Vista - Recommended Graphics Card

Afternoon Everyone,

Ive tried posting here before without much success but I hope someone will
take the time to help me out here. Im trying to find a recommdended, good
value graphics card for my PC.

Im Running Windows Vista Ultimate and my current graphics rating according
to the advisor in Vista is 2.1 for my graphics card.

I have 2GB of RAM
250GB HDD
An Asus M2N32-SLI Delux Motherboard
With an AMD Athlon 64X2 5000+ processor (2.6GHz)

I mainly use the PC for graphics and web design, I dont play games.

I dont know where to start or which cards to choose, if someone could help
me out I would appreciate it.

If you need more info, please ask.

Ross,

The following website is by Powercolor, which specializes in ATI based video
cards, but the reference will provide you with the types of cards (focus on
X1650 or X1950) you need for good Areo performance, here:

http://www.powercolor.com/eng/produc...p?SeriesID=109

You can use nVidia cards as well. The point to note is the level of
performance, e.g., graphics processor speed and memory speed in MHz. From
that guidance, you can peruse products available and make your choice. A
good place to look is www.newegg.com. That site has as good choices and
prices as you can find.
--
freddy


"Ross Brunton" wrote:

> Afternoon Everyone,
>
> Ive tried posting here before without much success but I hope someone will
> take the time to help me out here. Im trying to find a recommdended, good
> value graphics card for my PC.
>
> Im Running Windows Vista Ultimate and my current graphics rating according
> to the advisor in Vista is 2.1 for my graphics card.
>
> I have 2GB of RAM
> 250GB HDD
> An Asus M2N32-SLI Delux Motherboard
> With an AMD Athlon 64X2 5000+ processor (2.6GHz)
>
> I mainly use the PC for graphics and web design, I dont play games.
>
> I dont know where to start or which cards to choose, if someone could help
> me out I would appreciate it.
>
> If you need more info, please ask.

The score of 2.1 means that it is not the all time greatest ever, BUT does
it do the job?

If it is doing all that you expect of a video card, why change it?


"Ross Brunton" <RossBrunton@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:83CB7D49-51F1-4320-A1BD-5EE652B0459C@microsoft.com...
> Afternoon Everyone,
>
> Ive tried posting here before without much success but I hope someone will
> take the time to help me out here. Im trying to find a recommdended, good
> value graphics card for my PC.
>
> Im Running Windows Vista Ultimate and my current graphics rating according
> to the advisor in Vista is 2.1 for my graphics card.
>
> I have 2GB of RAM
> 250GB HDD
> An Asus M2N32-SLI Delux Motherboard
> With an AMD Athlon 64X2 5000+ processor (2.6GHz)
>
> I mainly use the PC for graphics and web design, I dont play games.
>
> I dont know where to start or which cards to choose, if someone could help
> me out I would appreciate it.
>
> If you need more info, please ask.

--


Mike Hall
MS MVP Windows Shell/User
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/

i am using a nvidia gforce 6600gt with 256 of dedicated memory cpu clock is 500 mhz and memory clock is 800 mhz i use the zalman ZM80D-HP Silent Dual Heatpipe VGA Heatsink which keeps it very cool less the 30 c i am not a gamer ..but any nvidia card will be ok from 6600 up with 256 ram thats the norm nowadays .it runs fine in vista ulltimate with the latest drivers..and has that extra speed incase you play the odd games. i tried ati card and had major probs with drivers..thats my experience with ati. nvidia seem more reliable to me. try to get a card with dedicated memory not shared memory like the turbo cache ones.

Hi Guys,

Thanks so much for the help so far. In asnwer to the question why change it,
Its a low score and according tot he VIsta diagnositics, its slowing the
performance of the PC down.

Im not in an urgent hurry for a new card but this one is a few years old. I
think its an ATI Radeo X300. I got it when I built my old PC a couple of
years ago, its the only thing, along with my optical drives which I didnt
replace when I built this PC.

Keep the info coming and Ill let you know if I get a new one or not.

Ross

"Ross Brunton" wrote:

> Afternoon Everyone,
>
> Ive tried posting here before without much success but I hope someone will
> take the time to help me out here. Im trying to find a recommdended, good
> value graphics card for my PC.
>
> Im Running Windows Vista Ultimate and my current graphics rating according
> to the advisor in Vista is 2.1 for my graphics card.
>
> I have 2GB of RAM
> 250GB HDD
> An Asus M2N32-SLI Delux Motherboard
> With an AMD Athlon 64X2 5000+ processor (2.6GHz)
>
> I mainly use the PC for graphics and web design, I dont play games.
>
> I dont know where to start or which cards to choose, if someone could help
> me out I would appreciate it.
>
> If you need more info, please ask.

Ross,

It also depends on how deep your pocket is. Professional graphics cards make
the high end gaming cards look really cheap!

You have the choice of 3 manufacturers that I know of:
Matrox - all cards are "professional" see parhelia range
ATI Fire GL range - http://ati.amd.com/products/firegl.html
Nvidia Quadro range - http://www.nvidia.com/page/quadrofx_family.html

I'm running a Quadro FX 4400 (just been superceeded by the 4500) which I
bought on eBay fo over £500 ($1000) 6 months ago, when it was retailing for
£1200 in the UK.

There are a lot cheaper cards than this, but don't expect to find them at
bargain basement prices.

As you know, the Vista overall rating is the lowest (not average) of all
ratings, so if you improve your card, then the next worst aspect of your PC
becomes the overall rating.

"Ross Brunton" wrote:

> Afternoon Everyone,
>
> Ive tried posting here before without much success but I hope someone will
> take the time to help me out here. Im trying to find a recommdended, good
> value graphics card for my PC.
>
> Im Running Windows Vista Ultimate and my current graphics rating according
> to the advisor in Vista is 2.1 for my graphics card.
>
> I have 2GB of RAM
> 250GB HDD
> An Asus M2N32-SLI Delux Motherboard
> With an AMD Athlon 64X2 5000+ processor (2.6GHz)
>
> I mainly use the PC for graphics and web design, I dont play games.
>
> I dont know where to start or which cards to choose, if someone could help
> me out I would appreciate it.
>
> If you need more info, please ask.

Ross Brunton wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> Thanks so much for the help so far. In asnwer to the question why change it,
> Its a low score and according tot he VIsta diagnositics, its slowing the
> performance of the PC down.
>
> Im not in an urgent hurry for a new card but this one is a few years old. I
> think its an ATI Radeo X300. I got it when I built my old PC a couple of
> years ago, its the only thing, along with my optical drives which I didnt
> replace when I built this PC.
>
> Keep the info coming and Ill let you know if I get a new one or not.
>
> Ross
>
> "Ross Brunton" wrote:
>
>> Afternoon Everyone,
>>
>> Ive tried posting here before without much success but I hope someone will
>> take the time to help me out here. Im trying to find a recommdended, good
>> value graphics card for my PC.
>>
>> Im Running Windows Vista Ultimate and my current graphics rating according
>> to the advisor in Vista is 2.1 for my graphics card.
>>
>> I have 2GB of RAM
>> 250GB HDD
>> An Asus M2N32-SLI Delux Motherboard
>> With an AMD Athlon 64X2 5000+ processor (2.6GHz)
>>
>> I mainly use the PC for graphics and web design, I dont play games.
>>
>> I dont know where to start or which cards to choose, if someone could help
>> me out I would appreciate it.
>>
>> If you need more info, please ask.


I have the same board in a machine here and it has an NVidia GeForce
7900 which works very well. This is a PCI Express card which differs
from the older style AGP cards and can use the SLI technology.

With two identical cards you can potentially have 4 displays or 2 with
vastly accelerated graphics.

With XP the 4 displays works but the acceleration isn't worth the extra
cost and with Vista in SLI mode nothing works properly so there's no
point at all in going for 2 video cards.

If you wanted to play games and get the best possible frames per second
rate then XP is better, but Vista is certainly acceptable if you don't
want to boast about frame rates.

PCI Express is faster than AGP but you don't have to aim for the most
expensive card.

I gotta go with Charlie here and run the Nvidia Geforce 7900...I have had no
problems with the drivers and graphically it does well....IT DOES NOT
SUPPORT DX10 THOUGH....excuse the caps just wanted you to remember
this...Just my 3 cents...
"Ross Brunton" <RossBrunton@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:65919B6A-50B9-4FC0-AF99-1883B3B621E6@microsoft.com...
> Hi Guys,
>
> Thanks so much for the help so far. In asnwer to the question why change
> it,
> Its a low score and according tot he VIsta diagnositics, its slowing the
> performance of the PC down.
>
> Im not in an urgent hurry for a new card but this one is a few years old.
> I
> think its an ATI Radeo X300. I got it when I built my old PC a couple of
> years ago, its the only thing, along with my optical drives which I didnt
> replace when I built this PC.
>
> Keep the info coming and Ill let you know if I get a new one or not.
>
> Ross
>
> "Ross Brunton" wrote:
>
>> Afternoon Everyone,
>>
>> Ive tried posting here before without much success but I hope someone
>> will
>> take the time to help me out here. Im trying to find a recommdended, good
>> value graphics card for my PC.
>>
>> Im Running Windows Vista Ultimate and my current graphics rating
>> according
>> to the advisor in Vista is 2.1 for my graphics card.
>>
>> I have 2GB of RAM
>> 250GB HDD
>> An Asus M2N32-SLI Delux Motherboard
>> With an AMD Athlon 64X2 5000+ processor (2.6GHz)
>>
>> I mainly use the PC for graphics and web design, I dont play games.
>>
>> I dont know where to start or which cards to choose, if someone could
>> help
>> me out I would appreciate it.
>>
>> If you need more info, please ask.

Hey,

Thanks fella... I have to say, I dont think I will be stretching to £500! I
think the most I would be willing to pay for a card is £150 at a push. I dont
need the frame rate for gaming because I dont use the PC for gaming.

