Nvidia Quadro or GeForce for video - any significant difference today?

[larioso]

Tried to read up a bit, and the info I found was from 2012 or so.

What I found was that CAD applications better with Quadro series cards, but games that GeForce would be better - but nothing about video per se.
Always used GeForce and now have a simple 210, and no problem yet with the little video editing I've done so far, but thinking maybe would be more troublefree if upgrading.

Windows own benchmark says cpu 7.4/9 but graphics 4.7/9 - so figured it would be good with performance boost.

If you have Windows, would be great to hear what your system tells you in performance and what you use for graphics?
Thinking model of card as well.

Found one MSI Geforce GT 710 that also is silent 2G mem, and slim in taking only one slot, and really cheap too.
Not sure which boost I might get from that.

Any suggestions?

I have two 1080 monitors, one with displayport+hdmi and the other dvi+hdmi so if those combinations can be satisfied it's nice.

Best regards

[sneaker]

A GeForce will usually be fine/preferred. But: it is important to know what exactly you want to use it for. Does your CPU not have an integrated GPU? Is it not sufficient? If so, for which task? What formats do you want to decode? Do you want to use the card for filtering? For madvr? To decode 4K? To encode which formats? Not every video software can leverage the GPU in the first place and even if it can it depends on the exact way (PureVideo, NVENC, OpenCL, CUDA...). You don't just buy a GPU and will have everything go smoother. A GT 710 is relatively old. Good for H.264 decoding but doesn't support HEVC or VP9 en-/decoding for example. The newest chips cost a lot more so I think for a simple playback system without a GPU and without need for 4K the GT 710 is a good choice with good bang/buck.

[larioso]

Many thanks.
It's a i7-860 cpu, which is almost 7 years old now - but use it mostly for daw work, a little home studio.
But now for video editing as well - but no plans for 4K, I see no point in doing that.
According to Cerny at Sony promoting PS4 Pro - you should have at least 60" monitor to even notice a difference for 4K at 2m distance. Our eyes cannot resolve it.

But so far just made short test videos, learning formats and qualities I get etc.
But nothing maxed out so so yet, but just 40s videos or so.

I looked further and found this benchmark place:
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/

Seems that Gt 730(rated 900+) is a step up from 710(rated 600), and about $75 or so. The 210 is rated 180, so either must be a good boost.
There are silent versions of both too, which is nice when doing audio recording - no fans suddenly starting.

[sneaker]

But so far just made short test videos, learning formats and qualities I get etc.

That doesn't tell us anything...

[larioso]

But so far just made short test videos, learning formats and qualities I get etc.

That doesn't tell us anything...

Sorry, I'll try again.

Just run 1920x1080:25p fps clips on input in editor, and still images.
Format container from camera MOV or MP4, both a H264, stills as TIFF. Mixed HDR stills and time-lapse and animated video in these.
Output 1920x1080 AVCHD and length below what I can put on a DVD, 20 minutes, to play on blu-ray player or upload to vimeo.

I mostly used Nero Video 2017 now, since I like it a lot and it's stable and preview full screen on second monitor.
But will evalutate other editors too, to figure out about quality difference in final result.
Premiere Elements 15 I currently have as well.

Computer is Dell Vostro 430, i7-860 2.8GHz, 16G ram.

Looking further at benchmarks, seems I looked at G3D charts, which probably is not used much for video.
So looking at number for G2D differences between cards are less - not magnitudes so much.

Geforce 210 - 426
GT 710 - 506
GT 730 - 568

Not sure how to evaluate these?

My 210 is 512 MB only so figure 2G on the others will make a difference too.

[sneaker]

I don't see anything specific about how you leverage the GPU so upgrading might be a waste of money. Maybe someone else can give more advice...

[larioso]

I don't see anything specific about how you leverage the GPU so upgrading might be a waste of money. Maybe someone else can give more advice...

Thanks, might be to low a step to make a difference.

