Video card for the non-gamer?

[doctajay]

Hey everyone. I don't game at all right now. All I do is video editing (not professionally) and webdesign. I hope to also play Blu-Ray rips on my computer. It seems like all the guides on TH are for gamers and I wanted to know whether I should go head and get a card like the Radeon HD 2600 XT or whether this is too much for me for my needs? I plan on getting an HDCP capable monitor too so I can watch the Blu-Ray rips at 1080p.

 

[evongugg]

You want to go with an ATI card for blu-ray,
I would recommend anything between a 3850 and a 4850,
ATI cards decode the high def movies on the card (i believe) with no extra software,
Nvidia wants you to buy PureVideo to allow decoding on the card,
Yeah ATI cards are the way to go when it comes to doing things with HDTVs and HTPCs. All ATI cards from the HD 3xxx and 4xxx series will give you excellent performance with Blu-ray and they include Native HDMI.

 

[evongugg]

This would be an inexpensive choice:

SAPPHIRE 100255L Radeon HD 4670 512MB 128-bit GDDR3 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFire Supported Video Card - Retail

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102792

 

[evongugg]

Blu-Ray adviser

http://www.cyberlink.com/prog/bd-support/diagnosis.do

 

[magicbullet]

This would be an inexpensive choice:

SAPPHIRE 100255L Radeon HD 4670 512MB 128-bit GDDR3 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFire Supported Video Card - Retail

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102792

This should be enough for the thing that you do.

I seconded that

 

[sisley_111]

In fact, you could buy a HD3450 and it will support support bluray playback. but it's a very weak card for 3d gaming (if you're going to gma eone day).

The 4670 is a great entry card, at a very good price.

 

[yipsl]

If you have a 780G motherboard, you could go with a 3450 for hybrid Crossfire, but your best bet is a 4670.

It's the best card in the sub $100. AVIVO's great. If you decided to game, then it does well at 1280 x 1024. It's the best card for around $79 offered in years.

If the economy holds up (at least my personal part of it), I'll get a 24" LCD and a Blu-ray drive next February. Though I play several games, I also like anime in HD and want to stop buying DVD's in favor of Blu-ray.

 

[rdb]

In fact, you could buy a HD3450 and it will support support bluray playback. but it's a very weak card for 3d gaming (if you're going to gma eone day).

The 4670 is a great entry card, at a very good price.

I have read a lot of positive reviews on the 4670

 

[Amiga500]

This would be an inexpensive choice:

Would a passive 4650 be a better bet when they emerge?

 

[cjl]

I'd tend to go for the actively cooled card when possible - I've seen passive cards run far hotter that I'd ever want. The lower spec actively cooled cards don't make that much heat anyways - they tend to run pretty quietly.

 

[dagger]

This would be an inexpensive choice:

SAPPHIRE 100255L Radeon HD 4670 512MB 128-bit GDDR3 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFire Supported Video Card - Retail

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102792

There is 9600gso for $50 after mir and free shipping, compared to $80 plus $8.25 shipping for 4670 (which also happen to be out of stock at the moment).
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130356

Performance is only slightly above 4670 though, so it's really no noticeable advantage there.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/HD_4670/26.html

As for heat and noise, the aftermarket dual slot cooler with bigger fan spinning at lower rpm will both keep the card cooler while producing low noise.

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

Stick with the HD4650 for playback, if you're not gaming, then it's the better performer with more playback features than both the GF9600GSO and HD2K & HD3K series, and more than enough for the tasks you listed. And in just about anuthing you're doing it's better than the HD2600XT.

In general the HD4850 would be overkill, generate more backplate heat (even with an aftermarket cooler [which you could apply to either]) and draw alot more power both at idle and heavy 2D.

I prefer passive on an editing rig because it means you can leave it unattended rather securely, and if you're not gaming and not overclocking then it'll run just fine, even for ambient if you have sufficient case cooling.

Reliability and longevity over slightly lower core temps and minimal impact on case temps for such a low power card. Problem is you have to wait for them.

If you want a little more you could always go with the HD4670, and get a nice OEM cooler like the one on the HIS;
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814161249

Maybe a little more power than you need for a non-gaming machine, but it's quiet and ejects all the heat out of the rig, even though I still prefer passive cooling.

 

[The_Blood_Raven]

I definitely think the 4670 would be the absolute best video card for your uses.

 

[dagger]

You won't notice a difference with video playback. The gpu will take some of load off cpu, but as long as cpu isn't bottlenecked to 100%, playback will be perfectly smooth anyway. Decoding is done on cpu, gpu only helps accelerate.

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

You won't notice a difference with video playback. The gpu will take some of load off cpu, but as long as cpu isn't bottlenecked to 100%, playback will be perfectly smooth anyway. Decoding is done on cpu, gpu only helps accelerate.

If that's your philosophy, why recommend the GF9600GSO? Why not a cheaper $25 HD2600Pro like in the original post?