The next lowest rating is my HDD which is rated at 5.2 I think which I can
live with. I didnt know whether or not it would be worth my while upgrading
the card or what I would gain from it. I suppose I was hoping for crisper
graphics which took some burden off of the main system to improve speed a
little but I dont think I will gain much to be honest.

Ill have a think but what has become evident is that the NVidia cards are
popular and reliable. I was thinking of getting one when I built the new PC
so maybe I will get on of those, thats something which has come out of this
discussion. im glad you guys have had good experience with them.

Thanks again,

Ross

"pjaj" wrote:

> Ross,
>
> It also depends on how deep your pocket is. Professional graphics cards make
> the high end gaming cards look really cheap!
>
> You have the choice of 3 manufacturers that I know of:
> Matrox - all cards are "professional" see parhelia range
> ATI Fire GL range - http://ati.amd.com/products/firegl.html
> Nvidia Quadro range - http://www.nvidia.com/page/quadrofx_family.html
>
> I'm running a Quadro FX 4400 (just been superceeded by the 4500) which I
> bought on eBay fo over £500 ($1000) 6 months ago, when it was retailing for
> £1200 in the UK.
>
> There are a lot cheaper cards than this, but don't expect to find them at
> bargain basement prices.
>
> As you know, the Vista overall rating is the lowest (not average) of all
> ratings, so if you improve your card, then the next worst aspect of your PC
> becomes the overall rating.
>
> "Ross Brunton" wrote:
>
> > Afternoon Everyone,
> >
> > Ive tried posting here before without much success but I hope someone will
> > take the time to help me out here. Im trying to find a recommdended, good
> > value graphics card for my PC.
> >
> > Im Running Windows Vista Ultimate and my current graphics rating according
> > to the advisor in Vista is 2.1 for my graphics card.
> >
> > I have 2GB of RAM
> > 250GB HDD
> > An Asus M2N32-SLI Delux Motherboard
> > With an AMD Athlon 64X2 5000+ processor (2.6GHz)
> >
> > I mainly use the PC for graphics and web design, I dont play games.
> >
> > I dont know where to start or which cards to choose, if someone could help
> > me out I would appreciate it.
> >
> > If you need more info, please ask.

Ross Brunton wrote:
> Hey,
>
> Thanks fella... I have to say, I dont think I will be stretching to £500! I
> think the most I would be willing to pay for a card is £150 at a push. I dont
> need the frame rate for gaming because I dont use the PC for gaming.
>
> The next lowest rating is my HDD which is rated at 5.2 I think which I can
> live with. I didnt know whether or not it would be worth my while upgrading
> the card or what I would gain from it. I suppose I was hoping for crisper
> graphics which took some burden off of the main system to improve speed a
> little but I dont think I will gain much to be honest.
>
> Ill have a think but what has become evident is that the NVidia cards are
> popular and reliable. I was thinking of getting one when I built the new PC
> so maybe I will get on of those, thats something which has come out of this
> discussion. im glad you guys have had good experience with them.
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Ross
>
> "pjaj" wrote:
>
>> Ross,
>>
>> It also depends on how deep your pocket is. Professional graphics cards make
>> the high end gaming cards look really cheap!
>>
>> You have the choice of 3 manufacturers that I know of:
>> Matrox - all cards are "professional" see parhelia range
>> ATI Fire GL range - http://ati.amd.com/products/firegl.html
>> Nvidia Quadro range - http://www.nvidia.com/page/quadrofx_family.html
>>
>> I'm running a Quadro FX 4400 (just been superceeded by the 4500) which I
>> bought on eBay fo over £500 ($1000) 6 months ago, when it was retailing for
>> £1200 in the UK.
>>
>> There are a lot cheaper cards than this, but don't expect to find them at
>> bargain basement prices.
>>
>> As you know, the Vista overall rating is the lowest (not average) of all
>> ratings, so if you improve your card, then the next worst aspect of your PC
>> becomes the overall rating.
>>
>> "Ross Brunton" wrote:
>>
>>> Afternoon Everyone,
>>>
>>> Ive tried posting here before without much success but I hope someone will
>>> take the time to help me out here. Im trying to find a recommdended, good
>>> value graphics card for my PC.
>>>
>>> Im Running Windows Vista Ultimate and my current graphics rating according
>>> to the advisor in Vista is 2.1 for my graphics card.
>>>
>>> I have 2GB of RAM
>>> 250GB HDD
>>> An Asus M2N32-SLI Delux Motherboard
>>> With an AMD Athlon 64X2 5000+ processor (2.6GHz)
>>>
>>> I mainly use the PC for graphics and web design, I dont play games.
>>>
>>> I dont know where to start or which cards to choose, if someone could help
>>> me out I would appreciate it.
>>>
>>> If you need more info, please ask.

Maybe the GeForce 7600 range would be good, it's kinda top of the range
without being the "expensive for not much extra kind"

Comes both AGP and PCIE and PCIE is faster.


That's not to say NVidia are perfect, only that I have used it and no
experience of others.

You don't want to go real cheap because you may see no improvement
whatsoever