Temps and Video Card advice please

Got a shopping cart of parts that you want opinions on? Get advice from members on your planned or existing system (or upgrade).

Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee

Post Reply
rjd
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 5:30 am
Location: London England

Temps and Video Card advice please

Post by rjd » Tue Sep 27, 2005 7:09 am

Hi everyone

I only stumbled across this great forum recently, joined today and this is my first post.

My objective for building a new PC was to get the best compromise between noise, temperature and power.

I don’t play bleeding edge games but I do process digital photos (my other main interest is photography and I can recommend the forums etc at www.dpreview.com )

The main components of my PC are:-

Centurion 530 ATX Case (no PSU)
Akasa Paxpower3 400w PSU 12cm Fan
ASUS A8V Deluxe Socket 939 Mobo (no fans)
AMD Athlon 64 3000+ Venice Core
Radeon 7000 Dual Head 64mb DDR DVI (no fan)
Nanya 512mb PC3200 184pin 400 Dimm x 2 (Dual Mode)
Samsung SP2014N 200gb HDD

My idle temps are:-

Room 23.0c
Probe 29.2c (see below)*
MB 24c
CPU 29c
HDD 29c

The only fans used are the 12cm front, the stock CPU and the PSU. I removed the 12cm back exhaust fan I installed as it was too noisy and only reduced CPU and MB temps by 2 or 3c.

When the CPU is working continuously for 5mins (e.g AVG C: drive scan) the CPU peak temp increases to 36 (13c above room).

*The Probe is an ‘outdoor temp’ probe attached to an LCD digital thermometer and suspended level with the top of the RAM about one inch away and the temp increases by 0.6c.

Are these temps ok? I would appreciate any comments or suggestions.

The video card is only temporary. Most reviews concentrate on 3d speed but I am more interested in 2d speed and display quality and two monitor support.

Any video card suggestions please?

Also, what do I look for in a video card specification to pick out likely candidates?

Can anyone recommend good video card review sites/forums?

Sorry for the long post and thanks for any help.

Roger

darthan
Posts: 237
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 1:28 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by darthan » Tue Sep 27, 2005 7:15 am

Those temperatures are quite good. You can rest assured that nothing bad will happen at those system and compnent temperatures.

As for what video card to get, you want a low end card if you don't want 3d speed. Any recent cheap nVidia or ATi card ought to do the job for you. The other possibility to consider is a workstation card because they are supposed to have (maybe) better image quality. Lastly, there are people around here who will tell you to get a Matrox card because they are supposed to have amazing 2d quality but there haven't been any new Matrox cards recently and I don't think their 2d image quality is significantly different from ATi and nVidia's current offerings. Adobe did recommend having a card with 128MB video RAM for Photoshop recently so you should take that into consideration.

rjd
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 5:30 am
Location: London England

Post by rjd » Tue Sep 27, 2005 7:58 am

Hi darthan, thanks for your reply.

I was trying to avoid Matrox for the reasons you mention.

My other (old) PC has a Voodoo3 2000 AGP 2x and I really like the 2d display quality of this card but it is not compatible with my new ASUS mobo (AFAIK).

So if I buy a latter/faster ATI card what do I look for in the spec that indicates that it will have a very good 2d display quality?

For example RAMDAC Clock speed over what?

Would a later/faster ATI have a noticeably better 2d display quality than my current Radeon 7000 Dual Head?

Perhaps needless to say I will only consider cards with passive cooling.

Do you happen to know how far up the ATI range I can go with passive cooling?

Thanks again for your help.

Roger

khughes
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 2:17 pm
Location: US

Post by khughes » Wed Sep 28, 2005 9:54 am

ASUS has an ATi X550 That is passive with only a Heatsink. Gigabyte has higher X800 and X800XL with Heatsinks and heatpipes, but some here have reported problems with overheating, and its probably overkill for your applications.

I have the X550 but can't really comment yet as I haven't finished building system. Cost ~$75. and should play the games I play fine.

rjd
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 5:30 am
Location: London England

Post by rjd » Thu Sep 29, 2005 1:34 am

Hi khughes, thanks for the info.

Do you think the ASUS ATIx550 would offer noticeably better 2d quality/speed compared to my current Connect3d ATI Radeon 7000 dual head 64mb ddr dvi?

What do I particularly look for in a Video Card spec which would indicated very good 2d image quality e.g RAMDAC clock speed of at least 350mhz (as usually most of the spec concentrates on 3d performance)?

