Video card for the non-gamer?

You want to go with an ATI card for blu-ray,
I would recommend anything between a 3850 and a 4850,
ATI cards decode the high def movies on the card (i believe) with no extra software,
Nvidia wants you to buy PureVideo to allow decoding on the card,
Yeah ATI cards are the way to go when it comes to doing things with HDTVs and HTPCs. All ATI cards from the HD 3xxx and 4xxx series will give you excellent performance with Blu-ray and they include Native HDMI.

Blu-Ray adviser

http://www.cyberlink.com/prog/bd-support/diagnosis.do

In fact, you could buy a HD3450 and it will support support bluray playback. but it's a very weak card for 3d gaming (if you're going to gma eone day).

The 4670 is a great entry card, at a very good price.

I have read a lot of positive reviews on the 4670

I'd tend to go for the actively cooled card when possible - I've seen passive cards run far hotter that I'd ever want. The lower spec actively cooled cards don't make that much heat anyways - they tend to run pretty quietly.

Stick with the HD4650 for playback, if you're not gaming, then it's the better performer with more playback features than both the GF9600GSO and HD2K & HD3K series, and more than enough for the tasks you listed. And in just about anuthing you're doing it's better than the HD2600XT.

In general the HD4850 would be overkill, generate more backplate heat (even with an aftermarket cooler [which you could apply to either]) and draw alot more power both at idle and heavy 2D.

I prefer passive on an editing rig because it means you can leave it unattended rather securely, and if you're not gaming and not overclocking then it'll run just fine, even for ambient if you have sufficient case cooling.

Reliability and longevity over slightly lower core temps and minimal impact on case temps for such a low power card. Problem is you have to wait for them.

If you want a little more you could always go with the HD4670, and get a nice OEM cooler like the one on the HIS;
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6814161249

Maybe a little more power than you need for a non-gaming machine, but it's quiet and ejects all the heat out of the rig, even though I still prefer passive cooling.

You won't notice a difference with video playback. The gpu will take some of load off cpu, but as long as cpu isn't bottlenecked to 100%, playback will be perfectly smooth anyway. Decoding is done on cpu, gpu only helps accelerate.

a 9600GSO could possibly also require a PSU upgrade, while the HD 4670 doesn't. It's really not that good of a budget card as you make it sound, dagger A LOT of people have el-cheapo PSUs that need some 4670 lovin'.

I was stating the $50 ar plus free shipping 9600gso as an alternative to the more expensive 4670. I would have recommended 2600XT, but the cheapest one on newegg is $48 ar, plus $8.25 shipping, which makes it more expensive than 9600gso. There is no point paying more for less performance.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod [...] 6814131057

At peak load, system power consumption is 164w compared to 177w, a 13 watt difference between 9600gso and 4670. While the 13 watts less is certainly an advantage, it's not big enough to make or break a psu. A psu that can handle 4670 should be able to take the extra 13 watts, it's not that much.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews [...] 70/24.html

However if you're going to recommend something else, why not recommend the then $25 HD2600Pro? That's the point, why stop at the GSO if all he needs is a good CPU?

Might be.
Emp said "could possibly", seems that if someone were concerned between the two, then you go for the one that consumes less, and an HD4650 even less of a PSU concern. It's not like he's losing features for that benifit, it has more features he's looking for, AND draws less power. Win-win.

If it were about gaming the motivation might be different, but it's not in this case.

You're missing the reasoning behind the HD4650 and 4670, it's not for games it's for playback capabilities, so for that the HD4650 is fine, and offers features not available on other cards other than the other HD4Ks, and some integrated options (although their playback performance is suspect after Cleeve's review).

For the OP's needs, which are not gaming, the HD4650 > GF9600GSO. If gaming were involved, then you could mention performance, otherwise, there's little the GSO can do that the HD4650 can't, but alot the HD4650 can do that the GSO can't. Specific to this thread the HD4650 > GF9600GSO, for most other people that may not be the case. The added oomph of the HD4670 is also wasted for what he's doing.

Actually you need to look into the feature list if you think the HD2600 has the same support as the HD4650, and same with the GF9600GSO, since they all support different feature leves. Whether or not he will use all those features is another story.

It does, but you need to look further into the differences, because you seem to think they are all the same, and they are not.

The HD2600 reference is in reply to your CPU comment, because if it were to be playback feature wise, the GF9600GSO definitely has a slight edge over the HD2600, however in addition the HD4650 also has additional features ontop of that, which is the point of the recommendations. Whether or not he'll use all the features or not is another question. However for the tasks he's listed, there's nothing the GF9600GSO would be a 'better performer' at than the HD4650, other than the gaming which he already mentioned is not the focus.

So what exactly is it that the GF9600GSO does that makes it your recommendation? What is this 'performance' difference you allude to.
What to shed some light on it, because right now it looks like you're confusing gaming performance and adding it into a thread/choice where it's not relevant.

Don't you have to pay for Purevideo? I can't remember to be honest.

I don't know, I'm asking you You're the expert... I hear that Purevideo isn't free. Also I read that AVIVO offers better image quality. But that's just me repeating what I've heard, since Video acceleration isn't really my area of expertise... I'll let you and ape duke it out and teach me about it

Apparently there's better UVD on the HD 4000 series, so it might be worth it over the HD 2600.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Video_Decoder

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVIVO

I didn't need to, they're pretty well described in any review that details the changes, that you don't know the differences is apparent, which is why I ask you to detail them. You think they're the same, but I know that the differenhces, and have detailed them in the forum before. The question is simple, if you think they're all the same, what is the benefit to the GSO, if you understand they are different, then why the GSO instead of the GF9500 or GF9400, and why omit the HD4650?

It's more complicated than that, and both AVIVO and PureVideo have evolved from generation to generation, which is the point I'm specifically addressing, and you seem to be unaware of. As to either being 'inferior', it depends on the task, and really, I would say that regardless of the PR names, the features the chips support, and that would be relevant to the OP's question, goes HD2600<GF9600GSO<HD4650, but I don't think you still grasp why since you think they're equal and it's about AVIVO or PureVideo being superior or inferior and not about the hardware within (you're confusing the two obviously). You also miss the idea that other Geforces would be cheaper still and offer the same features.

Simply put, the more I read your replies, the more I get the feeling you really understand what is different about the requirements here for something that is a media-centric PC that is not focused on gaming. I agree the GSO is a good value for gaming, but it doesn't really match the requirements of this thread, and for the same reasons I wouldn't suggest an HD4850 as it's overkill, the same goes for the GF9600GSO, because pretty much everything it can do related to the OP's question can be accomplished by the GF9500GT for less.

You talk in circles about 'how is performing better a con as long as it's cheaper?' which doesn't address the situation here. How do you think the GF9600GSO performs better than the HD4650 or HD4670? Because it doesn't in this scenario. The limited ways in which the GF9600GSO would perform better than the HD2600Pro you seem unable to address, and yet I and others here have discussed them time and again. So like I said, explain specifically how you think the GF9600GSO performs better than the HD4650, and what you think it performs better at than the HD2600Pro that is worth it's price? Or why it's worth more than a GF8600/9400/9500 Once again, I think you're relying on gaming performance, and that's not what the OP is talking about. Otherwise it should be easy to explain how the GF9600GSO fits your performing better for cheaper vis-a vis the HD4650, GF9500GT and even the HD2600P, the last one I give you because it should be an easy one as that's the only one that really has a strong case for it.

edit - Well as I was writing this on the way out from work, this thread updated itself. Anywho, I don't know if you understand the differences better now or not, but I'll tell you this pure and simple, the hardware differences go HD2600 (which I own) < GF9xxx < HD4K. I'll explain more when I get home specifically why, and why it matters to the OP, but Emp at least pointed you in the right direction.

Now I'll hijack the thread for my own benefit to enrich my knowledge and want an answer on a few questions.

1.) Which one would you say offers the better picture quality? AVIVO HD or PurevideoHD?

