add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube

Minimal video card

prueba2306

4 months ago

I been thinking about what parts I need for my PC (I don't like to spend money in something that I don't/won't need). I use a lot programs at the same time: IDE, 2 databases, multiple spreadsheets, 2 browsers (multiple tabs), chat/voice calls, email client, remote desktop, and a time tracker; sometimes a graphics editor but for minor stuff. Sometimes I play web games (flash/unity/stencil that i can complete in 15/20 mins when I'm "done for the moment"), YouTube videos, Spotify and some movies (using VLC).

I was thinking on Ryzen 5 2600U but, right now, a Ryzen 7 2700, 16 GB of RAM (in the future to 32 GB, maybe 64 GB), and 250 GB SSD is better. As you can read, I don't play AAA games (don't have time for that) so I need a very very very basic video card (VC). I only need to reproduce videos at 60fps in a 1920x1080 screen and play my web games (my current PC suffers trying to do these).

What VC do you recommend for a person like me with these needs? I only found recommendations for top notch VCs.

Note: To put you in perspective, currently I have an Intel Core 2 Duo with integrated video of 4 GB of RAM (8 years old)... and still works fine (except for videos at 60fps on some web games).

Comments

  • 4 months ago
  • 1 point

I only need to reproduce videos at 60fps in a 1920x1080 screen and play my web games

If you need a very basic video adapter, just get a Ryzen 2400G that comes with the RX Vega graphics architecture with 11 compute units integrated into the CPU core.

  • 4 months ago
  • 1 point

The 2400G is my recommendation as well. Should offer enough power for the uses while also giving graphics capability (not that much graphics power at all is actually needed for this situation)

  • 4 months ago
  • 1 point

I "selected" (I'm not closed to change my mind) a 7 2700 because the number of cores and I tend to use all the listed programs at the same time. Do you think is "over top" of what i need? (same question to @fellway)

  • 4 months ago
  • 1 point

It's more than you need to spend, most likely, but it's not a bad decision inherently. Just note that with the 2700, you'll need to invest in a simple graphics card so that the computer can still be usable.

Something like this will work great, as long as it offers the video ports you need.

  • 4 months ago
  • 1 point

Well, as fellway mentioned below.

These are two different scenarios.

The 2700 has 16 logical cores, so a very powerful CPU but the R5 is a very weak GPU.

On the other side, the 2400 has 8 logical cores only (but should suffice for your needs), but it uses a way more powerful integrated graphics processor.

RX Vega 11 vs R5

  • 4 months ago
  • 1 point

I have a SFF with a pentium dual, I upgraded it to a core2quad 6700 (max it can do), for $16 (ebay). A while back I put a (I think) radeon 6450 low profile gpu in it (~$45?) it has one little fan on it, and also went 4gb to 8gb max memory. So then I just put a SSD in with the cpu and its a whole different PC now with those two. It plays full screen hd youtube fine, 50 tabs in firefox, but no games other than FB stuff. It boots in 10 seconds or something, and when it goes I can pull the 500gb SSD out (the only expensive part), but that is all its used for so it should last a while.

Now I'm building a 2400G new PC to replace my ancient athlon 64 x2, but going better mobo so I can upgrade later to a 2600cpu/1080gpu or better. Anyway with faster memory and little OC the 2400g suppose to work close to a 1030gpu is what I hear/hope for. Right now I don't play new games either and do a lot of browsing and typical home stuff on it, but will be playing older games on it.

Two stories there, I can get more time out of the C2Q that does no serious gaming anyway, and the 2400G will be very upgradeable in the future plus hopefully price of cpu/gpu will be lower then.

  • 4 months ago
  • 1 point

I should add that I can get a larger gpu (video card) for the C2Q but do not need it, but I do not know where you hit bottleneck with a C2D/C2Q system. The memory on this is 1033 bus iirc but only can do 800 with full 8gb loaded. Other people here may know what you can run in that if you wanted to upgrade, possible you might get something cheap. Problem is you move up a step but a C2D will never do well with todays games, I'm just saying the integrated graphics on those are terrible from what I have seen. Of course if you build new you will have all the benefits of that.

  • 4 months ago
  • 1 point

The "issue" is that I tend to open a lot of programs at the same time so I "suspect" that I need a 7 2700 (more cores/threads), but some people say that a 5 2400G is good enough (so i dont have to think about the VC). I expect to use this new PC for 6-8 years.

  • 4 months ago
  • 1 point

Usually more stuff equals more memory, or windows moves to the swap file and slows down. I don't know if 16gb would be enough but 32 usually will not OC as fast. Or you can get a 4 slot board and 16gb then add more later. More cpu is good for photoshop/video/cad/math apps, things that compile, games, etc. I am starting with a 2400g because I don't have any new games and two because I don't want to budget another $400 or whatever for cpu/gpu I don't really need atm. All I need is fast memory to help the apu so I scored some 3733 2x8gb, and a mobo good enough to handle upgrades and OC memory well (still up in air about 4 boards I like), and I got a Nvme 480gb for a fast OS drive. The rest I can change later mostly. You will find most build a budget system for 2200g or 2400g, most do not get a better board like you might for a 8 core/etc. The 2400g is 4 core and 8 threads, so it is not that bad of a cpu and can keep up with a fairly good gpu.

[comment deleted by staff]

Sort

add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube