• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Low end card: 512MB vs 1GB

Are you going to be watching a lot of video and such? Some newer cards have better decoding support. An 8800 is ancient.

But if you don't game, the extra memory wont help any.
 
tynopik said:
does any modern system have trouble decoding videos regardless of the video card?
Click to expand...

Yes.

"iGPUs have made some strides in the last six months in completely capturing the HTPC space, but usually they come up short in some form or another. This usually manifests itself as limited post-processing options due to a lack of shaders, and in the case of Sandy Bridge, the lack of a 23.976fps mode. iGPUs are still making strides and it’s possible we’ll see something capable of practical perfection as early as this summer with Llano, but for now you need a dGPU to achieve best results."

Source: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4263/amds-radeon-hd-6450-uvd3-meets-htpc/3
 
512 for sure. Even if you're occasionally going to mess around with some games -you never know- a low end card won't use more than that, because you'll have to reduce the visual settings to a minimum, and that includes resolution, texture resolution, AA and AF, which will chop off from the required memory considerably.
 
Stuka87 said:
Are you going to be watching a lot of video and such? Some newer cards have better decoding support. An 8800 is ancient.

But if you don't game, the extra memory wont help any.
Click to expand...

Not gaming but I do watch videos. In full screen, HD videos won't run.
 
But that's like saying, I see no reason why not to throw my $5 down the drain. If the card cannot have enough horsepower to drive higher resolutions that would need more than 512MB, then adding more memory won't help at all. It might be like buying a very cheap car with a motor that cannot exceed 55 MPH, and instead of getting it with the stock tires rated up to 90 MPH limit, you buy the extra fancy tires that are rated up to 160 MPH. Why pay for tires that can withstand 160 MPH when you engine can't push the car faster than 55 MPH?
 
KingFatty said:
But that's like saying, I see no reason why not to throw my $5 down the drain. If the card cannot have enough horsepower to drive higher resolutions that would need more than 512MB, then adding more memory won't help at all. It might be like buying a very cheap car with a motor that cannot exceed 55 MPH, and instead of getting it with the stock tires rated up to 90 MPH limit, you buy the extra fancy tires that are rated up to 160 MPH. Why pay for tires that can withstand 160 MPH when you engine can't push the car faster than 55 MPH?
Click to expand...

The reason to go with the 6450 isn't because of the extra memory, its because it has far better video decoding support, along with a more modern feature set.
 
That 8400GS is a 2007 class DirectX 10 only video card.

I wouldn't buy anything less than a DirectX 10/11 class GT210 / 220 / 240 / 440 / 520 or a Radeon HD 6450 which are all in the same price bracket.
 
6450 would also support GPU accelerated flash, something I doubt the 8400gs supports due to age, it'll help if you stream videos from online.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top