Do I really need a video card?

"Frank" wrote in message

My system: Pentium D 940, 2GB Ram, 2 x 320 GB Hard drives, Intel GMA 950 graphics integrated with motherboard. Are the integrated graphics sufficient for Photoshop (or Photoshop Elements)? Or should I get a video card? If I need a card, which one(s) would you recommend? Thanks.

Frank,

As PS is a 2D bitmap editing programme, it will not utilise the majority of offerings from the video card manufacturers, who tend to accommodate or cater for the gaming fraternity, who require high frame rates in 3D. If you can view your image on a calibrated monitor with your present setup, you have answered your own question. Some will argue that if you do a lot of vector work in PS then a higher spec card will perform better that a lower one. If it was a toss up between more RAM, a bigger HD or a faster video card, I would chose the video card option last. RAM first, then harddrive. The only drawback with integrated video is that it uses system RAM. As to a card to choose…anyone that doesn’t cost too much. Matrox cards used to have the edge over others a while back, but times have changes and the choice is yours…..;)

Sorry not to be more helpfull

MH

Mike,
Actually, that was very helpful, thank you.
Frank
Mike Hyndman wrote:

"Frank" wrote in message

My system: Pentium D 940, 2GB Ram, 2 x 320 GB Hard drives, Intel GMA 950 graphics integrated with motherboard. Are the integrated graphics sufficient for Photoshop (or Photoshop Elements)? Or should I get a video card? If I need a card, which one(s) would you recommend? Thanks.

Frank,

As PS is a 2D bitmap editing programme, it will not utilise the majority of offerings from the video card manufacturers, who tend to accommodate or cater for the gaming fraternity, who require high frame rates in 3D. If you can view your image on a calibrated monitor with your present setup, you have answered your own question. Some will argue that if you do a lot of vector work in PS then a higher spec card will perform better that a lower one. If it was a toss up between more RAM, a bigger HD or a faster video card, I would chose the video card option last. RAM first, then harddrive. The only drawback with integrated video is that it uses system RAM. As to a card to choose…anyone that doesn’t cost too much. Matrox cards used to have the edge over others a while back, but times have changes and the choice is yours…..;)

Sorry not to be more helpfull

MH

"Frank" wrote in message

Mike,
Actually, that was very helpful, thank you.
Frank

Frank,

You’re very welcome.

Regards

Mike H

Mike Hyndman wrote:

"Frank" wrote in message

My system: Pentium D 940, 2GB Ram, 2 x 320 GB Hard drives, Intel GMA 950 graphics integrated with motherboard. Are the integrated graphics sufficient for Photoshop (or Photoshop Elements)? Or should I get a video card? If I need a card, which one(s) would you recommend? Thanks.

Frank,

As PS is a 2D bitmap editing programme, it will not utilise the majority of
offerings from the video card manufacturers, who tend to accommodate or cater for the gaming fraternity, who require high frame rates in 3D. If you
can view your image on a calibrated monitor with your present setup, you have answered your own question. Some will argue that if you do a lot of vector work in PS then a higher spec card will perform better that a lower
one. If it was a toss up between more RAM, a bigger HD or a faster video card, I would chose the video card option last. RAM first, then harddrive.
The only drawback with integrated video is that it uses system RAM. As to a
card to choose…anyone that doesn’t cost too much. Matrox cards used to have the edge over others a while back, but times have changes and the choice is yours…..;)

Sorry not to be more helpfull

MH