Discrete graphics card for SOHO computer?

[bonheur]

Hello guys,


I have a desktop computer with the following specifications:

• Pentium Dual CPU E2220 @ 2.40Ghz with 4GB RAM (3.49GB usable, Win7 32-bit).
• Intel GMA 3100 64MB dedicated plus 192MB shared.
• LCD monitor with VGA at 1920x1080.
• 600W PSU on a miniATX case with an extra 80mm fan at the back of the case.
• Windows Experience Index Score of 3.3 (due to the “3D business and gaming graphics performance”, followed with a 3.8 for the “Desktop performance for Windows”).

I use my computer for:

• Internet browsing (Internet Explorer 9—PDF, Flash, Google Earth, etc.).
• IM (WLM and YM).
• Playing MP3s and DIVX files with Windows Media Player (Seldom DVDs).
• Making short files with MS Word and MS Excel (2007, not going 2010. But I’ll consider the next update).
• I store and edit pictures taken with a basic consumer camera with Photoshop Elements (v7, not updating to v9. But I’ll consider the next update).

I’ve never complained about my graphics card until I went to those website samples for the Internet Explorer 9 where you can try HTML5 see how powerful your computer is. I don’t game, but I could do an online game (in Flash, …) seldom. There’s absolutely no games installed in my computer--other than those that came with Windows 7--and I’m not planning to install any in the future (If I ever do it’ll be something simple, certainly not one of those high-demanding RPGs).

I have read that the best *silent* cards that I could use are ATI Radeon HD 5450 and the ATI Radeon HD 5570. But what would I gain if I buy one of those cards for my desktop computer?


Maybe, ATI or some other graphics card manufacturer will release a better performing and equally silent graphics card in the near future?
How much must I expect to pay for one of those silent (no fan) cards?

 

[BoT]

you could get a nvidia GT210 or GT240. they are both good and are available with passive cooling. another option would be the GT430 or even better the GTS450, both also available with passive cooling.

 

[bonheur]

Thank you for your answer BoT, but could you please tell me why should I decide for one card or another? I'm not very literate when it comes to graphic cards.

Maybe some of those cards will consume less watts or have less issues when it comes to the drivers?

 

[Fbbam]

get the radeon 5670 512mb strikes a right balance and uses only 60watts at full load

 

[Arkadrel]

you could get a nvidia GT210 or GT240.

No DX11 on those cards, and hes asking about IE9 which means Win7.
Which in turn means he needs DX11 if he wants to hardware accelerate stuff with DX11 for web browseing.

Thus recammending a 210 or 240 isnt a good idea.



Here is a 5670 with a passive cooler, which means 0 dB from it: Costs 99$

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-902-_-Product


Here is a 5450 with a passive cooler, which means 0 dB from it: costs 22$ after MIR

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-480-_-Product



It sounds like based on what you listed of needs, than a 5450 is all you need and more, and for 22$ and passively cooled, that should be a very good buy.

 

[bonheur]

Thank you for your advice, Fbbam!

Can I get a passive cooled 5670? If so, will it cost significantly more than the 5570? What will I benefit from by getting a 5670 instead of a, say, 5570 with my sort of computer usage?

 

[bonheur]

Thank you for your advice, Arkadrel!

Do you think it's worth getting hardware acceleration for, both, IE9 and Flash? My Internet speed is just 1MB (quite constant at that).

Maybe there'll be more software packages in the future benefitting from hardware acceleration? If so, will a 1st generation 5450 or 5570 card be enough for my needs?

 

[Arkadrel]

It depends on what sites you visit, and how they code it.

Yes hardware acceleration for your browser is a good thing, currently its probably not many sites that use it but with time more and more probably will.

for now a 5450 will be enough for your needs discribed in post #1.
Im not sure what the future holds, but I say spend the 22$... if you need more lateron, can always then buy something better.

also that little card, has bluray acceleration, and uses like 7w doing it... and idles around 4-5watts.
Its the type of card you could put into a HTPC.

 

[bonheur]

Thank you again, Arkadrel!

Is there any way I can get an idea of what I'm missing out now with my current integrated Intel GMA 3100 compared with the Radeon 5450?

One last question, would I reap any additional benefits from getting a middle-of-the-road 5570 card instead of a 5450? Maybe, I'd never benefit from the extra features on the Radeon 5670?

 

[Fbbam]

The only advantage you get from 5670 over 5570 will only manifest during games, if the cost is very important then get the 5570. it would be best not to consider the 5450 because it has a narrower memory bus width and 80 stream processors as opposed to the 5670 and 5570's 400 this basically means u'll need an upgrade sooner if u go down that path.

 

[Fbbam]

hardware acceleration for video(blueray, flash), better compatibily with softwares,

 

[bonheur]

Fbbam,

I take it the 5450 would be soon overworked when more software packages start demanding hardware acceleration? Maybe my Pentium Dual CPU E2220 processor would become outdated in about the same period of time as the 5450?

I could take the 5670 over the 5570 if the cost was about the same and the 5670 doesn't consume many more Watts.

 

[Ghiedo27]

For ~ $65 a 5570 is probably your best bet in a small case. You can get a 5670 without a fan, but they tend to have a heatsink that's too big to fit in even some standard cases. Going cheaper you might save $20, but there's a huge drop in performance. Some features are automatically disabled on the slower cards since they really don't have the HP to push them.

