Recommend me a new video card

[sleddriver]

I'd like to learn SketchUp, but don't think my present video card is up-to-the-task. Further, I'm having trouble running a newer version of some astronomy SW due graphics problems. Seems both of these require intensive use of OpenGL, video memory and speed.

While checking up on the sys req., I found this (note underlined section):

Quote:
Software

SketchUp Pro 8: Microsoft Service Pack 2+.
Microsoft® Internet Explorer 7.0 or higher.
SketchUp Pro requires .NET Framework version 2.0. For more information about the .NET framework, click here.
Note: SketchUp will run on 64bit versions of Windows, but it will run as a 32bit application.

Recommended hardware

2+ GHz processor.
2+ GB RAM.
500 MB of available hard-disk space.
3D class Video Card with 512+ MB of memory or higher. Please ensure that the video card driver supports OpenGL version 1.5 or higher and up to date.
SketchUp's performance relies heavily the graphics card driver and it's ability to support OpenGL 1.5 or higher. Historically, people have seen problems with Intel based cards with SketchUp. We don't recommend using these graphics cards with SketchUp at this time.
3 button, scroll-wheel mouse.
Some SketchUp features require an active internet connection.

Minimum hardware

1 GHz processor.
512 MB RAM.
300 MB of available hard-disk space.
3D class Video Card with 128 MB of memory or higher. Please ensure that the video card driver supports OpenGL version 1.5 or higher and up to date.


Why the problems with Intel graphics cards? I don't play video games, but need a VC capable of handling SU and the astronomy software which has similiar requirements.

My present card is a ATI Radeon X300/x550/x1050 series; PCI express; 128MB;

This Dell 5150 runs a 3.2GHz Pentium 4 with 2GB of RAM. OS is WXP.

What do you recommend as a great buy that'll handle these programs?

 

[bepperb]

Those specs are not particularly high. Anything you buy new would be at least four times that fast and capable. A pci x16 2.0 card should be backwards compatible. I wouldn't be willing to throw a lot of money at a 5 year old machine, I'd be looking for something like this:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121654&name=Desktop-Graphics-Cards

Where for under forty bucks you'd be getting another year or two out of that machine and then it would have an HDMI port to use as a HTPC or something else.

Edit: Intel Onboard graphics used to be completely horrendous and designed only for the lowest common use. Since they moved the graphics processing from the northbridge onto the CPU itself it has really improved. Guessing by the rest of those system requirements I have no doubt a new I3/I5/I7 could run those without sweating. But three or four years ago that was certainly not the case.

Double Edit.... ok, spend more then thirty seconds looking, for literally a few dollars more you could double your memory and memory bandwidth:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121422

 

[sleddriver]

Quote:
Intel Onboard graphics used to be completely horrendous and designed only for the lowest common use. Since they moved the graphics processing from the northbridge onto the CPU itself it has really improved.

Hmmm...that explains the poor performance of two Dell Inspiron B130 LT's I was given earlier this year...on-board Intel graphics. Even though (theoretically) they meet the 'min' sys. req. including OpenGL, they choked on the astronomy program.

 

[sleddriver]

Great! Thanks. So many to choose from, didn't know where to start. Yea, this machine was a it's-busted-it's-yours-to-fix to me about 4 yrs ago. It has its quirks, but runs fine for my use...except for these graphic intensive apps.

Here's a shot of the cards performance. It does fine to 2.1, but the wheels come off with OpenGl 3.0

Thanks for the assistance.

 

[johnachak]

The software specs call for a card with 512+ Mb. You said your card is only 128. Thats the root of your problem right there. Normally, 512+ actually means 1gb for optimal performance.
Also, if the software specs are "at least 2 gb system memory", it will only run the basic functions and only if everything else is closed. wasn't there a panel that said something like; "for optimal performance and to use all features" then list a second set of specs? If minimum is 2, normally 3 would run all functions and 4 would be optimal. The virtual memory will be too slow for most video intensive operations.

 

[johnachak]

Be careful tbough. most 16x cards need 300w or better power supply. many of the premade, slim models only have ~200-250w.

 

[sleddriver]

Originally Posted By: johnachak
The software specs call for a card with 512+ Mb. You said your card is only 128. Thats the root of your problem right there. Normally, 512+ actually means 1gb for optimal performance.
Also, if the software specs are "at least 2 gb system memory", it will only run the basic functions and only if everything else is closed. wasn't there a panel that said something like; "for optimal performance and to use all features" then list a second set of specs? If minimum is 2, normally 3 would run all functions and 4 would be optimal. The virtual memory will be too slow for most video intensive operations.


Correct. I attempted to run an earlier version of SU a few years back and it was slow. Goo Earth also quickly surpassed the machine I'm using. The astronomy program just reinforced the issue a third time. However, when I called them they admited that what they spec'd was min....as in bare min. The problem was it wasn't functional, at least on my machine. They admited to hearing of lots of complaints. I think they were stuck with the competition because if they said you need a newer machine to run our planetatium SW, people would just find another solution and not buy. IOW, they didn't want to run off potential clients. In reality, they did because (we) were royally frustrated trying to run their SW. Many downgraded to earlier versions that worked.

As to the 'optimal performance' panel...no.

 

[bepperb]

I think if you look at the cards I've posted that are passively cooled (no fan) you wouldn't need to upgrade the power supply, assuming it had 250 watt or greater.

And yes, the memory upgrade is probably a big part of it but the crux of your problem is that the processor on your current video card simply doesn't perform the operations that opengl 3 requires. Any new card will.

A lot of the cards are the same thing from different brands. Price being equal I think Asus makes the best cheap cards, but it's been awhile since I've worked on aftermarket hardware as a job, now I just play and occasionally spec/consult on banking machines where graphics isn't a priority.

 

[NJC]

What about the Radeon HD 6670?

http://www.amd.com/us/products/desktop/g...0-overview.aspx

Tom's hardware review and best graphics card under $100:

Tom's Hardware review

Best PCIe Card: $110 And Under

 

[sleddriver]

Last night I went to a local Fry's, which their on-line site indicated they had a Asus 210 in stock. No joy. So I came home with an Asus HD 5450 (EAH 5450) instead. Installed, updated the driver. But then ran into a bit of confusion between using Asus's or AMD's drivers, CCC, etc, as the dates and Ver. numbers were different.

When I clicked 'check for updates' on the CCC panel, it went to AMD. So I dwnld'd that. It's stable so far. There is an odd 30sec pause upon start-up where the desktop background will appear, but no icons, cursor. Never did this before. At first, I thought it had hung. Maybe some option I need to 'tick' the box on.

Also when running Realtek's Open GL extensions viewer, I'm getting an 'execution error' on part of the test. Don't remember that from before.

Haven't tried out SketchUp yet. I also need to upgrade the astro program to see if it'll behave better with the new card.

Thanks for the suggestions.

One more thing...is it possible for the card to be so much faster than the CPU it causes problems?

 

[Rand]

that computer is ollld.

go buy something like
http://www.microcenter.com/product/388435/7700_Intel_Core_2_Duo_186GHz,_2GB_RAM,_80GB_Hard_Drive,_DVD_Drive,_Windows_7_Refurbished

for 111$

and be much faster.

Also those are min specs. they are usually more

example.
I purchased 2 and they came with faster processor, 160gb hdd, dvd burner.

 

[sleddriver]

Yep. It is. However, it was free and works fine for me. MUCH better performance with the Asus HD 5450 card.

That's a great MC deal...but they're all gone...for now.

Also got really lucky recently: Picked up an Apple 21" widescreen cinema display in great shape for $99. Really liking it compared to the old crt!

 

[Brons2]

Originally Posted By: bepperb
Those specs are not particularly high. Anything you buy new would be at least four times that fast and capable. A pci x16 2.0 card should be backwards compatible. I wouldn't be willing to throw a lot of money at a 5 year old machine, I'd be looking for something like this:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121654&name=Desktop-Graphics-Cards

Where for under forty bucks you'd be getting another year or two out of that machine and then it would have an HDMI port to use as a HTPC or something else.

Edit: Intel Onboard graphics used to be completely horrendous and designed only for the lowest common use. Since they moved the graphics processing from the northbridge onto the CPU itself it has really improved. Guessing by the rest of those system requirements I have no doubt a new I3/I5/I7 could run those without sweating. But three or four years ago that was certainly not the case.

Double Edit.... ok, spend more then thirty seconds looking, for literally a few dollars more you could double your memory and memory bandwidth:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121422


His system already has an ATI card in it, if you're going to recommend a newer low end card, I would suggest another ATI/AMD card to avoid driver issues, say a HD6450, those can be had for under $50.

Here's an example:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102933

Never mind, I see you got an HD5450. Good choice. Use the AMD drivers.

 

[NJC]

Originally Posted By: sleddriver
So I came home with an Asus HD 5450 (EAH 5450) instead.

That's the GPU I have as well, it's decent for the price. Makes a fine HTPC card as well.

I use the AMD CCC program in Linux and Win to configure. Methinks you can run 3 monitors?