Question about dell slim computers (vostro 200 specifically)

[episodic]

Are the stock powersupplies in these dell slimlines good enough to run a slim geforce 8400 card with no real problems?

 

[brblx]

i think the 8400gs consumes a maximum of about 25w. i really doubt it's going to cause a problem.

especially if you're not gaming. is this going to be an HTPC box or something?

 

[episodic]

Originally posted by: brblx
i think the 8400gs consumes a maximum of about 25w. i really doubt it's going to cause a problem.

especially if you're not gaming. is this going to be an HTPC box or something?

It is my main rig. . . I got it real cheap on the outlet. . . . just making do.

I've got an ATI X600 in it now - but I really want to activate the OPEN GL aspect of photoshop. . .

 

[Soundmanred]

Yes, it should be ok.
I have mine with a 7xxx Nvidia card, 4 hard drives (replaced the optical drive with a HD and use an external optical when I rarely need one), and a wifi card, tv-in card and it works fine.

 

[hans007]

it should probably easily support an 8400GS. Those power supplies are 250 or 275 watts from what I remember. I mean there are ITX boxes that only use 100 watts with similar hardware to most vostros...

I'd suggest getting a better card though if you are going to bother spending the money. might as well get a 4650 low profile for maybe $10-12 more. Uses about the same amount of power as a 8400GS since its 55nm, and its probably 4 times as fast.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16814131151

you could probably even play some real games on that.

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: episodic
I've got an ATI X600 in it now - but I really want to activate the OPEN GL aspect of photoshop. . .

I agree with hans007, if you're gonna spend the money, may as well get something better than the 8400 GS. There are some reports of people using low profile 9600 GT and 9800 GT, but to stay on the safe side you should look for a low profile 9500 GT. Just a quick look on Newegg shows XFX, Sparkle and Jaton (wow, they're still around?). While it says "free low profile kit w/purchase" the XFX normally does not come with the low profile brackets. The other brands seem to come with them in the package (check pictures). Don't know why XFX doesn't package them in there... maybe because they normally sell the low profile brackets separately for $15? BFG packages them in for free, but no low profile 9500 GT (only 9400 GT).

 

[faxon]

yea im going to agree with hans and zap as well. if you are spending the money, the PSU in that thing should handle a significantly more powerful 55nm GPU np. power consumption between the 2 should be similar but the cards will be significantly faster. @ 1280x1024 a 4670 is capable of running modern games @ medium textures with low quality particles and shadows at lower render distances @ reasonable (reasonable is better than playable) framerates, and a 4650 is only a tad slower. as has been said, they even have low profile 9800GTs now which are bus powered, but that might be pushing it on that PSU.

 

[hwlcd69]

I'm thinking of getting a graphics card for my slim 200 as well and I was wondering if
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16814150392
this 9500GT will draw too much power I think I saw that the recommended is 400watts and minimum seems to be 350 according to newegg.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Originally posted by: Zap

Originally posted by: episodic
I've got an ATI X600 in it now - but I really want to activate the OPEN GL aspect of photoshop. . .

I agree with hans007, if you're gonna spend the money, may as well get something better than the 8400 GS. There are some reports of people using low profile 9600 GT and 9800 GT, but to stay on the safe side you should look for a low profile 9500 GT. Just a quick look on Newegg shows XFX, Sparkle and Jaton (wow, they're still around?). While it says "free low profile kit w/purchase" the XFX normally does not come with the low profile brackets. The other brands seem to come with them in the package (check pictures). Don't know why XFX doesn't package them in there... maybe because they normally sell the low profile brackets separately for $15? BFG packages them in for free, but no low profile 9500 GT (only 9400 GT).

How on earth can you recommend a 9500gt? It is one of the worst price/performance cards in the market. If a 4650/70 costs the same and offers double the performance why even suggest something else?

Originally posted by: hwlcd69
I'm thinking of getting a graphics card for my slim 200 as well and I was wondering if
http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16814150392
this 9500GT will draw too much power I think I saw that the recommended is 400watts and minimum seems to be 350 according to newegg.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/...x?Item=N82E16814102829

This low profile 4650 is over double the speed for the same price. They have extremely similar power requirements.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3405&p=7

Although this is for the 4670, the 4650 is at-worst 10% slower. The 9500GT you linked is also a stripped down version (64-bit memory bus) so the performance in the review is extremely close to what you would be getting.