Wanted to try out DaVinci Resolve, and read in other forum someone found info that 2G of memory would make smooth handling full hd.
At 512 MB one should not even bother trying it.
He had strange messages that his gpu memory was full etc.

So figured it might be a good idea to boost up a bit, also seing windows benchmark was a bit low on graphics side.

If you buy at $300 or more, it too much to waste - but $75 that is trial money, kind of.
If you can run a range of editors doing this little of investment, it could be worth it.

If anybody runnings windows could put their numbers here - it could be a good reference?
In control panel, and System, look for Windows Experience Index and click on that to get more details.
It's a rating 1.0-7.9 on my machine with Windows 7 - recently updated.

[usually_quiet]

The newest budget NVidia cards are the GeForce GTX 1050 cards. There are ~150mm, 2-slot cards with 2GB of DDR-5 memory priced at between $110 and $120 in the US, although there are also higher-priced versions. However, we don't have value added taxes here, which would raise the price considerably.

The remaining GeForce GTX 750 Ti and GeForce GTX 950 cards with 2GB of memory start at approximately the same price here.

[Krispy Kritter]

If you are looking at specific software, then go by the hardware recommendations of the software in question. With the exception of some of the higher end software packages, the video chipset/RAM don't make a difference. And even in the instances where it can make a difference, the software is still completely usable if you don't have that gpu.

The Quadro series are (professional) class cards aimed at specific applications and office workstations with multiple monitors. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nvidia_Quadro

Video processing in general relies on cpu (speed), RAM, and the ability to move large amounts of data (ie: reading and writing to disk). The gpu has little affect unless you are using software and a codec which can benefit from a specific chipset.

[usually_quiet]

I found this: https://www.dcinema.me/davinci-resolve-system-requirements-a-reality-check/

Apparently 2 GPUs are ideal, one for the monitor and one for DaVinci Resolve. DaVinci Resolve apparently relies on the GPU for much of the processing it does.

[larioso]

If you are looking at specific software, then go by the hardware recommendations of the software in question. With the exception of some of the higher end software packages, the video chipset/RAM don't make a difference. And even in the instances where it can make a difference, the software is still completely usable if you don't have that gpu.

The Quadro series are (professional) class cards aimed at specific applications and office workstations with multiple monitors. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nvidia_Quadro

Video processing in general relies on cpu (speed), RAM, and the ability to move large amounts of data (ie: reading and writing to disk). The gpu has little affect unless you are using software and a codec which can benefit from a specific chipset.

I'll keep that in mind, thank you.

Just targeting 1080p, I may be ok with what I have - those doing 4k which is cinema resolutions probably need much hotter machine.

[larioso]

I found this: https://www.dcinema.me/davinci-resolve-system-requirements-a-reality-check/

Apparently 2 GPUs are ideal, one for the monitor and one for DaVinci Resolve. DaVinci Resolve apparently relies on the GPU for much of the processing it does.

Thanks, that's the link in the thread at editors forum I saw.

I may be shooting much over my target looking at DaVinci, and tag it down a bit. I was just curious.

Will probably do an upgrade, not to have graphics be the lowest end of my machine - as windows experience benchmark says.
All the rated parts were between 6-7.5 of 7.9 - but Aero desktop 4.5 being a bottle neck, kind of.

And will check out those newer GTX cards you mentioned, thanks for suggestions.
I'll start by compare to see what theoretical boost I might get with the benchmarks I linked to - at least get an estimate of bang for buck.

But I repeat, would be interesting to see what you running windows gets on the rating with the cards you have.


GTX 750 Ti - 679 G2D rating
GTX 950 - 718 G2D rating

It seems it's the 3D ratings for games and such that gets the most boost.

And remember from when I investigated the machine you need to have for gaming, that you have enough power supply for the high end graphics cards mine is only 350W. so got consoles for gaming instead.

[usually_quiet]

Unfortunately, I'm still running my PCs with onboard video or the cpu's built-in video. I had looked at the small GTX 1050 cards as a possible upgrade to my main PC (mainly for its built-in HEVC and VP9 decoding), but have decided to defer such an upgrade until I start consuming more video delivered in those formats.

[jagabo]

Will probably do an upgrade, not to have graphics be the lowest end of my machine - as windows experience benchmark says.
All the rated parts were between 6-7.5 of 7.9 - but Aero desktop 4.5 being a bottle neck, kind of.

WEI is meaningless as far as video editing/encoding is concerned.

[larioso]

Will probably do an upgrade, not to have graphics be the lowest end of my machine - as windows experience benchmark says.
All the rated parts were between 6-7.5 of 7.9 - but Aero desktop 4.5 being a bottle neck, kind of.

WEI is meaningless as far as video editing/encoding is concerned.

As they say in american films - maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

Every benchmark tells just one story - and WEI is one too.
I am just guessing close to what video do is Aero - just pumping pixels and speed of graphics memory.
I saw a price comparison site saying like GB/s for various cards
If realtime effects that needs 3D acceleration is used, and not prerendered - maybe the parts concerning gaming are used as well.

I will update here with WEI for a GT 730 that is on the way.
I looked and it is PCI Express 2.0 which my computer is too.
So to actually get all you pay for in a card - maybe PCIe 3.0 cards can wait until getting another computer, which is not close in time.
GTX 750 Ti, GTX 950 and GTX 1050 are all PCIe 3.0 - and don't know if they will even fit, most likely not to full speed.

[SameSelf]

Just reading the thread title and none of the responses, and having owned both Quadro and GeForce for editing, here are my two cents in regards to editing. GeForce all the way, especially if you are in the market for a 9xx/10xx. This has been documented in numerous places. Google is your friend.

In the past, the main reason to choose Quadro for video editing was if you needed 10-bit support. However, 10-bit support imho is a pipe dream with both Quadro and GeForce and only works reliably with a color managed workflow. On second thought, a Quadro will make some high end compositing programs happier, but that is a very bespoke use case.

BTW, the reason older cards are going for cheap is because EVERYONE wants a 10xx. Don't fund someone else's upgrade. Save your own money and buy a 10xx. That will do more for your 'puter than just about anything else (unless you are not running ssd's). Since Sandybridge, most software has been cpu bound and won't run any faster if you get a faster cpu. The real bottlenecks are hdd's and gpu's. That is why people are going nutz for the 10xx. Kaby Lake? zzzzzz

[larioso]

Thanks SameSelf.
My options with my 2010 machine was much less than I thought at first.
1G dedicated video memory means cards available with that configuration.
350W power supply was another - where many of the newer demand 400W and up, at least recommended so.
I went through everything on NVIDIA site - and there was basically GTX 750(plain, not Ti), GTX 780 and GTX 950 regarding psu that were ok, but all were 2G or more.
So I found Gigabyte GT 730 with GDDR5 and 5 GHz clock and 1G mem and went for that - will see if it works when arriving end of week or next week.

I hope it will at least boost a little bit....

[usually_quiet]

My options with my 2010 machine was much less than I thought at first.
1G dedicated video memory means cards means cards available with that configuration.
350W power supply was another - where many of the newer demand 400W and up, at least recommended so.
I went through everything on NVIDIA site - and there was basically GTX 750(plain, not Ti), GTX 780 and GTX 950 regarding psu that were ok, but all were 2G or more.
So I found Gigabyte GT 730 with GDDR5 and 5 GHz clock and 1G mem and went for that - will see if it works when arriving end of week or next week.

I hope it will at least boost a little bit....

"Dedicated video memory" refers to the video card's own VRAM. Where did you find a "1GB dedicated video memory" limitation?

There is a limit on the maximum amount of shared memory (allocated from system RAM) which is used as video memory when there is not enough VRAM on the graphics card/motherboard graphics chip/iGPU. The amount of shared memory available is often determined by a setting in the motherboard's BIOS, but that does not place a limit the amount of VRAM allowed on the graphics card itself.

[SameSelf]

OK, a couple of more thoughts.

Your 2010 machine has a pcie 2.0 x16 slot right? A 10xx plugged into that will not suffer very much versus being plugged into a pcie 3.0 x16 slot. The difference btw 2.0 and 3.0 is very minor, like maybe 7% in rigorous testing. The real difference with modern configs is if you need more than 20 lanes.

As for your psu, 350W is tiny and likely very inefficient. You need to upgrade, sorry.

I should also have qualified my statements to say, barring any constraints, always choose GeForce. But if you are constrained by power, such as you are, then one of the advantages of Quadro is they are lower power. But that is a crummy reason unless you live in a country that charges out the wazoo for power.

[larioso]

My options with my 2010 machine was much less than I thought at first.
1G dedicated video memory means cards means cards available with that configuration.
350W power supply was another - where many of the newer demand 400W and up, at least recommended so.
I went through everything on NVIDIA site - and there was basically GTX 750(plain, not Ti), GTX 780 and GTX 950 regarding psu that were ok, but all were 2G or more.
So I found Gigabyte GT 730 with GDDR5 and 5 GHz clock and 1G mem and went for that - will see if it works when arriving end of week or next week.

I hope it will at least boost a little bit....

"Dedicated video memory" refers to the video card's own VRAM. Where did you find a "1GB dedicated video memory" limitation?

There is a limit on the maximum amount of shared memory (allocated from system RAM) which is used as video memory when there is not enough VRAM on the graphics card/motherboard graphics chip/iGPU. The amount of shared memory available is often determined by a setting in the motherboard's BIOS, but that does not place a limit the amount of VRAM allowed on the graphics card itself.

Thank you.

That is what I hoped for too.

Service manual said 512 MB or 1 GB video memory and felt there must be something too it.

So I posted this thread to see if anybody had any input, but no:
https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/382031-Max-dedicated-video-memory-declared-by-compu...er-any-concern.

So as I mentioned there - I'm not sure if 1G was mentioned due to maxed out cards at the time, 2008-2010 or so, or also needed BIOS support for something.

This computer has been all stable and all for audio work now for 6 years, so did not want to jeapardize anything.
So found this GT 730 that I hope will balance up video up to par with the rest of computer.

[larioso]

OK, a couple of more thoughts.

As for your psu, 350W is tiny and likely very inefficient. You need to upgrade, sorry.

Did not have one thought about restriction on power when I bought it - electricity is really cheap here.
Primary thought was about being silent and graphics having passive coolers, not having to build booths for all audio recordings.
And it's been all good for that.

This video thing came up just last year, and saw this Windows Experience Index showing graphics was really a bottle neck.

[usually_quiet]

My options with my 2010 machine was much less than I thought at first.
1G dedicated video memory means cards means cards available with that configuration.
350W power supply was another - where many of the newer demand 400W and up, at least recommended so.
I went through everything on NVIDIA site - and there was basically GTX 750(plain, not Ti), GTX 780 and GTX 950 regarding psu that were ok, but all were 2G or more.
So I found Gigabyte GT 730 with GDDR5 and 5 GHz clock and 1G mem and went for that - will see if it works when arriving end of week or next week.

I hope it will at least boost a little bit....

"Dedicated video memory" refers to the video card's own VRAM. Where did you find a "1GB dedicated video memory" limitation?

There is a limit on the maximum amount of shared memory (allocated from system RAM) which is used as video memory when there is not enough VRAM on the graphics card/motherboard graphics chip/iGPU. The amount of shared memory available is often determined by a setting in the motherboard's BIOS, but that does not place a limit the amount of VRAM allowed on the graphics card itself.

Thank you.

That is what I hoped for too.

Service manual said 512 MB or 1 GB video memory and felt there must be something too it.

So I posted this thread to see if anybody had any input, but no:
https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/382031-Max-dedicated-video-memory-declared-by-compu...er-any-concern.

So as I mentioned there - I'm not sure if 1G was mentioned due to maxed out cards at the time, 2008-2010 or so, or also needed BIOS support for something.

This computer has been all stable and all for audio work now for 6 years, so did not want to jeapardize anything.
So found this GT 730 that I hope will balance up video up to par with the rest of computer.

The reference to 512 MB or 1 GB video memory might be related to the pre-installed video card configurations available for your PC.

There were video cards with 2GB of VRAM available in 2010. I did a search to be certain that I hadn't mis-remembered. They were high-end models which required their own dedicated power connections to the PSU because the PCI-e slot couldn't supply enough power. A 350W PSU would be insufficient for a card like that, and probably wouldn't have the right power connections for it.

I have been building my own desktop PCs since 2009, and I cannot find any notes on VRAM limitations in the motherboard manual for my 2009 AMD build.

[SameSelf]

Did not have one thought about restriction on power when I bought it - electricity is really cheap here.
Primary thought was about being silent and graphics having passive coolers, not having to build booths for all audio recordings.
And it's been all good for that.

This video thing came up just last year, and saw this Windows Experience Index showing graphics was really a bottle neck.

Ooh, ooh, building a silent DAW is altogether another beast entirely. I don't think I would use a DAW for video editing. But that is just me.

[larioso]

The reference to 512 MB or 1 GB video memory might be related to the pre-installed video card configurations available for your PC.

There were video cards with 2GB of VRAM available in 2010. I did a search to be certain that I hadn't mis-remembered. They were high-end models which required their own dedicated power connections to the PSU because the PCI-e slot couldn't supply enough power. A 350W PSU would be insufficient for a card like that, and probably wouldn't have the right power connections for it.

I have been building my own desktop PCs since 2009, and I cannot find any notes on VRAM limitations in the motherboard manual for my 2009 AMD build.

Thanks.
The i7-equipped boards, like mine, did not have any onboard video - so both were specified in service manual.
Since since they bothered specifying it, I figured it probably also need some BIOS support to work flawlessly.
Dell would for sure know more memory on graphics is to be available, so why mention unless it matter.

But it could be what Dell actually provide as setup when computer is delivered, what you have available when assembling your machine.
But still find that a bit strange for a service manual - as you could equip computer with something else.

From setup manual:
Discrete PCI-E x16 graphics card
• ATI HD4350 — 512 MB DDR2 (only for computers with Intel P55 Express Chipset)
• NVIDIA GT310 — 512 MB DDR2
• NVIDIA GT220 — 1024 MB DDR3
• NVIDIA GTS240 — 1024MB DDR3
Video memory 512 MB, 1024 MB

The last row above, in service manual is framed for overall spec for video, and above that a separate frame for onboard video, and above that a frame for the listed boards as I list them.

If it only referred to onboard video, it would be framed together with Integrated part info.

Or I am over-interpreting what Dell has as standard configurations, don't know.

Just could not rule out that it is hardware dependent in some way, and just hate BSOD or other problems.
Testing firewire interfaces for audio I had some of that when I bought computer - so after abandoning firewire, going for internal audio cards, no problems - not a single one.

[SameSelf]

Testing firewire interfaces for audio I had some of that when I bought computer - so after abandoning firewire, going for internal audio cards, no problems - not a single one.

That is another reason to keep your DAW and video editing machine separate because video editing machines typically need every available pcie lane. I have no spare lanes in mine, and I am not even running SLI. My DAW is just a laptop with a USB2 audio interface. Powerful and portable.

[larioso]

Testing firewire interfaces for audio I had some of that when I bought computer - so after abandoning firewire, going for internal audio cards, no problems - not a single one.

That is another reason to keep your DAW and video editing machine separate because video editing machines typically need every available pcie lane. I have no spare lanes in mine, and I am not even running SLI. My DAW is just a laptop with a USB2 audio interface. Powerful and portable.

It has crossed my mind to get another computer, but will see how the video part becomes something I want to pursue.
I occupy two slots with audio card, and it is expandable with ADAT interfaces if needed.
And two slots for graphics card.

And video editor alone seems to run fine, even now with current graphics. But thinking that doing video in Cubase will put more load with a lot of audio going with plugins and stuff - then when done just move a 48k audio rendered over to video editor for the musical part. So thereby trying to get just a little load off graphics by upgrading that a little bit. And final polished audio mix can be done without the video running.

Audio without crackles is harder on machine I think, in that you have 1-2 milliseconds in between producing next buffer of audio, but video is 40ms till next frame.

That's the plan. I think I will be ok on this machine.

[usually_quiet]

The reference to 512 MB or 1 GB video memory might be related to the pre-installed video card configurations available for your PC.

There were video cards with 2GB of VRAM available in 2010. I did a search to be certain that I hadn't mis-remembered. They were high-end models which required their own dedicated power connections to the PSU because the PCI-e slot couldn't supply enough power. A 350W PSU would be insufficient for a card like that, and probably wouldn't have the right power connections for it.

I have been building my own desktop PCs since 2009, and I cannot find any notes on VRAM limitations in the motherboard manual for my 2009 AMD build.

Thanks.
The i7-equipped boards, like mine, did not have any onboard video - so both were specified in service manual.
Since since they bothered specifying it, I figured it probably also need some BIOS support to work flawlessly.
Dell would for sure know more memory on graphics is to be available, so why mention unless it matter.

But it could be what Dell actually provide as setup when computer is delivered, what you have available when assembling your machine.
But still find that a bit strange for a service manual - as you could equip computer with something else.

From setup manual:
Discrete PCI-E x16 graphics card
• ATI HD4350 — 512 MB DDR2 (only for computers with Intel P55 Express Chipset)
• NVIDIA GT310 — 512 MB DDR2
• NVIDIA GT220 — 1024 MB DDR3
• NVIDIA GTS240 — 1024MB DDR3
Video memory 512 MB, 1024 MB

The last row above, in service manual is framed for overall spec for video, and above that a separate frame for onboard video, and above that a frame for the listed boards as I list them.

If it only referred to onboard video, it would be framed together with Integrated part info.

Or I am over-interpreting what Dell has as standard configurations, don't know.

Just could not rule out that it is hardware dependent in some way, and just hate BSOD or other problems.
Testing firewire interfaces for audio I had some of that when I bought computer - so after abandoning firewire, going for internal audio cards, no problems - not a single one.

The i7-860 supports PCI-e 2.0 video cards in 1x16 or 2x8 configurations. The chipsets for this Intel CPU generation determine the number of lanes available for other PCI-e slots on the board to share. (The P55 Express chipset provides 8.) So, there are enough PCI-2 2.0 lanes to support using a single video card at full PCI-e 2.0 x16 bandwidth.

You haven't provided the model for this PC (at least not in this thread) so there is no way for someone else to check on motherboard/BIOS limitations or read the manual.

One thing is certain. The video card you bought may increase the WEI for your machine, but according to the information available about DaVinci Resolve, a video card with just 1GB of VRAM isn't good enough to comfortably use this software's advanced features for editing HD video.

[larioso]

The i7-860 supports PCI-e 2.0 video cards in 1x16 or 2x8 configurations. The chipsets for this Intel CPU generation determine the number of lanes available for other PCI-e slots on the board to share. (The P55 Express chipset provides 8.) So, there are enough PCI-2 2.0 lanes to support using a single video card at full PCI-e 2.0 x16 bandwidth.

You haven't provided the model for this PC (at least not in this thread) so there is no way for someone else to check on motherboard/BIOS limitations or read the manual.

One thing is certain. The video card you bought may increase the WEI for your machine, but according to the information available about DaVinci Resolve, a video card with just 1GB of VRAM isn't good enough to comfortably use this software's advanced features for editing HD video.

Thanks a lot.

It's a Dell Vostro 430, and equipped with one PCIe x16 and one x1(covered by graphics card), and two PCI slots(used for audio card).

I have dropped the idea of trying DaVinci Resolve right now, since I am not sure that specs on my machine allow 2G cards.

