Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Best card for a 55" tv

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
February 10, 2012 5:12:03 PM

Hello,
i have a 55 inch tv connected to my gateway 5260 that has a NVIDIA GeForce™ 7300LE 256 MB. It cannot handle the monitor with the dvi port. What would be my best options for a new graphics card

More about : card

February 10, 2012 5:16:36 PM

What do you want to do on the 55" TV? Do you just need a card that has 1080p DVI/HDMI compatible output, or do you want a card that is going to power games on your TV?
m
0
l
February 10, 2012 5:25:57 PM

rjjohnson said:
Hello,
i have a 55 inch tv connected to my gateway 5260 that has a NVIDIA GeForce™ 7300LE 256 MB. It cannot handle the monitor with the dvi port. What would be my best options for a new graphics card


Not sure what you want to know but a 55" TV will require a weaker GPu then a 30" PC monitor since your 55" probably just a 1080p and a 30" PC monitor would have a higher resolution.

My friend play on a 48" TV since its only a 720p so he can play at max quality while his GPU isn't powerfull enough to run his 1080p 24" PC monitor at the same quality.
m
0
l
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
February 10, 2012 5:48:47 PM

The 7300LE can output up to 2048 x 1536 resolution. Is it that games are too slow or are you having trouble getting it to display? If it is games then what games do you want to run and what is the resolution of your 55" TV?
m
0
l
February 10, 2012 6:24:45 PM

Sorry for not being more detailed with my problem. I do not play games on it I only usit for streaming and movies. I am using the max resolution. The problem I am having is that the when i watch movies using the dvi port it plays for about 30 min then it cuts out. The vga dosent have a good picture very choppy depending on the movie quality. It just seems very sluggish. And yes i do want 1080p with HDMI.
m
0
l
February 10, 2012 6:45:37 PM

Honestly, probably any modern $50-75 video card will be fine for you. I'd recommend the Radeon HD 6670 - it's around $70 I believe.
m
0
l
a c 88 U Graphics card
February 10, 2012 6:49:01 PM

^+1 agreed
m
0
l
February 10, 2012 7:09:24 PM

venur said:
Not sure what you want to know but a 55" TV will require a weaker GPu then a 30" PC monitor since your 55" probably just a 1080p and a 30" PC monitor would have a higher resolution.

My friend play on a 48" TV since its only a 720p so he can play at max quality while his GPU isn't powerfull enough to run his 1080p 24" PC monitor at the same quality.



This seems to be a common fallacy around here. Very few monitors have native resolutions above 1920 x 1080 (same as the TV) and those that do are hard to find and very expensive. The last time I searched Newegg I only found one. Your video card doesn't care how big your TV/monitor is. It will simply spread out the pixels to fit. As always I recommend Nvidia GPUs not because their hardware or pricing is superior but because AMD/ATI has always had buggy drivers and still does.
m
0
l
a c 92 U Graphics card
February 10, 2012 7:59:53 PM

AMD doesn't have any problems with drivers except for crossfire which is still rare problems. Buying a low end nvidia card is just paying for more heat and power consumption.

As for the OP, the 6450 is probably the cheapest solution to your problems and would be more than powerful enough for what you need it for while drawing minimal power.
m
0
l
February 10, 2012 8:15:40 PM

esrever said:
AMD doesn't have any problems with drivers except for crossfire
...Goodness but how I wish that were true!
Nvidia has always been plug-n-play for me, but AMD has drivers have been a frequent source of headaches.
Although much less lately than years past.
m
0
l
a c 92 U Graphics card
February 10, 2012 8:22:31 PM

Noworldorder said:
...Goodness but how I wish that were true!
Nvidia has always been plug-n-play for me, but AMD has drivers have been a frequent source of headaches.
Although much less lately than years past.
hmmm, I have had no problem with the 5XXX or the 6XXX cards and I don't seems to see more problems with AMD compared to nvida on this forums that has to do with drivers. To be honest, nvidia drivers seem to add more problems than they fix with some of the latest drivers.
m
0
l
a c 177 U Graphics card
February 10, 2012 8:36:03 PM

Ati has had bad driver issues but amd has been pretty good about it. Nothing against either company, I have nvidia now, my last pc was ati, my laptop is ati, no issues with any. Fanboyism is pointless. The 6450 would be one of the cheapest solutions and is what I would suggest but you're free to choose between either company. Any modern gpu can handle 1080p and the resolution is what matters not the size.

Now going off topic.
ram1009 said:
This seems to be a common fallacy around here. Very few monitors have native resolutions above 1920 x 1080 (same as the TV) and those that do are hard to find and very expensive. The last time I searched Newegg I only found one. Your video card doesn't care how big your TV/monitor is. It will simply spread out the pixels to fit. As always I recommend Nvidia GPUs not because their hardware or pricing is superior but because AMD/ATI has always had buggy drivers and still does.


Computer monitors do tend to have higher res than tvs, although they are the same technology. You won't find many 21" 1080p tvs as you would a pc monitor which is common at that res/size. 1080p on tvs isn't common til the 40" area. This is because you are up close to the monitor. There are currently 32 monitors on newegg bigger than 1080p and they are definitely easy to find. They are more expensive though as they tend to be ips monitors.
m
0
l
a c 125 U Graphics card
February 10, 2012 8:42:52 PM

ram1009 said:
This seems to be a common fallacy around here. Very few monitors have native resolutions above 1920 x 1080 (same as the TV) and those that do are hard to find and very expensive. The last time I searched Newegg I only found one. Your video card doesn't care how big your TV/monitor is. It will simply spread out the pixels to fit. As always I recommend Nvidia GPUs not because their hardware or pricing is superior but because AMD/ATI has always had buggy drivers and still does.


I think I've only seen 1920x1080 up to 27". For a 30", you're definitely look at 2560x1440 or 2560x1600. However, yes, the vast majority of monitors from 22 to 27" are 1080p, with very, very few 1920x1200.
m
0
l
a c 225 U Graphics card
February 10, 2012 8:56:52 PM

wolfram23 said:
I think I've only seen 1920x1080 up to 27". For a 30", you're definitely look at 2560x1440 or 2560x1600. However, yes, the vast majority of monitors from 22 to 27" are 1080p, with very, very few 1920x1200.


1920 is found on everything from 15.6 to 27" screens but anything above 23.6 will appear "grainy" (PPI < 93 - 96) to those with normal vision at normal monitor viewing distances. Above that....these are most common:

2048×1152 23.0
2560×1440 27.0
2560×1600 30.0
3840×2400 22.2
m
0
l
a c 125 U Graphics card
February 10, 2012 9:23:02 PM

JackNaylorPE said:
1920 is found on everything from 15.6 to 27" screens but anything above 23.6 will appear "grainy" (PPI < 93 - 96) to those with normal vision at normal monitor viewing distances. Above that....these are most common:

2048×1152 23.0
2560×1440 27.0
2560×1600 30.0
3840×2400 22.2


What? That is easily refuted by going to a popular monitor retailer and searching for a monitor size - like Newegg. For example, 27" returns 15 1920x1080 models and only 2 2560x1440. Also all 22 models at 23" are 1080p as well. I don't know where you go shopping, but obviously it must be some kind of specialty retailer. Unless I'm completely oblivious to some inside knowledge you have...?

The "grainy" assessment is also suspect. Like you said, depends on the person. But I have perfect vision and sit only about 3 feet away from my 24" monitor (eyeballs to screen distance) and it looks super sharp to me. I can only say that I have not had the pleasure of using a higher resolution monitor besides some of those 2560x1440 Apple Cinema displays at the store, which do look good. Of course I've tried plugging my PC into my 40" HDTV and that looks like ***, very grainy, but that's basically an order of magnitude drop in PPI.
m
0
l
February 10, 2012 9:32:52 PM

k1114 said:
Ati has had bad driver issues but amd has been pretty good about it. Nothing against either company, I have nvidia now, my last pc was ati, my laptop is ati, no issues with any. Fanboyism is pointless. The 6450 would be one of the cheapest solutions and is what I would suggest but you're free to choose between either company. Any modern gpu can handle 1080p and the resolution is what matters not the size.

Now going off topic.


Computer monitors do tend to have higher res than tvs, although they are the same technology. You won't find many 21" 1080p tvs as you would a pc monitor which is common at that res/size. 1080p on tvs isn't common til the 40" area. This is because you are up close to the monitor. There are currently 32 monitors on newegg bigger than 1080p and they are definitely easy to find. They are more expensive though as they tend to be ips monitors.



There are 32 today but you forgot to mention there's nothing over 30". Who needs a monitor that small with a resolution and price that high? I do 3D CAD work using Solidworks nearly daily on a 1080p 26" Vizio TV and love it.
m
0
l
a c 177 U Graphics card
February 10, 2012 10:45:18 PM

Why did you mention over 30"? You said over 1080p was hard to found and nothing about size. I've worked on a 30" apple display and it's great. The smaller pixels make images look better, it's like shrinking a large image. But yes it's not necessary, I'd take more space over res anyday. A dual monitor setup gets the same job done just as well but cheaper. I've gamed on a 42" 1080p tv close up and picture quality wasn't a big deal. You can notice the big pixels but only when you really look for it. I never said those large ips monitors are rational vs the price, I just said they aren't rare and aren't a fallacy as you claimed.
m
0
l
February 11, 2012 4:43:41 AM

Hmm.. lot of argument going around.

Anyway I second the motion for the AMD 6670.

My notebook runs the mobile version of this card (6770M) and it's proven very capable, including for gaming.
I have a 30 ft HDMI over to my 1080p TV and it easily handles HD video and Blu-ray on both screens
m
0
l
February 11, 2012 7:34:36 PM

Thank you for all of your replies. I think i will have to look into it to find some other options since i only got 2 replies that actually gave me a graphics card number to work with. The question was for a 55" 1080p tv nothing smaller than that and yes it does have 1,920 x 1,080 Native Resolution so all the other replies helped me none but thank you anyways. It was entertaining to read all the arguments.
m
0
l
February 11, 2012 9:58:06 PM

rjjohnson said:
Thank you for all of your replies. I think i will have to look into it to find some other options since i only got 2 replies that actually gave me a graphics card number to work with. The question was for a 55" 1080p tv nothing smaller than that and yes it does have 1,920 x 1,080 Native Resolution so all the other replies helped me none but thank you anyways. It was entertaining to read all the arguments.
What?!
You must have been looking for something other than what your query suggested,
because it has been answered ad infinitum.
m
0
l
a c 177 U Graphics card
February 11, 2012 10:51:07 PM

It was answered near the top, the rest is not really relevant. I will apologize for the thread hijacking argument (it's not a normal thing on this forum I assure you) and to clarify I will answer the question again. You'll probably want to stick with a modern 6000 series from amd or 500 series from nvidia. (5000 and 400 series are getting rare.) But the lowest end ones will still do the job with power to spare, so go with the lowest price, 6450, 6570, 6670. Even for modern integrated, it's a walk in the park. Amd has a bit better price/performance at the low end range which is why I only stated their model numbers.
m
0
l
!