will this do for vista's aero?

[eeps]

i want a card that will run vista's aero ...i dont care about gaming , or direct x 10 ....

are these cards good enough? if so which one do you recommond?

1. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814121550

or

2. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814121549


i dont know to much about video cardes....

- whats considered a decent core clock?
- whats considered a decent mem speed for video?
- whats considered a decent pixel pipline?


thanks, i just want to know the middle requirements for a decent card so i have an idea what to look for

 

[Gamingphreek]

Well, they both will technically run it, but I hesitate to say that they will run it well. I would seriously wait until the next generation of entry level video cards comes out. If they are anything like their High End cousins it will be worth the wait.

As for clock speeds and pixel pipelines, it all depends on the card and the architecture surrounding it. You cannot simply say 500mhz...oh that will be very fast compared to 450.

-Kevin

 

[n7]

They'll be fine.

I wouldn't recommend buying a video card just for Vista though :laugh:

You can run Vista just fine (actually better) w/o that RAM sucking Aero interface, which negates the need for any GPU beyong integrated.

I run Vista just beautiful w/o Aero on my notebook with GMA 900 craphics 😀

So IMO, if you don't have a GPU capable of Aero, who cares!

 

[eeps]

i have a asus mobo, with a amd vience 3200 (2 GHZ) machine, with 1 GB RAM coasair(dual channel) i think im running a bus at 400 MHZ ....an enermax 420W psu.......when i run vista, it feels little choppy......are these specs good?

 

[imported_cinder]

It will run better on the x1600 than the x1300 but both will run it. Since it is a 3D interface you have to deal with frames a second. Since the x1600 is a better card you will get higher frame rates. Which is going to make the picture smooth and less jerky. Just like with games vista will run smoother with a better performing card.

 

[eeps]

why do you say the 1600 is better? because it has larger piplines?

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: eeps
why do you say the 1600 is better? because it has larger piplines?

It has more pixel pipelines. The core is different in that it is an X1600 core as opposed to an X1300. It has more vertex pipelines...the differences extend beyond just Clock Frequencies and Quantity of Pipelines.

-Kevin

 

[A554SS1N]

If you don't care about gaming, then just get the cheaper option, in fact, an X1300PRO is too much for a non gaming system, afterall, Vista's Aeroglass isn't going to be all that demanding compared to a fulll 3D game.

 

[Piuc2020]

I have a 9600SE and that runs Aero okay, the X1600 mobility on my MBP though... man that card owns Aero.

You'll be fine with the X1300Pro and Aero will run beautifully on it.

 

[imported_cinder]

You ever make a choice?

 

[postmortemIA]

Any DX9 128MB+ hardware card runs Aero more than well. At any resolution.

 

[IntelUser2000]

I think the requirements for Vista has been highly inflated from the very beginning rumors of Vista began to circulate. Some put Quad-core 4GHz CPUs with 2GB of RAM and a Geforce 7800GTX-like video card. We all know that's a bunch of BS.

This OS requires nowhere the amount of even 1 year old games, probably having enough RAM is more important than a video card, like how WinXP required 512MB to run most games sufficently and you needed 1GB to run it good.

i have a asus mobo, with a amd vience 3200 (2 GHZ) machine, with 1 GB RAM coasair(dual channel) i think im running a bus at 400 MHZ ....an enermax 420W psu.......when i run vista, it feels little choppy......are these specs good?

I doubt Vista is a complete 3D OS no matter what MS wants you to believe, screenies didn't show anything too special to me, it looks like it is a heavy mix of 2D with little 3D effects. Some people must have been expecting a 3D fps-shooter like interface where you would have to scroll z-axis to click on your start button 😛.

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: eeps
why do you say the 1600 is better? because it has larger piplines?

It has more pixel pipelines. The core is different in that it is an X1600 core as opposed to an X1300. It has more vertex pipelines...the differences extend beyond just Clock Frequencies and Quantity of Pipelines.

-Kevin

Depends of which X1300 are we talking about, the X1300XT is just a rebadged Radeon X1600PRO with slighly lower frequencies, it has the same vertex and pixel pipelines. Pretty sure that the X1300PRO is able to run it properly, I can recall that I have seen users running it on a Radeon 9600PRO or a GMA 900 without problems. That interface requires more VRAM than GPU horsepower. So 128MB will be more than enough, after all is not like a game that uses high resolution textures with a high count of polygons and plenty of Pixel Shaders.