what video card to match 24" LCD

flbuzcut · Member Joined: 04 Oct 2004 Location: United States

I recently got a great 24" widescreen LCD monitor (LG L246WP) and figured it was time to upgrade my old graphics card (from 6600GT). It's been fine for a couple of years because I am not a gamer...at all. I DO do a lot of multimedia stuff: video, graphics, music, yada, yada, yada. Although "on paper" a Geforce 6600GT is supposed to be able to handle the high resolutions capable of a large monitor, in reality...not so much.

Sure, the picture is there and fills up the screen like it's supposed to...but the card has to have a LOT of help from the CPU to make anything move...ergo, my whole system slowed to a crawl. I was advised on a couple of "tech-head" sites to get an Nvidia 8600GT, that it would be MORE than enough for my little video needs. I bought one, installed it, updated every driver on the computer, including BIOS and chipset...and...still no good. At a low resolution, like 1024x768 the speed was okay, but at that resolution I had to sit across the room because everything on the screen was scary huge! I want to use it at near the native resolution, say 1680x1050. At that resolution, input lag is really, really bad, software runs slowly, and my patience gets worn out.

I need to multi-task! I usually have one media player playing a video while another one plays music, browser open with 7 or 8 tabs, doing email a program running some utility in the background while I edit video or author a DVD at the same time. Although the heavy gaming crowd don't seem to think our little video/media enthusiasms require very much power or advanced technology, my experience says otherwise. Although I probably rarely need much of the 3-D architecture on the modern cards, my 2-D needs are great.

So, I've been researching and I think I have it narrowed down to Nvidia 9600GT and ATI/AMD HD 3950 (or 3870). It has been very difficult to find reviews or opinions that are useful to me because every reviewer is concerned primarily with gaming performance. If that applied to me I'd get a 9600...but I've read that the HD 3000 series have better color reproduction, better on-board encoding and decoding functions for both HD and non-HD content, AND, especially important to me, that the HD 3870 is much better at high resolutions than the 9600.

So, I'm hoping that here, amongst my video-loving peers, I can get the help I'm craving. Please!

rallynavvie · Posted: Apr 29, 2008 09:25

I upgraded to a 7600GT from a 6600GT as that was as far as I could really go on my AGP system. The 7600GT also had the dual DVI outputs I needed for my setup.

I'm curious why your 6600GT was so bad running a single monitor? I had my 6600GT running my dual HD displays (one 24" Dell running 1920x1200 and a Westinghouse 37" running 1920x1080) and never really noticed slowdowns, and that included running a game in one monitor and video in the other. I even ran two instances of a game client, one on each display. The only reason I upgraded to the 7600GT was it had support for nVidia's hardware HD decoding and because I needed a little better chipset for newer games.
_________________
NE CEDE MALIS SED CONTRA AUDENTIOR ITO

Krispy Kritter · Member Joined: 31 Jul 2003 Location: St Louis, MO USA

You don't mention your PC specs (and you don't have the computer details completed in your profile), but I suspect you are having other issues aside from just video card. Your 6600GT is plenty powerful enough to run dual 24inch LCD's. The question becomes your PC specs and what else are you doing that is causing the slowness. For example, if your "video playing" is 1080P mkv files.
_________________
Google is your Friend

jagabo · Member Joined: 09 Dec 2005 Location: none

flbuzcut · Member Joined: 04 Oct 2004 Location: United States

Boy oh boy! I apologize to those of you who responded to my questions a month ago. I "lost" this posting; I read a lot of online forums and am a member on most of them. After a couple of days, I realized I couldn't figure out which site I'd posted on. Yes, I am an idiot. I humbly apologize.

Okay, first my specs:

Intel E6400 overclocked to 3.2 GHz
Gigabyte GA-965P-DS3
Corsair TX650W PSU (just upgraded recently)
4x1GB OCZ DDR2-800
AOpen Geforce 6600GT
Seagate 320GB 7200.10 SATA HD
WD 250GB SATA HD
BenQ DW1650 DVDRW
Win XP Home

The good news is that I somehow managed to fix what was ailing my system when I wrote the original post. The best I can figure, when I was ready to install the new monitor, I updated all of the system drivers: Intel chipset drivers, Nvidia drivers, sound card, network adapter, everything. The best I can figure, some driver(s) were not happy working with Windows, some of the hardware or other drivers. The reason I was experiencing the horrible lag and the huge drain on the CPU, was something kept telling Windows that my main hard drive (the Seagate) was faulty. So errors kept getting reported to Windows, which cranked the transfer mode to PIO. So every hour or so, I'd have to uninstall the device and reboot (twice) to get it back to DMA. Eventually, after a lot of research and probably some dumb luck, I think it's fixed. Drivers all appear to be working in harmony, devices are running as quickly as expected.

