Estimated price of this video card? 12 replies

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

Morbid_Murder

I want some tacitos

50 XP

22nd January 2005

0 Uploads

195 Posts

0 Threads

#1 9 years ago

Well my new Dell Inspiron arrived earlier today. It has no graphics card at the moment but I do plan on buying a cheap one.

What I was wondering was, about how much would the NVIDIA GeForce 8200 on this PC go for?....

Acer - Desktop with AMD Sempron™ X2 2300 Dual-Core Processor - AX1200-U1711A

It's obviously not very powerful, but it worked good enough for the old PC games I play (I still play Guild Wars sometimes). That's actually the PC that I refunded recently for this Dell since I needed the extra speed for some music production programs. I'm alot less interested in gaming so I'm not trying to spend that much.

And I almost forgot to ask - is there a way to adjust the screen position? My current resolution is 1152x864 on a 17" monitor, but a slight portion of the right side is hidden....it's enough to hide the scrollbar on some websites.




>Omen<

Modern Warfare

50 XP

1st January 2005

0 Uploads

7,395 Posts

0 Threads

#2 9 years ago

Sounds like you went into a store that had that Acer and played some games on it? What exact model of Inspiron do you have? That way I can try and determine what's the best GPU it's power supply can handle. You can actually get a video card much better than that Acer had, which is probably just onboard video, for as little as $30.

It's not even worth it to pursue such an old card as cheap as you can get better ones now. To give you an idea, you can get an entire motherboard with 8200 onboard video for as little as $50. The 8200 chip itself isn't worth a whole lot. Even built onto a dedicated video card (and good luck finding one), I can't imagine it selling for more than $30 MSRP with a street price of around $20. So what you'd be saving over say an 8400 would be maybe a whopping $5.

If I were you, my money would be on something like an 8600GTS, which can be had for as little as $30. You do need a Pci-Ex motherboard to fit it though and a power supply with at least 350 watts and 22 amps on the 12 volt rail, which your PC's power supply may or may not have. [COLOR=Red]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814130394[/COLOR]

The screen size should be adjustable via a resizing feature on the monitor itself. Once you stretch it out to fill the screen, the monitor should remember the setting for each resolution you have to do that with.




Mr. Pedantic

I would die without GF

234,620 XP

8th October 2006

0 Uploads

23,127 Posts

0 Threads

#3 9 years ago

Most desktops built like this for the mainstream computing public are really quite pitifully endowed in the GPU department.

You could buy a proper, dedicated GPU with much more power than that one for about $40.

And I almost forgot to ask - is there a way to adjust the screen position? My current resolution is 1152x864 on a 17" monitor, but a slight portion of the right side is hidden....it's enough to hide the scrollbar on some websites.

LCDs are not very flexible with resolutions above their maximum. You get distortions, things scaling wrong, and shapes look kind of strange. If you want to increase the resolution, the only way I know is to get a new monitor, I'm afraid.




Bs|Archaon

I would die without GF

50 XP

15th March 2006

0 Uploads

5,910 Posts

0 Threads

#4 9 years ago

17"? Try running it at 1280x1024. That's the native resolution of most 17" LCDs and it's what they work best at; if it's a normal 17" LCD then the picture should align properly at 1280x1024. That's unless it's a widescreen 17" which I doubt because they're pretty rare, but if it is widescreen then your problem is that you're running a 4:3 resolution not a widescreen one (16:10 for most monitors).




>Omen<

Modern Warfare

50 XP

1st January 2005

0 Uploads

7,395 Posts

0 Threads

#5 9 years ago
Bs|Archaon;4907190That's the native resolution of most 17" LCDs...

Assuming of course it is an LCD.




Mr. Pedantic

I would die without GF

234,620 XP

8th October 2006

0 Uploads

23,127 Posts

0 Threads

#6 9 years ago
17"? Try running it at 1280x1024. That's the native resolution of most 17" LCDs and it's what they work best at; if it's a normal 17" LCD then the picture should align properly at 1280x1024. That's unless it's a widescreen 17" which I doubt because they're pretty rare, but if it is widescreen then your problem is that you're running a 4:3 resolution not a widescreen one (16:10 for most monitors).

1280x1024 is 5:4. And the resolution should be set to it's optimal resolution 'out of the box', as it were. Making it bigger might make it even worse.




Andron Taps Forum Mod

Faktrl is Best Pony

261,578 XP

10th September 2007

4 Uploads

21,746 Posts

1,754 Threads

#7 9 years ago

I wish my monitor could go that high =p


"I'd shush her zephyr." ~ Zephyr.



kow_ciller

Gettin' hardware chilly

50 XP

16th June 2004

0 Uploads

5,787 Posts

0 Threads

#8 9 years ago

8200 is onboard only. You can however find a pretty good video card for under $50. Last I saw some places had 3870s for about $50 and 8600gts for $40.




*Daedalus

A Phoenix from the ashes

50 XP

18th April 2006

0 Uploads

3,091 Posts

0 Threads

#9 9 years ago

The monitor thing does make it sound like a CRT... I've never had that kind of problem with an LCD.




Bs|Archaon

I would die without GF

50 XP

15th March 2006

0 Uploads

5,910 Posts

0 Threads

#10 9 years ago

Aye but if it's a CRT then he should be able to adjust it sufficiently to make it fit on screen. And even if it is a CRT then any 17" CRT should display 1280x1024 easily enough, and failing that what's wrong with 1024x768? 17" CRTs aren't exactly huge, comparable to a 15" LCD at best.

Pedantic, you are correct that 1280x1024 is 5:4. However 1152x864 - which is what I was talking about at the time I mentioned ratios - is 4:3. Hence why I said he is running at a 4:3 resolution. Tenses can be a bitch, I know. As for setting it higher making it worse, 1280x1024 is the native resolution for virtually any 17" LCD on the market aside from widescreens. LCDs are best used at their native resolution, therefore he should be using that. End of.

Unless of course he has visual difficulties or sits too far away or some other reason meaning he needs the resolution set lower to read things, but in that case 1024x768 is a more widely supported resolution which is more likely to work properly than 1152x864.

And yes guys this does happen with LCDs.




  • 1
  • 2