On Jul 22, 12:56=A0pm, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Richard Crowley" <rcrow...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> news:6emd9uF7o06kU1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > "Liam" =A0wrote...
> >> Wow, Quadros tend to start at $400. That's half my
> >> budget. It amazes me how different the video tech can be that
> >> you can spend $500 on a video card that's supposed to be
> >> amazing for CAD and rendering, but can't run games.
> >> Crazy. Well, again, gaming isn't a big deal for this machine,
> >> but $400+ is kinda steep.
> >> Any recommendations for more around the $15 to $250
> >> range?
>
> > Perhaps I'm just simple, but I haven't bought a video
> > card for my last 5 generations of computers. I just buy
> > a motherboard with internal video and I've never seen
> > any problem doing video NLE (which must be at least
> > as demanding as animation.)
>
> Exactly. I've been editing video and audio on machines with only
on-board
> video cards for years.
>
> The overwhelming majority of the fancy processing on plug-in video cards
> primarily relates to 3D rendering, which for most people means playing
> games.
>
> > IMHO, fancy video cards are not necessary for most
> > applications. Gaming seems to be the major application,
> > and I'm not a gamer.
>
> There are two exceptions that to mind:
>
> Playing over-the-air HDTV video can require special processing that has
n=
ot
> shown up in on-board video cards, at least until very lately.
>
> Playing Blu-Ray discs has also required special processing that has not
> shown up in on-board video cards, at least until very lately.
One of my concerns with on-board video has always been how much memory
and processing for the video is being taken away from other mobo
resources. Maybe none, I suppose, but it seems to me that a dedicated
card is more efficient.
But, if you guys have had personal experience with rendering and
onboard video--I should listen.
|