I can't really tell you if it's a worthwhile upgrade for you. Either you're happy with what your computer can do or you aren't. I can only agree that you're looking at the right component if you do want to get an upgrade.

 

[Fbbam]

The 5670 is rated 60watts max while the 5570 40watts max considering your specs i think the difference will not have a significant impact. The cost diff shouldn't be much, sorry am speculating passively cooled 5570 are more easilly found compared to 5670s

 

[BoT]

No DX11 on those cards, and hes asking about IE9 which means Win7.
Which in turn means he needs DX11 if he wants to hardware accelerate stuff with DX11 for web browseing.

Thus recammending a 210 or 240 isnt a good idea.

windows 7 does not "require" DX11 for hardware acceleration. DX10 will do just fine and both cards support DX10 and DX10.1

windows 7 does support DX11

 

[SickBeast]

OP you should keep your integrated graphics IMO. Save up for a new computer.

 

[BoT]

also, IE9 can run on Vista as well as long as SP2 is installed so no win 7 needed

 

[bonheur]

Thank you for your advice, Ghiedo27!

Do you have any favorite assemblers for the ATI Radeon 5570 with the passive cooling? Conversely, are there any assemblers that I should try not to buy from?

I'm sure this would be a worthwhile upgrade, but I don't know whether to buy this 5570 right now or wait perhaps a couple months see if a new generation of cards appears on the market.

 

[bonheur]

Thank you for your advice, SickBeast!

BoT, I'm sorry I didn't clarify this enough from the beggining, but I do have Windows 7 Home Premium 32-bit on my computer.

The integrated Intel GMA 3100 is fine most of the time. I have noticed a few glitches here and there, like sometimes flickering image on full screen (1920x1080) when reproducing DivX (like if it was skipping frames), Photoshop Elements 7 isn't very "snappy"(but works just fine--and fast), I've noticed a few times the CPU being 80% to 100% busy when reproducing an online video, the text on some edit boxes in IE9 may not show properly in a few (very few) instances, etc. But I guess this will go downhill from now on.

So from what I'm seeing here with your much appreciated advice is that I have three options:

#1.- Keep my computer as it is for as long as it is possible, then buy a whole new CPU.
#2.- Upgrade my graphics card to a Radeon 5450 and I should be fine for a long time.
#3.- Upgrade my graphics card to a Radeon 5570 and I should be fine for a long time.

 

[SickBeast]

Fair enough OP, but what are you trying to get out of a new GPU? HTML5? That's CPU related. Photo work? Again, that's CPU and memory for that matter. Watch videos? Your CPU is more than adequate for even 1080P H.264 files. Sure, a discreet card would give you GPU acceleration, but I don't see the point TBH.

Trust me, keep your integrated graphics. You're only going to waste money on the GPU and electricity by going with something like a 5570.

GPUs are mainly useful for gaming. If you told me you were a gamer I would suggest something else.

 

[BoT]

i 2nd this advise. if you would jump on the sandy bridge band wagon you would get a really updated system with decent graphics performance that can handle anything you mentioned with ease.

 

[bonheur]

I thought I was falling behind the times with my Intel GMA 3100, but I see it's just fine for most of the tasks that I'm doing and probably there's no "perfect" GPU anyway.

SickBeast, what are the reasons why GPU acceleration isn't that useful in my case?

BoT, out of curiosity, to what ATI radeon card does the Sandy Bridge on the new MOBOs compare to? I guess I'm going to have to study this subject a little more.

Thank you guys for saving me some hard earned cash!

 

[SickBeast]

I thought I was falling behind the times with my Intel GMA 3100, but I see it's just fine for most of the tasks that I'm doing and probably there's no "perfect" GPU anyway.

SickBeast, what are the reasons why GPU acceleration isn't that useful in my case?

BoT, out of curiosity, to what ATI radeon card does the Sandy Bridge on the new MOBOs compare to? I guess I'm going to have to study this subject a little more.

Thank you guys for saving me some hard earned cash!

You're welcome.

Do you watch 1080P H.264 videos? If you do, then GPU acceleration could bring your CPU usage down from say 60% to 10% or so during video playback. When you're watching videos, do you use your PC for anything else? If you're just downloading stuff in the background or doing basic tasks like web browsing, again, I see no need for the discreet GPU.

Like I said, save that $50 or whatever and put it toward something completely new. It would blow your mind to see what a quad core computer can do with 16gb of ram.

 

[BoT]

if you stay below i7 2500/2600 then it should compare to a 5470.
the models below the 2500/2600 us the HD2000, the 2500/2600 have the HD3000.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3871/the-sandy-bridge-preview-three-wins-in-a-row/7

 

[fuzzymath10]

Yep, GMA 3100 is fine for anything outside of games.

My parents play 1080P content with no issues with the same integrated graphics. They have a slightly better CPU (Core 2 Duo E7300, 2.66GHz), but by and large you don't have to worry about anything.

It's possible your display quality could improve simply because you're using a VGA connection, and at 1080P the analog signal may not be clean enough. A new card would give you DVI which is generally foolproof. However, I would just wait and save up for a new machine in maybe a year.