First of all, if your CPU has an integrated GPU, and you don't need more monitors than it supports (usually it's 3x1080p), that will be more than enough.

> Why should I move from just VGA, that is, get just a VGA card and not even get a graphics card?

I don't quite understand what you mean by VGA card. You mean something that has a VGA adapter and framebuffer(s), but the rendering is done on the CPU?

I wasn't aware those still exist outside some niche markets. I'd guess it'd cost about as much as an entry level GPU, which will take the load off your CPU.

My advice, if you don't have any iGPU on your CPU, is to just get the lowest tier graphics card. Those are <$100 new for the latest generation. You don't need latest, and probably don't need new.

When it comes to web browsing and watching videos, any remotely recent card will work fine. You may have issues with some fancy WebGL pages (i.e. browser games) but that hardly counts as everyday browsing.

Be sure to read a review of the card before purchasing!

The CPU I plan is the AMD FX-8350 with 8 cores running at 4.0 GHz and 125 Watts. So, no it has no integrated graphics support.

For a "VGA card", I just meant a video card supporting all the old VGA standards but without a graphics processor. So, there would be no "hardware acceleration" of OpenGL 4.5 (or some such) or DirectX 12 (some version of). Yes, there would be a standard VGA plug (socket, connector, etc.) for the signal connection to the monitor, but many high end graphics cards also have that.

Yes, looking, it's possible to find just a VGA card, that uses an old PCI slot, for about $20. But, a low end graphics card can go for about $30 or $36 with 1 GB of memory of its own, a graphics processor, and "support", likely hardware acceleration, of OpenGL and DirectX.

Apparently by Windows 10, DirectX 12 is regarded as a standard part of Windows.

In my old computer, I assembled in 2007, which apparently due to motherboard hardware problems, does blue screen of death (BSOD), really, the screen goes black instead of blue, about five times a day, has an old nVIDIA GX 4000 with 64 MB of memory. As far as I know, the card has been fine. I never knew that the card had any graphics capabilities until two weeks ago when I ran the standard Windows utility DXDIAG which showed that the card supports DirectX 9 and the card put up a nice rotating cube of the DirectX logo. Okay. So, maybe the graphics processor in the card can accept a gazillion triangles in 3D from the CPU, motherboard, and applications software, do rotations, hidden line removal, shading, maybe texturing, etc. Okay, but since 2007 that is the first time I ever saw such a thing!

I have been concerned about statements, e.g., that some graphics card needed for the PC's power supply to have capacity 300 Watts or more. Gads! That's a lot of power! Looking in more detail, apparently such graphics cards actually draw a maximum of only 25-40 Watts at 12 Volts, that is, <= 3.3 Amperes, which seems acceptable enough for the 650 Watt power supply I'm planning, the case cooling I'm planning, etc. I will be sure to use some of the standard ASUS software to monitor the 12 Volt lines from the power supply -- I doubt that the voltage will ever fall significantly below 12 Volts. The 12 Volts lines from the power supply are used for what, just the cooling fans, the hard disk drives, maybe the power on the USB ports, and, apparently, power to the PCI-Express slots? Gee, the pulse width modulation (PWM) of three of the cooling fans will put some fluctuation on the 12 Volt lines that will mess up a graphics card? I doubt that!

You are correct about WebGL -- I doubt I will be visiting Web sites that use that. I'm less clear about scalable vector graphics (SVG). I don't see even from 50,000 feet up how ordinary Web browsing, say, displaying JPG or PNG still images or playing MPG4, YouTube or Netflix, or DVD videos could be helped by having a graphics processor -- tough to find such explanations. Do graphics processors routinely help display fonts faster?

I will have a 2 TB hard drive for bootable partitions. I will install Windows 7 Professional 64 bit on two boot drive partitions, say, drive letters C and D, and use one of those for my remaining software development for my Web site. Using likely the standard Windows utility NTBACKUP, which I like (e.g., it will backup a bootable partition while it is running, likely much like how relational database does a backup of a database while it is executing transactions and I can save it to any disk drive I want just by an ordinary copy operation) I will save both bootable partitions to a second hard drive. Then if, say, partiton D gets sick and the usual Windows restore is not good enough, I will boot partition C and restore the sick partition D from one of my NTBACKUPs on the second drive.

Some years ago when I was trying to install an Express (free) version of Microsoft's SQL Server, my boot partition contents were corrupted, really, destroyed, and I had to reinstall everything starting with an empty partition. Bummer. I want NEVER to have to do that again: Before I do any possibly dangerous maintenance, installations, or upgrades to a bootable partition, I will just save the whole partition with NTBACKUP. Then, if the partition gets messed up, I will just boot another bootable partition and restore the backup from NTBACKUP and try again.

Then I will install, again on two partitions, some version of Windows Server, likely 2012, and SQL Server of about the same vintage, and that will be the basis of my Web site as I go for beta testing and live on the Internet.

The Web site HTML sent to my users will be only just dirt simple HTML, say, up to date as of about 10 years ago, with just a little, simple CSS and nearly no JavaScript, no pop-ups, roll-overs, pull-downs, over-lays, or icons and no HTML <div> elements (tags?) -- dirt simple. I will have a simple logo graphics PNG I developed with just Microsoft's PhotoDraw, and that will be the only use of graphics. Net, for the Web site, I see no need for any graphics hardware, for development, server, or clients.

I see from both nVIDIA and ATI graphics cards $30-$40 with 1 GB memory, OpenGL, DirectX 12 that use a PCI-Express x16 version 2.1 slot. The Asus motherboard I have in mind has a PCI Express x16 2.0 slot which I suspect one way or another will work well enough with a card that wants version 2.1. I suspect I will make a decision today.

I'm still not very clear on just why I need a graphics card instead of just an old VGA card, but for just another $16 I'm going to spend the money, accept whatever system management mud wrestling I have to do to get an appropriate device driver working, quit worrying about the card, and get on with the more important work.

Thanks for the info.