Video Card Selection

Looking at a new machine with Gigabyte GA-P55M-UD2 Motherboard - Win 7 /
64.

Available options are

9400 GT 1 G

4650 1 G

4850 512 or 1 G.

I'm not a gamer , unless you count Solitaire ! <G> . More likely to do a
bit of video encoding from time to time.

I understand that the 4850 uses DDR 3 which gives a performance boost of
course but I don't know that I'd take advantage of it ? I'd rather put the
extra funds towards upgrading the power supply.

I guess my questions are

1 Will the 9400 do ? ( Obviously better than onboard video )

2. I see the 4650 used in quite a few mainstream ( HP / Acer ) machines.
Overall , is it a better buy than the 9400 ?

3. Would a 1 gig 4650 perform * better * than a 512 mg 4850 for my
need..?

I realise it's kind of splitting hairs and I don't mind getting the higher
end card IF I'm going to see some real benefits ? If not , I'll stick with
the 9400 or 1 G 4650...

Comments and suggestions appreciated.

At the moment , I don't' know who the manufacturers are , but I'm going to
find out.

TIA !

Sparky wrote:
> Looking at a new machine with Gigabyte GA-P55M-UD2 Motherboard - Win 7 / 64.
>
> Available options are
>
> 9400 GT 1 G
>
> 4650 1 G
>
> 4850 512 or 1 G.
>
> I'm not a gamer , unless you count Solitaire ! <G> . More likely to do a bit of
> video encoding from time to time.

Some video applications can take advantage of GPU power. Other applications
are beginning to utilize the GPU, as well. Photoshop, for one, and I heard that
the Flash Player does also, or soon would. The Aero Desktop also requires some
capability. Here is a hierarchy chart of *gaming* video cards:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...rd,2464-8.html

> I understand that the 4850 uses DDR 3 which gives a performance boost of course
> but I don't know that I'd take advantage of it ? I'd rather put the extra funds towards
> upgrading the power supply.
>
> I guess my questions are
>
> 1 Will the 9400 do ? ( Obviously better than onboard video )

Probably. Some motherboards feature nVidia 9400 onboard graphics.
Low power consumption.

> 2. I see the 4650 used in quite a few mainstream ( HP / Acer ) machines.
> Overall, is it a better buy than the 9400?

Well, you didn't say how much they're charging...

The 512 MB HD 4650 is the current "best gaming card for $50." How much do
they want for the 1 GB model? I see no reason for real reason to have 1 GB on
that card.

> 3. Would a 1 gig 4650 perform * better * than a 512 mg 4850 for my need..?

It would certainly use less power but it definitely *won't* play games better.
Who knows what the future holds (except that the world is going to end in 2012)?


> I realise it's kind of splitting hairs and I don't mind getting the higher end card IF
> I'm going to see some real benefits ? If not , I'll stick with the 9400 or 1 G 4650...

> Comments and suggestions appreciated.

It would depend upon how much they charge for the various options. If they're
charging too much, and they probably are, you might consider just installing one
yourself. With good airflow, you could even choose a silent fanless option.

"Fishface" <> wrote in message
news:hdmmtn$r36$...
> Sparky wrote:
>> Looking at a new machine with Gigabyte GA-P55M-UD2 Motherboard - Win 7 /
>> 64.
>>
>> Available options are
>>
>> 9400 GT 1 G
>>
>> 4650 1 G
>>
>> 4850 512 or 1 G.
>>
>> I'm not a gamer , unless you count Solitaire ! <G> . More likely to do a
>> bit of
>> video encoding from time to time.
>
> Some video applications can take advantage of GPU power. Other
> applications
> are beginning to utilize the GPU, as well. Photoshop, for one, and I
> heard that
> the Flash Player does also, or soon would. The Aero Desktop also requires
> some
> capability. Here is a hierarchy chart of *gaming* video cards:
> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...rd,2464-8.html
>
>> I understand that the 4850 uses DDR 3 which gives a performance boost of
>> course
>> but I don't know that I'd take advantage of it ? I'd rather put the extra
>> funds towards
>> upgrading the power supply.
>>
>> I guess my questions are
>>
>> 1 Will the 9400 do ? ( Obviously better than onboard video )
>
> Probably. Some motherboards feature nVidia 9400 onboard graphics.
> Low power consumption.
>
>> 2. I see the 4650 used in quite a few mainstream ( HP / Acer )
>> machines.
>> Overall, is it a better buy than the 9400?
>
> Well, you didn't say how much they're charging...
>
> The 512 MB HD 4650 is the current "best gaming card for $50." How much do
> they want for the 1 GB model? I see no reason for real reason to have 1
> GB on
> that card.
>
>> 3. Would a 1 gig 4650 perform * better * than a 512 mg 4850 for my
>> need..?
>
> It would certainly use less power but it definitely *won't* play games
> better.
> Who knows what the future holds (except that the world is going to end in
> 2012)?
>
>
>> I realise it's kind of splitting hairs and I don't mind getting the
>> higher end card IF
>> I'm going to see some real benefits ? If not , I'll stick with the 9400
>> or 1 G 4650...
>
>> Comments and suggestions appreciated.
>
> It would depend upon how much they charge for the various options. If
> they're
> charging too much, and they probably are, you might consider just
> installing one
> yourself. With good airflow, you could even choose a silent fanless
> option.
>
>
>
>Many thanks for the reply. I think I'll go with the 4650 and upgrade later
>if necessary.
The link was really helpful...at least it shows how they compare , which is
difficult to sort out.

Sparky