threads about the same thing.
//Danne

The only things that really matter when it comes to graphics and video, are the processor, and memory… You can take a look at some of the cpu comparisons at tomshardware, and see times for encoding and opening complex photoshop files, and then decide just how fast you need. 2gb of memory is sufficient for almost anything you might want to be doing, unless you plan on encoding a video, and doing complex photoshop operations at the same time. And even then, you might be okay…

Not only processor and memory counts, also the used bus (width).
that is the reason why we see so many similar cards with different speeds and crippled features…

Good point chef.

Bozo, check out this list of 256bit video cards, in order of price. Link

I was going to reccomend a 2600xt, but in the reviews people are complaining that its not really 256bit, and that the ring bus is what makes it 256bit, not sure about a performance loss, or how its misleading.

Merry Christmas everyone :smiley:

If you’re going to get a standard alone video card at least get one that’s supported. You can probably drop pretty any “new” video card.
//Danne

Yo-

Everything that I read seems to be pointing to the new GeForce 8800 gt cards - supposedly with a $200 starting price point for the 256mb version-

I have not seen the $200 price yet - and it seems like everyone is buying up the initial shipments - so it looks like if someone (like me) wants to wait 45 to 60 days - the supply lines will fill up and there will be competitive pricing amongst vendors-eh!! :smiley:

Tom’s Hardware review:

BigMike, He needs a good 100 buck card. 8800gt is for gamers, waste of money for him otherwise.

I aggree with DiiZzY on most things: Most of the $100 graphics cards in the retail market are not sufficiently faster than onboard to justify spending that amount on. And if the motherboard that you pick does not have onboard video (or has onboard video but only analog VGA outputs), you might as well go all the way to the gamer’s level cards.

Onboard graphics scores around 2-300 on 3dmark06, while a 100 dollar x1950gt will score around 4000. He doesn’t play games, why should he get a 200 gamer card. Also a 100 buck 8600gt will do a better job of rendering HD video than onboard video can, look at those cinima benchmark scores, onboard does poorly. Cant remember the benchmark tool name right now.

[QUOTE=eric93se;1961963]BigMike, He needs a good 100 buck card. 8800gt is for gamers, waste of money for him otherwise.[/QUOTE]

Yo eric93se-

I have read thru this thread four times and the [I]only[/I] reference to $100 comes from you - not from the OP-eh!!

[QUOTE=eric93se;1962221]Onboard graphics scores around 2-300 on 3dmark06, while a 100 dollar x1950gt will score around 4000. He doesn’t play games, why should he get a 200 gamer card. Also a 100 buck 8600gt will do a better job of rendering HD video than onboard video can, look at those cinima benchmark scores, onboard does poorly. Cant remember the benchmark tool name right now.[/QUOTE]

Actually, I was talking about the full retail prices (which are almost always much higher than the heavily discounted online prices) of the lower-end NVIDIA and ATi cards, such as the GeForce 8400GS and the Radeon HD2400 PRO. In addition, I was talking about real-world performance, not just benchmark scores.

…and X1950 doesnt accelerate HD (at least not to a level that’s worth mentioning). If you have a look at Adobe’s site you’ll find only rather “old” cards certified with their software and photoshop doesnt rely on 3D really. After Effects etc might have a benefit though.
//Danne