As it is not normally possible to ‘test drive’ a video card before you buy I need to know what to look for spec wise or get personal recommendations from people such as your good self.

Any help will be appreciated.

Roger

khughes
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 2:17 pm
Location: US

Post by khughes » Thu Sep 29, 2005 11:45 am

According to website (links below)
X550 Engine 400MHz Memory 500MHz(250 DDR) RAMDAC 400MHz
7000 Engine 150MHz Memory 300MHz(150 DDR) RAMDAC 300MHz

These are ASUS numbers. I don't know what Connect3D does with their version of the 7000.

http://www.asus.com/products4.aspx?mode ... 2=8&l3=201
vs
http://www.asus.com/products4.aspx?mode ... l2=9&l3=21

I just realized I'm comparing a PCIe card to an AGP card. Your MB is AGP so the X550 is out.

So 9550 is the AGP version?
9550 Engine 250MHz Memory 400MHz(200 DDR) RAMDAC 400MHz
and its ~$20 Cheaper than X550!

http://www.asus.com/products4.aspx?l1=2 ... odelmenu=1

Tephras
Posts: 1140
Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 11:03 am
Location: Europe

Post by Tephras » Thu Sep 29, 2005 11:48 am

rjd wrote:What do I particularly look for in a Video Card spec which would indicated very good 2d image quality e.g RAMDAC clock speed of at least 350mhz (as usually most of the spec concentrates on 3d performance)?
I don't really think there's anything in the specs of a contemporary standard VGA that indicates if the 2D is good or not. In all the recent video card reviews I've read where there is a comment on 2D performance it's more or less always stated that there's no point in comparing it with other cards since there's no difference in 2D quality between ordinary video cards nowadays, usually, those reviews comments regarding 2D performance is only whether there's any problem with it or not.
What matters is the quality of the VGA components, e.g. some of the GeForce2 MX cards had bad 2D image quality because they were manufactured with a low quality RF filter (btw, there's an old article on the GF2MX issue that might be of interest since it got some info regarding the role of refresh rate, video bandwidth etc. for the 2D performance of a VGA).

rjd
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 5:30 am
Location: London England

Post by rjd » Thu Sep 29, 2005 1:05 pm

Thanks khughes and Tephras for taking the time to look into my query and reply.

Very much appreciated.

Roger

stromgald
Posts: 887
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 12:45 pm
Location: California, US

Post by stromgald » Thu Sep 29, 2005 4:08 pm

khughes wrote:According to website (links below)
I just realized I'm comparing a PCIe card to an AGP card. Your MB is AGP so the X550 is out.

So 9550 is the AGP version?
9550 Engine 250MHz Memory 400MHz(200 DDR) RAMDAC 400MHz
and its ~$20 Cheaper than X550!
Um. . . the 9550 isn't the AGP version of the X550. The 'X' series is based on a new series of GPUs. The '9' series is the previous series of graphics chips from ATI (i.e. 9600, 9550, 9800, 9800Pro). Most of the X Series of chips are PCIe only, although there are some offered in AGP.

I would recommend one of the ASUS N6600 or N6200 cards. Gigabyte also has some passive offerings. These are based on nVidia's '6' series of chips which came out to compete against ATI's 'X', they're generally easier to find and have a greater selection in AGP.

Here's some links:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6814121542
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6814125201

dragmor
Posts: 301
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 7:54 pm
Location: Oz

Post by dragmor » Thu Sep 29, 2005 5:33 pm

stromgald wrote:Um. . . the 9550 isn't the AGP version of the X550. The 'X' series is based on a new series of GPUs. The '9' series is the previous series of graphics chips from ATI (i.e. 9600, 9550, 9800, 9800Pro). Most of the X Series of chips are PCIe only, although there are some offered in AGP.
The 9550, 9600, X300, X600 (will all of the LE, SE, PRO, XT combinations) are all the same graphics chip just with different memory and clock speeds.

The Xnnn and 9nnn also differ by a small section of the die that communicates with AGP or PCIe.

The performance of a 9600 and a X600 with the same memory and clockspeed will be exactly the same.

Note 1: The X700 and X800 are different chips.
Note 2: The 9100, 9200 are the same as the 8500 cards.

stromgald
Posts: 887
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 12:45 pm
Location: California, US

Post by stromgald » Thu Sep 29, 2005 6:54 pm

My mistake. I always thought that the Xnnn seires were completely new like the 6nnn from nVidia. After looking around at anandtech, I found out that you're right, dragmor. I also confirmed that the nVidia 6200 is based on a new chip and outperforms the X300 and X600 (and of course the 9600 and 9550). The ASUS passively cooled 6200 is actually cheaper at newegg than 9600 it outperforms. :shock: ATI needs to get its act together. :x

rjd
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 5:30 am
Location: London England

Post by rjd » Fri Sep 30, 2005 3:09 am

Thank you guys.

