Video Card Graphics Card Overkill?

GH
Posted By
Geoffrey_Hervey
May 12, 2007
Views
490
Replies
15
Status
Closed
It’s time to replace my 6-year old system. Years ago, I would have bought the snazziest video card I could afford. Now I am concerned about wasting my money. I don’t want to go overboard.

I am not savvy enough to build my own system, so I am going to customize a PC system from Dell or Gateway (I am sure I have turned off some of you, but I know my limitations…). The choices of video cards for the systems in which I am interested are limited. The choices seem to be fairly high-end cards, probably best for gaming. I am not sure which, if any, is best for PS and which are overkill.

I will be doing very little gaming, so I don’t even consider that to be an issue. Mostly, I need a card for CS3 for still images (I don’t do any video work). I also use Capture NX (but CS3 is much better, of course…).

Advice in the various forums is confusing. Generally, it seems that most people say that one does not need too much power in the video card and that, in fact, some of the high-end cards with GPUs may actually be poor choices for CS3 use.

I also saw this post from David Dobish at Adobe saying:

"We recommend for best results using a Geforce 6000 series or higher GPU card or an ATI 1000 series or higher GPU card for usage with the 3D feature in PS extended.suggesting that the cards with the better GPUs (such as the nVidia 8800 series) are better at 3D."

But, I will not be using PS Extended or the 3D feature (at least not to my knowledge…)

I also have read a number of posts suggesting that ATI is a better choice than nVidia for PS work.

Here are the choices offered with respect to graphics cards for the systems in which I am interested:

nVidia GeForce 8800 GTS 320MB
nVidia GeForce 8600 GTS 256MB
ATI Radeon CrossFire 512MB
ATI Radeon X Pro 256MB

So, not only do I not want to spend more than I need to on a graphics card, I don’t want to get a card that is not only expensive but also the wrong card for doing PS work.

Suggestions and advice would be most welcome.

(I did try to run searches in the Adobe forums on this topic, but the site is running PAINFULLY slow this morning for some reason, so I gave up and submitted my own post.)

Geoffrey

How to Improve Photoshop Performance

Learn how to optimize Photoshop for maximum speed, troubleshoot common issues, and keep your projects organized so that you can work faster than ever before!

BL
Bob Levine
May 12, 2007
AFAIC, any of the stock video cards will be fine. The only thing I’d stay away from is on board graphics since that’s usually the choice in a lower end system.

The Dell Dimension 9200 is an excellent machine and is still avaialable with WinXP.

Bob
B
babaloo
May 12, 2007
If you do not plan to play the latest and greatest games then most modern video cards will work fine with Photoshop.
There is always a caveat.
If you have a large screen LCD, particularly if it is the wider 16:9 format, you need to make sure the video card can support that LCD at its native resolution.
Many otherwise excellent video cards top out at 1440×900 pixels and may not support large LCD panels. panels bigger than 19inches.
It gets worse if you plan to use two displays.
Do not assume that the LCD and video card that Dell says you are adequately matched. Verify this by looking up the specs yourself at the manufacturer’s web site.
RB
Robert_Barnett
May 13, 2007
I have a Radeon 1650 with 512MB. My suggestion would be to get one with a good amount of memory. With Vista making more use of this memory other programs are going to follow. But, that is my opinion. I like to upgrade my computer once ever 5 or so years. I just did my upgrade a few months ago to move to Vista.

Robert
GH
Geoffrey_Hervey
May 15, 2007
Thanks. I would never rely on the on board graphics. My only concern is not spending more than necessary. I do think a card with more memory is probably worth considering.
DM
dave_milbut
May 15, 2007
I do think a card with more memory is probably worth considering.

very little gaming is not no gaming. if you plan to do no gaming, you can go cheap. if you plan to do "a little" gaming, depending on what you like, for example 1st person shooters vs. map & strategy, the amount of graphics mem on board can mean the diff. between relaxing between jobs and pulling your hair out because the picture stutters when you swing your gun around causing you to fall victim to the evil baddie. 🙂

so if you DO plan to play SOME games on the system, i suggest you look up your favorites on line and see what kind of system requirements they want. you can probably get a decent 256meg card for under 100 bux.
ND
Nick_Decker
May 15, 2007
I can tell you that my Matrox P650 (64MB) is not holding up well with CS3, in the re-draw department. It’s not horrible, but it’s not like it was with CS2. Windows stutter when I drag them around on the screen, and I didn’t have that problem before.

But hey, I’m used to upgrading my hardware to keep up with the software. Actually, I’m used to upgrading both.
DM
dave_milbut
May 15, 2007
Actually, I’m used to upgrading both.

ain’t that the truth!
ND
Nick_Decker
May 15, 2007
Wanna play? Gotta pay.

The files, they just keep gettin’ bigger. PS is keepin’ up (IF you can install it), so I try.
I
ID._Awe
May 15, 2007
I’ll be upgrading the whole system within four months and would have to upgrade my video card. Has to be PCIx, and support 3D really well (using Maya & TrueSpace) but has to give me accurate colour for presswork.

Any suggestions on what would be good? Budget not unlimited but I can spring up to $450.
GH
Geoffrey_Hervey
May 15, 2007
I definitely won’t go below 256MB. I am not even sure Dell or Gateway offer cards below that at this point. Even within 256MB cards, however, there seem to be many choices at wide price spreads, which I guess depends on the GPU involved. The nVidia 8800, moreover, seems to require two expansion slots instead of one. While that card looks nice for gaming, is it more than PS CS3 can even use? If so, I don’t see much point in spending the extra money on the card (although I am mindful of Dave’s warning about falling victim to a gaming baddie…).
TL
Tim_Lookingbill
May 15, 2007
For color accuracy and painless calibration and print to screen match what ever video card you get…make sure you get the most recent driver update.

I’ve seen quite a few color troubleshooting sessions remedied by just this simple procedure on 8MB to 256MB video cards of any brand especially if you’ve upgraded any Windows software or any software/hardware related input output port device upgrade.
GH
Geoffrey_Hervey
May 15, 2007
Good advice, Tim.
LH
Lawrence_Hudetz
May 15, 2007
First stop after installation: Update.

some products do that as part of the installation.
M
mikeengles
May 15, 2007
Hello

I am amazed how responsive CS3 Extended tryout is.
I have a 4 yearold machine with 1Gb of ram and a Matrox G550 32 Mb. I have just opened a 680 MB PSD with 8 16 bit layers. I painted using a 600 pixel brush and scrolled around the image zoomed 200%. It is remarkably good. Also a 600pixel clone works very fast. Almost no delay.The undo is pretty instant also. In this test it seems as responsive as CS1. Going back and forth between 17% and 100% zoom is almost instant.

Mike Engles
C
Clyde
May 20, 2007
wrote:
It’s time to replace my 6-year old system. Years ago, I would have bought the snazziest video card I could afford. Now I am concerned about wasting my money. I don’t want to go overboard.

I am not savvy enough to build my own system, so I am going to customize a PC system from Dell or Gateway (I am sure I have turned off some of you, but I know my limitations…). The choices of video cards for the systems in which I am interested are limited. The choices seem to be fairly high-end cards, probably best for gaming. I am not sure which, if any, is best for PS and which are overkill.

I will be doing very little gaming, so I don’t even consider that to be an issue. Mostly, I need a card for CS3 for still images (I don’t do any video work). I also use Capture NX (but CS3 is much better, of course…).

Advice in the various forums is confusing. Generally, it seems that most people say that one does not need too much power in the video card and that, in fact, some of the high-end cards with GPUs may actually be poor choices for CS3 use.

I also saw this post from David Dobish at Adobe saying:

"We recommend for best results using a Geforce 6000 series or higher GPU card or an ATI 1000 series or higher GPU card for usage with the 3D feature in PS extended.suggesting that the cards with the better GPUs (such as the nVidia 8800 series) are better at 3D."

But, I will not be using PS Extended or the 3D feature (at least not to my knowledge…)
I also have read a number of posts suggesting that ATI is a better choice than nVidia for PS work.
Here are the choices offered with respect to graphics cards for the systems in which I am interested:

nVidia GeForce 8800 GTS 320MB
nVidia GeForce 8600 GTS 256MB
ATI Radeon CrossFire 512MB
ATI Radeon X Pro 256MB

So, not only do I not want to spend more than I need to on a graphics card, I don’t want to get a card that is not only expensive but also the wrong card for doing PS work.

Suggestions and advice would be most welcome.

(I did try to run searches in the Adobe forums on this topic, but the site is running PAINFULLY slow this morning for some reason, so I gave up and submitted my own post.)

Geoffrey

To add to what others have said…

Remember that Vista requires 128 MB of video memory AND DirectX 9 capability. However, Vista really wants 256 MB of video memory. It could use DirectX 10, but there aren’t any cards or drivers for that yet. I know you probably aren’t using Vista, but realistically you probably will use it someday.

If you aren’t using the new 3D features in Photoshop CS3 Extended, you don’t need 3D capabilities. Regular Photoshop CS3 doesn’t use any of the 3D features of these cards. Therefore, it just needs regular bitmap graphics. You could use the Mobo graphics, but that sucks up a tiny bit of the memory bus. Also, it would work with Vista.

I have an ATI X550 video card with 256 MB that is pretty low end by all accounts. CS3 works just fine with it. I have only one 3D game that I rarely play – Bridge Construction Set. It certainly doesn’t require high frame rates so doesn’t sweat my card at all.

I do use Art of Illusion for 3D modeling and rendering. This is true 3D, but it works fine with my card. Actually, it doesn’t use the GPU for rendering at all, just the CPU.

Windows Vista Upgrade Advisor has no problem with with my video capabilities. It should run Aero in Vista just fine.

You need the big, fast, hot, expensive video cards for 3D gaming. You need the 3D processing they give for texturing, shadowing, and high (realistic) frame rates. Unless you are big time into also creating all this too, you probably don’t need much of a video card. By that I mean, get a high end video card if you play lots of 3D games and/or you create them in something like Maya, 3D Studio Max, Lightwave, etc.

Clyde

Master Retouching Hair

Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections