Video card upgrade - compatibility check

[ulillillia]

I have a few compatibility-related questions involving video cards. First, I would like to upgrade my current video card (the GeForce 7600 GT) since it's about 5 years old. I have several questions:

1. Will upgrading just my video card improve the speed at which video files are compressed and/or processed? From what Wikipedia is hinting at, based on fill rates and the such, today's cards are a good 50+ times faster than what I currently have. I only intend on upgrading my video card for faster video processing, not gaming.
2. It seems like, given Wikipedia, every video card after the 7xxx series uses a DirectX version I don't have access to (Windows XP stops at 9.0c). Would a DX11 card work on XP? I would think it should.
3. Lastly, more generally, will a GeForce 560 GTX or GeForce 460 GTX (the kind of card I would like to go after) work with my computer? My current motherboard is the Gigabyte G31M-ES2L, if that helps. Only the video card is being replaced in this case.

Thanks for any information on this.

[manasij7479]

Would a DX11 card work on XP?

If it has a driver for xp, it would.
Though you'd not get dx11, your video performance would be more than boosted.

My 9600 GSO works on OS's with absolutely no tolerance for DirectX !..So It should work...fine..
Also, you may have problems with the power supply if it is more than 3-4 yrs old.

[ulillillia]

I have a 500-watt power supply (the Antec EarthWatts one), of which I'd think should be sufficient enough - it's only about 1 1/2 to 2 years old. The motherboard and video card are really the only things I'm behind on with my optical disk drive being next (x16 speed for DVD's - no Blu-ray support). Except for now 1.25 GB storage, my computer specs are otherwise the same (from my signature). I would expect to not be able to make full use of the video card without upgrading my motherboard so it has PCI-e 2.0 x16 support. I only want the upgrade for a speed boost though, especially in processing videos (if this even has any effect).

[ulillillia]

Another critical thing I forgot: do modern cards have any support for CRT monitors? If modern video cards have no support for CRTs, what options do I have (besides spending $500 (I don't have that much) to get an LCD monitor that has less resolution than what I currently have (1920x1200 is less than my current 1920x1440))?

[Elysia]

I have a few compatibility-related questions involving video cards. First, I would like to upgrade my current video card (the GeForce 7600 GT) since it's about 5 years old. I have several questions:

1. Will upgrading just my video card improve the speed at which video files are compressed and/or processed? From what Wikipedia is hinting at, based on fill rates and the such, today's cards are a good 50+ times faster than what I currently have. I only intend on upgrading my video card for faster video processing, not gaming.
2. It seems like, given Wikipedia, every video card after the 7xxx series uses a DirectX version I don't have access to (Windows XP stops at 9.0c). Would a DX11 card work on XP? I would think it should.
3. Lastly, more generally, will a GeForce 560 GTX or GeForce 460 GTX (the kind of card I would like to go after) work with my computer? My current motherboard is the Gigabyte G31M-ES2L, if that helps. Only the video card is being replaced in this case.

Thanks for any information on this.

1) Generally, no. But I guess this depends on what you use. Some video processing tools will use the GPU. But video compression (using x264) will never use the GPU. In that case, get the fastest CPU you can buy that fits your motherboard, or upgrade your motherboard and get the fastest CPU you can afford.
2) The card should work on XP. You can't use DX10/11 that these cards are rated for. However, you can still use DX9.
3) I don't see why not so long as your PSU can back it up. Note that these cards typically require two PCI Express slots, though.

Another critical thing I forgot: do modern cards have any support for CRT monitors? If modern video cards have no support for CRTs, what options do I have (besides spending $500 (I don't have that much) to get an LCD monitor that has less resolution than what I currently have (1920x1200 is less than my current 1920x1440))?

Most new cards have only DVI support. But as long as your monitor supports DVI or you have a DVI-to-VGA converter, you should be fine, I think.

[ulillillia]

As to case 1, Virtual Dub has hardware acceleration through the use of DirectX. I don't know what FreeHD Converter uses though but this is where I'm having speed problems - 2 fps for 1920x1080 video. I don't get why my camcorder (which runs on batteries) can easily handle recording at 1920x1080 resolution at 29.97 fps with an advanced compression codec when my computer, even with simple codecs can't get much better than 5 fps, averaging 2 or 3. I can't even play back 1920x1080 video without a lot of stopping and starting (because my computer can't keep up). All I can think of is the video card, of which I haven't updated in 3 or 4 years, is the weak point. I just wanted to make sure on the compatibility with the video cards on my motherboard before I even made a purchase for one. Wikipedia answered one of my questions - PCI-express 2.0 x16 is fully backward compatible with PCI-express 1.0 x16 (of which is very likely what I have). I would expect some loss with the 2.0 features being left out, but still, a card that's 40 times as powerful as the one I have would be very significant.

[Elysia]

As to case 1, it depends on what you do and what filters you run. Also, VirtualDub is outdated to say the least. Unless you are using lossless compression, there typically is little need to use it.
Also consider that camcorders have 1) dedicated hardware for compression and 2) usually uses inefficient compression (ie cheap compression).
In case you can't compress properly, it simply means that your CPU is a bottleneck. I wouldn't expect more than 5 fps for Full HD using compression codecs unless you are using poor compression for a dual core. Your video card will mostly like not help with video compression! There are a few codecs that uses gpu acceleration and they produce poor compression results.
And when you say play Full HD video and it lags - it begs the question of what are you playing and with what? That is, what media player and what source material? Remember that the fps rating of the video also effects the results!

[ulillillia]

Virtual Dub is the only video editing program I have. Pretty much every regular player (cannot edit video) I've used, including Windows Media Player, has this problem as well. I use the XviD codec with pretty much everything, except when I'm creating base files that will later be stitched together. Many other codecs, including MJPEG, Lagarith, Huffyuv, and others, have play back issues with 1920x1080 video at 29.97 fps. I can play back 1024x768 at 30 fps just fine. I can barely record at that resolution and frame rate (only if uncompressed and my hard drive doesn't drop much below 600 GB remaining). Right now, I'm converting an unusable M2TS video file (I have no programs that can read these) to MPG so I can start working with it, but this has been going on for 9 hours now for a mere hour's worth of video and I'm still going at it thanks to the 2 or 3 fps average conversion rate. Free HD Converter is the only thing I have that keeps the quality and resolution. I wouldn't think that the CPU would be much of a culprit though - 3.17 GHz E8500 Core 2 Duo isn't that far behind. I'm only one generation behind on that (and to get these, I'll need to upgrade my motherboard simply because the socket is different). The video card is several generations behind.

[Elysia]

I would never use Xvid for anything. Its compression is inferior to that of H264. I'd suggest you use x264 for your compression needs.

If you can't read M2TS, then you need to install CCCP and your favorite directshow media player, such as WMP. Or alternatively use Zoom Player or your local free all-in-one media player (I forget its name?). There is no need to re-encode.
Although, if you want to edit them, that's another matter.

I wouldn't use a 3rd party programs except for VirtualDub/Avidemux/x264/Avsiynth/NeroAAC. All sorts of 3rd party programs do a lot of nonsense or limit what you can do. And I seriously don't trust them.
You should be compressing using some lossless codec if you want to edit them. And that can be done with Avidemux/VirtualDub.

Your CPU is way outdated. Core 2 Duo is very old and on top of that - it's only dual core. You can't expect high frame rates when compressing with that CPU.

As for why you can't play back 1080p... I have no idea. Are you sure the CPU is maxing out? Might the hard drive be a bottleneck? Do you use any processing filters when playing back? 1080p is no match for that CPU. I have been able to play back 4096p decently with a similar AMD CPU.

[ulillillia]

I don't have the H264 codec nor x264.

I would use a lossless codec, but Free HD Converter doesn't allow me to use Huffyuv, Lagarith, or anything like that. Virtual Dub mysteriously can't open Huffyuv videos from Aura Video Converter even though the codec is installed. Stranger yet, if I save a video using Huffyuv, Virtual Dub can open it. Either a bug is present with Aura video converter, or that program is using a different, otherwise incompatible version.

If it's the CPU, then it's going to have to wait a long time because not only am I going to have to replace the motherboard so that the sockets match (LGA 775 is not an option with the i5 processors and the like), but I'm almost certainly going to need to replace the RAM as well. I didn't think, at the time I got it, that the core count mattered as far as speed went - only one ever gets used at a time (from what I've seen) instead of 3 or all 4 at once. It's quire rare in the first place that 2 programs are actively using a large chunk of the CPU - usually the case when both video processing is going on and my antivirus program updates itself during this. I see no point in getting a processor with more than 2 cores in this case.

You seem to be contradicting yourself as well. In your previous comment you stated that Virtual Dub is outdated and yet, in this comment, you're stating that you'd use it. Are you, perhaps, confusing Virtual Dub with Virtual Dub Mod or something?

Windows Task Manager shows a constant 50% CPU usage (one core is maxing out) while playing the video (both the MPG and converted AVI formats (the latter using the XviD codec)). The hard drive can write at 130 MB/s via large memory dumps (loading 1/4 GB into RAM then repeatedly saving this) - 1024x768 at 30 fps only uses barely 60% of that. No filters are active, just regular playback.

[whiteflags]

Unless you know for certain that your player is using DXVA or CUDA the CPU has to do the decoding for playback. I can recommend a player that uses it if it detects supported hardware, called MPC-HC. You'll probably get away with just a new GPU for now as long as you actually use hardware acceleration during playback.

[CommonTater]

Ok... going all the way back to your original inquiry... Just about any 1080p capable video card is going to do what you want.

I'm using a "bargain" ATI Raedon 4600 on my current desktop system and it's just fine with V-Dub and other video software. Plays videos perfectly with Media Player Classic Home Theatre, using about 25% cpu for full 1080p rendering.


Monitor wise you can get ASUS 24" monitors for under $200 if you shop carefully... Newegg.com - ASUS VH232H Glossy Black 23" 5ms Widescreen Full HD 1080p LCD Monitor 300 cd/m2 ASCR 20000:1 w/Speakers & HDMI

I'm also using one of these and I'm very happy with it...

Beyond a certain point you simply end up spending money for features you'll never use...

[Elysia]

I don't have the H264 codec nor x264.

You should get x264. There is nothing better for video compression.

I would use a lossless codec, but Free HD Converter doesn't allow me to use Huffyuv, Lagarith, or anything like that. Virtual Dub mysteriously can't open Huffyuv videos from Aura Video Converter even though the codec is installed. Stranger yet, if I save a video using Huffyuv, Virtual Dub can open it. Either a bug is present with Aura video converter, or that program is using a different, otherwise incompatible version.

That is why you should stay away from any program that advertises itself being a converter, compressor or whatever.
Use x264 or VirtualDub depending on your needs.

If it's the CPU, then it's going to have to wait a long time because not only am I going to have to replace the motherboard so that the sockets match (LGA 775 is not an option with the i5 processors and the like), but I'm almost certainly going to need to replace the RAM as well. I didn't think, at the time I got it, that the core count mattered as far as speed went - only one ever gets used at a time (from what I've seen) instead of 3 or all 4 at once. It's quire rare in the first place that 2 programs are actively using a large chunk of the CPU - usually the case when both video processing is going on and my antivirus program updates itself during this. I see no point in getting a processor with more than 2 cores in this case.

o_O
Then you are using a very poor codec that does not scale. I know that XVid is typically this way, which again, is a reason not to use it™. x264 will scale very well, you'll see.
Also, I don't think it will be that expensive. 4 GB of DDR3 can be had for less than $50. Motherboard is $100, and a CPU (hey, a 6-core even) from AMD costs around $150. Sum that up and it's around $300, probably what you'd pay for a graphics card.

You seem to be contradicting yourself as well. In your previous comment you stated that Virtual Dub is outdated and yet, in this comment, you're stating that you'd use it. Are you, perhaps, confusing Virtual Dub with Virtual Dub Mod or something?

Eh no, well maybe I should explain.
For lossless and Xvid, VirtualDub is fine. But for anything modern (eg H264, MP4, MKV which everyone uses today), VirtualDub just won't cut it.
But then again, there are other tools (eg Avidemux) that can do what VirtualDub does - and better.
So it depends on what you are comfortable with and your requirements.

Windows Task Manager shows a constant 50% CPU usage (one core is maxing out) while playing the video (both the MPG and converted AVI formats (the latter using the XviD codec)). The hard drive can write at 130 MB/s via large memory dumps (loading 1/4 GB into RAM then repeatedly saving this) - 1024x768 at 30 fps only uses barely 60% of that. No filters are active, just regular playback.

Then you have a decoder that won't scale. Typical with Xvid and earlier formats that weren't meant for HD.
I'd suggest you try with an H264 movie.

[ulillillia]

What do you mean by "doesn't scale"? I'm now searching for a working codec. Attempt 2 is in order - the first did nothing at all, which was rather strange.

[Elysia]

It means the speed doesn't increase as you add more cores. Single threaded applications do not benefit from more cores.