Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Low Profile graphic card with 250WATT psu

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
October 28, 2012 8:07:46 PM

Hey!

I have a DELL Studio 540 Slim Line (Low Profile) that I use as a media center. It is dedicated to internet, video and music streaming and watching HD (some BluRay) movies. I don't do any gaming on it. It is HDMIed to a 52" plasma TV.

It has an Intel Core2 quad Q8300 2.5 Ghz and 4G RAM. The graphic card is a ATI Radeon HD 4300/4500 Series. The PSU is only 250WATT.

I am looking to replace my Graphic Card and am looking for option in the $100 (give or take) range. I know the 250WATT is a limiting factor and there is no need to harp on my poor purchase choice. :-)

Suggestions other than "replace the entire computer" would be greatly appreciated!

I am running 32 bit OS and that limits my RAM capacity to 4G (which I have). It is 64 bit compatible allowing 8 G RAM. Would that be a smart thing for me to do to speed up the overall flow?!

More about : low profile graphic card 250watt psu

a c 160 U Graphics card
October 28, 2012 11:28:39 PM

Given your system usage, I don't see any need to go with more than 4GB or RAM, thus negating the requirement for a 64-bit operating system.

Additionally, I would ask if the stated graphic specifications are integrated to the motherboard or are a discrete graphics card. Either way, your graphics solution *should* be enough for your intended purposes. If you are running into issues, I'd request that you detail those experiences here. Regardless, your current system should be far and away more than sufficient for your needs. There shouldn't be any need to replace the system.

Finally, replacement graphics card options would be the Radeon HD6450 or HD6570. Both of which should come it well under $100. Again, I don't feel that either of these cards are necessary, but we need more details about what you are experiencing to say for sure.

-Wolf sends
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
October 29, 2012 3:29:00 AM

What are your goals for the new card? Why do you want to replace it? I think the 4350 should be fine for HD playback.
m
0
l
Related resources
October 29, 2012 8:54:52 AM

Thanks for your interest!

I just use it for video and audio streaming, surfing etc. No gaming

I have problems with:
- very slow loading and buffering of streamed video (Youtube etc) despite broadband connection at average speed of 15-25
-very often the computer "freezes" or locks up while it is processing, especially multitasking and streaming
-the Microsoft system evaluation ranking on Windows7 (can't remember the name of it) gave the graphics a 3.2 (out of 7.9) while the rest of my system gets at least a 5.9-7.4

With only a 250WATT PSU can I still use a Radeon HD6450 or HD6570?? All the models I have seen say 400WATT minimum? Are there low power usage models (like No Fan vs. With Fan)?

I am not a techhead so forgive any ignorance on my part!


I will add that my RAM runs at 60% capacity nearly all of the time while CPU is normally around 20%. Plus, I use each of the big three surf platforms and they are all very slow with loading and video.

Thanks again for any and all help!
m
0
l
October 29, 2012 10:20:30 AM

Wolfshadw said:
Given your system usage, I don't see any need to go with more than 4GB or RAM, thus negating the requirement for a 64-bit operating system.

Additionally, I would ask if the stated graphic specifications are integrated to the motherboard or are a discrete graphics card. Either way, your graphics solution *should* be enough for your intended purposes. If you are running into issues, I'd request that you detail those experiences here. Regardless, your current system should be far and away more than sufficient for your needs. There shouldn't be any need to replace the system.

Finally, replacement graphics card options would be the Radeon HD6450 or HD6570. Both of which should come it well under $100. Again, I don't feel that either of these cards are necessary, but we need more details about what you are experiencing to say for sure.

-Wolf sends


My existing is a seperate graphics card and I am having trouble with:

- very slow loading and buffering of streamed video (Youtube etc) despite broadband connection at average speed of 15-25
-very often the computer "freezes" or locks up while it is processing, especially multitasking and streaming
-the Microsoft system evaluation ranking on Windows7 (can't remember the name of it) gave the graphics a 3.2 (out of 7.9) while the rest of my system gets at least a 5.9-7.4
m
0
l

Best solution

a c 160 U Graphics card
October 29, 2012 12:25:18 PM

Not quite sure what the issue would be. As I mentioned, your system should not be having these issues.

Right off, I'd recommend making sure your graphic card drivers are up to date:

Windows Vista/Windows 7 - http://support.amd.com/us/gpudownload/windows/legacy/Pa...

Windows XP - http://support.amd.com/us/gpudownload/windows/legacy/Pa...

Windows XP MCE - http://support.amd.com/us/gpudownload/windows/legacy/Pa...

-Wolf sends
Share
October 29, 2012 1:19:58 PM

I've run a 6570 on a dell 25w (620s inspiron) so you should be fine upto a 6570. 6450 would be the safe bet.
m
0
l
October 29, 2012 1:51:44 PM

My drivers are up to date, just checked again for the third time! ;-)

Strangely I installed RamCleaner and it only shows 2G ram, and not the 4G that I am supposed to have and what Windows 7 says that I have.......

I clearly have no idea what I am doing! I might just have to bring it into the shop!!! Don't know if my male ego can handle that!!
m
0
l
October 29, 2012 1:56:41 PM

yialanliu said:
I've run a 6570 on a dell 25w (620s inspiron) so you should be fine upto a 6570. 6450 would be the safe bet.



Thanks! That is good for me to know. They all say MIn 400W and that makes me nervous. I'll look at 6400/6500 without fans if I replace it. :-)
m
0
l
October 29, 2012 6:40:12 PM

Wolfshadw said:
Not quite sure what the issue would be. As I mentioned, your system should not be having these issues.

Right off, I'd recommend making sure your graphic card drivers are up to date:

Windows Vista/Windows 7 - http://support.amd.com/us/gpudownload/windows/legacy/Pa...

Windows XP - http://support.amd.com/us/gpudownload/windows/legacy/Pa...

Windows XP MCE - http://support.amd.com/us/gpudownload/windows/legacy/Pa...

-Wolf sends



Wolf!

After having had Windows 7 check if my driver was update (which according to Win7- it was up to date) I followed your link and updated the drivers from there. This messed up my Flash Player 11.4 (087) so that I got white instead of video (Firefox). I updated RealPlayer abd reinstalled Flash 11.4 (087). My video came back on but it took 20-30 sec for the video to start (Audio started after only a few seconds) and the video wasn't "moving". It just showed freeze frames from every 4-6 seconds of th video. I uninstalled Flash 11.4 and installed the 10.3 version of Flash and now it works. Clearly, this is not a longterm solution.

It seems to be much faster and puts new pages up quickly. Streamed video seems faster to get running (subjective analysis). I'll use it for a few days and see if my problem is fixed. Not sure why but after doing all of that, I went to the Windows system evaluator and it "detected new hardware". The low rating 3.2 is still there and it seems like I lost my excucse to buy a new graphics card. So your advice was a mixed blessing!!! :sol: 

Thanks for the advice and link and I will see how it goes!
m
0
l
November 1, 2012 9:43:07 AM

Best answer selected by greendiamond.
m
0
l
!