Video Card Dilemma....ATI 9250 or 9600???

[diddy321]

Basically right now I have an old Geforce 2, and am looking to upgrade to something with DVi, since I've just picked up a Samsung 730B lcd.

Analog looks great, but I'd like to try out DVI, and vid cards are pretty cheap anyways. Basically I do not game at all. Just strictly XP / Office / Photoshop / Movies. The 9250 is ~ 50 bux, and clearly doesn't play games. I did however notice that for ~ 35 bucks more I can get a Sapphire 9600 Atlantis, which seems to be a pretty mid-level card.

Question: Am I going to see any performance/ visual improvements with
Movies/Photoshop/2D browsing with a 9600 versus a 9250??? There seems to be some gimmick with the 9600 about removing blockiness from streaming video.

Thanks for any help

[Cafe_333]

Well for desktop, you won't see any real differences. But watching large sized video files is where you're going to see the huge difference. This is because the 9600 comes with hardware encoding while the 9250 does not. Hardware encoding is the way to go and it's really important for any visual content as you will get smoother and better video playback. The 9250 will become cpu reliant which can tend to lag video playback making for choppy transitions, blockiness and lost frames per second. The 9600 will not.

I own both cards and I agree with the facts on paper. :D

[Amourek]

If you have a decent system, it doesn't really matter what kind of video card you have. My backup card is a Matrox G400 16MB (a $15 card) and it's terrific for everything except gaming. Course I have a P4 @ 3.2Ghz.

[Cafe_333]

The kind of video card *does* matter. Of course it comes down to what you will be watching. If all you do is watch small videos, then you can get away with low end video cards. Anything else, something with hardware encoding is the way to go.

You can have a high end system but video playback would still be bad if you tried playing large video files on a video card without hardware encoding. Not only will the card have to rely on the cpu, but there's the bottleneck having to communicate back and forth to it. Video will get recurring choppy transitions, blocks, and lost frames. The larger the file size, the more of a severe problem it gets. I would only recommend a lower end video card if he does not play any large video files.

[felix]

Well for desktop, you won't see any real differences. But watching large sized video files is where you're going to see the huge difference. This is because the 9600 comes with hardware encoding while the 9250 does not. Hardware encoding is the way to go and it's really important for any visual content as you will get smoother and better video playback. The 9250 will become cpu reliant which can tend to lag video playback making for choppy transitions, blockiness and lost frames per second. The 9600 will not.

I own both cards and I agree with the facts on paper. :D
Seriously? I never knew about the hardware encoding for this. What about for the Nvidia FX5200? Does that have hardware encoding?

[[buck]]

I think Cafe means hardware decoding, not encoding. ;)

[scottyb]

I don't know if I agree, I watch many large files (high resolution) on my pc, and I just use onboard video. It's never choppy, always smooth. It's not CPU intensive at all either.

[Gordon]

9600.

[c0w]

How do I know if a card is hardware decoding or not?

[ej20]

Cafe_333, you should work for ATI.

[Brandon]

From Anandtech:
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=1655&p=2

ATI also outfitted the RV250 core with their FULLSTREAM technology, which is a scaled down version of the pixel shader video technology found in the R300. The ability to run pixel shader programs on video streams is promising, and ATI’s FULLSTREAM technology is one such implementation. With appropriate software support (currently only through RealPlayer), FULLSTREAM can smooth out the blocky compression artifacts that are normally seen in low bandwidth video.

divx player also supports Fullstream:
http://www.divx.com/divx/player/features.php

The DivX Player supports hardware accelerated video post-processing with selected video hardware. Applying post-processing to DivX videos using ATI's FULLSTREAM™ technology (included in the line of ATI video cards) will increase post-processing speed and drop CPU usage up to 20%.

I didn't find any info on WMP support, but if it only helps by about 20% then big deal. A PIII (my PIII 1.2 notebook w/Intel integrated graphics) can easily play divx movies (even two CD versions), so I don't think any modern system will have any issues...with a hardware accelerated card or not.

It would make a difference if you were running a 500MHz system or lower though, but then you should be upgrading the system not just the video card.

Don't put too much emphasis on the video decoder. Oh yea, ATI cards also have hardware MPEG2 decoding, but again it won't make a difference on any modern system.

And really, I think that all Fullstream will really do to low bandwidth video is to make it blurry vs. blocky. I have a 9800P myself, and low bandwidth video looks like crap regardless of my video card or not.

[ShadowVlican]

fullstream is just advertising crap (removes blockiness my arse...)

there is no hardware encoding or decoding, it's hardware ACCELERATION, without proper dshow filters don't expect to watch ANYTHING

comparing my ti4200 and 9600xt for video playback, CPU usage is about the same... overlay will use least CPU, while VMR9 will use the most with no visable benefits (trust me i've taken screenshots and compared them HOPING to find VMR better looking)

and yes i watch large videos (mainly anime and other HDTV mpeg2 rips of music videos)

get the 9250 if you don't plan on gaming.... even with 9600 you won't be playing alot of anything... so save your money and get the 9250

edit: oh yea, wmv9 acceleration is messed up on the 9600, better off not using it

[Cafe_333]

I disagree. According to ati, FullStream video processing technology is a hardware accelerated filtering method that improves performance, visual quality, and de-blocking of video streams. And I trust what the ATI experts say on that. It is not advertising crap.

And there is hardware encoding. Check specs first before you declare it doesn't exist. ATI calls it 'Hardware Mpeg Encode Assist'. It's mainly mpeg acceleration, helps for some avi and wmv, but mainly mpeg. With hardware encode assist, Video playback/processing will be done on the video card instead of the processor. This MATTERS even if you have a modern processor.

Well like i said it comes down to what kind of video content you will be watching. Not to scare people off from entry level cards, these will 'just' do the job for the most part. I never said they couldn't do it, however watching large video files would be *smoother* with hardware encoding. Especially more true if you watch any HDTV mpeg2 rips - I wouldn't even touch these video files if a card doesn't have it.

9250 is only good if all you did was desktop and office apps. But once you throw video content into the mix, the 9600 is the better way to go. Note that it is not the only way to go, but the 9600 will do a better job hands down anyway you want to look at it.

For those who asked: To check if your card has hardware encoding, check the specs on the website. Ati lays it out easily in a chart. I couldn't tell you what Nvidia's equivalent is with regards to that, but as long as your card has a 128bit memory interface it probably should.

[Agent_J]

For those who asked: To check if your card has hardware encoding, check the specs on the website. Ati lays it out easily in a chart. I couldn't tell you what Nvidia's equivalent is with regards to that, but as long as your card has a 128bit memory interface it probably should.
the 9250s and 9200s have 128-bit memory interface though, only the "SE" cards seem to use a 64-bit memory interface

[Cafe_333]

Seeing as how nvidia doesn't have anything that says if the card has hardware encoding or not, i used the 128-bit memory interface as the general rule of thumb for having the capability or not - though I can't stake 100% validity on that either.

Actually the 9250s originally came in both 64bit for the entry level and 128bit for the low-midrange model. So for $48 you can get the 128mb/64bit version and for $91 you can get the 256mb/128bit version. This has been the case for the longest time in the market since its introduction - thus was the basis of my argument as the OP was talking about the $50 dollar card.

After doing some more research however, they recently came out with a 128mb/128bit version of the card! This of course I did not know about as I don't keep 100% tabs on every revision of a particular videocard line that gets released. Now i can't be sure if this has the hardware encoding or not, although it's likely that it does; I can't look up the specs at ati since it's not BBA. But in light of this, it may be worth a try to go with this 9250, just make sure that it's the 128bit version. CanadaComputer sells one for $55.00

http://www.canadacomputers.com/cc/index.php?do=ShowProduct&cmd=pd&pid=007009&cid=999.821

[felix]

So does the FX5200 have this hardware decoding?

Specifically the ASUS V9520 GeForce FX 5200 64-bit 128MB DDR ..

http://www.canadacomputers.com/cc/index.php?do=ShowProduct&cmd=pd&pid=005764&cid=999.821

actual product link : http://usa.asus.com/products/vga/v9520x-td/overview.htm


They finally got more stock! yay!!

[Cafe_333]

your card's 64bit, i'm pretty sure it won't have the hardware encoding. For the most part your card will cut the job anyway. But if you are happy with it, I say stick with it! But hardware encoding should be something to consider for your future videocard purchases though. :D

So does the FX5200 have this hardware decoding?

Specifically the ASUS V9520 GeForce FX 5200 64-bit 128MB DDR ..

http://www.canadacomputers.com/cc/index.php?do=ShowProduct&cmd=pd&pid=005764&cid=999.821

They finally got more stock! yay!!

[diddy321]

Thanks for all the feedback guys, its actually so funny, but up until tonight I'd weighed in on everything and decided to just go with the cheapo 9250.
From my experience it does seem that a "modern" computer handles most of the video no problem (with a regular divx playing my cpu usage is around 15% if that)

BUT HERE'S THE KICKER - I just downloaded an HDTV rip in 1080 (9 GIGS of bandwidth...blah but it's one of my favourite movies ever) now maybe its codecs etc, who knows, but in VideoLan this thing uses up nearly 100% of my cpu (BTW the vid quality is absolutely unbelievable) now I guess I gotta research things more, but if the 9600 can alleviate any of the CPU usage from this, Its worth it in the long term, especially as HDTV becomes a more popular format.

Anyone care to weigh in on this? Again I just got the video tonight, not even sure what format the files are (.ts), or if the 9600 decoders would even do anything....

Again thanks alot guys, been a lot of help

System specs for anyone interested
AMD XP 2200+
ECS K7VMM+
1 GHZ DDR ram
Geforce 2
not the most cutting edge system, but not horrible either.

[Cafe_333]

That was my whole point all along and no one seemed to agree... :confused:
Regardless what others have said, a 'modern system' does NOT cut it when handling large video formats. Why? It's simple. Hardware encoding processes video on the card itself. Without it, video processing is passed on over to the CPU, becoming reliant of it, which is why it can max it to 100%. Now the differences in DivX (and some other formats) are subjectively negligable, but hardware encoding will still give smoother video playback regardless. However with large sized video files, such as HDTV rips, hardware encoding is the way to go *hands down*.

Yes the 9600 will definately alleviate the problem completely. Lagfree video playback, smoother transitions, no blocks, no lost frames per second, etc. If you think your HD movie is amazing now, just wait till you see it with the 9600.... :D

[frogger]

Yes the 9600 will definately alleviate the problem completely. Lagfree video playback, smoother transitions, no blocks, no lost frames per second, etc. If you think your HD movie is amazing now, just wait till you see it with the 9600.... :D
Huh? Not in my experience, 9600, 9800pro make a neglible difference CPU usage wise (10% tops) vs a 9200 on the same system playing .ts HD files or WMV9 HD files.

[Brandon]

That was my whole point all along and no one seemed to agree... :confused:
Regardless what others have said, a 'modern system' does NOT cut it when handling large video formats. Why? It's simple. Hardware encoding processes video on the card itself. Without it, video processing is passed on over to the CPU, becoming reliant of it, which is why it can max it to 100%. Now the differences in DivX (and some other formats) are subjectively negligable, but hardware encoding will still give smoother video playback regardless. However with large sized video files, such as HDTV rips, hardware encoding is the way to go *hands down*.

Yes the 9600 will definately alleviate the problem completely. Lagfree video playback, smoother transitions, no blocks, no lost frames per second, etc. If you think your HD movie is amazing now, just wait till you see it with the 9600.... :D

Well, I never used TS format files before, the best I've used was WMVHD 1080i and that played smoothly and looked the same on my system with a Radeon 7000 (temporary card, well 2 months temporary) until I got a 9800 Pro.

[Cafe_333]

You are right, it doesn't... If we were talking about the 9200. :D
The 9200s all came with a 128bit memory interface and I believe the hardware encoding as well, so it should run any video fine. However, we were talking about the 9250 which the 64bit version are more widespread and is the same one the threadstarter talked about and later purchased.
Huh? Not in my experience, 9600, 9800pro make a neglible difference CPU usage wise (10% tops) vs a 9200 on the same system playing .ts HD files or WMV9 HD files.
BrandonHum: well, I haven't played with wmv9hd, but aren't these alot more compressed?