Best bang-for-buck video card for hi-end Photoshop work..?

When I bought my rig 3 or 4 years ago, I was told that when it comes to 2D performance, all modern video cards are created equal. That the price differences really only affect the 3D side of things.
So I bought a NVIDIA GeForce GT 240.
Why this thing has a fan, I have no idea. Like I said, even when I bought it it was considered "bottom-of-the-heap". Anyhoo, long story short, the fan died on me a couple of days ago. I can now keep the card from overheating through a house fan pointed at the open case. Naturally, I can't keep this going forever. I need to buy a new card.
The good news is that I don't need ANY 3D performance (unless vector logos count). I only use my computer for hi-res Photoshop work (at 1920x1200+ resolution with PSD files that sometimes reach 5 or 6GB) and full-screen video playback. No games are being played on this rig whatsoever.
The bad news, however, is that money is an issue. I can't just go buy the latest $300 card, especially not to put on a 3 or 4 year old rig. The Core i7 920 CPU and 10GB of ram (on Windows 7 64) will keep me going for a couple of years more, but I don't expect to still be using this rig much further beyond that.
I just want to keep using my Adobe suite and play movies in hi-res on this thing. That's it.
I've been told to look into the NVIDIA Quadro series, but that appears to me out of my price range. I'd like to keep it under $150. Or even $100 if at all possible. Other cards quoted to me are the GT630 and R7-250 (which is apparently a rebranded Radeon HD 7770).
What would you guys recommend that would be the best bang for my buck in this scenario? I'd hope most of today's cards - even the cheapest ones - are at least a step up from the NVIDIA GeForce GT 240. Right?
If anyone has any advice...

Trevor Dennis wrote:
There was an article on Tom's Hardware yesterday, announcing that nVidia are stopping driver support for it's older cards.
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-eol-graphics-card,26304.html
This goes back to the 300 range and earlier cards, but also includes the Geforce 405 from the 400 range.
Be that as it may, my GT 240 is still being listed as supported in last week's 335.23 driver release. And that's the driver that fried it. This "1 driver for all our cards" thing is really for the birds. There's no way for product owners to know what the latest, safest driver for their card is. I don't think NVIDIA thought this thing through when they announced they'd be going with a "single driver for all" model.
I don't think NVIDIA realizes what a huge potential lawsuit could be headed their way from other owners like myself (but not me, I'm not very letigious) who saw their cards get physically damaged by drivers that were supposed to be compatible with them.
I see you recommending I stay under $100, which was my original plan, but then you said I should definitely get a Quadro. When I checked, Quadro cards were more expensive than the GeForce line. Did I misunderstand? Were you saying NOT to touch the Quadros?
On other forums, they tell me to push for the new GTX 750, swearing its 2D performance makes it worth the price, despite the fact that it's clearly a GAMING card, and I don't game.
I'm so confused.

Similar Messages

  • Capture Cards fro Premiere: What is best bang for the buck

    I am looking to upgrade to the new Premiere and I am having a computer built for it. I wanted to find out what would be the best solution for capture cards. I will be wanting to capture analog (S-video cable) video in larger chunks, maybe up to 30 minutes or more. But doing this through firewire in the past, the audio would get out of sinc. What capture card has the best bang for the buck to accomplish this?

    The challenge of using 3rd party tools (sw and hw) to bolster PPRO is you will be forever in the game of updating drivers here and there to make sure this or that works with that or this. Then when adobe updates their sw, the game begins anew with no guarantee of anything working together.
    So; the promise of faster and better comes at a price of complexity and sometimes frailty and often a very short life. Well worth it for some; nightmare for others.
    Consider a simple A/D converter for acquiring analog sd video. Or a cam with analog passthr.
    Curt Wrigley

  • 2010 iMac 2.93 i7 27" or 2011 2.8 i7 21.5" - which will suit better long-term?  I do a fair amount of audio, video editing and photoshop, but I have a limited budget.  What's going to give the best bang-for-buck for the next 3-5 yrs?

    I do a fair amount of audio, video editing and photoshop, but I have a limited budget.  What's going to give the best bang-for-buck for the next 3-5 yrs?  My current machine is a 13" Macbook unibody 2.4 Core 2 Duo w/ 4Gb Ram so it's time to move forward with more power and screen real estate!