If you need to recommend an nV solution, then point him towards their upcoming GF9 series integrated solutions about to launch, at least that would get him most of the way there if he didn't already have a mobo. But that's only if he doesn't have a mobo already picked out. But that would be better than that GSO for his stated needs.

 

[emp]

There is 9600gso for $50 after mir and free shipping, compared to $80 plus $8.25 shipping for 4670 (which also happen to be out of stock at the moment).
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130356

Performance is only slightly above 4670 though, so it's really no noticeable advantage there.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/HD_4670/26.html

As for heat and noise, the aftermarket dual slot cooler with bigger fan spinning at lower rpm will both keep the card cooler while producing low noise.

a 9600GSO could possibly also require a PSU upgrade, while the HD 4670 doesn't. It's really not that good of a budget card as you make it sound, dagger A LOT of people have el-cheapo PSUs that need some 4670 lovin'.

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

Yeah, and while I like the idea of integrated MoBo solutions, I think Cleeve's review on the subject was very enlightening on their limitations with older CPUs which many people tend to use to build HTPCs out of, and even mid--range modern CPUs when using higher bitrates.

 

[dagger]

If that's your philosophy, why recommend the GF9600GSO? Why not a cheaper $25 HD2600Pro like in the original post?

If you need to recommend an nV solution, then point him towards their upcoming GF9 series integrated solutions about to launch, at least that would get him most of the way there if he didn't already have a mobo. But that's only if he doesn't have a mobo already picked out. But that would be better than that GSO for his stated needs.

I was stating the $50 ar plus free shipping 9600gso as an alternative to the more expensive 4670. I would have recommended 2600XT, but the cheapest one on newegg is $48 ar, plus $8.25 shipping, which makes it more expensive than 9600gso. There is no point paying more for less performance.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131057

a 9600GSO could possibly also require a PSU upgrade, while the HD 4670 doesn't. It's really not that good of a budget card as you make it sound, dagger A LOT of people have el-cheapo PSUs that need some 4670 lovin'.

At peak load, system power consumption is 164w compared to 177w, a 13 watt difference between 9600gso and 4670. While the 13 watts less is certainly an advantage, it's not big enough to make or break a psu. A psu that can handle 4670 should be able to take the extra 13 watts, it's not that much.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Powercolor/HD_4670/24.html

 

[megamanx00]

Get the 4670

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

I was stating the $50 ar plus free shipping 9600gso as an alternative to the more expensive 4670. I would have recommended 2600XT, but the cheapest one on newegg is $48 ar, plus $8.25 shipping, which makes it more expensive than 9600gso. There is no point paying more for less performance.

However if you're going to recommend something else, why not recommend the then $25 HD2600Pro? That's the point, why stop at the GSO if all he needs is a good CPU?

At peak load, system power consumption is 164w compared to 177w, a 13 watt difference between 9600gso and 4670. While the 13 watts less is certainly an advantage, it's not big enough to make or break a psu. A psu that can handle 4670 should be able to take the extra 13 watts, it's not that much.

Might be.
Emp said "could possibly", seems that if someone were concerned between the two, then you go for the one that consumes less, and an HD4650 even less of a PSU concern. It's not like he's losing features for that benifit, it has more features he's looking for, AND draws less power. Win-win.

If it were about gaming the motivation might be different, but it's not in this case.

 

[dagger]

However if you're going to recommend something else, why not recommend the then $25 HD2600Pro? That's the point, why stop at the GSO if all he needs is a good CPU?

At peak load, system power consumption is 164w compared to 177w, a 13 watt difference between 9600gso and 4670. While the 13 watts less is certainly an advantage, it's not big enough to make or break a psu. A psu that can handle 4670 should be able to take the extra 13 watts, it's not that much.

Might be.
Emp said "could possibly", seems that if someone were concerned between the two, then you go for the one that consumes less, and an HD4650 even less of a PSU concern. It's not like he's losing features for that benifit, it has more features he's looking for, AND draws less power. Win-win.

If it were about gaming the motivation might be different, but it's not in this case.

Good point. Didn't look at the pro. It's $30 ar plus $7 shipping. Still cheaper though. So if gpu don't matter, it's a fine choice.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127330

As for 4650, it's really not a good choice considering the $70 plus $7 shipping price tag. It performs lower than 4670 while costing only slightly less, also lower than 9600gso while costing significantly more. If performance matters, there's 9600gso for less, if it doesn't matter, there's the 2600pro for far less, which is also low energy consuming.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127384

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

You're missing the reasoning behind the HD4650 and 4670, it's not for games it's for playback capabilities, so for that the HD4650 is fine, and offers features not available on other cards other than the other HD4Ks, and some integrated options (although their playback performance is suspect after Cleeve's review).

For the OP's needs, which are not gaming, the HD4650 > GF9600GSO. If gaming were involved, then you could mention performance, otherwise, there's little the GSO can do that the HD4650 can't, but alot the HD4650 can do that the GSO can't. Specific to this thread the HD4650 > GF9600GSO, for most other people that may not be the case. The added oomph of the HD4670 is also wasted for what he's doing.

