Posted by Larry Fischer on August 19, 2009 at 12:32 PM
How important are video cards in processing digital images in a computer. If important, suggestion on names. Getting ready to saddle-up with new computer.
Thanks,
Larry Fischer
Posted by Kent Staubus on August 19, 2009 at 11:43 PM
I just did some research on this earlier this summer, and was told they're pretty important. I ended up getting a Radeon 4850 card that has 1 gb memory cache. I also put in 8 gb DDR memory as a back up. I had a custom computer built for graphics use, and it seems to fly right through CS4. I bought the 4850 because it can also do video editing, something I intend to get into next year.
Kent in SD
Posted by Larry Fischer on August 20, 2009 at 10:06 AM
My son who has more computer savy than I do said the extra power is necessary only for gaming where the scenery flow must be smooth. He said once a program is loaded the video portion should be dealing only with one photo. Some are even talking dual video cards and he said he did not understand why?
He is constructing my computer. He said RAM would be the most important and he's ordered 6 gb RAM with possible expansion of 12 more. Also the newest Intel Quad Core processor (64-bit) the number of which I don't remember. Other items with great potential for expansion, including video card.
He said a video card is simply an accelerator.
He is NOT into photography but said that besides a slightly slower load time the difference between and moderate and high-end video card should not be that great. However, he said he would defer to experienced photographers and computer people in that area.
Does that agree with you knowledge base?
From memory a big video card requires 600 watts? I think the one he ordered me is in the 300 watt range and he's a big gamer and is using a smaller card and does not complain about the video flow during gaming.
Posted by Kent Staubus on August 20, 2009 at 9:35 PM
Larry--
I went with a fairly high powered video card because (1) I want to get into video at some point, if Nikon adds video to the D700. (2) Photo software is getting more & more complex so a solid card should help me keep up. I went with AMD cpu (955 quad core) because AMD doesn't obsolete their sockets as quickly as Intel does. That means it's cheaper to upgrade cpu in the future without having to buy a new mother board. The AMD Phenom II 955 I bought has a fast speed of 3.1 gHz, and a very large cache. I put my biggest chunk of money on my monitor though--a pro level LaCie 324 graphics monitor. The monitor has made PP a lot easier for me, compared to what I was using before. As for video cards, the computer people I talked to said that's what actually does most of the work, so I went "heavy" there.
Kent in SD
Posted by Larry Fischer on August 21, 2009 at 1:50 PM
Thanks Kent,
I'm not really into computers but upgrading makes one a little more knowledgeable by necessity. I believe my son is using an AMD processor but for some reason put me with Intel--their last Quad Core--for some reason.
I guess I can upgrade video cards when necessary. I'm coming from an old Dell with 0.5 GB RAM. Can you say "SLOW"????
So anything will be like a jet to me. I have not checked into monitors yet.
Discussion
4 repliesThanks,
Larry Fischer
Kent in SD
He is constructing my computer. He said RAM would be the most important and he's ordered 6 gb RAM with possible expansion of 12 more. Also the newest Intel Quad Core processor (64-bit) the number of which I don't remember. Other items with great potential for expansion, including video card.
He said a video card is simply an accelerator.
He is NOT into photography but said that besides a slightly slower load time the difference between and moderate and high-end video card should not be that great. However, he said he would defer to experienced photographers and computer people in that area.
Does that agree with you knowledge base?
From memory a big video card requires 600 watts? I think the one he ordered me is in the 300 watt range and he's a big gamer and is using a smaller card and does not complain about the video flow during gaming.
I went with a fairly high powered video card because (1) I want to get into video at some point, if Nikon adds video to the D700. (2) Photo software is getting more & more complex so a solid card should help me keep up. I went with AMD cpu (955 quad core) because AMD doesn't obsolete their sockets as quickly as Intel does. That means it's cheaper to upgrade cpu in the future without having to buy a new mother board. The AMD Phenom II 955 I bought has a fast speed of 3.1 gHz, and a very large cache. I put my biggest chunk of money on my monitor though--a pro level LaCie 324 graphics monitor. The monitor has made PP a lot easier for me, compared to what I was using before. As for video cards, the computer people I talked to said that's what actually does most of the work, so I went "heavy" there.
Kent in SD
I'm not really into computers but upgrading makes one a little more knowledgeable by necessity. I believe my son is using an AMD processor but for some reason put me with Intel--their last Quad Core--for some reason.
I guess I can upgrade video cards when necessary. I'm coming from an old Dell with 0.5 GB RAM. Can you say "SLOW"????
So anything will be like a jet to me. I have not checked into monitors yet.
Good stuff you wrote.
Larry