Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

The best video card for NON-gamers?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
November 30, 2006 11:05:30 PM

I do not play video games on my computer, online or otherwise. What I need to find out is what video card is best for working with high resolution graphics in programs like Photoshop and Illustrator. My HP Pavilion a1310n came with an integrated ATI RADEON XPRESS 200 and it's just not good enough for what I work with.
Does anyone have any useful advice for me?

Thanks

More about : video card gamers

November 30, 2006 11:13:56 PM

Something like X1300 would be nice for you.

Quite a big upgrade from integrated.
November 30, 2006 11:59:56 PM

I think ATI cards are generally considered to have better image quality than nVidia ones... I cannot really suggest a specific product for you, but a X1300 or X1600PRO -preferably a silent version - should be more than fine
Related resources
December 1, 2006 12:25:40 AM

Quote:
Something like X1300 would be nice for you.


second, it should be best $/perf. choice for your needs.
December 1, 2006 12:38:21 AM

Thanks for the suggestions so far.

Assman, I think you might have missed the point of my email??? That is what I'm asking you. What card would work best for manipulating graphics in programs such as Photoshop and Illustrator.

I'm looking to spend around $100 give or take. What would be the best card for these needs around that price range?

Thanks!
December 1, 2006 12:59:41 AM

Thanks Assman! That's awesome!
December 1, 2006 1:18:11 AM

Quote:
Thanks Assman! That's awesome!


glad to help
December 1, 2006 1:33:06 AM

Too bad you only want to spend $100. I use a ATI FireGL 3400. FireGL cards are for workstations running graphics and CAD programs. Both of which I use for Technical illistrating along with all the fun stuff I do.
December 1, 2006 1:40:46 AM

Matrox cards DID have much better image quality compared to everyone else until a few years ago, due to their far superior RAMDACs. But the prices of their current cards (which nowadays dont have much of a difference when compared to ATI's offerings, for instance) is beyond $100, I think. Of course there are more professional 2D graphics solutions (some of nVidia's Quadros are geared towards 2D graphics, and so is the FireMV range from ATI), but for about $100 you cannot go wrong with a X1300/X1600PRO
December 1, 2006 1:53:20 AM

agreed dude forgot about the Quadros
December 1, 2006 2:13:53 AM

hmm... Does photoshop etc even use the video card at all? why doesn't integrated cut it... im confused as to why an dedicated graphics card is necessary (unless you need DVI)
December 1, 2006 2:32:36 AM

Actually, Weilin has a very good point there... I was talking about 'image quality' all along since thats what I thought interested you. A discrete graphics card is not gonna make any difference whatsoever to your system's performance in 2D graphics apps (Photoshop, Illustrator etc). I had a look at your system's specs, and if this is what you''ve got

http://www.amazon.com/Pavilion-Center-a1310n-Desktop-Pr...

then a dedicated graphics card is only gonna make a difference because it's gonna free up the 128 MB of system memory the ATI chip uses. Photoshop is very memory-hungry, especially when you're working with big files and you're applying filters and such. You may have to spend a bit more than you had budgeted if you wanna see a difference in Photoshop... I'd suggest an extra 1 GB of RAM and another hard drive if you wanna see some real difference -and possibly a cheap (sub-$100 but no 'hypermemory' or 'turbocache') graphics card as well...
December 1, 2006 2:51:40 AM

Quote:
none gaming and imaging is matrox, most hospitals use them and if that is not enough to see you through look at the wall solution
check wall solution forget the hdtv and others
and here


Matrox is particularlly good at specialized solutions (e.g. triplehead2go) but I wouldn't recommend their cards in his case. For the basic home user a mid range current generation card is the way to go, for a professional user I would lean more towards the professional cards (i.e. FireGL and Quadro). Hospitals are usually looking at black and white images of X-Rays and the like, and are a very specialized subset of users. Back in the day (ok, only 5 years ago) Matrox was the way to go for most business applciaitons, but not any longer.
December 1, 2006 3:37:16 AM

The ATI X1300 would be Ideal for what you do and the price is right.
The power supply in the computer however will probably blow after a while unles you upgrade that too.
Heres a good card

Power supply
This power supply is awesome, and will fit into your computer ok.
December 1, 2006 3:42:24 AM

Still image quality depends a LOT on your video card. Onboard images lack color accuracy and will be more prone to artifacts/distortion.
a b U Graphics card
December 1, 2006 4:03:55 AM

You will not notice much of a difference but you may see some difference.

However for the apps you're using there isn't much benifit to big huge honkin' cards.

Get a PASSIVELY cooled X1300 and you should be fine for a long time (it support 10bit per channel colour accuracy, and a dual-link DVI for large LCDs, plus 2 400mhz RAMDACs for large CRTs).

The only major reasons to move away from the inegrated solution is the freeing of resources, option of dual-link tmds DVI for large panels, and the reduction of board noise which could affect the VGA out. If you are plugged into a CRT monitor and have great eye sight and a well calibrated CRT, then you might notice the quality of Matrox's VGA/DB-15 output, but I doubt it.
December 1, 2006 4:11:52 AM

The X1600pro512 would be a nice card for you as it is fairly inexpensive and has fairly good graphics.It will blow the doors off of your integrated graphics chip no prob.Goodluck.

Dahak

AMD X2-4400+@2.4 S-939
EVGA NF4 SLI MB
2X EVGA 7800GT IN SLI
2X1GIG DDR IN DC MODE
WD300GIG HD
EXTREME 19IN.MONITOR 1280X1024
ACE 520WATT PSU
COOLERMASTER MINI R120
December 1, 2006 4:26:06 AM

nah,
Quote:
for working with high resolution graphics in programs like Photoshop and Illustrator.
it's an overkill
December 1, 2006 4:36:36 AM

A x1600pro would work good for photoshop and similar programs and probably won't age quite as fast as an x1300.
December 1, 2006 5:12:21 AM

Quote:
A x1600pro would work good for photoshop and similar programs and probably won't age quite as fast as an x1300.


Wrong. The X1300XT owns an X1600Pro pretty much across the board. And they can be had for less than $100. With the exception of the X800GTO, they're probably the best sub-$100 cards on the market.
December 1, 2006 5:21:24 AM

Quote:
A x1600pro would work good for photoshop and similar programs and probably won't age quite as fast as an x1300.


wrong. VGA Charts
December 1, 2006 5:29:11 AM

Quote:
Something like X1300 would be nice for you.


second, it should be best $/perf. choice for your needs.

Also has all those nice AVIVO features :D 
December 1, 2006 5:43:28 AM

I never said anything about the x1300xt, i said the x1600pro was better than an x1300 which it most certainly is and I assumed that was what we were talking about cause NOBODY mentioned xt, I thought why buy x1300 when x1600pro is only $15 more.
December 1, 2006 5:49:45 AM

Hardly.The X1600pro512 has proven itself time and again in benchmarks against the X1300.Anyways,I was only thinking of the decent performance of the card per price.It's ok as a gaming card,but still can't hold a candle to a 7800gt co.Goodluck.

Dahak

AMD X2-4400+@2.4 S-939
EVGA NF4 SLI MB
2X EVGA 7800GT IN SLI
2X1GIG DDR IN DC MODE
WD300GIG HD
EXTREME 19IN.MONITOR 1280X1024
ACE 520WATT PSU
COOLERMASTER MINI R120
December 1, 2006 5:50:34 AM

I seriously doubt a better video card is going to improve your speed. I think what you are looking for is more memory, expecially for photoshop. Your on board video should be good enough. BTW, what resolution do you use?
December 1, 2006 6:02:07 AM

Yeah, or against a 7900gto, I say go for the 1300xt, it'll be happy fun, and people should eat more potatoes, they really are good for you.
December 1, 2006 6:09:59 AM

Just a reminder,the x1300xt is a PCI-EXPRESS card,NOT AGP.So as far as AGP cards go for his price range and what he wants it to do,theX1600pro 512 is very adequit for his needs.Goodluck.

Dahak

AMD X2-4400+@2.4 S-939
EVGA NF4 SLI MB
2X EVGA 7800GT IN SLI
2X1GIG DDR IN DC MODE
WD300GIG HD
EXTREME 19IN.MONITOR 1280X1024
ACE 520WATT PSU
COOLERMASTER MINI R120
a b U Graphics card
December 1, 2006 4:02:48 PM

Quote:
A x1600pro would work good for photoshop and similar programs and probably won't age quite as fast as an x1300.


wrong. VGA Charts

Dude, you are comparing TWO X1300s to one X1600 in your link.

Nowhere in that chart does a single X1300 beat the X1600Pro.
However a single X1300XT can beat a single X1600Pro depending on configuration, because like the GF7300GT they aren't the cards they say they are they're infact the same chip as the higher model they are being compared to.
December 4, 2006 10:10:14 AM

Thanks for all your input. I was planning to purchase an additional 100GB of ram as well. Now that I know WHAT to look for, I'll get the best one I can afford. Thanks again!
December 4, 2006 11:13:14 AM

Quote:
Thanks for all your input. I was planning to purchase an additional 100GB of ram as well. Now that I know WHAT to look for, I'll get the best one I can afford. Thanks again!


Hm. 100GB of RAM might be a bit of overkill......



I'm sorry, I know what you meant - that was just funny.
December 4, 2006 11:32:07 AM

LOL!!! OOPS!

I meant 1GB for a total of 2GB!

Sorry, I wasn't all the way awake yet!
December 4, 2006 12:22:28 PM

I just installed one of these in my wife's rig and I am very pleased with it. Obviously quiet and is excellent at editing phots and miniDVD tapes. Under $100, 8 pipes, 450MHz core and 256MB of 800MHz DDR2 memory with a 128 bit interface. Runs very cool too.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1681...
December 4, 2006 1:15:11 PM

good idea to increase your ram. the 2gb plan will work excellent. trust me. i've tried and it loads a 300mb psd file way lot faster than a 1gb ram.

by default the photoshop use 55% of your free ram. so the more you bigger the ram, the more the photoshop will use, and if you handle big photoshop file, then you will see the difference when loading and stuff. i can't even tell the difference when using onboard and discrete graphic card.
!