    Hello, Jeff
    I could never edit on a 13" screen. I'm currently using a 17" MBP i7 Early 2011 as a fast replacement to my aged 20" Intel iMac.
    Both systems are not that far apart on stats and you will find that processing HD video will rely highly on the read/write to your storage. Myself, I'd be eye balling the 2011 for the Thunderbolt port so HD Video export/compression doesn't take forever! Currently processing a finished HD project for DVD uses at most 20% of my total CPU capacity. The FW800 drive is the big bottleneck! (I know I need at least a RAID to see a real speed boost).
    How good your eyes are and your usage style would dictate if the difference in screen size make a difference to you.

  • Consumer 10bit monitor... best bang for $$ ?

    Hello
    Seems like there are many brands that sells now 10 bit  ips monitors ... HP, Dell, Nec, Asus..... i wonder what would be considered as a best chose based on performance with in 24, 27, 30`?
    But also what would be a best bang for the dollar?
    Regards
    i am going to get 1 of the consumer 10bit monitors , and later with some savings will get 1 of Flanders broadcast monitors for color accuracy!

    Dell or NEC would be the 2 best options but more expensive. Asus would be the cheapest but you will definitely want a colorimeter.
    Eric
    ADK

  • I have paid for creative cloud, photoshop works fine but it will not let me register lightroom

    I have paid for creative cloud, photoshop works fine but it will not let me register Lightroom

    Lightroom must be installed via the Creative Cloud Application.
    It sounds like you have installed a Perpetual Licensed Version or a Trial Version of Lightroom. Uninstall any versions you have installed of Version 5 and then reinstall via the Creative Cloud App.

  • Best PCI-X / PCI video card for Solaris 10?

    I don't mean "best" in the "latest, greatest, fastest" sense, I mean best to denote visual properties and rendering, support, basically. My current machine (Compaq SR5250NX) has a PCI bus ATI Radeon 9250 (256MB RAM) that XSun detects and uses as an ATI 9200 Pro AGP. There are all sorts of performance/visual issues...when I minimize a window, it takes a second or two (literally) to minimize and you can watch it "draw down." Or sometimes when I minimize a window, it minimizes from the top down, and the desktop is redrawn vertically, very slowly. (So you can watch the window disappear top down.) This is *extremely frustrating and makes the entire desktop experience unpleasant.  This is unfortunate because I really like JDS. 
    So, which card has the best Solaris 10 (XSun) support? It can be either PCI or PCI-X. All I do is write text documents, program, and other general tasks. No graphics work or anything of that sort. I don't care if it's old and I have to get it used...it just has to have awesome support and enough power to handle JDS and normal apps (Sun Studio, SO 8, FF3, etc). I'm on a bit of a budget, so if it's possible to get this card for around $100..that'd be great.
    *Yes, I've read the HCL, and I know which cards are on there as supported, but it doesn't say anything about which card has the best support. 
    Thanks,
    ~Slow
    Edited by: SlowToady on Nov 18, 2008 6:43 PM
    reason: typo
    Edited by: SlowToady on Nov 18, 2008 6:44 PM

    Although I prefer ATI for personal use on other OSes, my last two Solaris workstations have had Nvidia Quadro video cards in them, and they've both worked very well. My previous workstation (A Sun w2100z that died a couple months ago) had a Quadro NVS 280, my new workstation has a Quadro Fx 1700, which performs extremely well even at 1920 x 1280. The Fx 1700 isn't what you would
    call cheap, though.
    You might want to try pick up a used Quadro NVS (at least something in the 2xx series), or one of the lower models in the Quadro Fx series.
    Tim
    PS: I'm going to be asking nearly an indentical question to this one in a minute, except about audio cards rather than video. :-|

  • Best tool for painting in photoshop

    Hello All,
    I am trying to paint in photoshop using a mouse and I realized that I can not make the mouse do what I wanted it to do. For example the mouse makes my brush strokes too jerky and I don't get smooth lines and the textures don't come out right either. Is the mouse a good tool for painting in photoshop or should I go with something else? If I should opt for a different tool what is it and where can I find one that's not terribly expensive? Thank you in advance for your response.

    Autodesk's Sketchbook Pro is intuitive and fast.
    Features:
    http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/index?siteID=123112&id=10507212
    Watch people using it:
    http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awww.youtube.com+sketchbook+pro

  • I just purchased a Thunderbolt Display for use with Photoshop work.  How can I set up to show/work in separate programs on each screen?

    I just purchased a Thunderbolt Display as an additional screen for Photoshop work.  Following set up instructions appears to allow only mirroring of the screens.  How can I set up to show/work in separate programs on each screen? 

    Yes, each blue rectangle is a screen. You can create different geometries, to suit your needs. For example, you can even make this kind of thing... :
    Or this:
    I don't know why you would want to do that, but you can!

  • Do video cards not supported on Mac, work in bootcamp under windows?

    I have recently purchased and installed Battlefield 3 on my 2006 Mac Pro1,1, on the windows partition and it plays okay on extremely low settings. I am using the ATI 4870 card I purchase from apple a year ago. I want to play the game at higher settings and found a video card "Sapphire radeon 6970 hd" that can run the game at great settings and great frame per second. The problem is that the card doesnt work on Macs (like my ati 4870 does), so I was wondering if the card would work on my windows partition, even if it doesn't work on OS X.  I would rather not have to buy a new PC. Thanks

    I had already seen that site while googling, however I could not find information relating tom that specific card in my specific Mac. They had information about getting that card to work on OS x, bit it didn't mention if that worked with Mac 1,1. Also, I am only concned with whether it would work with the windows partition.

  • New Mac Pro - Best bang for the buck

    I'm looking to replace my G5 2.7 with a new MP. I'll be running Logic, Reason, Photoshop, Dreamweaver, video conversion, ...
    I'm thinking about either the Two 2.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon “Westmere” (8 cores) with 8GB ram
    or
    One 3.2GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon “Nehalem” [Add $360.00] with 6GB ram
    I know the dual Westmere will be faster but will it be $1k faster and will the software I run support the 2 processors?
    Thanks for any input!!

    That test session has been run on many different machines, it has become somewhat of a standard benchmark session for Logic users. For comparison, quad machines at considerably lower clock speed have done 50 tracks when the six core at 3.33 only does 45-47 (another 6 core user tested and confirmed the same result). I'm not sure what he means by "a lot of Logic is single threaded" since Logic can generally use up to eight cores - since he has only tested on one machine and not made any comparisons, he makes some conclusions that aren't correct.
    http://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-computers/371545-logic-pro-multicore-benchm arktest.html

  • Best buy for past time photography working with camera raw

    Hello - I am looking to
    buy a camera with a budget of around £200 to £300
    which supports RAW files. Has anybody got any tips before I rush into buying something? Any recommendations will be much appreciated.
    Andrew

    I'm not the best person to compare different model results raw processing with ACR - I've only tried a few.
    I'm sure you are aware Nikon's have a reputation for being good cameras but there are lots of other brands that are as good in many ways, and better in some.
    I primarily use a Nikon D300 which works great in ACR now, but a year or so ago the camera calibration profiles were iffy (highlight rendering was problematic, especially when using recovery). I also use the Canon G12 some, and Canon S5 only a little so far (CHDK firmware + with home-brewed profiles).
    Bottom-line: I can only tell you what I know, and offer some speculation:
    What I know:
    - Canon G12 & Nikon D300 work well with ACR.
    - How well a camera does *in ACR* depends primarily on the camera calibration profiles.
    What I speculate:
    - Adobe is willing to put more energy into the camera calibration profiles for cameras that are more mainstream with their target market.
    Whether or not that matters depends on the camera/sensor/model and any idiosyncracies it may have.
    So, there are two things:
    1 - How good is the camera and how well does it suit your style.
    2 - How well are the raws processed by ACR.
    The first one I can't help with.
    The second: What I said above, *and* if you don't know any better, go with mainstream. Odd brands *may* receive *odd* support in ACR.
    Maybe somebody else will chime in, but it might serve to post a couple of your choices so people can just say yey or ney to the model in ACR.

  • What is a best practice for our end users submitting their completed forms?

    I've created an application with fillable fields using Adobe 10. I'm trying to figure out the best way to get the info back. I really don't want them emailing it as it will have sensitive data. I've seen others on this forum referring to using "servers" but I can't seem to find any additional info on this solution. Any advice?

    If the data is sensitive, email is an absolute no-no.
    In addition to being on a server - that is, a web server - you need to have a secure connection.
    That in turn is a web address starting https not just http.
    On the web server, an experienced programmer installs a "script".
    When the form filler clicks SUBMIT, the information from the form is sent to the script.
    The script, in turn, being a program, does whatever the programmer thinks, such as
    - put it in a database
    - check the data and reply immediately
    - email it (very bad idea in this case)
    Typically it's in a database, and you - the person in charge - visits a different script on the
    same server, to get stuff out of the database and process the information.
    I underline experienced. This is no job for a beginner or amateur, or even someone who
    has never worked with web scripts. Bad scripts are the main reason that web sites get
    hacked and details stolen, or your site defaced or otherwise bought into disrepute.

  • What's the best technique for making this page work?

    Here's a link to a jpg showing a design for a portfolio site that I'm building:
    http://i287.photobucket.com/albums/ll130/Mickmastergeneral/test_modeling_texturing.jpg
    The image of the ATV will be a Qucktime file; the visitor will be able to scrub the slider to see a pre-rendered rotation of the model. The visitor will then be able to view a different model by clicking on one of the thumbnails at the bottom of the page. So far so good.
    But the visitor will also need the ability to display the model's texture map in a new window (by clicking on one of the the texture map icons on the right), as well as choose wireframe or shaded mode (by clicking on the appropriate text button; this would load a quicktime movie of either a wireframe or textured model turnaround).
    So, the trick is getting all the appropriate stuff to load when the user clicks on a lower screen thumnail: The Quicktime movie, the appropriate texture map icons for that model (which in turn need to link to pages containing the correct image), and "Shaded" & "Wireframe" text buttons (that link to the appropriate Quicktime movie.)
    I haven't done any web design in years, so I'm using an ancient version of DW (Dreamweaver Ultradev 4), and I'm definitely not up on the latest techniques. I know how to work with frames, but I've heard that it's a good idea to stay away from them. Would layers work for this? I've worked with Behaviours and I know how to do image swaps and hide/show layers, but I don't know how (or if) I can use that trick to make the appropriate texture and wireframe/shaded links appear. Any ideas how I should proceed?

    So, do you think it would make sense for me to just bite the bullet and learn Flash?
    No - I don't think Flash is a good tool for a general purpose website other than for special cosmetic effects.  But I do think it is the thing to use if you want those, and not QT.
    - I already have a ton of those model animations rendered out as h.264 Quicktime files. They look pretty good and are a reasonable file size. If I bring them into a Flash file, does that convert them into Flash? Will that affect image quality or inflate their file size?
    They should convert quite acceptably.

  • Command shortcut for Home/End not working

    command (shortcuts) "Home" and "End" will not work for page I am on.

    caret caret (F7) problems, Most keyboards have overlaid keys, make sure NumLk is off as that can also interfere. "PgUp", "PgDn", "SpaceBar", "Home" and "End" keys" not working -- caret cursor F7
    *https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/questions/845663
    *http://kb.mozillazine.org/Scrolling_with_arrow_keys_no_longer_works

  • Best Video Card for my MDD Dual 1.25 and Video Editing?

    I know that this has been discussed several times before. I just never saw any real answers. I was planning to a little more intensive video editing so I got the Motion 2.1 Trial. Well, doens't allow me to install saying that my video card doesn't meet the specs. I'm confused, I read the requirements and read me files and my ATI Radeon 9800 Pro seems to meet the basic requirements. However, the About this Mac says that it doens't support Core Image.
    I guess my question is what would be my best and least expensive video card upgrade? Or is mine set up incorrectly or something? I've read elsewhere that this card should work. I'm just a little confused why it doesn't support Core Image....I may go all the way to Final Cut...Will this card work with that application?
    Any info would be great.
    Thanks.
    Robert

    Thanks and sorry for the confusion...I just realized
    that mine is only a 64mb card. It's the stock that
    came originally in the MDD dual 1.25 I believe. I
    had no idea that the same model card can have
    different amounts of memory. It still says that it's
    the ATI Radeon 9800 Pro...just 64mb and no core image
    support
    It sounds like you may be mistaken and have an Apple OEM ATI RADEON 9000 Pro. That had 64MB, was stock with the MDD, and does not support core image.
    There was also an Apple OEM ATI RADEON 9700 Pro with 128MB available as a BTO option with the MDD Dual 1.42GHz. Sometimes they pop up on eBay, although they are sought-after because they support core image and have both an ACD and DVI connection allowing for two digitally-connected LCD flat-panel monitors.
    To my knowledge there have only been 128MB and 256MB versions of the ATI RADEON 9800 Pro Mac Edition.
    PowerMac G4 MDD Dual 1.25GHz   Mac OS X (10.4.10)  

Maybe you are looking for