 

[dagger]

You're missing the reasoning behind the HD4650 and 4670, it's not for games it's for playback capabilities, so for that the HD4650 is fine, and offers features not available on other cards other than the other HD4Ks, and some integrated options (although their playback performance is suspect after Cleeve's review).

For the OP's needs, which are not gaming, the HD4650 > GF9600GSO. If gaming were involved, then you could mention performance, otherwise, there's little the GSO can do that the HD4650 can't, but alot the HD4650 can do that the GSO can't. Specific to this thread the HD4650 > GF9600GSO, for most other people that may not be the case. The added oomph of the HD4670 is also wasted for what he's doing.

You're missing the point. If you're talking about ATI's AVIVO HD playback, the 2600 support it too, just like 4650, and it's far cheaper. And unlike integrated gpus, it's powerful enough to run it. So basically, for hd video playback, there is 2600, for performance, there is 9600gso, both are cheaper than 4650/70. 4650/70, at the current price, is just a halfway option that offers neither hd playback on the cheap, nor performance on the cheap in comparison to alternatives. Jack of all trades, master of none.

Besides, Nvidia has its own PureVideo playback, in competition with ATI's AVIVO. It's not like 9600gso don't offer video acceleration.

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

You're missing the point. If you're talking about ATI's AVIVO HD playback, the 2600 support it too, just like 4650, and it's far cheaper. And unlike integrated gpus, it's powerful enough to run it. So basically, for hd video playback, there is 2600, for performance, there is 9600gso, both are cheaper than 4650/70. 4650/70, at the current price, is just a halfway option that offers neither hd playback on the cheap, nor performance on the cheap in comparison to alternatives. Jack of all trades, master of none.

Actually you need to look into the feature list if you think the HD2600 has the same support as the HD4650, and same with the GF9600GSO, since they all support different feature leves. Whether or not he will use all those features is another story.

Besides, Nvidia has its own PureVideo playback, in competition with ATI's AVIVO. It's not like 9600gso don't offer video acceleration.

It does, but you need to look further into the differences, because you seem to think they are all the same, and they are not.

The HD2600 reference is in reply to your CPU comment, because if it were to be playback feature wise, the GF9600GSO definitely has a slight edge over the HD2600, however in addition the HD4650 also has additional features ontop of that, which is the point of the recommendations. Whether or not he'll use all the features or not is another question. However for the tasks he's listed, there's nothing the GF9600GSO would be a 'better performer' at than the HD4650, other than the gaming which he already mentioned is not the focus.

So what exactly is it that the GF9600GSO does that makes it your recommendation? What is this 'performance' difference you allude to.
What to shed some light on it, because right now it looks like you're confusing gaming performance and adding it into a thread/choice where it's not relevant.

 

[dagger]

Actually you need to look into the feature list if you think the HD2600 has the same support as the HD4650, and same with the GF9600GSO, since they all support different feature leves. Whether or not he will use all those features is another story.

Besides, Nvidia has its own PureVideo playback, in competition with ATI's AVIVO. It's not like 9600gso don't offer video acceleration.

It does, but you need to look further into the differences, because you seem to think they are all the same, and they are not.

The HD2600 reference is in reply yo your CPU comment, because if it were to be playback feature wise, the GF9600GSO definitely has a slight edge over the HD2600, however in addition the HD4650 also has additional features ontop of that, which is the point of the recommendations. Whether or not he'll use all the features or not is another question. However for the tasks he's listed, there's nothing the GF9600GSO would be a 'better performer' at than the HD4650, other than the gaming which he already mentioned is not the focus.

So what exactly is it that the GF9600GSO does that makes it your recommendation? What is this 'performance' difference you allude to.
What to shed some light on it, because right now it looks like you're confusing gaming performance and adding it into a thread/choice where it's not relevant.

The reason is both 2600pro and 9600gso are cheaper than 4670, by $30 and $50 respectively, while both offering all the major features, especially hd playback, which is what OP asked for. What are those "features" that the $80 4670 or $70 4650 offer which the $30 2600pro does not? You never mentioned. 2600pro has all the major points, like AVIVO and dx10. It addresses OP's needs. 9600gso don't have AVIVO, but does support PureHD, which really isn't inferior, just a different name of similar acceleration offered by a rival company.

So, both alternatives are cheaper than 4650/4670, one perform better, the other worse, but both address OP's needs.

As for 9600gso performing better, how is performing better a con as long as it's cheaper? It accelerates hd video playback just fine. It both perform better and cost less than 4650/70, while does what OP wanted. Even if you dismiss performance completely, cost is something that can't be dismissed.

The 2600pro accelerates playback, but don't perform as well as 4650/70, but it's even cheaper. There is no real difference in "features." The only real drawback compared to 4650/70 is performing lower, but you already asserted that it doesn't matter.

For the most expensive of the three choices, 4650/70 should offer some kind of advantage to OP for its higher price. It doesn't.