Question: Video Card impact on Desktop Performance?

[Kinesis]

I know this may seem like a noob question, but it is just my recent experience with a variety of video cards (few noted below) and I am not sure if it is the card now or something else causing performance issues.

Question: Does the type of video card gpu and amount of video ram make a difference on general desktop computing which includes:

* minor gaming: i.e Rise of Nations
* Watching HD movies: i.e. Blu-Ray, You Tube, Trailers
* Dual Monitor usage

I have an old Geforce 8500GT 256 MB, and a Geforce 210 512 MB and I have found both are a little sluggish on my workstation PC (Core 2 Duo E6750 6 GB DDR2 RAM) for the above noted desktop computing.

Would something like an HD 7770 1 GB or 2GB (not sure that I would utilized the additional 1 GB) card make any difference?

Appreciate any insights

 

[Udgnim]

are you using a SSD hard drive?

if not, get one to improve Desktop performance

 

[Cerb]

You are feeling it being slow due to the CPU or HDD (SSD can help, there), mostly. Between those 2 you have, the GT 210 would be the one to keep for now, IMO. Both are very weak, though. A faster one could help, assuming you're using the newer DX10 RON:EE, but I'm not sure how worth it it would be going into such an old PC. If you're playing the old one, your PC is overkill with any video card.

If you want to get a better video card, though, get one you can move to a new system, that will have life left for a few years. With current prices, and the $20 MIR going on, MSI or Sapphire 260X, 265, or 270 look mighty good to me.

 

[night.fox]

i wouldnt recommend SSD. it would make snappier but doesnt impact on over all experience. i am still using mechanical hdd and only few seconds difference in start up. although, its a nice to have of course.


anyway, to OP. i recommend gtx 750 ti or r7 265. if not r7 260x.

also, reinstall windows. i have or i assembled e6750 last year and coupled with gt 640. gave to my sister kids. its good for games. not the new title of course.

 

[2is]

SSD is the best thing to get to improve overall performance IMO.

That said, the performance increases in the tasks he's looking at probably wouldn't benefit much from it.

Full system specs would be a good start here.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

I've tried using both the 8500GT and GT210 to drive 2x 1080p monitors.
Aero was WAAAAAAY too laggy on those cut-down parts.

 

[birthdaymonkey]

I think the Geforce 210 would at least have GPU acceleration for video decoding... the 8600 is so old that I wouldn't rely on the drivers to properly render modern video codecs.

And even for "light" gaming, those cards are damn slow.

Can you describe the sorts of problems you're experiencing?

 

[Insert_Nickname]

Question: Does the type of video card gpu and amount of video ram make a difference on general desktop computing which includes:

* minor gaming: i.e Rise of Nations
* Watching HD movies: i.e. Blu-Ray, You Tube, Trailers
* Dual Monitor usage

I have an old Geforce 8500GT 256 MB, and a Geforce 210 512 MB and I have found both are a little sluggish on my workstation PC (Core 2 Duo E6750 6 GB DDR2 RAM) for the above noted desktop computing.

1) Doesn't matter too much. Rise of Nations has such low requirements that pretty much anything should be able to run it.
2) Here is were it get interesting. The 8500GT has VDPAU feature set B, the GT210 has feature set C. So everything else being equal, the 210 is better for video decoding. Although both are effectively obsolete.
3) You're going to want something more powerful for 2x 1080p. Heck, even Haswells integrated graphics have way better performance then both those cards...

Would something like an HD 7770 1 GB or 2GB (not sure that I would utilized the additional 1 GB) card make any difference?

Actually a 7750/R7 250(X) would be just as good and cheaper. The Nvidia alternative would be a GT730/740. I wouldn't sink more money into such an old system unless you plan on re-using the card in a new system.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

i wouldnt recommend SSD. it would make snappier but doesnt impact on over all experience. i am still using mechanical hdd and only few seconds difference in start up. although, its a nice to have of course.


anyway, to OP. i recommend gtx 750 ti or r7 265. if not r7 260x.

also, reinstall windows. i have or i assembled e6750 last year and coupled with gt 640. gave to my sister kids. its good for games. not the new title of course.

Even having a SATA2 80GB OCZ sandforce SSD made my desktop extremely responsive. I used to use a 640GB WD Black AALS drive as my OS/data drive. It made a world of difference to have my most used applications and Windows on an ssd. If I didn't game on my desktop I'd be happier with the Core2Duo from my laptop and an SSD than the FX and a couple Raptor drives in raid.

Tl;dr
SSDs are the best thing to happen to modern computers. It makes my wife's bay trail quad atom extremely responsive.

 

[night.fox]

Even having a SATA2 80GB OCZ sandforce SSD made my desktop extremely responsive. I used to use a 640GB WD Black AALS drive as my OS/data drive. It made a world of difference to have my most used applications and Windows on an ssd. If I didn't game on my desktop I'd be happier with the Core2Duo from my laptop and an SSD than the FX and a couple Raptor drives in raid.

Tl;dr
SSDs are the best thing to happen to modern computers. It makes my wife's bay trail quad atom extremely responsive.

Yes of course SSD would make any computer extremely responsive. No doubt about. I have a rig with SSD, my laptop has a momentus XT HDD (hybrid) and my light gaming rig has a mechanical 7200 rpm HDD. and only few seconds difference in starting programs, games. It is not like 1 minute or so.

I know and I experience big difference but one up and running already, only few seconds difference.

But as what OP's case, he wanted

* minor gaming: i.e Rise of Nations
* Watching HD movies: i.e. Blu-Ray, You Tube, Trailers
* Dual Monitor usage

and video card is better spending than SSD. Especially for the dual monitor usage. and gaming. It would help alot than spending on SSD.

