Timeline for Low-power-draw HD resolution video card
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Jan 4, 2017 at 2:04 | history | suggested | miroxlav | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added more up-to-date hardware equivalent
|
| Jan 4, 2017 at 2:02 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jan 4, 2017 at 2:04 | |||||
| Nov 3, 2015 at 23:15 | comment | added | goldilocks | @user2813274 I meant WRT not requiring massive power draw and cooling; I used the 16MB figure just to indicate that you don't need 512 to run an HD display, but excellent point about available RAM chips. The other video card in my closet was a relatively antique S3 virge w (!) 4 MB (I think you are very wrong about it consuming anywhere close to the power the card above does, BTW). Once intel started making onboard video standard, I guess the bottom dropped out of basic workstation oriented cards, which is why no wants to bother with them now. | |
| Nov 3, 2015 at 21:42 | comment | added | user2813274 | @delicateLatticeworkFever even the GPU on a tablet will have more than 16MB of ram (but shared with the main memory) - that combined with the fact that there aren't any ram chips that small means you won't find anything (or you will only find very old chips, which consume more power than a newer chip with 16x the capacity) | |
| Nov 3, 2015 at 16:31 | comment | added | goldilocks | This is a decent suggestion (+1) although it is not really what I had in mind -- I'm already aware of the bottom end 3D cards (a 5450 based card on newegg.ca is still >= $40). I've clarified the question by introducing the issue of power consumption. I am sure it is possible to make a 16 MB card with a GPU that requires no cooling or heatsink at all (think tablets). | |
| Nov 3, 2015 at 16:27 | history | edited | Andy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Nov 3, 2015 at 16:09 | history | answered | Andy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |