What's the minimum video card for playing DVDs?
- Thread starter grrl
- Start date
Anything that will work with the motherboard is fine. Zero hardware acceleration is needed for DVDs as long as your CPU is over about 400 - 500 MHz.
It's high-def 720p and 1080i video where a card with HD-decoding hardware can help.
It's high-def 720p and 1080i video where a card with HD-decoding hardware can help.
Like was said, any video card will play dvds fine with a 1.8Ghz and 1gig ram. It was only a problem with older, slower machines.
Jeff7
Lifer
- Jan 4, 2001
- 41,596
- 19
- 81
I think even Intel Extreme Video would do fine with DVD playback. DaveSimmons hit it right on. The CPU is generally responsible for decoding the video stream. The videocard just acts as a friendly zombie, displaying what the CPU gives it.
Some videocards do offer MPEG2 decode-acceleration, so it takes some of the load off of the processor, but it's not necessary.
Some videocards do offer MPEG2 decode-acceleration, so it takes some of the load off of the processor, but it's not necessary.
BS. Integrated graphics will perform just as well as even the GeForce 7800GTX. Playing DVDs require no hardware acceleration.
Yeah, you can get a board with integrated graphics, or just get the cheapest PCI/AGP card you can get your hands on.
I have a P3 550 running WinXP with a Geforce 256 that plays DVD smoothly without any problems, so I'd have to say anything availible today will be fine.
That is so not true. The 6200, 6600 and 7800 (and some 6800) Geforce cards have support for Pure Video, a hardware-based solution for cleaning up video for playback on a computer monitor. It is especially nice at deinterlacing DVDs without the artifacts that other deinterlacing methods show.
See for yourself.
The downside is that you have to use nVidia's nDVD in order to get PureVideo support. If you want DVDs to look really nice on progressive-scan equipment like computer monitors and HDTVs, PureVideo is worth the extra money it takes to buy a 6200 card.
The new ATi X1000 series cards have a similar technology called Avivo, but I'm not sure how well it does compared to PureVideo for cleaning up interlaced video.
Of course, if you just want DVDs to play and you aren't concerned about perfect video quality the Matrox G550 will do. The card kinda sucks for LCDs w/ DVI bigger than 19", though, since the resolution via DVI tops out at 1280x1024.
You'd think. The last time I checked, none of the players supported PureVideo except nDVD, but that was almost a year ago when I was trying to decide if I wanted a X300 (not SE, mind you) or a 6200 for my wife's new computer with PCIe graphics. I finally went with the X300 because it had better quality with DivX and XviD videos. (Hey, we needed our new Doctor Who). I'm not sure if any of the new versions of Power DVD or WinDVD support PureVideo.
If you don't care about image quality just go with the cheapest thing you can find. Although I must say dvd's looks 1000x better on my LCD using TheaterTek with VMR9 (TT uses nvidias pure video decoders) vs using something like Windows Media Player or WinDVD. You can try and fix up the image a bit using FFDshow but it's not needed really if you use VMR9 and Nvidias Pure Video decoders.
I guess it's apples to oranges. If you could care less about image quality (scaling, filtering etc) go with something cheap. Hell even the Vanta TnT2 16mb in my pc will allow dvds to play in Windows Media Player.
If image quality is of concern get atleast a lower end nvidia card with purevideo support.
I guess it's apples to oranges. If you could care less about image quality (scaling, filtering etc) go with something cheap. Hell even the Vanta TnT2 16mb in my pc will allow dvds to play in Windows Media Player.
If image quality is of concern get atleast a lower end nvidia card with purevideo support.
If you already have one laying around, it is a great card for 2D display work and DVD playback. If you are buying one new, there are a lot better choices out there in the same $100 range like the vanilla Radeon X700 or the GeForce 6600. Not only has the 2D quality on the current nVidia and ATi value products caught up with the once-venerated G550, but the newer cards have the larger 128MB memory and DX9 shader support that you could need down the road if you plan to upgrade to Windows Vista. The G550 was a great card in its day, but that day has long since passed (you'll notice that most of the reviews that rave about its 2D image quality are from 2001 and are using the GeForce 2 MX, the low point of the GeForce series 2D image quality, as a point of reference). I really can't recommend anyone buying a new graphics card below the X300 (non-SE)/GeForce 6200 level with less than a year to go until Vista's launch. You'll be saving money in the short term, only to wind up spending more down the road if you want all the Aero Glass eye candy a year from now.
Almost anything will play DVD's on a PC. Heck, I started with a C300 @ 450 and a Rendition Verite with software overlay to watch the DVD's I got from 800.com's "3 for $1" promotion seven or eight years ago (a more impressive price then than now when bargain bins are overflowing).
Anyhoo, to play DVD's on a PC with optimum quality, especially on fixed resolution displays, requires good viddy hardware (and less so software). The higher the resolution above SD, the more criticial of course. Analog output increases quality requirements again (or expands them to more components).
Personally, I would go with a modern entry level card for the quality, features and drivers. It's not worth compromising to try saving $10 when in the sub-$50 category already. Better to save that money by buying used.
Anyhoo, to play DVD's on a PC with optimum quality, especially on fixed resolution displays, requires good viddy hardware (and less so software). The higher the resolution above SD, the more criticial of course. Analog output increases quality requirements again (or expands them to more components).
Personally, I would go with a modern entry level card for the quality, features and drivers. It's not worth compromising to try saving $10 when in the sub-$50 category already. Better to save that money by buying used.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
any modern video card will.
but supposedly the newest have the higest quality deinterlacers and such things.
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_video_quality_analysis/
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_purevideo_interview/
but supposedly the newest have the higest quality deinterlacers and such things.
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_video_quality_analysis/
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_purevideo_interview/
That makes no sense.
Why would he spend $100 or so on a X700 or similar because of Windows Vista, which is going to launch months from now? When Vista actually does come out, $100 will buy you a much better card.
TNT was made by nvidia.
Quoted for all you needed to know in 1 post.
more proof that if your purchasing criteria was specifically cheap + DVD + LCD using DVI out then the best choice is obviously (I'll assume AGP given your first choice of GPU and gnat's ass budget.):
$60 -> Cheapest 6200 AGP
Oh, and covers that windows vista bullsh!t too. DX9 shaders and 128MB
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter