Video Card for Video editing, replacement question

I guess it could be overheating, but how would I resolve that? The
fan is spinning and the heat within the computer is within an
acceptable range.

I'm sure it's the video card since I placed it into my wife's computer
as a test. After about an hour, it developed the same fuzzy lines for
the other computer. Also, I'm using her video card in my computer and
I don't have any problems with it.



On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 20:30:08 GMT, "Michael W. Ryder"
<_mwryder.TakeThisOut@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>Ziggs wrote:
>> Currently, I have a 3GIG system that I put together 1.5 years ago. I
>> have a ATI Radeon 9800 pro 128 AGP card, but it's failing (tried it in
>> two computers and fuzzy lines start to appear on the model from time
>> to time).
>>
>> Anyway, I want to buy the cheapest replacement video card for now
>> because I'll get a new computer within 6 months or so.
>>
>> So, my main processing needs is when I use Pinnacle to edit clips for
>> DVD's. So, can I get away with a cheaper card for this need? If so,
>> what card would you recommend? I really don't want to waste money on
>> a video card that I'll only need for 6 months, but I don't want to add
>> an additional wait time for editing videos.
>>
>> TIA
>
>Are you sure that the video card is failing and not overheating? Also
>have you checked to be sure that the power supply is not failing?
 >> Stay informed about: Video Card for Video editing, replacement question 

<Ziggs> wrote in message news:bl7aa3ljvmajk6cg1e7li6gb6s94q7ur50@4ax.com...
>
>
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 20:30:08 GMT, "Michael W. Ryder"
> <_mwryder.TakeThisOut@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Ziggs wrote:
> >> Currently, I have a 3GIG system that I put together 1.5 years ago. I
> >> have a ATI Radeon 9800 pro 128 AGP card, but it's failing (tried it in
> >> two computers and fuzzy lines start to appear on the model from time
> >> to time).
> >>
> >> Anyway, I want to buy the cheapest replacement video card for now
> >> because I'll get a new computer within 6 months or so.
> >>
> >> So, my main processing needs is when I use Pinnacle to edit clips for
> >> DVD's. So, can I get away with a cheaper card for this need? If so,
> >> what card would you recommend? I really don't want to waste money on
> >> a video card that I'll only need for 6 months, but I don't want to add
> >> an additional wait time for editing videos.
> >>
> >> TIA
> >
> >Are you sure that the video card is failing and not overheating? Also
> >have you checked to be sure that the power supply is not failing?
>
> I guess it could be overheating, but how would I resolve that? The
> fan is spinning and the heat within the computer is within an
> acceptable range.
>
> I'm sure it's the video card since I placed it into my wife's computer
> as a test. After about an hour, it developed the same fuzzy lines for
> the other computer. Also, I'm using her video card in my computer and
> I don't have any problems with it.
>

Sounds like the heatsink is no longer making good contact with the chip.
Cleaning and applying new thermal compound may help.

Capture info:
http://www.digitalfaq.com/dvdguides/capture/intro.htm
 >> Stay informed about: Video Card for Video editing, replacement question 

Ziggs wrote:
> Currently, I have a 3GIG system that I put together 1.5 years ago. I
> have a ATI Radeon 9800 pro 128 AGP card, but it's failing (tried it in
> two computers and fuzzy lines start to appear on the model from time
> to time).
>
> Anyway, I want to buy the cheapest replacement video card for now
> because I'll get a new computer within 6 months or so.
>
> So, my main processing needs is when I use Pinnacle to edit clips for
> DVD's. So, can I get away with a cheaper card for this need? If so,
> what card would you recommend? I really don't want to waste money on
> a video card that I'll only need for 6 months, but I don't want to add
> an additional wait time for editing videos.
>
> TIA
I use Pinnacle (both v9.4 and v10.7)and have an ATI X700pro pci-e card.
This seems to work fine and I think the x700 should be in the $50 - $75
USD range.
see http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131307R

