RAMDAC Above 350 MHz Perceptible?

[Loricariidae]

I've been meaning to upgrade my Radeon VE to something that will allow me to do some 3D gaming, but for the most part, 2D quality is more important. It seems that the Radeon 7500 or 8500 are ideal, but is the 400 MHz RAMDAC of the 8500 even noticeably better than the 350 MHz of most cards? Is the ~$80 price difference justified if I won't be using the 8500 for more than a couple hours of gaming a week?

 

[PointlesS]

I doubt it...especally for not $80....I think it only matters when your in high resolutions like 1600x1200+ but I would think even then it would hardly be any noticeable at all...this all IMHO though...

 

[BD231]

The faster the ram dac is, the better your 2D performance will be, any card over 300mhz is more than enough though, unless you have more than 20 pages open on your desktop at once. Personaly I would buy the 8500 just to have that 400mhz ram dac and higher mem/core speed spec, overall it will last you longer than the 8000. If you wana save cash just pick up the 8000.

 

[HornEEE]

You wouldn't notice difference between a 400 MHz and a 350 MHz.
It helps you only to work out what your maximum allowed refresh rate is at a given resolution. It is relevant if you have a 21 inch screen and plan to use it over long periods of time at the highest refresh rate, for that given resolution.
Say you want to use your monitor at 1600x1200 and want a minimum refresh rate of 100Hz (which is pretty good!) you would have to have a ram dac of at least 293.7MHz.
I have heard that anything above 120 actually degrades the quality of what you see.

You can work out how high a ram dac you need with this simple formula:
(desired horizontal res.) X (desired vertical. res.) X (desired refresh rate)/1.000.000 X 1.53

Higher ram dacs are important if you plan on using higher resolutions (way above 1600X1200). As even at this resolution you will have enough reserves with a ram dac of 350 MHz. And above this, other factors come into play such as the quality and sharpness of the monitor, and the max. refresh rate it would allow.

 

[Daovonnaex]

<< I've been meaning to upgrade my Radeon VE to something that will allow me to do some 3D gaming, but for the most part, 2D quality is more important. It seems that the Radeon 7500 or 8500 are ideal, but is the 400 MHz RAMDAC of the 8500 even noticeably better than the 350 MHz of most cards? Is the ~$80 price difference justified if I won't be using the 8500 for more than a couple hours of gaming a week? >>

It would allow for higher refresh rates, thus easing your eyes.

 

[Loricariidae]

Thank you for your most helpful responses, everyone - I picked up a refurb 7500 from Newegg for $105 shipped (the price was right). I figure I'll just stay with mid-range vid cards and upgrade every year or so to the next mid-tier card. Since I'm only using a 19" at 1280x1024, I don't think the 400 MHz RAMDAC of the 8500 is going to be significant, and I may end up going with LCD in the future (which eliminates the whole DAC issue).

Once again, I appreciate all your input!

 

[Chu]

Quick question, what exactly does ramdac speed determine? I am looking around for a good PCI card for 2D for my monitor's second input, and I love the image quality on the G200. The ramdac on this card runs at 260Mhz, and the image quality is amazing, but it can support resolutions well over the 1200x1600 I need @ 85hz. What problems will I see, if any, because of this really low ramdac speed?

-Chu

 

[Chu]

bump if anyone can help me out :/

 

[Powervr]

"faster the ram dac is, the better your 2D performance will be, any card over 300mhz is more than enough though, unless you have more than 20 pages open on your desktop at once. Personaly I would buy the 8500 just to have that 400mhz ram dac and higher mem/core speed spec, overall it will last you longer than the 8000. If you wana save cash just pick up the 8000.

wrong...
ramdac has nothing to do with 2d performance NOTHING !!!

it's a Digital to Analog Converter ramDAC, because most monitors are analog, the digital image that is stored in the video card RAM must be converted to a analog image for your monitor.

there are some boards that with lower ramdac speed (older matrox boards, voodoo 3 boards, etc..) can beat in image quality some others boards with ramdac of twice the speed (geforce 2,geforce 3 etc...), so ramdac speed does not mean anything .

the only thing that a speedy ramdac is able to provide is higher resolutions and refresh rates.
but a "slow" 260 ramdac can provide 1600x1200 at 90 hz, I bet you don't have a monitor capable of this...

 

[Powervr]

"Quick question, what exactly does ramdac speed determine? I am looking around for a good PCI card for 2D for my monitor's second input, and I love the image quality on the G200. The ramdac on this card runs at 260Mhz, and the image quality is amazing, but it can support resolutions well over the 1200x1600 I need @ 85hz. What problems will I see, if any, because of this really low ramdac speed?

no problems at all... only good quality image


are you trying to put two video boards in a a single computer?
that might conflict.

 

[GT578]

any 250 mhz ramdac is able to produce resolutions and refresh rates that only 0.00001% of monitors are able to receive...

WHat the hell is that supposed to mean????

Stop giving retarded advices...........

 

[Yoshi]

I don't think you are paying extra just for the faster RAMDAC.

 

[Powervr]

retarded advices?

I bet you have 2048x1536 120 hz max 25 inch monitor...
LOL

if you don't understand what I was trying to say...
then don't try .... you are unable to....