Fastest graphic card for Windows workstation use (2D, not gaming)
 

Patrick Vervoorn wrote:
Weird numbers. Is this is in any way meaningful? :)

Regards, Patrick.

I would think that numbers that are so ridiculously high above what
*any* monitor is capable of actually displaying on the screen really
wouldn't mean much.

Realistically, if your monitor can only show 120 fps (120 Hz) then
having the capability to show 10x that on average, and 7x that at a
minimum probably doesn't really do anything for you.

As has been stated in this thread before, and will be again, I'm sure,
the 2D acceleration of graphics cards really has little to do at this
point with the biggest complaint of users. It's usually processor
power, lack of memory, or (most likely) Windows crappy coding that is
responsible for slowdowns on the Windows desktop.

--
"Outback" Jon - KC2BNE

AMD Opteron 146 ) and 6.1 GHz of other AMD power...
http://folding.stanford.edu - got folding? Team 53560

2006 ZG1000A Concours "Blueline" COG# 7385 CDA# 0157

Fastest graphic card for Windows workstation use (2D, not gaming)
 

In article rbSdj.4089$ZI4.1654@trnddc08,
Outback Jon wrote:
Patrick Vervoorn wrote:
Weird numbers. Is this is in any way meaningful? :)

Regards, Patrick.

I would think that numbers that are so ridiculously high above what
*any* monitor is capable of actually displaying on the screen really
wouldn't mean much.

Realistically, if your monitor can only show 120 fps (120 Hz) then
having the capability to show 10x that on average, and 7x that at a
minimum probably doesn't really do anything for you.

I don't think the benchmark was intended as that. It's also ridiculously
short; it finishes while I barely see the screen flashing.

My question was more a comment: I think that benchmark is ridiculously
outdated, and gives no meaningful indication whatsoever. I tried running
it a 2nd time, and I got totally different outcomes, indicating it's much
too short to really 'measure' anything.

[snip]

Regards, Patrick.

Fastest graphic card for Windows workstation use (2D, not gaming)
 

"Patrick Vervoorn" wrote in
message l...
In article ,
Dima wrote:
Here you go, download and run the BitBit 2D benchmark.
http://www.karpfenteich.net/colorful/bitblt.html

couldn't resist, but hope it's accurate
HD 3870 results - 1680x1050, Vista x64

BitBlt:
avg: 2461.0 fps [2884.0 MB/sec]
max: 3975.1 fps [4658.3 MB/sec]
min: 97.6 fps [114.4 MB/sec]

ReverseBlt:
avg: 727.9 fps [853.0 MB/sec]
max: 4292.0 fps [5029.7 MB/sec]
min: 103.5 fps [121.3 MB/sec]

On a Q6600/2.4GHz/8800GTX - 1680x1050, WinXP Pro 32bits:

BitBlt:
avg: 1336.6 fps [1566.3 MB/sec]
max: 2519.0 fps [2952.0 MB/sec]
min: 804.9 fps [943.3 MB/sec]

ReverseBlt:
avg: 1189.5 fps [1393.9 MB/sec]
max: 1419.9 fps [1663.9 MB/sec]
min: 498.5 fps [584.1 MB/sec]

Weird numbers. Is this is in any way meaningful? :)

Regards, Patrick.

Following this thread with curiosity...
My numbers:
E6600 @ 3.2GHz; 2GB RAM; 8800GS; 1680 x 1050, Vista Ultimate 32 bit:
BitBlt:
avg: 3315.5 fps [3885.4 MB/sec]
max: 7275.9 fps [8526.4 MB/sec]
min: 106.0 fps [124.2 MB/sec]

ReverseBlt:
avg: 3970.8 fps [4653.3 MB/sec]
max: 6063.5 fps [7105.7 MB/sec]
min: 1831.0 fps [2145.7 MB/sec]

It runs so fast, it's just a blink on the screen.
(Oh, and this is with a ton of 'stuff' running)

Jack R