My system is a Pavilion 1130n:
AMD Athlon 64 3500+
one Gig ram
X700 pro pci-e
 >> Stay informed about: Video Card for Video editing, replacement question 

Mike Ray wrote:
> Ziggs wrote:
>
>> Currently, I have a 3GIG system that I put together 1.5 years ago. I
>> have a ATI Radeon 9800 pro 128 AGP card, but it's failing (tried it in
>> two computers and fuzzy lines start to appear on the model from time
>> to time).
>>
>> Anyway, I want to buy the cheapest replacement video card for now
>> because I'll get a new computer within 6 months or so.
>>
>> So, my main processing needs is when I use Pinnacle to edit clips for
>> DVD's. So, can I get away with a cheaper card for this need? If so,
>> what card would you recommend? I really don't want to waste money on
>> a video card that I'll only need for 6 months, but I don't want to add
>> an additional wait time for editing videos.
>>
>> TIA
>
> I use Pinnacle (both v9.4 and v10.7)and have an ATI X700pro pci-e card.
> This seems to work fine and I think the x700 should be in the $50 - $75
> USD range.
> see http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131307R
>
> My system is a Pavilion 1130n:
> AMD Athlon 64 3500+
> one Gig ram
> X700 pro pci-e


Here is a benchmark for both the X700 and 9800. It seems they are pretty
close.
-mike
 >> Stay informed about: Video Card for Video editing, replacement question 

Mike Ray wrote:
> Mike Ray wrote:
>
>> Ziggs wrote:
>>
>>> Currently, I have a 3GIG system that I put together 1.5 years ago. I
>>> have a ATI Radeon 9800 pro 128 AGP card, but it's failing (tried it in
>>> two computers and fuzzy lines start to appear on the model from time
>>> to time).
>>>
>>> Anyway, I want to buy the cheapest replacement video card for now
>>> because I'll get a new computer within 6 months or so.
>>>
>>> So, my main processing needs is when I use Pinnacle to edit clips for
>>> DVD's. So, can I get away with a cheaper card for this need? If so,
>>> what card would you recommend? I really don't want to waste money on
>>> a video card that I'll only need for 6 months, but I don't want to add
>>> an additional wait time for editing videos.
>>>
>>> TIA
>>
>>
>> I use Pinnacle (both v9.4 and v10.7)and have an ATI X700pro pci-e
>> card. This seems to work fine and I think the x700 should be in the
>> $50 - $75 USD range.
>> see http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131307R
>>
>> My system is a Pavilion 1130n:
>> AMD Athlon 64 3500+
>> one Gig ram
>> X700 pro pci-e
>
>
>
> Here is a benchmark for both the X700 and 9800. It seems they are pretty
> close.
> -mike

Oh yea the link:
http://reviews.pimprig.com/video_cards/sapphire_hybrid_x700_pro_videoc....php?pa
 >> Stay informed about: Video Card for Video editing, replacement question 

"Mike Ray" <mer1.TakeThisOut@cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:f850qk$n6u$2@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
> Mike Ray wrote:
>> Mike Ray wrote:
>>
>>> Ziggs wrote:
>>>
>>>> Currently, I have a 3GIG system that I put together 1.5 years ago. I
>>>> have a ATI Radeon 9800 pro 128 AGP card, but it's failing (tried it in
>>>> two computers and fuzzy lines start to appear on the model from time
>>>> to time).
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, I want to buy the cheapest replacement video card for now
>>>> because I'll get a new computer within 6 months or so.
>>>>
>>>> So, my main processing needs is when I use Pinnacle to edit clips for
>>>> DVD's. So, can I get away with a cheaper card for this need? If so,
>>>> what card would you recommend? I really don't want to waste money on
>>>> a video card that I'll only need for 6 months, but I don't want to add
>>>> an additional wait time for editing videos.
>>>>
>>>> TIA
>>>
>>>
>>> I use Pinnacle (both v9.4 and v10.7)and have an ATI X700pro pci-e card.
>>> This seems to work fine and I think the x700 should be in the $50 - $75
>>> USD range.
>>> see http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814131307R
>>>
>>> My system is a Pavilion 1130n:
>>> AMD Athlon 64 3500+
>>> one Gig ram
>>> X700 pro pci-e
>>
>>
>>
>> Here is a benchmark for both the X700 and 9800. It seems they are pretty
>> close.
>> -mike
>
> Oh yea the link:
> http://reviews.pimprig.com/video_cards/sapphire_hybrid_x700_pro_videoc....php?pa

Some of this depends on what kind of "Video Editing" you are talking
about. Most editing will not need 3D accelerations. A good 400+
ramdac would be the main feature I would use to pick a card for that
purpose, ( I know, with digital, the "Dac" part isn't as critical, but it
can
still be a real indication of how well the card was designed.)

There are other features to consider if you want to work with HD or
compress SD using highly complex AVC/H.264 or VC-1. For that
kind of work, the new Avivo and PureVideo features can make a real
difference.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2151671,00.asp

Presents the $100-150 ATI cards that include the newest features.
While they support DX10 and newer shaders, I would not recommend
them for gaming. Their video accelerations look impressive though.

( I find it odd that the HD 2900XT still has the older version of
Avivo. )

Luck;
Ken
 >> Stay informed about: Video Card for Video editing, replacement question 

* Ken Maltby:

> Some of this depends on what kind of "Video Editing" you are talking
> about. Most editing will not need 3D accelerations. A good 400+
> ramdac would be the main feature I would use to pick a card for that
> purpose,

That's only relevant if you want to use a CRT (or a very low-end TFT
display without DVI).

>( I know, with digital, the "Dac" part isn't as critical,

The RAMDAC simply isn't used for digital connection.

> but it
> can
> still be a real indication of how well the card was designed.)

Since the RAMDAC is integrated into the GPUs for almost a decade now
this is just nonsense.

Benjamin
 >> Stay informed about: Video Card for Video editing, replacement question 

"Benjamin Gawert" <bgawert.TakeThisOut@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:5gn6euF3hkpl3U1@mid.individual.net...
>* Ken Maltby:
>
>> Some of this depends on what kind of "Video Editing" you are talking
>> about. Most editing will not need 3D accelerations. A good 400+
>> ramdac would be the main feature I would use to pick a card for that
>> purpose,
>
> That's only relevant if you want to use a CRT (or a very low-end TFT
> display without DVI).
>
>>( I know, with digital, the "Dac" part isn't as critical,
>
> The RAMDAC simply isn't used for digital connection.
>
>> but it can
>> still be a real indication of how well the card was designed.)
>
> Since the RAMDAC is integrated into the GPUs for almost a decade now this
> is just nonsense.
>
> Benjamin

Did you enter this thread just to snipe at me? You should know
that current cards ( and for sure older ones) support Analog VGA
as well as Digital output modes. For instance the ATI HD 2600XT
lists as one of its features: "Two integrated 400 Mhz 30-bit
RAMDACs". They also have SD and HD analog output support
with an "Integrated AMD Xilleon HDTV encoder".

But my point was that a card with a 400+ RAMDAC (integrated
within the GPU or not), would be all that you need look for, to
select a video card for editing video. A cheap card with a good
RAMDAC will do the job, all the 3D gaming accelerations are of
no special benefit for most video editing. The use of a 400Mhz or
above RAMDAC marks a true quality point for such cards.

Go back to trying to get people to use Intel VM Motherboards
with "Integrated GFX" , and stop trying to confuse things.

Luck;
Ken
 >> Stay informed about: Video Card for Video editing, replacement question 

* Ken Maltby:

>>> Some of this depends on what kind of "Video Editing" you are talking
>>> about. Most editing will not need 3D accelerations. A good 400+
>>> ramdac would be the main feature I would use to pick a card for that
>>> purpose,
>> That's only relevant if you want to use a CRT (or a very low-end TFT
>> display without DVI).
>>
>>> ( I know, with digital, the "Dac" part isn't as critical,
>> The RAMDAC simply isn't used for digital connection.
>>
>>> but it can
>>> still be a real indication of how well the card was designed.)
>> Since the RAMDAC is integrated into the GPUs for almost a decade now this
>> is just nonsense.
>>
>> Benjamin
>
> Did you enter this thread just to snipe at me?