2.) Should I set on my CCC Edge enhancement, de-noising, Color vibrance, and flesh tone correction to the maximum?

3.) As I understand it, do I need an AVIVO compatible player to make full use of it? I use the KMPlayer that I found on wikipedia as being fully compatible.

I'd really like to understand more of this stuff to be able to offer more sensitive advice (That and because I'm buying an HDTV soon ).

I wouldn't they offer different things. Some are better than others, and just like digital vibrance or the 'VIVID' setting on a SONY TV, you might prefer something that is not visually correct, but looks 'better' to you because it pops. You can mathematically compare the two images, and they are both very close. The funniest thing is that the best test between the two was actually wrought with flaws because the PCs weren't set up properly and then they tested one PC with image enhancements and the other without (because the IHV said whenever you test always turn off enhancements [just like saying when running benchmarks turn off optimizations/floptimizations) which doesn't really show either system to it's true benefit. Most people who use both find them very VERY close, and if you set them up properly, then both will accurately reproduce the image portrayed on the HD media.

No, I would start at default at tweak for different content.
My experience, edge enhancement and de-noising cause problems for some content.
I haven't had experience using the other two personally on a long term basis just played around with them. The only thing I'd likely prefer at max all the time on an LCD TV would be contrast enhancement, it was impressive for an LCD, but not sure whether it would be as good for a CRT, DLP or Plasma.

Yes.

Some of the basic questions about AVIVO and PureVideo can be answered at ATi and nV's sites, they have some good whitepapers, briefs, guides and FAQs but it is primarily for setup and use than the technical stuff.

I would suggest checking out some AV forums if you have specific questions in the future, because usually someone else has encountered whatever issue too, and likely figured out how to fix it collectively.

Yeah the only thing I can see the HD4850 or GTX 2xx being good for in this scenario would be a GPGPU aspect. And right now I'm not sure if the difference would make an HD4850 much more attractive than an HD4670 for such a thing.

It's still early days for that too.

Yeah, you'll definitely see artifacts. TVs usually have pretty good and fast hardware scalers, but they're still imperfect.

From my experiences of 2 of the 3 you listed above, the Samsung handled off-resolution content (especially SD material) better than the LG. I haven't seen the Sharp.

The biggest issue I saw was occasional gap jumps on the LG and some blockiness. But for the most part they do a better job than most desktop LCDs, however text is still going to suffer terribly, so you may notice it in things like the hud, but static images are a little easier and not so noticeable from my experience.

The 3 look good at native with HD content, but because of the Samsung's ability with SD content and it's slightly better blacks IMO, I prefer the Samsung. Also the LG sucked at de-interlacing, Sharp was ok.
But I still prefer Plasmas personally, but I had to shop for one for a friend (he's still stuck on a Sony though, which is a good panel but overpriced IMO), and really he is a sucker for the 'vivid' setting which does make football look 'hyper green'.

That's a tough question, most short term content will be primarily 720P for those not in the BluRay and HD-DVD crowd. Now I own about 40 HD-DVDs and 20 BluRay disks and rent them all the time, so for me 1080i is better than 720P, let alone 1080P. Especially since CBC which carries hockey and the Olympics in Canada is 1080i. TSN is 720P, Sportsnet 1080i and TSN2 is supposedly 1080i (I have a feeling all are moving to 1080i then 1080p eventually).
But if you're not watching BR titles or HD television, then most internet stuff will be primarily 720P for the near term, due to download size and broadcast limits and such. But I suspect in 3-5 years you'll see things move to primarily 1080P even for gaming consoles.

So my view on it is, if you're looking for the best experience, and don't mind upgrading, then buy a solid but inexpensive (not cheap, just not expensive [no Kuro 720P]) Panel that supports 720P, and then in 3-5 years sell it and upgrade to a by then inexpensive 1080P panel with updated technology (might be OLED by then (doubt it, but I can dream).

As nice as it is to have a 1080P panel, what's the point if most of your content is 720P? Just know that eventually everything will be 1080P.