Video card quality & memory with multiple monitors: what specs make a difference?

I'm using an Nvidia 440 quad with low memory, 128 MB, and four discrete monitors:  two 27" and one 22" HP and an LG 50" plasma TV.
 
The card connects with splitters so that I have four DVI-outs from the card (recently upgraded the splitter from VGA outs).
 
The quality on the PC monitors is great; on the TV (on a wall four feet behind my workstation, about six or seven feet from my position) it's not-so-great.  The LG is new (Dec 2010).  I know that pixel size is part of the reason it's never going to look as if it were a 50" PC monitor.
 
Running X1c x64 in W7 x64 on a i7 950 machine, 3.07 GhZ w/12 GB RAM.  I allow Windows to run Aero.
 
I'm typing this on my brand new high-end (work) laptop with a Radeon HD 6490M at 1920x1080 full HD (with either 2 or 3GB or Vram), which was a significant upgrade from the standard video card offering (HP online purchase).  The graphics on my laptop are incredible.  Which prompted me to wonder what would happen if I ran X1 through this card or something similar to the LG TV.
 
Ok, my issue/question:  after researching the issue of DAWs and video card quality, the consensus seems to be, logically, that we don't need top-end video cards because we're not gaming or editing video; X1/digital audio production simply does not demand the highest quality and most video-ram out of its cards.  Makes sense.
 
Obviously, however, I want to take full advantage of the plasma TV.  I also do want to maintain a quad configuration, but putting that aside for a moment, what are the factors in a video card that most strongly impact image quality on a TV being used as a monitor for X1?
 
For example, would more video ram make a noticeable difference?  The Nvidia 440 Quad is also now three-plus years old, so are there other aspects/improvements in quality that have obviously taken place over that time that would make a difference?
 
Essentially I'm wondering three things, and any info about any of the three would help:  (1) what qualities/specs in a video card used with an HD plasma TV as a PC monitor solely for X1 use (i.e., I'm not gaming, editing video, or otherwise using any other more graphic-intensive or "video" applications); (2) if anyone one has been down this road and has specific examples; (3) what options are available that would allow for improved picture quality on the plasma in a quad-output configuraton (specifically, I'm not cloning screens, I'm talking about four separate video outs).
 
Thanks very much for any information.
 
Warm regards and all hail this forum!
 
 

I'm running an old 7600gt with only 256mb ram and I'm on windows 64 bit, having no issues. All to the good ;)

If you get an upgraded video card to the on board video, if you have that,  that is current in the market and has dual video out for your needs, it is probably gonna be just fine.

I also stick to Nvidia, but my brother has an Ati card with dual monitors that performs great.

Lance

No one has actually explained why extra graphics memory is beneficial with SONAR. There are repeated implications that more is better and that something special happens over on the GPU... but seemingly no one can explain what those special processes are.

Other folks will tell you that Aero makes your system run better. For example; "less hurtful" is a term I've seen used here at the forum. But when you go search thru Microsoft's and Intel's websites Aero is never mentioned as anything other than a deluxe end user experience. There is never any mention on Microsoft's website that supports the implications that AERO offers any performance gains within the system. They sort of infer that AERO can make you happy and more productive.


from: http://www.cakewalk.com/P...er-System-Requirements

"SONAR X1 Producer System Requirements The following are the minimum recommended system requirements for SONAR X1 Producer.

• Windows XP Service Pack 3 (32-bit)/Vista Service Pack 2 (32- or 64-bit)/Windows 7 (32- or 64-bit)*
• Intel Core 2 Duo E8200 2.67 GHz/AMD Phenom Quad Core 9750 2.4 Ghz
• 2 GB RAM
• 1280x800 minimum screen resolution
• 4.5GB for minimal installation, 15GB for complete installation
• SONAR on DVD: DVD-ROM, DVD+/-R or DVD+/-RW Drive
• SONAR download: Broadband or better internet connection for download
• Cakewalk Publisher requires available web server space with FTP access

* Windows XP Media Center and Windows XP 64-bit are not officially supported."




As you have demonstrated... you are running 4 screens on 128MB of memory.

With regards to your TV set. The conversion to video occurs within the set. When I purchased my most recent TV set I got a SONY because they have great implementation of conversion math and the picture looks stunning even when I hook up the HDMI to a wimpy little laptop video output. I don't know anything about LG... but I suspect that your results are more constrained by the TV than the video output on your system.



Having said all that it seems real easy to find a cheap video card with lots of onboard memory... the only downside is the possible need for a fan which will begin life as a quiet appliance and will end it's life as a source of noise.


Good luck.


best regards,
mike

I ran a dual monitor setup on a card with 128mb on board and have recently upgreaded to a fanless card (5450 I think) with 1gb onboard graphics.

If I'm honest I was a little disappointed with the performance increase, or rather lack of it. I'm not sure what I was expecting though. The only real difference is I no longer get drop outs when abusing screensets switching, by abuse I mean changing 3 or 4 times in as many seconds like I do when I realise I've selected the wrong one.

I would have thought with 4 displays on 1 card you would see slightly better performance increase than I did.

"In XP, Windows will keep these images in video card memory whenever it can, but XP also keeps a spare copy in system memory, no matter what. Bit crazy, but there you go."

Last I heard it amounts to less than 10MB per window.

best regards,
mike

This is what I got:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814161354

and, I can't get the DVI port to work right. When I use a DVI cable, I get lots of red lines and red distortion. I got a VGA/DVI adapter and it works. So, 2 monitors, 1 on regular VGA out and the other on DVI/adapter/vga out. 

A fanless grarphics card is all well and good but there is also the thought that increased heat within the case from these cards is only going to trigger other fans to run faster to dissipate the extra heat coming from the graphics card's heat sinks.

I have a high end card which has a fan but when doing audio work it barely ticks over. Certainly not audible above the level of anything else happening in my control room or even in the case. Now if I do some heavy duty video rendering or 3D  stuff then away she goes 'a whirring out loudly' but then it's not an issue.

John T


Actually, what I say above is inaccurate, in that XP doesn't store the contents of every window, but simply the composite image that you see on the desktop.

What this means is that XPs video memory requirements are lower, but its performance impact is higher, as every time you move or minimise or maximise a window, the entire lot has to be re-calculated.

Win 7 vista not only doesn't have to do this, but is also doing moat of its work on the GPU rather than the CPU. So there are two specific areas of performance gain.

Hi John T,

Some how, it almost seems, to me, like you are suggesting that using a GPU to render the desktop display is new and was introduced in Win 7. What has my video GPU been doing on my graphics accelerator cards for the past 20 or so years since I moved up to 16bit (and eventually 32bit) display output?

Are there any further details about what's specifically new to Win7?


best,
mike

Ok thanks anyway.

It wasn't that I didn't understand what you are saying... it is that what you are saying seems, to me, rather vague.

Can any one else explain what is actually specifically different?


best regards,
mike




edit for clarity