I'm looking to upgrade my X1950 Pro for the best HDMI-capable graphics card for Blu-ray disks and HD file playback.

I'm not a gamer, so I don't need a card that's good for that, unless it's the best card for videos too. I'm a movie buff, I have a 30-inch LCD display with an HDMI input, and I want to power it to the max for movie-watching purposes and video editing. I don't want to spend more than I have to, but I don't mind spending whatever I need to if it will make movies look and play better on my display and give me the editing capabilities I need.

All things being equal (if they actually are), ATI Avivo HD or Nvidia Pure Video HD are both fine -- I don't have a brand preference unless I can derive meaningful playback and/or editing advantages from a Crossfire setup, in which case I'd need two ATI cards for my Intel motherboard.

My current system (in addition to the X1950 Pro): Intel D975XBX2 motherboard, QX6700 CPU, 8 GB Mushkin DDR-2 800 RAM, Corsair 620W (3 12V rails) PSU, HT Omega Striker Sound Card, Vista 64-bit OS.

I'd be very grateful for any help. Thanks!

A ati HD3650 will do then, you could always wait for the budget HD4xx0 part to arrive. Ati has free software thats why i'm recommending it

I actually bought an ECS 9600GT which comes with an Artic Cooling S2 "massive" heatsink for my HTPC. The heatsink makes the card about 2" taller than the typical video card. Reasons why I bought it:

1. Passive cooling = no noise
2. Low power consumption. 60w max when gaming, about 40w - 45w max when doing non-gaming stuff like watching video.
3. About 10% - 15% better performance than my X1900XT 512MB in gaming (in case I wanna play games).


As to which is better at "video quality" it is subjective. I've read a few comparisions a couple of and it was a split decision. Some preferred ATI, other preferred nVidia.

Best advice if you can't decide between ATI or nVidia, by 'em both to test them out, then return the one you don't like. In my opinion, that's a huge waste of time.

@ jaguarskx: absolutly ****!
@ bobxone:
You do NOT need to spend that much money for a graphic card that you even can't play games!
You can go for much cheaper one (ATI HD3450 or ATI 3650) that are about $50 and they has got UVD wich means that you can play easy Full HD and blue ray even with cheap CPU!

yonef:The 9600 has video decoding capability, and depending on the movie editing software, it could potentially be accelerated by the fast video card.

Im not trying to sway from what you want just introducing another option.
Have you looked into the MB with intergrated video? They have come a long way in the last year and more to come with the G45 chips, (not avaiable yet). Right now the 780G ATI chip sets seem to hold the 1st spot.
Here is a couple of examples:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6813128090
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6813131273
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6813128341

Just to let you know Nvidia doesnt support sound over the HDMI and ATI does i found that out the hard way when i got another 8800GS for my HTCP/game system

Nvidia supports sound through DVI>HDMI via supplied jumper. SPDIF>Video card. Plug one end into the MB SPDIF the other end into the Video card.

9xxx series up.

Thanks for your suggestion, but I'm delighted with my Intel D975XBX2 motherboard.

Horrible idea, IMO. He would have to purchase a new motherboard and processor, not to mention re-install a fresh OS which can be the most annoying thing of all.

I say ATI HD3650 should be more than enough. Some come with HDMI output and are less than $100.

You will need a Blu-Ray DVD drive also, yes?

If you bothered to actually read my response, I stated that the 9600GT fit the bill for me because:

1. It is passively cooled
2. 60w max under gaming conditions, otherwise 40w - 45w max
3. More powerful than my X1900XT in case I WANT TO PLAY GAMES WITH IT.

If you really want to play newer games, you'll need more than just a single 9600gt.

If you only want to watch videos, hd or not, you can do with just fine with onboard. Remember, cpu is what does the decoding. Even though the latest gpus can also supplement cpu, it's not necessary since all modern dual/quad cores are powerful enough to decode in real time alone without assisstance. When a video is playing, it doesn't matter if your cpu load is 50% or 5%, as long as it doesn't reach 100%, the video will play perfectly smoothly and you'll see no difference.

Second the 3650 suggestion. I can also agree it's complete overkill (in terms of computing power and energy consumption - where's amdfangirl?)for a BluRay playing HTPC (more or less), but if it's old (read: upgraded) equipment, why not re-assign its usage?

IMO for now, HD3650, and then later if GPGPU assisted editing does take off get not another, but get an HD4850 on the cheap at that time.

Until GPU assisted encoding actually matures stick with a nice solid base.

My recco;
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6814121243

The only reason to consider the nVidia series IMO would be for the dual stream acceleration which works on the G9x series chips, and the RV770, but it's not available on the HD2K and HD3K series. It's not a major issue, but the PIP feature of BluRay would benefit fom dual-stream decoding.