SSD is now part of necessity but it is not really a "must have" parts especially if budget is the most concern.

 

[therealnickdanger]

OP, Could you describe what "little sluggish" means to you? Are we safe assuming that you're using a 64-bit OS (Vista/7/8)?

* minor gaming: i.e Rise of Nations (low frame rate? slow to load?)
* Watching HD movies: i.e. Blu-Ray, You Tube, Trailers (dropped frames? skipping?)
* Dual Monitor usage (not smooth when dragging windows around?)

A couple of thoughts:

1. Take a look at how many other processes are running in the background and foreground. Your CPU should be plenty quick, but it could be getting bogged down by the demands of other software. A new GPU might not fix the problem if that's the case.
2. If you have $80-100 to spare, then buy an HD7750 or R7 250, they are effectively identical and neither will require additional power from your power supply. The HD7770 and R7 250X will require additional power cables to power them, but if you don't mind that, then get one of those instead. The additional frame buffer memory will eliminate any slowdown caused by a lack of VRAM, the hardware video decoding should eliminate any choppiness from any videos you throw at it, and it will also allow you to play more modern 3D games if you wish - it's about 5-10x faster than the 210.
3. If you have money left over, buy an SSD. If any of your sluggishness is being caused by the HDD, it will be eliminated.

 

[Charlie98]

SSD is now part of necessity but it is not really a "must have" parts especially if budget is the most concern.

Yes and no. For the OP's situation... IF he's going to keep the machine in service much longer... I think an SSD to help everyday computer use and a reasonable GPU upgrade would carry it along for a while longer. Only if the OP expects to replace the PC with a more modern build within the next 2 years would I suggest anything beyond a 77xx (et al) in his situation.

Much of it depends on the OP's current hardware state... a stale OS install, a nearly full and/or small HDD, programs in the background (read: AV) would cause problems with system response, too.

 

[Danyune]

Disable windows Aero, it'll help windows feel better

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

Disable windows Aero, it'll help windows feel better

No need to disable it wholesale, just Aero Glass / transparency.

 

[Kinesis]

Thanks folks

I do have an SSD running, and that has made the difference, the real lag I see is in video playback. Usually with the audio and video being out of sync.

I think I will try a newer card and let you know the results.

Thanks for all your comments.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Thanks folks

I do have an SSD running, and that has made the difference, the real lag I see is in video playback. Usually with the audio and video being out of sync.

I think I will try a newer card and let you know the results.

Thanks for all your comments.

What OS are you running? One of my older HTPCs had an AMD 780G chipset, with the HD3200 IGP, that was one of the first IGPs to really work with decoding Blu-Rays.

Well, I was still running XP at the time, and even with MPC-HC, my MKV rips were playing, and the audio/video was getting out of sync, and lagging at times, especially with subtitles enabled.

My CPU was a modest power-efficient AM2 dual-core.

Even overclocking my CPU to 2.8Ghz didn't help completely eliminate the stutter.

But when I upgraded to Windows 7 64-bit, and used MPC-HC ... perfect smoothness!

Even when clocking the CPU back to default, which I think might have been 1.9Ghz.

So my OS upgrade was what mattered most of all.

If you're not on Windows 7 (or newer?), I would try that.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

If you have a multi-monitor setup in Win7, definitely disable Aero glass / transparency.
Microsoft has not fixed a very long-standing bug that kills video and 3D performance on non-primary monitors that is only solved by disabling transparency.

 

[kasakka]

If you have a multi-monitor setup in Win7, definitely disable Aero glass / transparency.
Microsoft has not fixed a very long-standing bug that kills video and 3D performance on non-primary monitors that is only solved by disabling transparency.

Can you elaborate on this? First time hearing from it and haven't had any issues with multiple monitors.

 

[2is]

If you have a multi-monitor setup in Win7, definitely disable Aero glass / transparency.
Microsoft has not fixed a very long-standing bug that kills video and 3D performance on non-primary monitors that is only solved by disabling transparency.

I've been running dual monitors since XP, as well as vista, and 7. Never had this issue never disabled transparency. Sounds made up

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

Nope. Took me awhile to figure it out :
http://www.sevenforums.com/graphic-...mations-multiple-displays-extend-desktop.html
https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/769171/windows-aero-transparency-lag-stuttering/
https://forums.geforce.com/default/...ible-stuttering-lag-low-fps-and-screen-tear-/
https://social.technet.microsoft.co...monitors-windows-7-problems?forum=w7itproperf


Experienced it with both ATI and nVIDIA cards.

 

[Nhirlathothep]

1) change os
2) yes, 7770 it s a lot better in desktop performance, but if u plan to use 3 monitor in the future, this card can to drive 3 dvi monitor needs an active dp to dvi adapter. U can drive 3 monitor without it only if 1 of em it s dp

 

[Cerb]

1) change os

The problem may persist in 8.1, as well. It will be less likely with a Radeon, however, if it is a driver/WDM bug, rather than simply lack of GPU performance (plus, RON:EE was still known to have some Geforce-specific performance issues for some users, last I knew).

 

[Kinesis]

Thanks again, Using Windows 10 Tech Preview now, and the performance for the most part is improved with recent updates. Still looking at giving this system a little more graphics horsepower,260X is what I am considering the price to performance difference with the 7770. $80 USD vs $95 (for 260x) - Probably overkill but good backup card as well.

The OS's I was using previously was XP, then Mint Linux 14. I am going to go with Windows 10 on both this machine I have been discussing and on my Win7 i7 Box.

 

[TemjinGold]

Except you won't see the performance difference part because of your cpu.

 

[Kinesis]

Exactly what I figured, thanks