 

[yh125d]

Scholz, what are you talking about? 4650 is nowhere near double the performance of a 9500gt. The 4670 is maybe, but 4650 and 4670 are pretty far apart. 4650 more like 10-25%


That said, I agree with your point. A low profile 4650 would be better than a low profile 9500gt

 

[TurtleCrusher]

The 4650 competes very well with the 4670. Although clock speeds and memory busses changed, in real world performance they are extremely similar. Especially if he doesn't have a top-tier CPU.

http://www.overclockersclub.co...views/sapp_4650/10.htm

 

[yh125d]

Obviously one that is factory overclocked and with GDDR3 instead of GDDR2 would perform considerably better, but considering the vast majority of 4650's use GDDR2 and lower clocks, you shouldn't imply that all 4650s will be that fast. Most will be considerably slower. Not to mention that an overclocked model with a memory upgrade will inevitably cost more, by likely no less than $10 which would add 20% or more to the cost of a normal 4650 killing a lot of the argument of "twice the performance for the same price"


Honestly the one you linked to basically changed everything that made it a 4650 instead of a 4670. The only difference between that model and a true 4670 is the name and 100mhz on the core and memory.

So no, a 4650 won't "perform at worst 10% slower than 4670". More like (perform at best 10% slower than 4670"


Don't mislead


Edit: I can't find that model for sale anywhere. But a more accurate view of a 4650s performance vs 9500gt and 4670 could be found here

http://xtreview.com/addcomment...erformance-review.html
http://www.techpowerup.com/rev...hire/HD_4650_OC/6.html
http://www.pcgameshardware.com...D-4650/Reviews/?page=6

As you can see, 4650 sits pretty even between a 9500gt and 4670

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Originally posted by: yh125d
Obviously one that is factory overclocked and with GDDR3 instead of GDDR2 would perform considerably better, but considering the vast majority of 4650's use GDDR2 and lower clocks, you shouldn't imply that all 4650s will be that fast. Most will be considerably slower. Not to mention that an overclocked model with a memory upgrade will inevitably cost more, by likely no less than $10 which would add 20% or more to the cost of a normal 4650 killing a lot of the argument of "twice the performance for the same price"


Honestly the one you linked to basically changed everything that made it a 4650 instead of a 4670. The only difference between that model and a true 4670 is the name and 100mhz on the core and memory.

So no, a 4650 won't "perform at worst 10% slower than 4670". More like (perform at best 10% slower than 4670"


Don't mislead


Edit: I can't find that model for sale anywhere. But a more accurate view of a 4650s performance vs 9500gt and 4670 could be found here

http://xtreview.com/addcomment...erformance-review.html
http://www.techpowerup.com/rev...hire/HD_4650_OC/6.html
http://www.pcgameshardware.com...D-4650/Reviews/?page=6

As you can see, 4650 sits pretty even between a 9500gt and 4670

Even that xtreview shows there is an extreme disparity between the two.

Radeon 4670 vs Radeon 4650 vs Geforce 9500GT

% difference is between the 4650 vs 9500gt, the 4670 is there for reference.

COH 1440x900
33 - 27 - 19 = 42% faster

1680 x 1050
27 - 22 - 15 = 46% faster

DVM4 1440x900
50 - 43 - 30 = 43% faster

1680x1050
42 - 34 - 26 = 30% faster

HL2 EP 2 1440x900
108 - 89 - 62 = 43% faster

1680 x 1050
80 - 65 - 47 = 38% faster

Unreal Tournament 3 1440x900
99 - 79 - 52 = 51% faster

1680 x 1050
79 - 62 - 41 = 51% faster

COD4 1440x900
46 - 39 - 24 = 62% faster

1680x1050
37 - 31 - 18 = 72% faster

FEAR 1440x900
62 - 47 - 41 = 14% faster

1680x1050
47 - 36 - 31 = 16% faster

Total frames = 710 - 574 - 406
/12
Average frames = 59.1 - 47.83 - 33.83

So, the 4650 is approximately 41.3% faster then the 9500gt. A 10% difference is very noticeable. A 40% difference is like night and day. Also, the 4670 in this review does show the 4670 being approx 23.7% faster then the 4650, which is a much larger margin then I had thought. The 4670 is as astonishing 75% faster then the 9500GT.

Any way you cut it, the 9500gt blows. Unless you can get it for half the price of a 4650/70, never should it be considered for purchase. I wonder how the 4550/4350 compares to it.

It should be noted that the 3 most popular games on that list go by COD4, UT3 and HL2EP2. All three show and average of 50% with the low-high from 38-72. Even in a CPU bound HL2 the 9500gt struggles.

That PCGH review is misleading as it attempts to underclock a 4670 to 4650 speeds, which is not how you do it. An underclocked 4670 will perform worse then a 4650 at the same speeds due to GDDR3 ram latency. Given the use of AA/AF it could be from 0-5%, and more in extreme cases.

 

[frozentundra123456]

If you look at the clock speeds on the 4650 even in these reviews, they seem quite high. I have a 4650 that came with clock speeds of 400 and 600, and it crashes if I try to even overclock to 500 and 700. Maybe I just got a bad one.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx

Originally posted by: yh125d
Obviously one that is factory overclocked and with GDDR3 instead of GDDR2 would perform considerably better, but considering the vast majority of 4650's use GDDR2 and lower clocks, you shouldn't imply that all 4650s will be that fast. Most will be considerably slower. Not to mention that an overclocked model with a memory upgrade will inevitably cost more, by likely no less than $10 which would add 20% or more to the cost of a normal 4650 killing a lot of the argument of "twice the performance for the same price"


Honestly the one you linked to basically changed everything that made it a 4650 instead of a 4670. The only difference between that model and a true 4670 is the name and 100mhz on the core and memory.

So no, a 4650 won't "perform at worst 10% slower than 4670". More like (perform at best 10% slower than 4670"


Don't mislead


Edit: I can't find that model for sale anywhere. But a more accurate view of a 4650s performance vs 9500gt and 4670 could be found here

http://xtreview.com/addcomment...erformance-review.html
http://www.techpowerup.com/rev...hire/HD_4650_OC/6.html
http://www.pcgameshardware.com...D-4650/Reviews/?page=6

As you can see, 4650 sits pretty even between a 9500gt and 4670

Even that xtreview shows there is an extreme disparity between the two.

Radeon 4670 vs Radeon 4650 vs Geforce 9500GT

% difference is between the 4650 vs 9500gt, the 4670 is there for reference.

COH 1440x900
33 - 27 - 19 = 42% faster

1680 x 1050
27 - 22 - 15 = 46% faster

DVM4 1440x900
50 - 43 - 30 = 43% faster

1680x1050
42 - 34 - 26 = 30% faster

HL2 EP 2 1440x900
108 - 89 - 62 = 43% faster

1680 x 1050
80 - 65 - 47 = 38% faster

Unreal Tournament 3 1440x900
99 - 79 - 52 = 51% faster

1680 x 1050
79 - 62 - 41 = 51% faster

COD4 1440x900
46 - 39 - 24 = 62% faster

1680x1050
37 - 31 - 18 = 72% faster

FEAR 1440x900
62 - 47 - 41 = 14% faster

1680x1050
47 - 36 - 31 = 16% faster

Total frames = 710 - 574 - 406
/12
Average frames = 59.1 - 47.83 - 33.83

So, the 4650 is approximately 41.3% faster then the 9500gt. A 10% difference is very noticeable. A 40% difference is like night and day. Also, the 4670 in this review does show the 4670 being approx 23.7% faster then the 4650, which is a much larger margin then I had thought. The 4670 is as astonishing 75% faster then the 9500GT.

Any way you cut it, the 9500gt blows. Unless you can get it for half the price of a 4650/70, never should it be considered for purchase. I wonder how the 4550/4350 compares to it.

It should be noted that the 3 most popular games on that list go by COD4, UT3 and HL2EP2. All three show and average of 50% with the low-high from 38-72. Even in a CPU bound HL2 the 9500gt struggles.

That PCGH review is misleading as it attempts to underclock a 4670 to 4650 speeds, which is not how you do it. An underclocked 4670 will perform worse then a 4650 at the same speeds due to GDDR3 ram latency. Given the use of AA/AF it could be from 0-5%, and more in extreme cases.

Uh, look at the xtreview again. The memory on their HD4670 is running at twice the bandwidth as that of the stock HD4650 (meaning twice that bandwidth of the specific HD4650 you linked to earlier). So those results are not indicative of the performance he'll actually get.

In reality, the 9500GT and HD4650 are very close competitors.

To see how these cards really stack up to one another, look through these benchmarks: http://www.techpowerup.com/rev...D_4650_iSilence/6.html (The 4650 in these have the same clock speeds as the one you linked to: http://www.newegg.com/Product/...&ref=dynamitedata.com)

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Originally posted by: cusideabelincoln

Originally posted by: Scholzpdx

Originally posted by: yh125d
Obviously one that is factory overclocked and with GDDR3 instead of GDDR2 would perform considerably better, but considering the vast majority of 4650's use GDDR2 and lower clocks, you shouldn't imply that all 4650s will be that fast. Most will be considerably slower. Not to mention that an overclocked model with a memory upgrade will inevitably cost more, by likely no less than $10 which would add 20% or more to the cost of a normal 4650 killing a lot of the argument of "twice the performance for the same price"


Honestly the one you linked to basically changed everything that made it a 4650 instead of a 4670. The only difference between that model and a true 4670 is the name and 100mhz on the core and memory.

So no, a 4650 won't "perform at worst 10% slower than 4670". More like (perform at best 10% slower than 4670"


Don't mislead


Edit: I can't find that model for sale anywhere. But a more accurate view of a 4650s performance vs 9500gt and 4670 could be found here

http://xtreview.com/addcomment...erformance-review.html
http://www.techpowerup.com/rev...hire/HD_4650_OC/6.html
http://www.pcgameshardware.com...D-4650/Reviews/?page=6

As you can see, 4650 sits pretty even between a 9500gt and 4670

Even that xtreview shows there is an extreme disparity between the two.

Radeon 4670 vs Radeon 4650 vs Geforce 9500GT

% difference is between the 4650 vs 9500gt, the 4670 is there for reference.

COH 1440x900
33 - 27 - 19 = 42% faster

1680 x 1050
27 - 22 - 15 = 46% faster

DVM4 1440x900
50 - 43 - 30 = 43% faster

1680x1050
42 - 34 - 26 = 30% faster

HL2 EP 2 1440x900
108 - 89 - 62 = 43% faster

1680 x 1050
80 - 65 - 47 = 38% faster

Unreal Tournament 3 1440x900
99 - 79 - 52 = 51% faster

1680 x 1050
79 - 62 - 41 = 51% faster

COD4 1440x900
46 - 39 - 24 = 62% faster

1680x1050
37 - 31 - 18 = 72% faster

FEAR 1440x900
62 - 47 - 41 = 14% faster

1680x1050
47 - 36 - 31 = 16% faster

Total frames = 710 - 574 - 406
/12
Average frames = 59.1 - 47.83 - 33.83

So, the 4650 is approximately 41.3% faster then the 9500gt. A 10% difference is very noticeable. A 40% difference is like night and day. Also, the 4670 in this review does show the 4670 being approx 23.7% faster then the 4650, which is a much larger margin then I had thought. The 4670 is as astonishing 75% faster then the 9500GT.

Any way you cut it, the 9500gt blows. Unless you can get it for half the price of a 4650/70, never should it be considered for purchase. I wonder how the 4550/4350 compares to it.

It should be noted that the 3 most popular games on that list go by COD4, UT3 and HL2EP2. All three show and average of 50% with the low-high from 38-72. Even in a CPU bound HL2 the 9500gt struggles.

That PCGH review is misleading as it attempts to underclock a 4670 to 4650 speeds, which is not how you do it. An underclocked 4670 will perform worse then a 4650 at the same speeds due to GDDR3 ram latency. Given the use of AA/AF it could be from 0-5%, and more in extreme cases.

Uh, look at the xtreview again. The memory on their HD4670 is running at twice the bandwidth as that of the stock HD4650 (meaning twice that bandwidth of the specific HD4650 you linked to earlier). So those results are not indicative of the performance he'll actually get.

In reality, the 9500GT and HD4650 are very close competitors.

To see how these cards really stack up to one another, look through these benchmarks: http://www.techpowerup.com/rev...D_4650_iSilence/6.html (The 4650 in these have the same clock speeds as the one you linked to: http://www.newegg.com/Product/...&ref=dynamitedata.com)

To the bolded part, what's the point? I didn't say he was getting a 4670 so... Yeah I get it. The 4670 is faster. I just said that. Those numbers for the 4650 are completely accurate. It is a 4650 at stock clocks with DDR2. What are you saying? Those numbers are EXACTLY what he would be getting.

Close competitors? Did you just completely ignore that review?

Did you not see that the other low-profile 9500GTs also has half of the bandwidth of the "vanilla" full size GDDR3 cards? Its a null point.

That techpowerup review is comparing a silent DDR2 GPU to a fully clocked 9500gt. Looking at that review something is wrong there. How on earth is a 4670 60% faster then a 4650? Its not.

They screwed it up.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Originally posted by: frozentundra123456
If you look at the clock speeds on the 4650 even in these reviews, they seem quite high. I have a 4650 that came with clock speeds of 400 and 600, and it crashes if I try to even overclock to 500 and 700. Maybe I just got a bad one.

I would focus on overclocking just your core's speed and don't worry about the memory. Find your max and then do it again with the memory. Its probably the memory bus not wanting to be overclocked.