I have a computer which runs a Core 2 Duo E6600 CPU. Although the machine is plenty fast I could stick in a faster CPU, like a Core 2 Quad Q6600 which I am told would be “twice as fast.” While keeping up with the Joneses often makes me feel twice as slow, if you think that’s bad, try Googling video cards, which I have done recently. (I’m still using the computer’s onboard video VGA, universally said to suck by the knowledgeable geeks in the smart set.)
Let me start with an admission. I don’t know diddly squat about video cards. All I want is to be able to use a DVI jack instead of the VGA jack, because I have been told it’s supposed to be “better.” Better for what I don’t know. I write blog posts, read the news, and watch occasional news and YouTube videos plus video I might shoot from time to time with my camera. So while I don’t see any particular reason that the standard ATI RADEON or Geforce type cards (many of which are floating around on ebay for $20 or less) wouldn’t be perfectly OK, I was curious enough to Google the phrase “best video card” (bad idea) and the first hit or so went to a PCmag review of what is said to be “the best” — to wit, the Nvidia GeForce GTX 680.
They cost — I am NOT kidding — from $600 to $700 at Amazon.com.
That’s a HUGE amount of money. More than I would pay for a computer, and just for a bleeping video card. So I have to ask some basic questions which will reveal what an idiot I am.
What exactly would I get with one of these cards? Better graphics? How much better? As things are now, I can see what I need to see, view what I want to view. I’m not especially thrilled with content, and I don’t see why it would be oh so much more thrilling to get more detail. Then there’s gaming. What gaming? I can remember the birth of video games with pong, then PAC-MAN and Donkey Kong, and I sort of liked Tetris which I still play on my cell phone, but complicated super realistic type games just don’t do it for me. I have zero interest. But if people are spending 700 bucks for a video card, that’s the sort of thing I notice, and while I am certainly not a Luddite, where it comes to today’s gaming I don’t even rise to the level of cultural neophyte. What exactly am I missing? Is it worth finding out? I don’t especially like video games, but a lot of people obviously do if they’re spending that kind of money just for a video card.
Still, where it comes to cultural things, I say to each his own. At least I’m not into My Little Pony (or “Brony”) culture — said to be a threat to the republic, or even a sign of the Apocalypse. America needs to “get in touch with its inner adult.”
I suppose threats to the republic and signs of the Apocalypse are at least arguably more dangerous than spending a small fortune on a video card to play games.
And to save my life, I don’t know how in touch I am with my inner adult. When I was a child I couldn’t relate to childhood, and preferred adults. But then in the 80s the shrinks came along and said I had to get in touch with my inner child, and while I tried to sort of invent one, I could never really relate to the whole concept.
All I know is that when I see prices like that staring at me, my inner something is worried. Maybe it’s not inner, maybe it’s outer.
Comments
8 responses to “Out of touch with inner workings”
Eric:
The ‘high end’ video card is similar to those $2000 TVs that have the newest visual technology (3D, etc.). It’s way too expensive for the layperson, and is strictly meant for those that MUST have the best, the newest, right at the point of release. Alternatively, think of it as the difference between a $10 steak and the $200 Wagyu Beef served at a snooty restaurant.
Most of this is due to the ‘3D’ processing. Imagine those animated movies such as Toy Story. Now, picture that whole movie being rendered on the fly, on your single machine, rather than being farmed over a series of computers in order to render a single frame in a few minutes. The newer video cards are heavily designed to do 3D processing effects, which are mostly geared towards the high-end video gamer. Usually those that want to play the latest shooter game in absurd detail at a constant 60 frames per second.
There are tons of cheap video cards out there. Some have multiple outputs, some may actually allow inputs (for video editing and more). Most have 3D processing nowadays, and even Intel has added a pretty decent graphics processor right on the same chip as their newer CPU’s (Sandy Bridge).
Additionally, the cards that were originally $500 a year or so ago are probably closer to $100. So look at it for what it is: a premium price on the latest and greatest for those that can afford and want it, which helps to pay for more R&D. Kind of like pharmaceuticals, in a way.
A serious gamer will buy 2 or more of those high end cards because the greater detail and higher frame rates make games more immersive and give an edge in head-to-head gaming. Plus, there’s bragging rights. Like any good hobby, outsiders just don’t get it.
Eric, I bought a video card of my own last year. From what you describe of your viewing habits, you could certainly make do with a card in the under $100 range. Just do your homework first and make sure it has the inputs and outputs you want. If you’re not a PC gamer, you don’t need to break the bank to get a card that suits.
$600 to $700? Pffft.
You call that a video card? Scroll to the bottom for some real video cards:
http://store.javelin-tech.com/Store-Catalog/Graphics-Cards
These are the cheap PNY versions; the Hewlett Packard versions of these cards are insanely expensive.
These cards are designed for 3D drafting and illustrating software with multiple monitors; if you got a Quadro 600 you’d be able to view several large videos simultaneously with no hesitation on a couple hi-res monitors. It’s VERY NICE to have two monitors; you’ll get spoiled. I’ve got an HP Quadro 600 – at $185 for a PNY version I’d recommend getting that.
[…] has just written a post about the pros and cons of buying electronics. I have just written a post for ECN about making electronics and I’m also […]
The high end high priced video cards are claimed to render game video faster and cleaner. They have video processors on card to assist the main cpu, such as moving patches of video from here to there, filling areas of the screen with solid color or patterns, decompressing video, altering contrast and color balance. The programmers writing the top of the line games claim that without the video card pitching in to do grunt work, the main cpu falls behind and the game doesn’t run quickly or smoothly. As far as these guys are concerned, when their game glitches or hangs up, it’s gotta be a hardware problem.
I assume you are running a flat screen monitor these days? In that case, you have the video card fetching digital video out off video ram, and converting it to analog to transmit to the monitor over the VGA cable. The flat screen monitor needs digital video (unlike the old reliable CRT) and so it preforms an analog to digital conversion upon the VGA signal.
DVI is a digital standard, whereby the video card transmits digital video, bypassing all the flaws of digital to analog conversion, and the additional flaws in the analog to digital process. I would expect a video card that could output DVI video to your flat screen monitor to give better contrast, focus and color fidelity than the VGA signal gives. I haven’t looked lately, but I would expect you could find a video card with DVI output for under $200.
Incidentally, I am running a flat screen monitor off my motherboard video, and it is decent, sufficiently so that I haven’t bothered to shop for a DVI video card.
Like others said, the point of non-integrated video is gaming (and on marginal hardware, improved decoding of h.264 video) – and Mr. Starr covered the reason for a DVI or HDMI connector vs. VGA quite aptly.
Plus these days it’s increasingly hard to find a monitor that can even take an analog signal…
If you don’t do gaming (or niche 3D rendering for commercial reasons), you gain nothing with a spiffy video card.
Me, I do quite a bit of gaming, but see no reason to buy a video card that costs over $200 or so.
(But at the same time I buy computers costing around $1200 or so; the old advice of “buy the best you can reasonably afford” still works well, plus I’m a programmer and work from home sometimes, so I need a fair amount of power.
My several-year-old i7-920 machine is, with only a more recent video card, able to play new releases at maximum quality on a 1920×1080 monitor just fine.
Better value – for those of us who need the guts – than buying a cheap pile every few years.)
Two monitors is indeed very nice. I don’t need two now (if I ever did) but I’m still not going willingly back to one.