Best video card for LCD monitor

[Nestle]

I have an LCD monitor with 25ms response time running at 1280x1024 with a DVI input. I am mostly interested in 2D quality.
25ms response time means maximum of 40 frames per second. So I don't want to buy a card that will be an overkill for my monitor.
Before i was thinking to buy Radeon 8500, but now I think that the 8500 might be an overkill and the Radeon 7500 will be good enough to produce those 40 frames per second (in most games). Since I am not really a gamer (just play a game every now and then like Fifa 2002 and Civ 3) will 7500 be good enough, or the 8500 will be better even with the monitor limitations?

Also, is 8500 and 7500 the same in 2D? Or 8500 is better in 2D also?

 

[Peter]

If budget is more of a concern than raw power, you have several options to aim even lower. If you want dual head capability, there's 7500LE too, about one third cheaper than 7500, with SDRAM instead of DDR. If you don't care much about 3D at all, you can get a VGA+DVI multihead Radeon 7000 if there are any left where you live.

Want decent 3D but need no multi-head? Then consider Radeon 7200. At least one ATi OEM (PowerColor) makes a full range of ATi chip cards with DVI connector.

regards, Peter

 

[Nestle]

2D is more importand, but i do care about 3D. But i want a video card that will be able to produce 40 frames per second at 1280x1024 in most games. I think the 8500 will be able to produce more than that, but since my monitor will not be able to display more than 40 anyways I might as well save some money.
So, is my assumption correct, that with the 7500 i will be able to get the 40 frames per second at 1280x1024 , or I need the 8500 for this?

 

[stephpar]

hey there...i'm a soon to be 15inch LCD owner and my question to you is why is the focus on ATI instead of perhaps nvidia? Is ATI considered to be that much better for LCD output? Now i have certainly read of better FPS in games on LCDs than 40...are you sure about your assumption as to the limit in frames? It just seems to me that i can read all over the place how great 3d games can be on an LCD...with little to know ghosting and that jazz...in all the new fast games (jedi outcast, MOHAA, etc)...I find it hard to believe that all these folks have been limited to 40FPS. Thoughts?...especially about ATI vs Nvidia in regards to LCDs.

Steph

 

[Nestle]

TomsHardware explains how you can mesure how many images per second can be displayed on your LCD. Mine (supposedly) has a 25ms response time, therefore 40 frames per second is the max that this monitor can display. If your monitor has less response time, then it will be able to display more frames, but i don't think there are LCDs out in the market right now that can do less than 25ms.

Thats why i asked about the video card. Why buy a video card that can produce 150 fPS if your monitor can only display 40. But what i am thinking is that maybe weaker cards will not be able to produce even 40 FPS at 1280x1024 in some of the new games.

I emphasize on ATI because most people in here said that ATI cards are better in 2D and thats what i need most.

 

[Peter]

That, and the fact that there are ATi chip cards with DVI outputs across the entire range.

btw, the analog output quality issues that some NVidia chip cards suffer from don't matter on DVI.

So do you want dualhead capability or not? If not, your performance path is 7200-7500-8500LE-8500, if you do, your entry level is 7500LE instead of 7200.

As for the 3D speed, I don't know what games you play. Framerate depends heavily on that, as well as CPU speed. A fast graphics card must be teamed with a fast CPU, else it'd be twiddling thumbs most of the time. The web has enough benchmarks for you to judge.

regards, Peter

 

[Nestle]

dualhead capability would be an added bonus, bit not really needed.

The games I play now are mainly Fifa 2002, Civ 3 and sometimes Max Payne. (but as i said before I am just a cusual gamer. I play a game or two every week. I mainly use the computer for things like photoshop, illustrator, Dreamweaver and that kind of apps.)

The system this card will be on is an Athlon XP 2000+ on a KT333 motherboard with 768MB of PC2700.

 

[rake]

Hi I'm running a 7500 on XP1800+, same mobo as you, with a 17" Iiyama LCD. Like you I'm not a gamer (occasionally turn my hand to Quake II *cough*), but the 2D via the DVI is absolutely razor sharp. I can't comment on 3D fps, but the difference between current 7500 and my old MX in photoshop is night and day.

HTH

Rake

 

[S13SilviaK]

The human eye can only detect 30FPS so what difference does it make? The only problem I see is that 1280x1024 if you want to play games that size your going to need a good vid card since DVI will not stretch the game it'll just put a black box around the smaller window, which I'm sure you've discovered. I just did a quick check and I guess I was wrong about the vid card, you could probably go all the way down to a Geforce 256 DDR. Just figure out your price range and then do search's on google for reviews of each card and check the bechmarks if it can do the high FPS then your all set.

 

[azkiwi]

If you are most interested in 2D - consider the Matrox G550...

 

[Shalmanese]

I would watch out for Nvidia Cards. IIRC, most cheap cards before the GF3's had a cheap DVI output device which could only go at 1024

 

[JSang]

The human eye can only detect 30FPS so what difference does it make?

well remember, for fps in game benchmarks, the fps given is the AVERAGE. as a gamer from back in the q2 days, the choppyness one can experience in averaging 40 fps and 70fps is a noticeble difference. its just less choppy because framerates dont really drop below a certain point.

 

[Instagib]

<< The human eye can only detect 30FPS so what difference does it make? >>



Oh no dot a dan!