Modern, but ultra-low-end GPU. For mostly video watching. Does it exist?

[VirtualLarry]

I mean, there's the RX 460 (of which, there is a single-slot variety), and the GTX 1050 and 1050 ti, each of which is available from MSI in a dual-slot, low-profile variety.

But where is the GTX 1040, in a single-slot, passive, low-profile-ready card, 25W, capable of 4K60 desktop display and video-decoding for all major current codecs? Where is it? Why is my only video-card choice around $30 for display-only the GT710?

Edit: And if NV makes one, will it support VGA at all? There's lots of lower-end rigs out there with VGA (only) monitors, that could use an upgrade, for video codec support, to keep their PCs relevant in the "Rich Media Age" of pervasive online video. Think of all of the Core2 rigs out there, some using GMA3100/4500.

 

[whm1974]

The owner of such machines and VGA displays should replace them with something more current and suitable for this "Rich Media Age". At some point ancient machines should be retired.

 

[VirtualLarry]

VGA monitors aren't exactly "ancient" yet. At least, speaking of VGA flat-screens. Sure, they pre-date HDMI, or are from a lower budget class. But they're still viable.

Edit: In short, there's nothing inherent in VGA monitors that make their unsuitable for modern media consumption.

 

[ElFenix]

more importantly, where is something supporting hdmi 2.0?

 

[13Gigatons]

I've been saving my money to buy a gtx1050 for 4k60 use but would buy a gtx1040 if it were available. Good video cards always seem to stay above $100 mark.

 

[cbn]

Think of all of the Core2 rigs out there, some using GMA3100/4500.

Lack of hardware decode would also exist on any Sandy Bridge (or earlier) machine running Windows 10 due to lack of iGPU drivers (only Ivy Bridge and newer iGPU has driver support in Windows 10).

So for this class of driver-less machines the decoding would be software through the CPU....and if the CPU is too weak then the video will not smooth, of course.

Now as far as current low profile cards go, I haven't seen DVI-I on any 28nm low profile card yet. (or maybe there was one GT710 low profile that had it?) The full size 28nm cards sometimes have DVI-I which makes me believe there is a separate chip for analog video for any GPU newer than 40nm.

P.S. I think it would awesome to have a least one OEM make a 14nm low profile card with HDMI 2.0b and DVI-I instead of DVI-D. Unfortunately I think it could end up being expensive which takes a least one usage out out it (matching 21.5" 1080p monitor with 17" 1280 x 1024 VGA LCD flat panel for a low cost dual monitor PC).

 

[cbn]

Here was a XFX R7 250 low profile that had DVI-I:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150713

 

[cbn]

Just to clarify.....for 1080p monitors, I believe all of them came with at least DVI-D. So if a person wanted to hypothetically use only a single 1080p monitor any modern low profile card could do this.

The main advantage I see to have DVI-I (alongside HDMI) on a low profile card is to use either a cheap 17" or 19" flat panel 1280 x 1024 VGA monitor alongside a 21.5" or 24" 1080p monitor (either using HDMI or a cheap passive HDMI to DVI-D adapter). So yeah pretty niche usage.....but very useful for productivity. (I use a 21.5" 1080p monitor alongside a 17" VGA LCD flat panel 1280 x 1024 myself)

EDIT: I will also point that late core 2 machines onward typically have Display port and VGA whereas early core 2 machines usually only had VGA. So if the desktop is late enough there is always the possibility to go dual monitor via the iGPU*. This provided the second monitor has Display port or the user has a passive display port to HDMI or DVI-I adapter. Fortunately these passive adapters aren't too expensive.

*The display function of the iGPU still works even if drivers are not present.

 

[whm1974]

Just to clarify.....for 1080p monitors, I believe all of them came with at least DVI-D. So if a person wanted to hypothetically use only a single 1080p monitor any modern low profile card could do this.

To be honest, I doubt anyone will want use anything below 1080p on the desktop anyway.

 

[SPBHM]

Here was a XFX R7 250 low profile that had DVI-I:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150713

I think he is looking for an HEVC/VP9 decode capable card, the oldest thing for that is the GTX 960.
the 250 is to old at this point.

 

[cbn]

To be honest, I doubt anyone will want use anything below 1080p on the desktop anyway.

For a second monitor?

Because for a second monitor I think having it be smaller can work better (in many circumstances) than having two 1080p LCDs.

Reason: 1080p + 1280 x 1024 It takes up less deskspace than two 1080p monitors and for web browsing (or MS Word) I haven't seen the need anything for wider than 1280 pixels.

 

[cbn]

I think he is looking for an HEVC/VP9 decode capable card, the oldest thing for that is the GTX 960.
the 250 is to old at this point.

Yes, I agree.

I only brought that up because Larry mentioned VGA in the opening post and that was the most modern low profile example I could find with DVI-I (also see post #6)

 

[MarkizSchnitzel]

VGA monitors aren't exactly "ancient" yet. At least, speaking of VGA flat-screens. Sure, they pre-date HDMI, or are from a lower budget class. But they're still viable.

Edit: In short, there's nothing inherent in VGA monitors that make their unsuitable for modern media consumption.

Nothing inherent, but at that time, quality of panels was really really bad.

That said, I know there is some demand, a lot of people have tight budgets. Even at my work, one of my monitors is a 19" LG Flatron. I hate it with a passion.

 

[cbn]

Here are the video outs for the MSI and Gigabyte GTX 1050 Ti :

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10856/msi-adds-lowprofile-geforce-gtx-1050-ti-to-lineup

http://www.anandtech.com/show/11016/gigabyte-launches-lp-geforce-gtx-1050-1050-ti

So for the new generation of single slot low profile I do wonder if we get some cards with dual HDMI and display port along with some cards with HDMI and (hopefully) DVI-I.

P.S. Notice how the VGA is gone on the full size bracket.

 

[Insert_Nickname]

Edit: In short, there's nothing inherent in VGA monitors that make their unsuitable for modern media consumption.

Except their lack of HDCP of course.

 

[MrTeal]

For a second monitor?

Because for a second monitor I think having it be smaller can work better (in many circumstances) than having two 1080p LCDs.

Reason: 1080p + 1280 x 1024 It takes up less deskspace than two 1080p monitors and for web browsing (or MS Word) I haven't seen the need anything for wider than 1280 pixels.

1280x1024 monitors make awesome side monitors for document viewing. Not only does 1024 pixels match up well with the 1080p so you don't get the annoying shelf your mouse gets stuck on, but the vertical screen height of a 19" is the same as a 24" 1080p monitor to within a tenth of an inch. That being said, they're basically giving 1905FP's away free in cracker jack boxes these days, so while you might have a crazy old 17" VGA-only monitor kicking around that you want to use as a side monitor it's not like it would be tough or costly to replace it with a DVI model with a (probably) better panel anyway.

 

[poofyhairguy]

I am just happy the 460 and 1050 exist. It was crazy how there for a while you basically had to buy the $200-ish GTX 960 (and ONLY the 960 not a single model better) for all that support.

 

[escrow4]

VGA monitors aren't exactly "ancient" yet. At least, speaking of VGA flat-screens. Sure, they pre-date HDMI, or are from a lower budget class. But they're still viable.

Edit: In short, there's nothing inherent in VGA monitors that make their unsuitable for modern media consumption.

They are unsuitable. Its like watching a grainy smeared VHS porno from 1986 that has been rewound 69 times.

The strange thing is there is no easy answer for hardware. Android phones can do it (although you'll need a higher end one for 10-bit x265), same with Android tablets, although they suck all round. An Nvidia Shield is an alternate choice that would do it, although it ain't cheap. $50 Android boxes will probably do it, although Marshmallow firmware is currently broken. One of those frisbee modern netbooks can do up to 1080p or one of those Intel sticks. The correct answer seems to be to match the media to the device. 720p x264 may be peasant (High Profile @ L4.1 with stereo aac say) but it works everywhere without too much battery drain. And HEVC still isn't ready anyway. Has banding issues and needs a lot of grunt to encode. By the time it matures in a year AV1 will be likely be out. Yet x264 isn't going anywhere.

 

[Headfoot]

They are unsuitable. Its like watching a grainy smeared VHS porno from 1986 that has been rewound 69 times.

I lol'd. But its true. VGA is so smeary and gross

 

[cbn]

1280x1024 monitors make awesome side monitors for document viewing. Not only does 1024 pixels match up well with the 1080p so you don't get the annoying shelf your mouse gets stuck on, but the vertical screen height of a 19" is the same as a 24" 1080p monitor to within a tenth of an inch. That being said, they're basically giving 1905FP's away free in cracker jack boxes these days, so while you might have a crazy old 17" VGA-only monitor kicking around that you want to use as a side monitor it's not like it would be tough or costly to replace it with a DVI model with a (probably) better panel anyway.

That is a good point about the 1905FP.....and for 17" 1280 x 1024 it seems the price is about the same whether it has DVI + VGA or just VGA.

 

[cbn]

I lol'd. But its true. VGA is so smeary and gross

I have two 17" Dell LCD 1280 x 1024 monitors.....one has DVI + VGA and the other has VGA. I haven't noticed a difference between the two in terms of picture when I use DVI in the first one and VGA in the second one.

However, I think I remember something about LCD manufacturers skimping on the chip used for VGA in some DVI monitors. So if using VGA on a DVI monitor it might be the picture is worse than VGA on a dedicated VGA LCD monitor.

 

[cbn]

Edit: And if NV makes one, will it support VGA at all? There's lots of lower-end rigs out there with VGA (only) monitors, that could use an upgrade, for video codec support, to keep their PCs relevant in the "Rich Media Age" of pervasive online video. Think of all of the Core2 rigs out there, some using GMA3100/4500.

Taking the discussion of pairing a 24" 1080p monitor with a 19" 1280 x 1024 monitor further.......I would think the same could be done with a 24" 4K monitor (DPI scaled 200% so the text size is the same as a 24" 1080p) and a 19" 1280 x 1024 monitor.

So in this case by having that low profile card with HDMI 2.0b (or HDMI 2.1) and DVI-I a nice productivity and video watching combination could be made out the two monitors. Furthermore, having that 19" 1280 x 1024 around might be useful in cases where Windows apps don't have DPI scaling.

 

[cbn]

Reading through this thread one poster reports Maxwell having a RAMDAC which is the silicon involved with analog and thus built in DVI-I support.

This makes sense as I have seen Maxwell cards with DVI-I such as the following GTX 950:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814487156

So with that noted, I don't see why we couldn't have a low profile card with both HDMI 2.0b and DVI-I.

P.S. As I recall GM206 supports HEVC and VP9 in hardware doesn't it? If so, it wouldn't have anything lacking at this time.

 

[biostud]

Since the igp on a modern cpu can do what you ask, the need for sub $100 cards are not that great.

 

[whm1974]

Since the igp on a modern cpu can do what you ask, the need for sub $100 cards are not that great.

Those sub $100 cards exist more for upgrading older computers then for new systems. Quite frankly current iGPUs have good enough performance for most uses case.