My Geforce 210 give me performance 4.5 WEI rating for Windows Air, and if it was 5.9 for 3D - so hoping for bringing Air part up to 3D.
Just guessing the Air part is quite a bit about shipping bytes for pixels - like video pretty much is.

Have now ordered a Gigabyte GT 730 with GDDR5 and 5GHz clock and 1G memory, so will post info what rating becomes then.

Machine is 16G DDR3 1333 MHz, so not sure how that might inflict on performance regarding this sharing 3G memory.

[usually_quiet]

The i7-860 supports PCI-e 2.0 video cards in 1x16 or 2x8 configurations. The chipsets for this Intel CPU generation determine the number of lanes available for other PCI-e slots on the board to share. (The P55 Express chipset provides 8.) So, there are enough PCI-2 2.0 lanes to support using a single video card at full PCI-e 2.0 x16 bandwidth.

You haven't provided the model for this PC (at least not in this thread) so there is no way for someone else to check on motherboard/BIOS limitations or read the manual.

One thing is certain. The video card you bought may increase the WEI for your machine, but according to the information available about DaVinci Resolve, a video card with just 1GB of VRAM isn't good enough to comfortably use this software's advanced features for editing HD video.

Thanks a lot.

It's a Dell Vostro 430, and equipped with one PCIe x16 and one x1(covered by graphics card), and two PCI slots(used for audio card).

I have dropped the idea of trying DaVinci Resolve right now, since I am not sure that specs on my machine allow 2G cards.

My Geforce 210 give me performance 4.5 WEI rating for Windows Air, and if it was 5.9 for 3D - so hoping for bringing Air part up to 3D.
Just guessing the Air part is quite a bit about shipping bytes for pixels - like video pretty much is.

Have now ordered a Gigabyte GT 730 with GDDR5 and 5GHz clock and 1G memory, so will post info what rating becomes then.

Machine is 16G DDR3 1333 MHz, so not sure how that might inflict on performance regarding this sharing 3G memory.

I took a look at the Dell Vostro 430's Setup manual and its Service manual. (The information you posted about video card options came from the Setup manual's technical specs.) I see nothing in either to indicate there is a BIOS or motherboard limitation on video card VRAM.

The PSU capacity and lack of PSU power connections to support video cards with higher power requirements is the biggest limitation your computer has with respect to video card upgrades. (You should probably consider replacing the PSU at this point, if it is the original PSU that came with the system. It is getting old and a PSU failure could cause damage to the motherboard.) I doubt that the low-end recent video cards recommended to you in this thread will even fully utilize the bandwidth available from a PCI-e 2.0 x16 slot.

However, you have made your choice, so this is all beside the point.

Needing to use shared memory always slows down performance, but I doubt that will happen often in your case. You don't use this PC to game or do other things that require a lot of video memory.

[larioso]

I took a look at the Dell Vostro 430's Setup manual and its Service manual. (The information you posted about video card options came from the Setup manual's technical specs.) I see nothing in either to indicate there is a BIOS or motherboard limitation on video card VRAM.

The PSU capacity and lack of PSU power connections to support video cards with higher power requirements is the biggest limitation your computer has with respect to video card upgrades. (You should probably consider replacing the PSU at this point, if it is the original PSU that came with the system. It is getting old and a PSU failure could cause damage to the motherboard.) I doubt that the low-end recent video cards recommended to you in this thread will even fully utilize the bandwidth available from a PCI-e 2.0 x16 slot.

However, you have made your choice, so this is all beside the point.

Needing to use shared memory always slows down performance, but I doubt that will happen often in your case. You don't use this PC to game or do other things that require a lot of video memory.

Many thanks again for your efforts.
It was the framing from service manual of video and memory that made me think this is what is supported.
I try and enclose, will see how that works.

This card is £66 from amazon, so not the end of the world if I get a better choice later.
Looked through computers as such today, and I have to spend at least $2500 or more to get a computer with 400W or larger power supply, and faster than the one I've got.

Will have to make field test with this before I do something but reading up on the subject.