No, but you wrote nonsense and I took freedom to correct it. Is that a
problem for you?

> You should know
> that current cards ( and for sure older ones) support Analog VGA
> as well as Digital output modes. For instance the ATI HD 2600XT
> lists as one of its features: "Two integrated 400 Mhz 30-bit
> RAMDACs".

Exactly, "integrated" (means: built into the GPU).

> They also have SD and HD analog output support
> with an "Integrated AMD Xilleon HDTV encoder".

That has nothing to do with the RAMDAC.

> But my point was that a card with a 400+ RAMDAC (integrated
> within the GPU or not), would be all that you need look for, to
> select a video card for editing video.

You should sometimes read what you write. You wrote:

"I know, with digital, the "Dac" part isn't as critical, but it can
still be a real indication of how well the card was designed."

This is utterly BS because *all* modern gfx cards have the RAMDAC built
in the GPU so the RAMDAC says *nothing* about "how well the card was
designed". Besides that you completely ignore that ATI/AMD and Nvidia
are designing reference designs which are used by the majority of board
maker.

> A cheap card with a good
> RAMDAC will do the job, all the 3D gaming accelerations are of
> no special benefit for most video editing. The use of a 400Mhz or
> above RAMDAC marks a true quality point for such cards.

That's BS, too. The 400MHz says *nothing* about the quality. It is the
measure of the signal bandwith and tells someone who knows that stuff
what resolution/refresh rate limits the RAMDAC can output.

The signal *quality* however is only dependent on the output filters
which are required for EMI compliance and on most current cards are
cheap types which limit the bandwidth and causes signal degradation.

> Go back to trying to get people to use Intel VM Motherboards
> with "Integrated GFX" , and stop trying to confuse things.

I'd recommened you get the basics first instead of showing everyone that
you have no clue about this stuff.

Benjamin
 >> Stay informed about: Video Card for Video editing, replacement question 

"Benjamin Gawert" <bgawert.TakeThisOut@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:5grr1bF3i9svnU1@mid.individual.net...
>* Ken Maltby:
>
>>>> Some of this depends on what kind of "Video Editing" you are talking
>>>> about. Most editing will not need 3D accelerations. A good 400+
>>>> ramdac would be the main feature I would use to pick a card for that
>>>> purpose,
>>> That's only relevant if you want to use a CRT (or a very low-end TFT
>>> display without DVI).
>>>
>>>> ( I know, with digital, the "Dac" part isn't as critical,
>>> The RAMDAC simply isn't used for digital connection.
>>>
>>>> but it can
>>>> still be a real indication of how well the card was designed.)
>>> Since the RAMDAC is integrated into the GPUs for almost a decade now
>>> this is just nonsense.
>>>
>>> Benjamin
>>
>> Did you enter this thread just to snipe at me?
>
> No, but you wrote nonsense and I took freedom to correct it. Is that a
> problem for you?
>
>> You should know
>> that current cards ( and for sure older ones) support Analog VGA
>> as well as Digital output modes. For instance the ATI HD 2600XT
>> lists as one of its features: "Two integrated 400 Mhz 30-bit
>> RAMDACs".
>
> Exactly, "integrated" (means: built into the GPU).
>
>> They also have SD and HD analog output support
>> with an "Integrated AMD Xilleon HDTV encoder".
>
> That has nothing to do with the RAMDAC.
>
>> But my point was that a card with a 400+ RAMDAC (integrated
>> within the GPU or not), would be all that you need look for, to
>> select a video card for editing video.
>
> You should sometimes read what you write. You wrote:
>
> "I know, with digital, the "Dac" part isn't as critical, but it can
> still be a real indication of how well the card was designed."
>
> This is utterly BS because *all* modern gfx cards have the RAMDAC built in
> the GPU so the RAMDAC says *nothing* about "how well the card was
> designed". Besides that you completely ignore that ATI/AMD and Nvidia are
> designing reference designs which are used by the majority of board maker.
>
>> A cheap card with a good
>> RAMDAC will do the job, all the 3D gaming accelerations are of
>> no special benefit for most video editing. The use of a 400Mhz or
>> above RAMDAC marks a true quality point for such cards.
>
> That's BS, too. The 400MHz says *nothing* about the quality. It is the
> measure of the signal bandwith and tells someone who knows that stuff what
> resolution/refresh rate limits the RAMDAC can output.
>
> The signal *quality* however is only dependent on the output filters which
> are required for EMI compliance and on most current cards are cheap types
> which limit the bandwidth and causes signal degradation.
>
>> Go back to trying to get people to use Intel VM Motherboards
>> with "Integrated GFX" , and stop trying to confuse things.
>
> I'd recommened you get the basics first instead of showing everyone that
> you have no clue about this stuff.
>
> Benjamin


You seem incapable of reading my posts, and comprehending
what is being said. It might help if you read complete sentences
and paragraphs. Placing your own interpretation on my posts may
make you feel good, but is no help in the process of communication.

Again, a manufacture's use of a design that includes a RAMDAC
400Mhz or over shows that, the card was built to a high quality, in
the areas that relate to video editing. The RAMDAC's contribution
to that quality is more than you appear to allow, but it is only one
part of the design. My point, again, was that if a card has this area
of the design addressed, it need not include the more expensive 3D
acceleration features that are added to GPU and Video Card
designs (for gaming), to be an excellent card for Video Editing.
This makes it a good screening factor during the process of
selecting a video card for video editing, The subject of this
thread.

An inexpensive card can be lacking 3D gaming accelerations
but still be very good for Video Editing, if it is designed to the
quality that would include a 400Mhz or better RAMDAC.

You appear not to have any interest in the subject of this thread,
and I have no plans to hijack the thread to get into a technical
debate to correct your misunderstandings of the issues involved.
Now hack away at my sentences and paragraphs, I'm done with
you.

Luck;
Ken
 >> Stay informed about: Video Card for Video editing, replacement question 

> I guess it could be overheating, but how would I resolve that? The
> fan is spinning and the heat within the computer is within an
> acceptable range.
>
> I'm sure it's the video card since I placed it into my wife's computer
> as a test. After about an hour,

If it's after an hour then it's likely a problem with the heat sink.
Pull it off, clean it. blow all the dust off it, add some fresh heat
sink compound, and replace it and see if the problem goes away. If it
doesn't, you've lost the two and a half bucks or so that a tube of heat
sink compound costs, if it does then you've saved the price of a new
board.

> it developed the same fuzzy lines for
> the other computer. Also, I'm using her video card in my computer and
> I don't have any problems with it.
>
>
>
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 20:30:08 GMT, "Michael W. Ryder"
> <_mwryder.DeleteThis@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> Ziggs wrote:
>>> Currently, I have a 3GIG system that I put together 1.5 years ago.
>>> I have a ATI Radeon 9800 pro 128 AGP card, but it's failing (tried
>>> it in two computers and fuzzy lines start to appear on the model
>>> from time to time).
>>>
>>> Anyway, I want to buy the cheapest replacement video card for now
>>> because I'll get a new computer within 6 months or so.
>>>
>>> So, my main processing needs is when I use Pinnacle to edit clips
>>> for DVD's. So, can I get away with a cheaper card for this need?
>>> If so, what card would you recommend? I really don't want to waste
>>> money on a video card that I'll only need for 6 months, but I don't
>>> want to add an additional wait time for editing videos.
>>>
>>> TIA
>>
>> Are you sure that the video card is failing and not overheating?
>> Also have you checked to be sure that the power supply is not
>> failing?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
 >> Stay informed about: Video Card for Video editing, replacement question