I find that Video Cards are the most difficult component to get to gripes with when specifying and building a PC.

I don’t fully understand how the specs affect every day performance or the logic behind the model numbers and therefore cannot easily identify where a particular card falls within an overall range or if it’s a new or old version.

Maybe Video Card makers should follow the example of Australian and New Zealand wine makers by providing the specs in a standard easy to understand format so you know that a card is likely to meet or exceed your requirements before you buy!

Am I the only one?

Roger

kesv
Posts: 300
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 8:44 am

Post by kesv » Fri Sep 30, 2005 8:08 am

rjd wrote: What do I particularly look for in a Video Card spec which would indicated very good 2d image quality e.g RAMDAC clock speed of at least 350mhz (as usually most of the spec concentrates on 3d performance)?
As already mentioned there is nothing in the videocard spec that tells you how good it's image quality is.

What the RAMDAC speed does indicate, is the highest resolution image that the card is able to produce with a reasonable refreshrate. I can't remember how this was calculated exactly, but generally 350Mhz is enough for most purposes. You only have to worry about it if you plan to use very high resolutions.

When it comes to image quality in 2d, cards based on recent ATI or NVidia chips should be quite acceptable as long as you are not buying the very cheapest versions where margins are so slim that they try to cut costs at every turn.

As image quality is taken for granted in recent cards one idea would be to make a list of good candidate models that mach your criteria and then doing a google search for '<cardname + model> image problems' or something to see if that particular card is known as problematic. That way you will atleast be able to eliminate the obvious trouble.

rjd
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 5:30 am
Location: London England

Post by rjd » Fri Sep 30, 2005 8:39 am

Thanks kesv, good idea I'll give it a go.

Roger

rjd
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 5:30 am
Location: London England

Post by rjd » Fri Sep 30, 2005 1:17 pm

Hi Kesv

Following your advice I have come up with the Sappire Radeon Atlantis 9600 Video Card.

Any comments on overall quality?

Do you think this card will give noticeably better 2d quality compared to my Connect3d Radeon 7000 dual head card?

Does anyone use/have any comments or either card please?

Thanks for you help.

Roger

StarfishChris
Posts: 968
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 7:13 pm
Location: Bristol, UK
Contact:

Post by StarfishChris » Fri Sep 30, 2005 2:18 pm

I had the Sapphire card. Nothing wrong with the 2D quality, works great with a CRT and LCD (VGA, not DVI) and 3D performance is great for the price too! I'm not sure what else to say, after all the best 2D is a complete reproduction of what's on screen...

rjd
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 5:30 am
Location: London England

Post by rjd » Sat Oct 01, 2005 9:08 am

Thanks for the info StarfishChris.

Your reply prompted me to fine tune my LCD monitor and the display quality is more to my liking now.

I didn't realise I needed to do this when changing a video card.

According to Displaymate (http://displaymate.com/testing.html) image quality degrades as you increase the refresh rate (I thought higher was better so that’s new to me) and the recommended refresh rate is lower for LCD monitors i.e. 60Hz vs 75Hz for CRT, although I settled on 70Hz.

So, if you are discontented with your display quality it may be worth checking/changing the refresh rate and fine tuning the image lock setting e.g use auto then fine tune with various sized text displayed.

Most of you proberly already know all this but for those that didn’t I hope you find it useful.

Roger

spworley
Posts: 55
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 8:56 am
Location: USA

Post by spworley » Sat Oct 01, 2005 3:02 pm

2D display quality is almost entirely governed by the digital to analog conversion process, and then getting that analog signal into your monitor.

Most modern LCD screens and video cards pretty much eliminate this now by using DVI (digital visual interface) which takes the analog conversion off of the video card completely, giving you lossless video quality. The LCD display uses the perfect digital signal to display the signal.

Therefore, for modern cards hooked up to a monitor via DVI, there's NO 2D QUALITY DIFFERENCES among cards.

For ANALOG displays, then there are big difference between cards, depending on their RF design, filtering capacitors, cable connector, and onboard RAMDAC choice. Video cables are especially important. None of this matters for digital DVI connections.


Three caveats:

1) Of course this is ONLY when you're using the digital DVI connection, NOT an analog one. Analog DVI isn't very common though..

2) There are indeed differences in LCD monitors, especially when they're displaying at non-native resolutions. LCD monitors are not all alike!

3) There is an issue with DVI bandwidth, which determines the maximum resolution and frequency of display (but not quality). DVI is a specification, and all cards that support DVI will follow the spec. But there CAN be a difference between video cards digital transmission chips (that actually encode and transmit the digital signal). For the highest bandwidth devices (notably the Apple 30" display, you need a "dual-link DVI" card.'


Summary: for 2D quality, use digital DVI, buy a GOOD LCD monitor, and any DVI-enabled video card you want. Your only quality variable is the monitor.

rjd
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 5:30 am
Location: London England

Post by rjd » Sun Oct 02, 2005 2:52 am

Thanks spworley, very useful info.

Now that I have tweaked my LCD monitor the sharpness/clarity of text is very good, except that when the shutdown screen appears (WinME) the display is covered in what looks like interference lines so I will try to reroute the connection cable to minimise this.

I am thinking that rather than buying another Video Card I will bring forward the purchase of a second LCD monitor.

I currently use a 17” Samsung (SyncMaster 171s) and I will be looking for a 19” DVI Samsung (haven’t decided which model yet) or a Viewsonic, proberly the VX912 DVI 8ms LCD. What would be on your shortlist?

My dual monitor card has a standard DVI connection. Would I notice the difference if I bought a dual-link DVI card (if so what would you recommend) and would I still be able to use my current analogue display?

Thanks again for your help.

Roger

kesv
Posts: 300
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 8:44 am

Post by kesv » Mon Oct 03, 2005 7:56 am

rjd wrote: According to Displaymate (http://displaymate.com/testing.html) image quality degrades as you increase the refresh rate (I thought higher was better so that’s new to me) and the recommended refresh rate is lower for LCD monitors i.e. 60Hz vs 75Hz for CRT, although I settled on 70Hz.
This is because a LCD doesn't draw one pixel at a time in the same way a CRT does. In a LCD each pixel can be changed independently as needed, while a CRT always needs to draw the whole screen. From this follows that an LCD doesn't 'flicker' in the same way as a CRT does.

When you feed a LCD monitor an analog signal it has to convert this back into a digital picture to drive the pixel matrix. Because the liquid crystals are 'slow' to react to changes, there is a limit to how fast we can draw to the panel. This is why a refreshrate that is faster than 60Hz isn't really helpful to improving the image. This isn't a problem however, since we don't have the 'flicker' that makes a 60Hz CRT awkward to work with.

The double conversion (digital -> analog -> digital) that happens when driving a LCD with an analog signal means extra possibilities for image quality problems, so it's advisable to use DVI if your LCD supports it.

Wikipedia has some interesting information on DVI

kesv
Posts: 300
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 8:44 am

Post by kesv » Mon Oct 03, 2005 8:08 am

rjd wrote: Would I notice the difference if I bought a dual-link DVI card (if so what would you recommend) and would I still be able to use my current analogue display?
I'm afraid you didn't read what spworley wrote carefully enough. dual-link DVI is only used for purely digital connections and very high resolutions. It won't improve image quality one bit, it only exists as a workaround for the problem that the current DVI interface doesn't have enough bandwidth to transfer an image with huge resolutions with an acceptable refreshrate.

However there is also 'dual-head' DVI. Which is just a a video card that has two DVI connectors and can drive two screens simultaniously. If you use an analog display you won't get any advantage from using DVI with an analog adaptor.

rjd
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 5:30 am
Location: London England

Post by rjd » Mon Oct 03, 2005 9:54 am

Thanks for taking the time to reply kesv.

Do you have any DVI monitor recommendations?

Roger

kesv
Posts: 300
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 8:44 am

Post by kesv » Mon Oct 03, 2005 2:36 pm

rjd wrote: Do you have any DVI monitor recommendations?
The most I can recommend is to have a look at LCD panel reviews at Tom's Hardware. They have some of the best reviews I've seen because they take the time to do a whole range of measurements to compliment subjective analysis.

It's really annoying, but when it comes to LCD displays the manufacturers specs are even less useful than for gfx-cards. Reading test reports is really the only way to get any useful information.

rjd
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 5:30 am
Location: London England

Post by rjd » Tue Oct 04, 2005 5:01 am

Thanks for all your help kesv.

Roger

Post Reply