SO, back to a video card. I installed the LG246 with the 6600GT and yes, it works fine. Video plays fine, picture is nice, but I still notice a bit of lag if I start doing a number of things at once: switching windows, closing some, opening tabs, moving things on the desktop, etc. There is no crash like before, just a bit of a delay.

So, I still want to upgrade my video card, if only for the more robust support for HD (and SD). Also, I had a Geforce 8600GT briefly during my crisis, and I definitely noticed a difference in the picture quality between it and the 6600GT on the large monitor. The color using the 6600 isn't as sharp and images seem a bit too pixilated. Of course, much of this could just be in my head. (we've already established that I'm an idiot).

So, I'm pretty much decided on going with ATI/AMD this time. I've always had Nvida cards, but comparing the specs, since I'm not a gamer, ATI seems to have placed much more emphasis on video quality and supporting the various technologies in recent years, where Nvidia has focused their energy on gaming. Is it just me, or have they basically "switched sides" from awhile back? 10 or so years ago, Nvidia had a reputation for better image quality, video support, etc and ATI was the "upstart" who was concentrating on 3D technology that made gaming better. Now, ATi looks like they're providing much more support for video (HD and SD), while Nvidia is putting all their effort into gaming now. Nvidia's meager support for HD seems to be more of an afterthought than anything. Funny, huh?

So I'm thinking of Radeon HD 3850 or 3650. I few weeks ago I was ready for the 3850, but after reading posts from experts, it sounds like it may be overkill for me. Any suggestions? I do not game, but I will be working with video, both SD and HD. The big monitor's native resolution is 1920 x 1200 but I like running it at 1680 x 1050. And you never, know, I may decide to take up World of Warcraft any day now...

Thank you and sorry to be such a boob.

P.S., Just ran across these:

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8762234&type=pr ... 3815034383

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8761878&type=pr ... 2650704648

rallynavvie · Posted: Jun 02, 2008 07:47

jagabo · Member Joined: 09 Dec 2005 Location: none

Yeah, and I doubt the "lag" issue has anything to do with the graphics card. The lowliest of graphics cards can handle all of Windows' 2D graphics demands these days.

flbuzcut · Member Joined: 04 Oct 2004 Location: United States

No, no...after I resolved my driver/system issues and reinstalled the 24" monitor, I experimented with a lot of settings to test everything out. I know that it's always best to run an LCD at native resolution, but I've always used a lower one and have been satisfied. Yes, I lose some "crispness" to images and especially text, but I've the that the native resolutions on LCDs are always WAY over what I find comfortable. If I was mostly playing games, it wouldn't be much of an issue, but I'm reading a lot and text, graphics, images, everything are so small that I'd soon go blind! the LG scales to 1680x1050 quite well. The image is nice and crisp. When I mentioned "pixelating" I was not really referring to the outer edges of images, but more to color...colors in images and video don't have the proper gradients...things look kind of blotchy. And there's really no lag now...the lag was when my drivers were f...., er, messed up. no fault of the graphics card...it was because the CPU was working overtime because of the slow transfer speed on the hard drive. And of course, Windows is also to blame....I find you can blame any problem on Microsoft.

jagabo · Member Joined: 09 Dec 2005 Location: none

flbuzcut · Member Joined: 04 Oct 2004 Location: United States

I know there's not that much difference between 1920 and 1680...I guess I'm just stubborn and want it to look llike I want it to look. I do use Firefox and am very familiar with image zoom. I tried the full page zoom function but it kind of made me dizzy... and my MS mouse has the option of magnifying but I find I activate it when I don't want it. (sigh)

I appreciate your help though. Now that I've figured out my problems were not with the graphics card and that I don't have to have a top-of-the-line model, I'm just asking for suggestions. I don't want to spend cash unnecessarily, but also I don't want to aim too low and have to replace the card next year. ATI and Nvidia products both have good and not-so-good points, but I think I'm going with ATI...if only because I've always had Nvidia (even when everyone ridiculed me) so now I think I'll be contrary and give ATI a try. Thanks!

jagabo · Member Joined: 09 Dec 2005 Location: none

Have you tried Firefox 3's zoom? I haven't used 2's zoom but 3's simply draws EVERYTHING bigger.

flbuzcut · Member Joined: 04 Oct 2004 Location: United States

I haven't installed 3 yet. I've had bad luck w/beta's in the past, so I wait patiently till things are official. I'll give zoom a try again and see if I can avoid the motion sickness. whoa!

Krispy Kritter · Member Joined: 31 Jul 2003 Location: St Louis, MO USA

Your picture "quality" issues are most likely with the files themselves being low res or overly compressed. Nothing you can do to really "fix" them. This will be more noticable if zooming or playing the files back full screen.

As for your video card, unless you have a specific need to upgrade (for example, slowness in games), there is no real need to spend any money at all. Wait until you have a specific need or reason to upgrade. If you just have to spend money, then look into the nvidia 8600 for hardware decoding or the 8800 for general purpose use.
_________________
Google is your Friend