I saw the best gaming video card for the money so I have to ask what's the best hd video cards for the money?
 
Currently I have a p5wd2-e with 2gb ram, 3.0ghz processor (not duo) and a geforce 6800 GS (256mb) video card running vista. I can play some hd content @ 720p but if I try 1080i/p it basically becomes choppy and unwatchable.
 
I want to upgrade to a hd ready video card that can do 1080p, blu-ray/hddvd but I don't want to spend too much money to do so. I wanted to ask if anybody can recommend a decent enough video card that can do 1080i/p preferably around $200. I would prefer it do hdmi but at that price I doubt it.
Is there a list I can find on this site or a previous post covering because I have not been able to find one?

Any ATI 2400/2600 or nVidia 8500/8600 will do. Just be sure to check that they have HDCP capabilities. All 8600GTS has this capability while select 8600GTs and 8500 will have this capability. Not sure if all Radeon 2600XT has HDCP, but I suspect they should.
 
The Geforce cards are arguably better at image quality than ATI, it used to be the reverse with the GeForce 7xxx and Radeon X1xxxx series and prior generations.  
 
When decoding HD video, the GeForce 8500/8600 has slightly higher CPU utilization then the Radeon 2400/2600 series, but you are only talking about 2% - 4% higher CPU utilization.  
 
While I have not seen any power consumption measurement of both series, GeForce cards traditional uses less power than their Radeon counterparts over the past 3 generations of video cards. That includes the 8800 GTX vs. the 2900XT. Lower power consumption generally means less heat.
 
 

He wants a Gaming card, something that none of those cards can do (Not even that POS known as the 8600GTS), If you have DDR2 800 memory, you should try to get a X1950XT 256MB, a cheap $50 mobo, and a X2 3800+ (A bit overbudget, but it will greatly improve your experience overall)
 
If you don't have DDR2 800 memory, try to get a X1950XT 256MB and the fastest Pentium D you can find, because that's the only way you'll get some decent performance. (Yeah.. I said Pentium D :S)

I do not want a gaming card. I use my pc for gaming so randomly that I wouldn't worry about that "feature". I do have ddr2 800. I've been looking at the ati cards, I think the 2600 shows as true 1080p, blu-ray and hd dvd, av1, x264 decoding built into it...  
which seems perfect. Anybody use this card just for that feature (hd viewing)?

 
Ati's 2400 & 2600 will accelerate HD in Wwindows XP as well as Windows Vista; the Geforce 8500/8600 cards will only accelerate HD in Vista at this time...
 
The 2400/2600 is the way to go if you're running XP. They are great cards for video acceleration, truly. And they even come with an HDMI out and integrated sound chip, which is nice.
 

jaguar, what is your source for this comment?:

 
Also, I assume you're talking about Vista?
 
I 'm wanting the same type of function freeballer wants, a HD/video playback/encoding video card so I am considering the same cards.
 
cleeve, how is the ATI drivers for XP for the HD 2xxx series?  Or does anyone know?   Any owners of these cards reading this thread?
 
I had the impression that it didn't matter whether you had the Nvidia 8600 series or the ATI HD 2xxx series, there were major drivers issues with either.

lol, as it was the 2600 xt 512mb card is on sale ($150 off) at futures*op here in canada to make it $200. So I will try this card first over the nvidia. I will try the card and leave a little info about playback and such later on. I would like to hear if anybody had issues with drivers, vista/xp, etc...

Cant beleive you guys havent been linked to this by cleeve.
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/HD-2 [...] -2362.html  
All your questions answered
 Mactronix

I have some 2600's here for testing, and from what I've seen the new 7.8 driver makes tham a bit more attractive than before in the gaming arena.
 
But if you want to decode HD in XP, you really don't have a choice yet as the Geforce cards don't accelerate XP yet.

Oh cleeve you tease  so whats a bit more attractive supposed to mean then last set of tests i saw month or so ago now prob, had the 2600xt firmly in the lap of the 1650xt are you talking like the diff between the pro and xt again or dare i hope foe more.
Reason being i have been keeping an eye on the performance as i have an old rig that will become a htpc quite soon and had half an eye on it being a semi gaming machine,had an eye on the gemini 3 as well any news?
 Mactronix  

so in other words, you are right to get the 2600 just whatever you do don't expect to game on them

Deffinetly the 2600xt.

I'd better clarify: The 2600XT doesn't get a quantum leap performance jump but it does a little better than it did before the driver update, is all.
 
This is just a preliminary impression of mine though, I will be handing in a review soon that takes a close look at the new 2500/2600s and 8500/8600s though.
 
But for HD video on XP: the 2500/2600's are the only real choice at this time.

thank you mactronics for the link, it seems like the ati can unload alot of the decoding off the cpu so that should work fine for me... hopefully
 
I watch a ton more stuff on my computer than game myself, if anything I enjoy the old classics or arcade games more than the latest and greatest. So this is a great upgrade for now until either I built a gamer pc or a new console. I just can't justify running over $300++++ for something that can do both or a gamer card that can also do hd

Um cleeve you do mean 2400 dont you or is there another one out now?  
Yes freeballer thats about the size of it one of these cards will do you great and given your budget unless your pricing is way diff to mine a 2600xt should come in way under budget  
Enjoy  
 Mactronix

 
Anandtech:
 
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3047
 

And toms own article comes to the same conclusion
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/HD-2 [...] -2362.html
 Mactronix

Why cant you use 2600xt for gaming? On mid settings on like 1280x1024, maybe 2 or 4x AA, whats the problem? Most benches ive seen shows it'll run fine like that.
 
So many people are lost in their own world that it has to be all be at max to be playable Which in my opinion it does tbh.. but not everyone is too picky

What is playable to you? For me having a max of 30-35 fps is not playable (and neither it is for most gamers), I need to run around 40-50avg spiking to the 60+ very often.

What does anyone think of these conclusions?:
1) The main difference is in VC-1 decoding.  ATI's HD cards are slightly better at it.   No difference with H.264 decoding.  This is applicable to Vista so far.  
2) Both guru3d and anandtech believe that Nvidia's hardware is a bit better especially when it comes to noise reduction and video picture quality.  You can tweak noise reduction and the picture more with Nvidia's card compared to ATI's.  
3) Both seem to have driver issues (especially in Vista) when you read the card users' experiences with them.  
4) *If Nvidia's Forceware 163.44 allow PureVideo HD decode acceleration for the 8600 series of cards or soon (meaning within a month) leads that way, I think the 8600 cards would be a better choice (for me, anyway) since image quality is important to me.
 
I also see the option to use the 8600 card in my Linux box whereas the HD 2600 can only be in a Windows setup at this time.  
 
So, 8600:
1) image quality is better (supposedly)
2) *Finally, Nvidia seems to be getting close to supporting XP with hardware acceleration
3) Linux compatibility (right now) with 8600 series of cards
 
*Big if.  Any preference or decision to go Nvidia depends on development of XP drivers and whether ATI continues to not offer any drivers for Linux.  I also think that the XP support is crucial since not everyone wants to jump to Vista right now.