Graphics card suitable for Dell 27 inch

[The_Traveler]

I am considering getting a Dell 27" ultrasharp.

Would that benefit from a faster, newer graphics card?
I am currently using an older ATI Radeon 4650 that works well enough for my smaller monitor.

Suggestions weclome.

 

[runnah]

Here is a great site used to rank and compare most video cards on the market. I think you could always upgrade but your current card will certainly run a 27" monitor.

PassMark Software - Video Card Benchmark Charts

Your card:
PassMark Software - Video Card Benchmarks - Video Card Look Up

 

[TinySquid]

For general computer use: no. For real-time 3D rendering (gaming): only if there's an increase in resolution (e.g. running things at 1280x1024 on your old monitor vs. 1920x1080 on the new one).

If all you're doing is photography-related work, then the only benefit that a newer video card may bring is OpenCL and/or CUDA support (GPU accelerated rendering, etc.).

 

[lambertpix]

You'd probably benefit a little from a newer card -- among other things, the processor and memory used in a modern graphics card is a fair bit faster than in your Radeon (DDR2/3?), but you're not going to see a huge leap in performance unless you're using software that takes advantage of the card's GPU.

Recent Photoshop releases, if I'm not mistaken, will use the GPU for some operations, but Lightroom doesn't yet do so, as far as I know. Some plugins & 3rd-party tools will use the card (some of Nik's stuff, for instance), and most video processing software will.

For normal photo processing, I'd probably stick with your current setup as long as you're happy with the drivers you've got for your current OS (ie, you're not having problems with things crashing) and the card is of comparable performance to the rest of your setup (if you've got a brand-new processor & motherboard, for instance, I'd consider a faster card to match). Otherwise, the limiting factor on your system is probably IO speed, and the graphics processor isn't likely to make much of a dent in that.

 

[The_Traveler]

thanks, all.
exactly what I needed.

 

[pixmedic]

I recently got a 27" ips monitor....
Now I'm wondering if I should invest in a better video card as well.
I'm using whatever cheapo card came with my computer.

 

[The_Traveler]

Just went to B&H and bought the Dell and noticed that a Canon Pixma Pro-100 was onsale for $398 including a box of paper and there was a $300 rebate.
So I bought that too.

Whoopie.

 

[vimwiz]

Provided you arent doing graphics, or offloading processing to it, theres no real
reason to need a better video card then the integrated one.

Say your 27" monitor is "Full HD" i.e. 1920x1080 @ 24 bit "True" colour

Thats((1920x1080x24)/8)

So thats a ~6mb diplay buffer, obviously youll need some workspace for overheads, flippping buffers, holding textures, but still. The resolution of the display makes little impact on the hardware requiremets these days.

If you current card is sufficient, upgrading your monitor will not make it suddenly useless.

 

[cheshirecat79]

If you current card is sufficient, upgrading your monitor will not make it suddenly useless.

do you believe there's a reason to upgrade if you invest in a high-DPI monitor? (ie, 3200x1800 res)

 

[vimwiz]

No, if you arent wanting to run any software more challenging than that which you were before.

 

[TinySquid]

If you current card is sufficient, upgrading your monitor will not make it suddenly useless.

do you believe there's a reason to upgrade if you invest in a high-DPI monitor? (ie, 3200x1800 res)

If the monitor's native resolution exceeds the card's maximum output resolution or relies on a connection standard that your current card doesn't have (e.g. DisplayPort), then there would be cause to replace the card.

 

[JerryLove]

The real part never mentioned what "what resolution are you running". We can go look up max resolution on the new monitor and guess, but not knowing your old one...

I moved from 23" to 27"; but at the same resolution. So zero difference.

And yes, as pointed out, unless you are moving to a resolution not supported: there's not gonna be much if any speed difference for 98% of all non-gaming applications. (one notable exception might be trans-coding video)

 

[The_Traveler]

Just got it and put it up with second monitor as small Dell that was my primary before.
Man, it is gorgeous - brilliant, sharp.

Got the Pixma printer also.
What a huge and heavy beast.
Won't have time to set it up for a couple of weeks.

 

[The_Traveler]

In a fit of upgrades sparked by a surfeit of cash, I also maxed out my mobo with new and faster memory.
I don't know if it's just the placebo effect but with all the apps open that I run usually, everything feels swifter to load and switch with the memory usage only at 29%.

Now if I only were a better photographer and poker player.

 

[vimwiz]

memory usage only at 29%.

Thats not a good thing, unused memory is wasted memory - best to use it as cache/buffers for disks, or commonly used binaries, and evict these items as required, when there is a burst. This overall gives better peformance, with no real loss of agility. Windows is a bit dim with regards to this, on boxes with higher amounts of memory available, though. 29% used of user memory, fine, but you should only need like 5% reserved free.