video card madness(??)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Andy Axnot
  • Start date Start date
A

Andy Axnot

I don't get it. It was only 5 or 6 years ago I was running an IBM Aptiva
with a 266 MHz AMD cpu with 48 MB of RAM, 1 or 2 MB of which was used for
the shared onboard video.

It ran fine for the time, and I surfed the internet, read email, looked at
jpegs and even mpeg movies. Now I have a 1.8 GHz AMD cpu with a Matrox
G450 (16 MB AGP) video card and it works fine for all the above plus DVDs,
etc.

So why all this discussion about how fast video cards are? Why, when I go
to NewEgg to search for parts for my next computer do I read reviews of
video cards, that cost more than my current motherboard, that these 128 MB
and up cards are only sufficient for web surfing and email?

I realize that hardcore gamers will pay hundreds for fast, advanced video
cards. But what about the rest of us? Can we possibly *need* cards that
use the latest video bus, the fastest GPUs, and hundreds of megabytes of
fast RAM onboard the card?

To read email? To edit a Bash or Python script? Even to view a DVD?

What am I missing here?

Andy
 
Andy Axnot said:
I don't get it. It was only 5 or 6 years ago I was running an IBM Aptiva
with a 266 MHz AMD cpu with 48 MB of RAM, 1 or 2 MB of which was used for
the shared onboard video.

It ran fine for the time, and I surfed the internet, read email, looked at
jpegs and even mpeg movies. Now I have a 1.8 GHz AMD cpu with a Matrox
G450 (16 MB AGP) video card and it works fine for all the above plus DVDs,
etc.

So why all this discussion about how fast video cards are? Why, when I go
to NewEgg to search for parts for my next computer do I read reviews of
video cards, that cost more than my current motherboard, that these 128 MB
and up cards are only sufficient for web surfing and email?

I realize that hardcore gamers will pay hundreds for fast, advanced video
cards. But what about the rest of us? Can we possibly *need* cards that
use the latest video bus, the fastest GPUs, and hundreds of megabytes of
fast RAM onboard the card?
Click to expand...

stating the obvious...hardware/technology always changes...and you don't
'need' to buy it.
Logic dictates that if you are accomplishing what you want with your rig,
why whould you think about changing things? Bragging rights? I saw a PCIx
video card for 38 bucks, so the new interface hasn't ruined things for
surfers, money wise.
To read email? To edit a Bash or Python script? Even to view a DVD?

What am I missing here?

Andy
Click to expand...

you answerd your own question
 
Andy said:
I don't get it. It was only 5 or 6 years ago I was running an IBM
Aptiva with a 266 MHz AMD cpu with 48 MB of RAM, 1 or 2 MB of which
was used for the shared onboard video.

It ran fine for the time, and I surfed the internet, read email,
looked at jpegs and even mpeg movies. Now I have a 1.8 GHz AMD cpu
with a Matrox G450 (16 MB AGP) video card and it works fine for all
the above plus DVDs, etc.

So why all this discussion about how fast video cards are? Why, when
I go to NewEgg to search for parts for my next computer do I read
reviews of video cards, that cost more than my current motherboard,
that these 128 MB and up cards are only sufficient for web surfing
and email?

I realize that hardcore gamers will pay hundreds for fast, advanced
video cards. But what about the rest of us? Can we possibly *need*
cards that use the latest video bus, the fastest GPUs, and hundreds
of megabytes of fast RAM onboard the card?

To read email? To edit a Bash or Python script? Even to view a DVD?

What am I missing here?
Click to expand...



A Radeon 9250 128MB or similar Nvidia offering is my choice for $30-50.


With Windows Vista, HD-DVD and Blu-Ray around the corner, many of us will be
shopping for a new monitor and new video card.


http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/ati_nvidia_hdcp_support/default.asp
 
Andy Axnot said:
I don't get it. It was only 5 or 6 years ago I was running an
IBM Aptiva with a 266 MHz AMD cpu with 48 MB of RAM,
1 or 2 MB of which was used for the shared onboard video.
Click to expand...
It ran fine for the time, and I surfed the internet, read email,
looked at jpegs and even mpeg movies. Now I have a 1.8
GHz AMD cpu with a Matrox G450 (16 MB AGP) video
card and it works fine for all the above plus DVDs, etc.
Click to expand...
So why all this discussion about how fast video cards are?
Click to expand...

They're playing demanding games on their systems.
Why, when I go to NewEgg to search for parts for my next
computer do I read reviews of video cards, that cost more
than my current motherboard, that these 128 MB and up
cards are only sufficient for web surfing and email?
Click to expand...

Only wankers who dont have a clue would claim that.

You dont even need an addon video card at all for web
browsing and email, whats on the motherboard is fine for that.
I realize that hardcore gamers will pay hundreds for fast,
advanced video cards. But what about the rest of us?
Click to expand...

You only need the basics like dual monitor support and possibly
svideo etc if you want to play movies etc onto a large screen TV etc.
Can we possibly *need* cards that use the latest video bus, the fastest
GPUs, and hundreds of megabytes of fast RAM onboard the card?
Click to expand...

Nope, whats integrated on the motherboard is fine for that.
To read email? To edit a Bash or Python script? Even to view a DVD?
Click to expand...
What am I missing here?
Click to expand...

Just that its only gamers that need high performance video cards.
 
Rod Speed said:
They're playing demanding games on their systems.


Only wankers who dont have a clue would claim that.

You dont even need an addon video card at all for web
browsing and email, whats on the motherboard is fine for that.


You only need the basics like dual monitor support and possibly
svideo etc if you want to play movies etc onto a large screen TV etc.


Nope, whats integrated on the motherboard is fine for that.



Just that its only gamers that need high performance video cards.
Click to expand...

And if I may add those who do CAD, design, simulation, etc. Check out the
types of honking video cards that we use for that fun stuff at my work:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814133162

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814195005
 
| I don't get it. It was only 5 or 6 years ago I was running an IBM Aptiva
| with a 266 MHz AMD cpu with 48 MB of RAM, 1 or 2 MB of which was used for
| the shared onboard video.
|
| It ran fine for the time, and I surfed the internet, read email, looked at
| jpegs and even mpeg movies. Now I have a 1.8 GHz AMD cpu with a Matrox
| G450 (16 MB AGP) video card and it works fine for all the above plus DVDs,
| etc.
|
| So why all this discussion about how fast video cards are? Why, when I go
| to NewEgg to search for parts for my next computer do I read reviews of
| video cards, that cost more than my current motherboard, that these 128 MB
| and up cards are only sufficient for web surfing and email?
|
| I realize that hardcore gamers will pay hundreds for fast, advanced video
| cards. But what about the rest of us? Can we possibly *need* cards that
| use the latest video bus, the fastest GPUs, and hundreds of megabytes of
| fast RAM onboard the card?
|
| To read email? To edit a Bash or Python script? Even to view a DVD?
|
| What am I missing here?

Probably nothing that matters. I'm also running a Matrox G450 on one of my
computers. There's a 64M Matrox P650 on the other. Those video cards haven't
held me back from doing anything I want to do. I'm not a gamer either, but I do
a lot of video editing. Neither of my systems may be ideal for Vista, but that
doesn't bother me much since I've seen absolutely no credible evidence that
upgrading to Vista would be of any real benefit even if I had a cutting edge
system for it.

Larc



§§§ - Change planet to earth to reply by email - §§§
 
stating the obvious...hardware/technology always changes...and you don't
'need' to buy it.
Logic dictates that if you are accomplishing what you want with your rig,
why whould you think about changing things? Bragging rights? I saw a PCIx
video card for 38 bucks, so the new interface hasn't ruined things for
surfers, money wise.
Click to expand...

I once had a secretary tell me that she needed a newer and faster machine. I
asked her what she was running that required all that speed. She explained
that she could type faster than the wordprocessor on her P4 could place the
characters on the monitor - yea, right.

As much as like to run the fastest machines for myself for processor
intentive tasks that take minutes, hours, or days to complete, I tell most
people to keep the machines that they have and put the saved money toward
better IT support. ...had a situation where someone replaced about a dozen
P3s with new P4s about two years ago, even though the P3s were running the
wordprocessors, email, and surfing the web fine before the idiot IT guy
screwed with the server and messed something up. So someone decided that the
problem was old hardware instead of human error. When they put the P4s on
the server, the unskilled IT person still couldn't configure things
correctly and there have been nothing but problems. If they would have taken
that same hardware money and put it into hiring someone better, the P3s
would have been running well for their intended use. I have an old P3 that
I've set up myself and the users think that it's great. They jump on it
instead of going to the above P4s that are screwed up.

Jeff
 
Andy Axnot said:
I don't get it. It was only 5 or 6 years ago I was running an IBM
Aptiva with a 266 MHz AMD cpu with 48 MB of RAM, 1 or 2 MB of
which was used for the shared onboard video.
Click to expand...

Back in my Windows 95 AOL days my computer was slow. I played AOL's
beta of a robot based first-person shooter called Multiplayer
BattleTech. My frame rates were about one or two per second and I
still loved it. So, in a way I guess you are right, heheh.

Before that, when I had a RadioShack Color Computer 2 with a
cassette tape for storage, I wondered why my techie friends needed
those high-tech floppy drives.

Maybe it's a sign of your enthusiasm.

Good luck and have fun.
 
Andy Axnot said:
I realize that hardcore gamers will pay hundreds for fast, advanced video
cards. But what about the rest of us? Can we possibly *need* cards that
use the latest video bus, the fastest GPUs, and hundreds of megabytes of
fast RAM onboard the card?

To read email? To edit a Bash or Python script? Even to view a DVD?

What am I missing here?
Click to expand...

Play some new games like Oblivion and then you'll understand. I was never
into fast GPUs before. Then, it all changed when I bought a Sony P234B 23"
Wide Screen LCD. Everything looked so great on it that I wanted to spend $$
to get the best possible visual experience. I eventually built a core 2 duo
system with a fast Radeon card, I occasionally play games but it is
*breathtaking* to behold what a fast GPU can do.
 
Just that its only gamers that need high performance video cards.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Rod. I guess that it's the gamers who are willing to spend big
bucks for the latest and greatest. And they get all the attention.

Andy
 
I don't get it.

I realize that hardcore gamers will pay hundreds for fast, advanced video
cards. But what about the rest of us? Can we possibly *need* cards that
use the latest video bus, the fastest GPUs, and hundreds of megabytes of
fast RAM onboard the card?
Click to expand...

Many thanks for the responses. I suppose that if I buy a new machine in
the next year or so I'll be using onboard video. Eventually some decent
low-end PCIe cards will make it to the surplus market. I'm just not much
of a gamer.

I think the last computer game I played was "Breakout" on my Commodore
VIC-20. I think it was from one of the Commodore magazines, and written
in BASIC. It ran fairly slow, so I translated it to Forth and made a few
mods. Then it was pretty good and quite a bit of fun.

Hey, maybe I am a gamer after all. Just on a 20 year break, is all :-)

Andy
 
Andy Axnot said:
I don't get it. It was only 5 or 6 years ago I was running an IBM Aptiva
with a 266 MHz AMD cpu with 48 MB of RAM, 1 or 2 MB of which was used for
the shared onboard video.

It ran fine for the time, and I surfed the internet, read email, looked at
jpegs and even mpeg movies. Now I have a 1.8 GHz AMD cpu with a Matrox
G450 (16 MB AGP) video card and it works fine for all the above plus DVDs,
etc.

So why all this discussion about how fast video cards are? Why, when I go
to NewEgg to search for parts for my next computer do I read reviews of
video cards, that cost more than my current motherboard, that these 128 MB
and up cards are only sufficient for web surfing and email?
Click to expand...

For the most part, that's true. The problem is, everyone is looking forward
to Windows Vista AERO. If you are going to run that, then a relatively
recent video card that costs way more than a mainboard, and has 128MB of RAM
is barely adequate for web surfing and e-mail. Vista Aero is like running a
video game, constantly...and that's just the OS!!!

On a side note though, the video card madness will end soon. Within 10
years or so, video cards will disappear. You'll still have a GPU, but it
will take the place of the CPU. The GPUs are getting so powerful now that
they can handle all the CPU tasks without slowing down at all, just like a
car engine moves the car AND runs the A/C compressor. We won't need CPUs
soon, so mainboards will just have a GPU, and a dedicated video "expansion"
card will be redundant. -Dave
 
Back
Top