Help- Really low end gcard upgrade for a really low end pc

[nkhn]

I know there are other threads which ask the same question but my PC is really low end compared to most I have seen. The configuration of my PC:

 

Processor AMD Athlon™ II X2 250 Processor

Memory (RAM) 2.00 GB

Graphics NVIDIA GeForce 7025 / NVIDIA nForce 630a (Microsoft Corporation - WDDM) Gaming graphics 895 MB Total available graphics memory

Primary hard disk 5GB Free (18GB Total)

System

 

 

Manufacturer MSI

Model MS-7597

Total amount of system memory 2.00 GB RAM

System type 32-bit operating system

Number of processor cores 2

64-bit capable Yes

 

Storage

 

Total size of hard disk(s) 76 GB

Disk partition (C: 5 GB Free (18 GB Total)

Disk partition (D 1 GB Free (4 GB Total)

Disk partition (E 2 GB Free (13 GB Total)

Disk partition (F 3 GB Free (17 GB Total)

Disk partition (G 5 GB Free (24 GB Total)

 

Graphics

 

 

Display adapter type NVIDIA GeForce 7025 / NVIDIA nForce 630a (Microsoft Corporation - WDDM)

Total available graphics memory 895 MB

Dedicated graphics memory 256 MB

Dedicated system memory 0 MB

Shared system memory 639 MB

Display adapter driver version 8.15.11.8593

Primary monitor resolution 1024x768

DirectX version DirectX 9.0 or better

 

This recent render took 12 mins & it was the lowest render config I could go

 

In a few days I will start rendering a batch of files & need to juice my PC up a bit as much as I can afford which is not much.

 

I plan to buy a graphics card- either

 

1.Sapphire AMD Radeon HD 6450 / 1GB DDR3 / PCI Express 2.1

2.Sapphire HD5450, 1GB 64bit(preferred as it costs less).

 

Which one should I choose?

I may also buy a RAM & some extra space if I can save some money.

[Dimitris Tolios]

It looks like you are using the graphics built into your motherboard to feed your display.

Considering the age of your system, this is a really low performance solution, as aside from being slower, a non dedicated (on a separate card) GPU is taking most of the required resources out of your main system's CPU and RAM. The reported ram you are giving us, is shared from your mere 2GB of RAM, so if your GPU actually requires 200-500MB or ram, eventually this amount is deducted from the RAM available for loading programs in windows etc.

 

A dedicated GPU will aid you with both faster graphic performance, and will free-up this little bit of RAM from your system.

 

Problem is that both the cards you've listed are really low-end (as you have mentioned yourself) and are both 64bit cards - just like your main memory powered built-in card. Low end cards usually are 128bit, with more serious cards being 192bit in the low end to 256bit or more to ensure fast operation.

 

I don't know what you budget is, how expensive and easily available are computer products in your country or what you expect from your new card either.

 

You have to keep in mind that the GPU has little or nothing to do with your rendering speeds, unless you are using a renderer that supports rendering using your GPU instead of your CPU. So rendering speeds won't increase in your case, unless helped a bit by the slight main memory availability increase you will get indirectly by getting a dedicated GPU that wll use its onboard memory.

 

Also keep in mind that your really low main memory + low available HDD space because of your many partitions might lead your rendering software to hit a wall running out of swap file / RAM when trying to render much bigger than 640x480p images.

[nkhn]

It looks like you are using the graphics built into your motherboard to feed your display.

Considering the age of your system, this is a really low performance solution, as aside from being slower, a non dedicated (on a separate card) GPU is taking most of the required resources out of your main system's CPU and RAM. The reported ram you are giving us, is shared from your mere 2GB of RAM, so if your GPU actually requires 200-500MB or ram, eventually this amount is deducted from the RAM available for loading programs in windows etc.

 

A dedicated GPU will aid you with both faster graphic performance, and will free-up this little bit of RAM from your system.

 

Problem is that both the cards you've listed are really low-end (as you have mentioned yourself) and are both 64bit cards - just like your main memory powered built-in card. Low end cards usually are 128bit, with more serious cards being 192bit in the low end to 256bit or more to ensure fast operation.

 

I don't know what you budget is, how expensive and easily available are computer products in your country or what you expect from your new card either.

 

 

Yup I know this but I cant afford anything higher end. My processor & RAM is already an upgrade from my last machine & I just did it a few months ago.

 

My budget is 5000-5500 bucks (in my countries denomination). GPU 1 costs 4,200 & 2 costs 3,400. I am keeping something extra for a 2gb RAM & an external HDD. Also plan to OC the processor.

 

The highest range of graphics card in the market is Sapphire HD7850as far as I have found out.

 

So what do I do now?

[nkhn]

Incidentally, I use Vray to render.

 

Also, I did some research on the web(mostly wikipedia) & the articles said GPUs are the thing for rendering. Is that not true?

[Dimitris Tolios]

GPU - Viewport acceleration

 

Well, getting a better GPU will surely help you when you model and setup your scenes are the viewport in max (I assume it is max) will be much smoother to orbit and move around.

 

Any of the listed GPUs would to a little better job on that than what you have, simply because we are talking replacing one of the slowest GPUs of its time - and that has been some time ago! You simply cannot easily find anything slower than that, so...you can hardly go wrong. You will also free up some of your RAM by doing so, which can only be good.

 

-----

 

RAM

Getting a bit more RAM for your system would surely help too. The issue is that if I understood correctly, your motheboard should be: MSI GF615M-P33

This board has only 2x DDR3 memory slots, which are probably full already with 2x 1GB DDR3 dimms.

 

DDR3 is pretty cheap today, but still your funds are pretty limited.

Your board has limit 8GB. If you have the funds, ideally you should do 2x4GB sticks to maximize both memory and performance as your motherboard supports dual channel (which needs 2x identical sticks to work).

If you don't have the money for 2x 4GB sticks (which should be roughly as expensive as the cards you've mentioned - it is around 40-45 US dollars here for 2x 4GB DDR3 1333 just like a HD6450 1GB), you could go for either 2x2 sticks to get the dual channel benefits, or get 1x4GB and leave room for expansion in the future. In the second case, you might be able to use one of the 1GB sticks you have to go 5GBs total and single-channel mode.

 

----

 

GPU for rendering

Your sources are wrong or you miss-understood. Yes, rendering workstations do use powerful graphics to help with accelerating the viewports loaded with complex model geometries and textures, but only recently some software developers implemented GPU accelerated renderings. This requires really powerful cards, like high-end gaming and workstation models that cost a minimum of $200 and up to thousands or USD - probably not what you and many others are willing to spend. Moreover your system is not fast enough to support such a GPU to its full potential, and likely it won't work at all as those cards are very power hungry and require 500W+ PSUs to feed them enough power.

 

VRay RT GPU is part of Vray for 3DS 2.0 or higher.

[nkhn]

This board has only 2x DDR3 memory slots, which are probably full already with 2x 1GB DDR3 dimms.

 

Well, no actually I am runing a 2 GB in a single slot. I was thinking of getting a 4 GB RAM but maybe I should get another 2 GB for the dual channel benefit?

 

I think I will get the Sapphire HD5450, if it does nothing else at least it will free up some RAM.

 

Thank you dtolios for the advice & the time you took to help me out. I am very grateful for it.

[Dimitris Tolios]

You are welcome.

Most of the times the more RAM is a safer bet than the speed benefits you get from dual/triple/quad channel modules. I believe the 2+4 single channel solution will be universally more useful than the 2+2 dual channel.

(I remember being a student with my A64 3200+ s939, begging my colleagues to borrow their 2GB sticks for those senior project renderings...)