How much video memory for a non-gamer's system?

[grrl]

How much video memory is enough for a basic system that does no gaming or DVD playing, just surfing, word processing and some Photoshop (no files larger than 8 megs or so)?

I assume with some cards the color may be better, but this is for home use so nothing is that critical.

 

[sisooktom]

I see no reason to get less than 64MB these days, regardless of what you're gonna use it for.

 

[Markfw]

32 meg Matrox G450 or G550 would be the best for your purposes. 32meg in general. 64 is fine, if you don;t have to pay extra for it.

 

[Matthias99]

1600 * 1200 * 4 (32-bit color) * 2 (double buffering) = 15,360,000 bytes. Anything over 16MB is being utterly wasted on 2D tasks, unless you're running at higher than 1600x1200 with 32-bit color.

 

[grrl]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
32 meg Matrox G450 or G550 would be the best for your purposes. 32meg in general. 64 is fine, if you don;t have to pay extra for it.

The 450 is $90 at Newegg. Do I really need to spend that much. Plus I don't need dual head. Would a Radeon 9200SE do just as well at $40?

 

[grrl]

Originally posted by: Matthias99
1600 * 1200 * 4 (32-bit color) * 2 (double buffering) = 15,360,000 bytes. Anything over 16MB is being utterly wasted on 2D tasks, unless you're running at higher than 1600x1200 with 32-bit color.

Hello again Matthias99. I was thinking 16 or 32 megs would probably be enough because there is no 3D.

 

[Metron]

How about a 32 Mb GeForce2 MX400 for $35, free shipping?

*edit... added more*

or a

Connect3D Radeon 7000, 32 Mb DDR for $29.99, free shipping as well

If you're extremely price conscious, either of these will be fine for non-gaming applications.

Metron

 

[grrl]

I looked at the Connect3D and also the Rosewill ATI RADEON 9200SE, 64MB DDR for $40.

 

[sisooktom]

Originally posted by: grrl
I looked at the Connect3D and also the Rosewill ATI RADEON 9200SE, 64MB DDR for $40.

That was my point, I thought you wouldn't save much by going < 64MB, not that you actually needed it. But I have to confess to not checking first.

 

[Markfw]

I only suggested the Matrox due to the exceptional 2d, but the ATI 7000 and the 9200se are both fine also.

 

[Brian48]

I'm still using my 16mb Matrox G400 at work. Perfect solution for me thus far, even with Photoshop, which requires a lot of system RAM more so than video RAM.

 

[JZilla]

If your buying a mobo just get one with intregrated graphics. Intel Extreme Graphics 2 works fine for me at the office, despite it's very bad rumour.

 

[caz67]

I think 128Mb, should be the bare minimum.

 

[Falloutboy]

Originally posted by: caz67
I think 128Mb, should be the bare minimum.

why? you'll never use it if you don't use 3d

 

[obeseotron]

I would say the cheapest thing in the radeon 9x00 series because they all have good 2d and good drivers. 32mb is way more than enough for 2d only. 9200se is more than enough.

 

[Goi]

Originally posted by: grrl

Originally posted by: Matthias99
1600 * 1200 * 4 (32-bit color) * 2 (double buffering) = 15,360,000 bytes. Anything over 16MB is being utterly wasted on 2D tasks, unless you're running at higher than 1600x1200 with 32-bit color.

Hello again Matthias99. I was thinking 16 or 32 megs would probably be enough because there is no 3D.

That's probably right, but you'd be hard pressed to find a new graphics card with less than 64MB video memory nowadays.

 

[imported_Nacelle]

I have a TNT2 16mb. It would work fine for what you're looking to do. Do you have any interesting old parts you'd be willing to trade for it?

 

[ArmchairAthlete]

If you aren't playing games or watching DVDs you might as well go with onboard video or a cheapo PCI video card.

Going with something more is a waste in your situation.

 

[TerryMathews]

Originally posted by: Falloutboy

Originally posted by: caz67
I think 128Mb, should be the bare minimum.

why? you'll never use it if you don't use 3d

caz very rarely has any idea what he/she's talking about.

example

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: grrl

Originally posted by: Markfw900
32 meg Matrox G450 or G550 would be the best for your purposes. 32meg in general. 64 is fine, if you don;t have to pay extra for it.

The 450 is $90 at Newegg. Do I really need to spend that much. Plus I don't need dual head. Would a Radeon 9200SE do just as well at $40?

If you are doing primarily 2D work, possibly with a spat of light gaming at times, then a Radeon card would be fine, and they generally have better 2D output quality than most NV-based cards, especially the budget GFx MX line. I upgraded to a Radeon 9200 64MB AGP 8x card for $40, and it plays UT2K4 pretty decently at 1024x768 without AA/AF enabled. It also supports nifty dual-display features, has DVI/VGA/TV-out, and according to the specs, has two 400Mhz 10-bit-per-channel RAMDACs, which basically means that the 2D quality should be about the same level as a high-end Matrox card.

If you plan on playing any games on it, make it a Radeon 7500/8500/9100/9200 card, because they support hardware T&amp;L. The Radeon 7000 does not, making it pretty-much a 2D-only card. "SE" on the end means that the card only has 64-bit memory instead of 128-bit, effectively cutting its effective 3D speeds in half.

For price/performance, the 9200 non-SE hit the sweet-spot for me, since I did buy it to play UT2K4 with. Your needs/wants may differ.

 

[JBT]

I would just grab a 9200 SE for around 50. I got one for my dad for doing some CAD work and he loves it so far.

 

[zephyrprime]

1600 * 1200 * 4 (32-bit color) * 2 (double buffering) = 15,360,000 bytes. Anything over 16MB is being utterly wasted on 2D tasks, unless you're running at higher than 1600x1200 with 32-bit color.

Windows isn't double bufferred

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: zephyrprime

1600 * 1200 * 4 (32-bit color) * 2 (double buffering) = 15,360,000 bytes. Anything over 16MB is being utterly wasted on 2D tasks, unless you're running at higher than 1600x1200 with 32-bit color.

Windows isn't double bufferred

Actually, many 2D programs *are* double-buffered. The standard Windows GUI things aren't (Windows itself makes sure that full windows update in sync), but any program that 'draws' things on the screen (such as, say, Photoshop, or even something like Powerpoint) will almost certainly be, to avoid nasty flickering and performance issues.

 

[zephyrprime]

Actually, many 2D programs *are* double-buffered. The standard Windows GUI things aren't (Windows itself makes sure that full windows update in sync), but any program that 'draws' things on the screen (such as, say, Photoshop, or even something like Powerpoint) will almost certainly be, to avoid nasty flickering and performance issues.

Yes, my own 2d programs are double buffered but it still doesn't affect video memory becuase 2d programs are double buffered with system memory. 3d programs aren't but that's because 3d programs have their active canvas entirely on video memory where the video card's extensive functionality can operate on it. 2d programs although they could in theory rely upon the 2d acceleration features of video cards in fact use little more than the bitblt functions of a 2d accelerator. Photoshop and all those programs perform all the graphical operations in local system memory.

And full forms aren't updated in sync by Windows.