|
|
Fastest graphic card for Windows workstation use (2D, not gaming)
"Luca Villa" wrote in message ... I work in Windows Vista and I want to build the fastest PC at any price. I never use it for gaming nor for 3D things... What's the fastest graphic board on the market for this use? Since one presumes that you won't be building a Vista Basic system, a certain degree of 3D capability will be desirable for Aero. You don't need the high end DX10 3D gaming cards for this, but you do need something with 3D ability. Avoid the 64bit interface cards and get something in the $75 to $100 range from Nvidia or ATI vendors. I'd be looking at the X1300Pro 128bit and GeForce 7300GT 128bit series as the lower end candidates. Cheap and plenty fast enough for Aero. |
Fastest graphic card for Windows workstation use (2D, not gaming)
* Luca Villa:
I work in Windows Vista and I want to build the fastest PC at any price. I never use it for gaming nor for 3D things... What's the fastest graphic board on the market for this use? Every gfx card (at least from ATI/AMD and Nvidia, be careful with the VIA/S3 ProSavage and SIS crap) of the last 8 years or so is more than fast enough for 2D. There simply is no difference in 2D performance any more. So what you want is a DX9-capable (means: Vista Aero capable) gfx card. Even the cheapest low end card will do. I see that common graphic board benchmarks on the web, like this: http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html, only measure the speed for 3D. Are there benchmarks for the 2D-Windows speed? No, simply because all gfx cards of the last 8+ years are more than fast enough for anything 2D. Benjamin |
Fastest graphic card for Windows workstation use (2D, not gaming)
* Luca Villa:
I think that the NVidia Quadro or ATI FireGL are those that can give me the highest speed, more than the gaming cards. No, they won't. Both FireGL and Quadro FX are professional *3D* cards (the 2D equivalents are Quadro NVS and FireGL MV which are for 2D multi-monitor solutions) based on the exact same chipsets as the consumer cards (Geforce/Radeon). Are you completely sure that they cannot make a visible difference against cheap $50-$100 cards for general Windows use with tens of opened windows? Yes, I am. And yes, I do know the gfx cards including the FireGL and Quadro quite good as we have a ****load of workstations with these cards. Of course you're free to go out and spend 2500EUR for a Quadro FX 500 with 1.5GB memory. But for 2D it won't bring you one yota of performance benefit over a say 30EUR Geforce FX 5200 or any other low end card. Benjamin |
Fastest graphic card for Windows workstation use (2D, not gaming)
* Luca Villa:
I think that the NVidia Quadro or ATI FireGL are those that can give me the highest speed, more than the gaming cards. No, they won't. Both FireGL and Quadro FX are professional *3D* cards (the 2D equivalents are Quadro NVS and FireGL MV which are for 2D multi-monitor solutions) based on the exact same chipsets as the consumer cards (Geforce/Radeon). Are you completely sure that they cannot make a visible difference against cheap $50-$100 cards for general Windows use with tens of opened windows? Yes, I am. And yes, I do know the gfx cards including the FireGL and Quadro quite good as we have a ****load of workstations with these cards. Of course you're free to go out and spend say 2500USD for a Quadro FX 5600 with 1.5GB memory. But for 2D it won't bring you one yota of performance benefit over say a 30EUR Geforce FX 5200 or any other low end card. The times when 2D performance was a challenge for computers are over for at least around a decade now. Even a 1999-vintage Geforce256 gets bored with everything 2D. Benjamin |
Fastest graphic card for Windows workstation use (2D, not gaming)
| I think that the NVidia Quadro or ATI FireGL are those that can give
| me the highest speed, more than the gaming cards. | Are you completely sure that they cannot make a visible difference | against cheap $50-$100 cards for general Windows use with tens of | opened windows? _____ If there were meaningful differences in 2D performance, there would be 2D benchmark comparisons available. The only thing a more expensive card might offer is better sharpness IF you were using analog output to your monitor. And if that is the case, consider spending the extra money you seem to want to spend on purchasing a digital input flat screen monitor rather than on excess 3D power. The Vista Aero interface does require 3D performance (probably the 'Show Windows' function, for example), but most of all make sure good Vista 64 drivers are available NOW for the card you purchase. Phil Weldon "Luca Villa" wrote in message ... |I think that the NVidia Quadro or ATI FireGL are those that can give | me the highest speed, more than the gaming cards. | Are you completely sure that they cannot make a visible difference | against cheap $50-$100 cards for general Windows use with tens of | opened windows? |
Fastest graphic card for Windows workstation use (2D, not gaming)
You just read the answer to your question on Tom's charts.
-- --DaveW "Luca Villa" wrote in message ... I work in Windows Vista and I want to build the fastest PC at any price. I never use it for gaming nor for 3D things... What's the fastest graphic board on the market for this use? I see that common graphic board benchmarks on the web, like this: http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html, only measure the speed for 3D. Are there benchmarks for the 2D-Windows speed? |
Fastest graphic card for Windows workstation use (2D, not gaming)
You might take a look at those, which will do hardware decoding of 2D such
as HD movies... http://www.tcmagazine.com/comments.php?shownews=17337 I believe there's not much point of getting fastest 3D card if you're not going to do 3D stuff on it. "Luca Villa" wrote in message ... I work in Windows Vista and I want to build the fastest PC at any price. I never use it for gaming nor for 3D things... What's the fastest graphic board on the market for this use? I see that common graphic board benchmarks on the web, like this: http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html, only measure the speed for 3D. Are there benchmarks for the 2D-Windows speed? |
Fastest graphic card for Windows workstation use (2D, not gaming)
Luca Villa wrote:
Thank you all for the answers. I made an 1 hour long research and found that he top-of-the-line graphic cards commercialized for 2D work according to NVidia and ATI would be these: - NVidia Quadro NVS 440 PCIe (~$400 on eBay) quad-head "high-performance 2D rendering engine" MPEG-2 and WMV9 decode acceleration source: http://www.nvidia.com/object/IO_30901.html - ATI FireMV 2400 (~$400 on eBay) quad-head "ATI's FireMV(tm) multi-view 2D workstation acceleration cards are designed exclusively for the financial and corporate marketplaces." http://ati.amd.com/products/firemvseries/index.html Finally, I found a very interesting 2D benchmark comparison between these 2 cards and a $3699 priced Quadro FX 4500 X2 he http://www.computerpoweruser.com/edi...01%2F07c01.asp The Quadro FX 4500 X2 performed significantly better in all the 2D (and 3D) tests. Now I miss the final prove that I would not perceive this 2D speed difference when I'm working with tens of standard Windows applications/ windows. For example every time I unlock Windows I currently have to wait 10-15 seconds for all the windows and icons to be restored/ painted on the screen. My system has a Geforce 7300 card. I wonder if the graphic card can positively influence this speed. What the hell are you going on about? Every time you "unlock" Windows? Are you posting via Babelfish? If you are using a specialty application that requires a Quadro, you should have half a clue more than you do. If you do not, you are wasting everyone's time. I say spend the $3699 and have the fastest 2d-windows unlocking experience this side of DOS. |
Fastest graphic card for Windows workstation use (2D, not gaming)
"Benjamin Gawert" wrote in message
... * Luca Villa: I work in Windows Vista and I want to build the fastest PC at any price. I never use it for gaming nor for 3D things... What's the fastest graphic board on the market for this use? Every gfx card (at least from ATI/AMD and Nvidia, be careful with the VIA/S3 ProSavage and SIS crap) of the last 8 years or so is more than fast enough for 2D. There simply is no difference in 2D performance any more. So what you want is a DX9-capable (means: Vista Aero capable) gfx card. Even the cheapest low end card will do. I see that common graphic board benchmarks on the web, like this: http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html, only measure the speed for 3D. Are there benchmarks for the 2D-Windows speed? No, simply because all gfx cards of the last 8+ years are more than fast enough for anything 2D. Benjamin Could "all gfx cards of the last 8+ years" drive 1920 x 1200 LCD monitors? |
Fastest graphic card for Windows workstation use (2D, not gaming)
Mr.E Solved! wrote:
Luca Villa wrote: Thank you all for the answers. I made an 1 hour long research and found that he top-of-the-line graphic cards commercialized for 2D work according to NVidia and ATI would be these: - NVidia Quadro NVS 440 PCIe (~$400 on eBay) quad-head "high-performance 2D rendering engine" MPEG-2 and WMV9 decode acceleration source: http://www.nvidia.com/object/IO_30901.html - ATI FireMV 2400 (~$400 on eBay) quad-head "ATI's FireMV(tm) multi-view 2D workstation acceleration cards are designed exclusively for the financial and corporate marketplaces." http://ati.amd.com/products/firemvseries/index.html Finally, I found a very interesting 2D benchmark comparison between these 2 cards and a $3699 priced Quadro FX 4500 X2 he http://www.computerpoweruser.com/edi...01%2F07c01.asp The Quadro FX 4500 X2 performed significantly better in all the 2D (and 3D) tests. Now I miss the final prove that I would not perceive this 2D speed difference when I'm working with tens of standard Windows applications/ windows. For example every time I unlock Windows I currently have to wait 10-15 seconds for all the windows and icons to be restored/ painted on the screen. My system has a Geforce 7300 card. I wonder if the graphic card can positively influence this speed. What the hell are you going on about? Every time you "unlock" Windows? Are you posting via Babelfish? If you are using a specialty application that requires a Quadro, you should have half a clue more than you do. If you do not, you are wasting everyone's time. I say spend the $3699 and have the fastest 2d-windows unlocking experience this side of DOS. The OPs original posting mentions Vista. Perhaps the confusion is over Aero compositing. If the machine was coming out of standby, the video card doesn't have power when the computer is sleeping, and the video card needs to be reloaded from the ground up. All those composited windows would need to be loaded from system memory, or even re-rendered. In my mind, that is not a "2D thing". Something entirely different. ******* For some "2D fun", try a benchmark like this old timer: "WinTune 98 1.0.43" http://comunitel.tucows.com/win2k/ad...681_30039.html Leave just the "Video Test" selected and let it run three times. These are my results, on a 9800Pro and a 3.1GHz P4. Summary RADEON 9800 PRO - 1280x1024@32bits/pixel 290±0.42(0.14%) Video MPixels/s Video Details AccOpt: Normal Total video time (s): 3.6 Window open time (s): 0.0033 Text scroll time (s): 0.029 Line drawing time (s): 1.9 Filled objects time (s): 0.44 Pattern blit time (s): 0.0032 Text draw time (s): 0.5 DIB blit time (s): 0.78 Window close time (s): 0.017 Presented more for its comedy value than anything else. There was a time when results like that mattered. It'd be interesting to see what someone with a powerful system can manage for comparison. I tried to find a later version of that benchmark, but haven't managed to find a download. Paul |
Fastest graphic card for Windows workstation use (2D, not gaming)
Paul wrote:
Mr.E Solved! wrote: Luca Villa wrote: Thank you all for the answers. I made an 1 hour long research and found that he top-of-the-line graphic cards commercialized for 2D work according to NVidia and ATI would be these: - NVidia Quadro NVS 440 PCIe (~$400 on eBay) quad-head "high-performance 2D rendering engine" MPEG-2 and WMV9 decode acceleration source: http://www.nvidia.com/object/IO_30901.html - ATI FireMV 2400 (~$400 on eBay) quad-head "ATI's FireMV(tm) multi-view 2D workstation acceleration cards are designed exclusively for the financial and corporate marketplaces." http://ati.amd.com/products/firemvseries/index.html Finally, I found a very interesting 2D benchmark comparison between these 2 cards and a $3699 priced Quadro FX 4500 X2 he http://www.computerpoweruser.com/edi...01%2F07c01.asp The Quadro FX 4500 X2 performed significantly better in all the 2D (and 3D) tests. Now I miss the final prove that I would not perceive this 2D speed difference when I'm working with tens of standard Windows applications/ windows. For example every time I unlock Windows I currently have to wait 10-15 seconds for all the windows and icons to be restored/ painted on the screen. My system has a Geforce 7300 card. I wonder if the graphic card can positively influence this speed. What the hell are you going on about? Every time you "unlock" Windows? Are you posting via Babelfish? If you are using a specialty application that requires a Quadro, you should have half a clue more than you do. If you do not, you are wasting everyone's time. I say spend the $3699 and have the fastest 2d-windows unlocking experience this side of DOS. The OPs original posting mentions Vista. Perhaps the confusion is over Aero compositing. If the machine was coming out of standby, the video card doesn't have power when the computer is sleeping, and the video card needs to be reloaded from the ground up. All those composited windows would need to be loaded from system memory, or even re-rendered. In my mind, that is not a "2D thing". Something entirely different. ******* For some "2D fun", try a benchmark like this old timer: "WinTune 98 1.0.43" http://comunitel.tucows.com/win2k/ad...681_30039.html Leave just the "Video Test" selected and let it run three times. These are my results, on a 9800Pro and a 3.1GHz P4. Summary RADEON 9800 PRO - 1280x1024@32bits/pixel 290±0.42(0.14%) Video MPixels/s Video Details AccOpt: Normal Total video time (s): 3.6 Window open time (s): 0.0033 Text scroll time (s): 0.029 Line drawing time (s): 1.9 Filled objects time (s): 0.44 Pattern blit time (s): 0.0032 Text draw time (s): 0.5 DIB blit time (s): 0.78 Window close time (s): 0.017 Presented more for its comedy value than anything else. There was a time when results like that mattered. It'd be interesting to see what someone with a powerful system can manage for comparison. Here you go C2duo E6600 running XP Summary Radeon X1950 Series 1280x1024@32bits/pixel 340±1.4(0.4%) Video MPixels/s Video Details AccOpt: Normal Total video time (s): 3.1 Window open time (s): 0.005 Text scroll time (s): 0.18 Line drawing time (s): 1.5 Filled objects time (s): 0.28 Pattern blit time (s): 0.0012 Text draw time (s): 0.8 DIB blit time (s): 0.36 Window close time (s): 0.0037 |
Fastest graphic card for Windows workstation use (2D, not gaming)
* 007:
Could "all gfx cards of the last 8+ years" drive 1920 x 1200 LCD monitors? Analog (i.e. via VGA): yes. The RAMDACs of gfx cards are fast enough for these resolutions. With DVI: basically yes except some really crappy Geforce FX 5200/5500/5700 cards with buggy BIOS. Benjamin |
Fastest graphic card for Windows workstation use (2D, not gaming)
* Dima:
You might take a look at those, which will do hardware decoding of 2D such as HD movies... http://www.tcmagazine.com/comments.php?shownews=17337 The decoding of video codecs has nothing to do with 2D performance. I believe there's not much point of getting fastest 3D card if you're not going to do 3D stuff on it. Exactly. Benjamin |
Fastest graphic card for Windows workstation use (2D, not gaming)
* Luca Villa:
I made an 1 hour long research and found that he top-of-the-line graphic cards commercialized for 2D work according to NVidia and ATI would be these: - NVidia Quadro NVS 440 PCIe (~$400 on eBay) quad-head "high-performance 2D rendering engine" MPEG-2 and WMV9 decode acceleration source: http://www.nvidia.com/object/IO_30901.html - ATI FireMV 2400 (~$400 on eBay) quad-head "ATI's FireMV(tm) multi-view 2D workstation acceleration cards are designed exclusively for the financial and corporate marketplaces." http://ati.amd.com/products/firemvseries/index.html Yeah, right. Manufacturers websites as the reference. Now *thats* a reliable source....NOT Finally, I found a very interesting 2D benchmark comparison between these 2 cards and a $3699 priced Quadro FX 4500 X2 he http://www.computerpoweruser.com/edi...01%2F07c01.asp Funny, the site that opens on my webbrowser doesn't talk about 2D performance but multimonitor setups: "We got our hands on a several multimonitor graphics adapters and threw them at a mishmash of monitors of different sizes and resolutions to see if our personal video wall could really improve our productivity" The Quadro FX 4500 X2 performed significantly better in all the 2D (and 3D) tests. Where does the article say that? Now I miss the final prove that I would not perceive this 2D speed difference when I'm working with tens of standard Windows applications/ windows. Ever thought why no-one is talking about 2D performance any more nor why 2D performance hasn't been benchmarked by reputable magazines and hardware sites for ages? Again for you: 2D performance of the last ~8 years or so is *more* than fast enough for *anything* 2D, period. That's a fact. And if you understand how 2D acceleration works i.e. under Windows and why the bandwidth needed for 2D is incredible low, much lower than even the cheapest crap gfx card provides, then you know why no-one talks about 2D performance any more. BTW: things like video decoding support (MPEG2/HDTV etc) is *not* part of the 2D performance. In fact, video hardware support has basically *nothing* to do with gfx performance. It's done by a separate part of hardware that is integrated in todays GPUs. For example every time I unlock Windows I currently have to wait 10-15 seconds for all the windows and icons to be restored/ painted on the screen. My system has a Geforce 7300 card. I wonder if the graphic card can positively influence this speed. No, it can't. The waiting time has nothing to do with the gfx card. If you logon to Windows the appropriate user profile has to be loaded. Especially if you're on a network (ADS) this can take several seconds because the local Windows has to retrive user data from the server. Even on a standalone PC this can take some time, depending on disk performance, CPU and memory. The gfx card simply does **** about that. You came here for an advice and you got it. If you don't believe us fine then go ahead and buy the most expensive gfx card that you can find if you think you will getter 2D performance. But I'd recommend you get at least a basic understanding how these things really work. Benjamin |
Fastest graphic card for Windows workstation use (2D, not gaming)
Luca Villa wrote:
Now I miss the final prove that I would not perceive this 2D speed difference when I'm working with tens of standard Windows applications/ windows. For example every time I unlock Windows I currently have to wait 10-15 seconds for all the windows and icons to be restored/ painted on the screen. My system has a Geforce 7300 card. I wonder if the graphic card can positively influence this speed. Then skip the expensive gfx card (That won't help here) and get more ram and a faster CPU (That WILL help). |
Fastest graphic card for Windows workstation use (2D, not gaming)
"Benjamin Gawert" wrote in message
... * 007: Could "all gfx cards of the last 8+ years" drive 1920 x 1200 LCD monitors? Analog (i.e. via VGA): yes. The RAMDACs of gfx cards are fast enough for these resolutions. With DVI: basically yes except some really crappy Geforce FX 5200/5500/5700 cards with buggy BIOS. Benjamin Thank you |
Fastest graphic card for Windows workstation use (2D, not gaming)
You came here for an advice and you got it. If you don't believe us fine
then go ahead and buy the most expensive gfx card that you can find if you think you will getter 2D performance. But I'd recommend you get at least a basic understanding how these things really work. Benjamin You're wasting your time with this guy. He obviously didn't come here for real advice and is 100% equipped with unbendable preconcieved opinions not based on fact. Even worse, not willing to read and learn when shown actual facts. Let him go out and get his Quaro and FireGL. |
Fastest graphic card for Windows workstation use (2D, not gaming)
* Luca Villa:
Argh, I see that that page is protected. You've to read the Google cache copy of it to see the full review with the 2D benchmark results: http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=1&gl=it I think you probably refer to the PC Mark 05 results. Well, it might look to you that way but just reading some numbers without having a clue what has been tested doesn't help. FYI: - the "2D Graphics Memory" tests are testing the bandwidth of the gfx memory for 2D copy operations. The relevance to real world applications is *zero* because memory bandwidth isn't a limiting factor for 2D for almost a decade now. - The "2D WMV video playback" test has a mis-leading title: it doesn't test 2D performance but the performance of video playback, done by simply playing back a HDTV video (1920x1080) with Windows Media Player at maximum possible frame rate. It doesn't tell you *anything* about 2D application performance, it just tells you how well HDTV videos can be played back by Windows Media Player. This test is just nonsense as todays cards often support HDTV hardware playback with certain players or additional software, so basically this test is useless. - "2D Transparent Windows" creates 30 Windows with a sweeping "fading" effect (alpha blending). The number just tells you how many of these Windows can be created per second, it's not only affected by the gfx hardware but also by the driver and even by what other processes are running on the computer. While this test at least has some remote relevance to real work (Window drawing) it also has no real world relevance as you never ever see or notice the difference between a system that can draw 3800 of these windows per second or "just" 2800. Mind you, understanding hardware is no idiot's game where you just have to compare some numbers. If you don't know what exactly has been tested, how this stuff works and interacts and what also influences the results you can't read anything from the numbers. Benjamin |
Fastest graphic card for Windows workstation use (2D, not gaming)
* Luca Villa:
I only see words, not facts, here, and noone even reported a link to words of a reputable sources. if you want ressources then do your homework. But you better dig very deep because you won't find any somewhat recent reliable source for a topic that is a no-brainer for almost a decade now. You came here with your question and this question has been answered by people that very obviously know much more than you do about hardware in general. If you don't believe in what we tell you why did you even came here to ask? You probably are way better when buying the most expensive gfx card you can find. At least it saves you the trouble about using your brain. Augustus, I think you're right. We're just wasting our time. Benjamin |
Fastest graphic card for Windows workstation use (2D, not gaming)
"Thomas Andersson" wrote in message ... Luca Villa wrote: Now I miss the final prove that I would not perceive this 2D speed difference when I'm working with tens of standard Windows applications/ windows. For example every time I unlock Windows I currently have to wait 10-15 seconds for all the windows and icons to be restored/ painted on the screen. My system has a Geforce 7300 card. I wonder if the graphic card can positively influence this speed. Then skip the expensive gfx card (That won't help here) and get more ram and a faster CPU (That WILL help). Bingo! Faster processing under Vista for standard "Desktop" Windows apps will be *much* more impacted by a faster processer and plenty of RAM (2GB minimum). Couple that with a decent $100 video card and you'll be in very good shape. I have a middle of the road Dell with an AMD X2 5200+ CPU and 4GB RAM. From "locked" desktop to everything back and ready to work is under 2 seconds. From Sleep mode to everything back (desktop and all open windows apps ready to go) is under 5 seconds. I also have an NVIDIA 8800GT, but that only helps me in 3D gaming (and boy does it help!), but I got essentially the exact same desktop response using the 7300LE that originally came with my system. The 7300 LE probably costs less than $50 today and it handled Aero and standard windows apps under Vista very well... -Riff |
Fastest graphic card for Windows workstation use (2D, not gaming)
Luca Villa wrote:
Benjamin and others, so do we all agree that the "2D workstation acceleration cards are designed exclusively for the financial and corporate marketplaces" that ATI is marketing for $400 give nothing more than common sub $30 cards (or a couple of them to drive 4 screens) for general/mixed Windows use? You need to find another hobby, ciao! |
Fastest graphic card for Windows workstation use (2D, not gaming)
"Luca Villa" wrote in message ... when shown actual facts I only see words, not facts, here, and noone even reported a link to words of a reputable sources. I'm really starting to think this guy is a troll. Just seems that no matter how the facts are presented to him, he has some silly response. And poor Ben has spent a hell of a lot of time trying to help this guy, and all he gets back is more BS. JLC |
Fastest graphic card for Windows workstation use (2D, not gaming)
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 09:54:43 -0800 (PST), Luca Villa
wrote: I work in Windows Vista and I want to build the fastest PC at any price. I never use it for gaming nor for 3D things... What's the fastest graphic board on the market for this use? I see that common graphic board benchmarks on the web, like this: http://www23.tomshardware.com/graphics_2007.html, only measure the speed for 3D. Are there benchmarks for the 2D-Windows speed? Be gone, troll. |
Fastest graphic card for Windows workstation use (2D, not gaming)
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] "Thomas Andersson" wrote in message ... Luca Villa wrote: Now I miss the final prove that I would not perceive this 2D speed difference when I'm working with tens of standard Windows applications/ windows. For example every time I unlock Windows I currently have to wait 10-15 seconds for all the windows and icons to be restored/ painted on the screen. My system has a Geforce 7300 card. I wonder if the graphic card can positively influence this speed. Then skip the expensive gfx card (That won't help here) and get more ram and a faster CPU (That WILL help). |
Fastest graphic card for Windows workstation use (2D, not gaming)
hd3870, P35 P5K Dlx
1680x1050 AccOpt: Normal Total video time (s): 4.9 Window open time (s): 0.019 Text scroll time (s): 0.93 Line drawing time (s): 0.32 Filled objects time (s): 0.28 Pattern blit time (s): 0.58 Text draw time (s): 1.8 DIB blit time (s): 0.94 Window close time (s): 0.0047 1024x768 AccOpt: Normal Total video time (s): 2.3 Window open time (s): 0.014 Text scroll time (s): 0.37 Line drawing time (s): 0.14 Filled objects time (s): 0.064 Pattern blit time (s): 0.17 Text draw time (s): 1.2 DIB blit time (s): 0.35 Window close time (s): 0.0042 "Fred" wrote in message ... Paul wrote: Mr.E Solved! wrote: Luca Villa wrote: Thank you all for the answers. I made an 1 hour long research and found that he top-of-the-line graphic cards commercialized for 2D work according to NVidia and ATI would be these: - NVidia Quadro NVS 440 PCIe (~$400 on eBay) quad-head "high-performance 2D rendering engine" MPEG-2 and WMV9 decode acceleration source: http://www.nvidia.com/object/IO_30901.html - ATI FireMV 2400 (~$400 on eBay) quad-head "ATI's FireMV(tm) multi-view 2D workstation acceleration cards are designed exclusively for the financial and corporate marketplaces." http://ati.amd.com/products/firemvseries/index.html Finally, I found a very interesting 2D benchmark comparison between these 2 cards and a $3699 priced Quadro FX 4500 X2 he http://www.computerpoweruser.com/edi...01%2F07c01.asp The Quadro FX 4500 X2 performed significantly better in all the 2D (and 3D) tests. Now I miss the final prove that I would not perceive this 2D speed difference when I'm working with tens of standard Windows applications/ windows. For example every time I unlock Windows I currently have to wait 10-15 seconds for all the windows and icons to be restored/ painted on the screen. My system has a Geforce 7300 card. I wonder if the graphic card can positively influence this speed. What the hell are you going on about? Every time you "unlock" Windows? Are you posting via Babelfish? If you are using a specialty application that requires a Quadro, you should have half a clue more than you do. If you do not, you are wasting everyone's time. I say spend the $3699 and have the fastest 2d-windows unlocking experience this side of DOS. The OPs original posting mentions Vista. Perhaps the confusion is over Aero compositing. If the machine was coming out of standby, the video card doesn't have power when the computer is sleeping, and the video card needs to be reloaded from the ground up. All those composited windows would need to be loaded from system memory, or even re-rendered. In my mind, that is not a "2D thing". Something entirely different. ******* For some "2D fun", try a benchmark like this old timer: "WinTune 98 1.0.43" http://comunitel.tucows.com/win2k/ad...681_30039.html Leave just the "Video Test" selected and let it run three times. These are my results, on a 9800Pro and a 3.1GHz P4. Summary RADEON 9800 PRO - 1280x1024@32bits/pixel 290±0.42(0.14%) Video MPixels/s Video Details AccOpt: Normal Total video time (s): 3.6 Window open time (s): 0.0033 Text scroll time (s): 0.029 Line drawing time (s): 1.9 Filled objects time (s): 0.44 Pattern blit time (s): 0.0032 Text draw time (s): 0.5 DIB blit time (s): 0.78 Window close time (s): 0.017 Presented more for its comedy value than anything else. There was a time when results like that mattered. It'd be interesting to see what someone with a powerful system can manage for comparison. Here you go C2duo E6600 running XP Summary Radeon X1950 Series 1280x1024@32bits/pixel 340±1.4(0.4%) Video MPixels/s Video Details AccOpt: Normal Total video time (s): 3.1 Window open time (s): 0.005 Text scroll time (s): 0.18 Line drawing time (s): 1.5 Filled objects time (s): 0.28 Pattern blit time (s): 0.0012 Text draw time (s): 0.8 DIB blit time (s): 0.36 Window close time (s): 0.0037 |
Fastest graphic card for Windows workstation use (2D, not gaming)
* Luca Villa:
Benjamin and others, so do we all agree that the "2D workstation acceleration cards are designed exclusively for the financial and corporate marketplaces" that ATI is marketing for $400 give nothing more than common sub $30 cards (or a couple of them to drive 4 screens) for general/mixed Windows use? Yes. The only difference is that these professional 2D cards (Quadro NVS/FireMV) are certified for certain professional 2D applications and that these cards unlike consumer cards (Geforce/Radeon) support big multihead installations (quad head and more). They don't offer a better performance. Benjamin |
Fastest graphic card for Windows workstation use (2D, not gaming)
* JLC:
And poor Ben has spent a hell of a lot of time trying to help this guy, and all he gets back is more BS. Well, I was also thinking about that someone who really is interested in reality might one day search for this topic with groups.google.com, so probably a few facts don't hurt. Of course my also my patience is limited and starts to get overstressed. Benjamin |
Fastest graphic card for Windows workstation use (2D, not gaming)
Dima wrote:
hd3870, P35 P5K Dlx 1680x1050 AccOpt: Normal Total video time (s): 4.9 Window open time (s): 0.019 Text scroll time (s): 0.93 Line drawing time (s): 0.32 Filled objects time (s): 0.28 Pattern blit time (s): 0.58 Text draw time (s): 1.8 DIB blit time (s): 0.94 Window close time (s): 0.0047 1024x768 AccOpt: Normal Total video time (s): 2.3 Window open time (s): 0.014 Text scroll time (s): 0.37 Line drawing time (s): 0.14 Filled objects time (s): 0.064 Pattern blit time (s): 0.17 Text draw time (s): 1.2 DIB blit time (s): 0.35 Window close time (s): 0.0042 I find the text results rather curious. Maybe it is due to ClearType or something ? My OS is Win2K, and maybe that makes a difference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleartype Paul "Fred" wrote in message ... Paul wrote: Mr.E Solved! wrote: Luca Villa wrote: Thank you all for the answers. I made an 1 hour long research and found that he top-of-the-line graphic cards commercialized for 2D work according to NVidia and ATI would be these: - NVidia Quadro NVS 440 PCIe (~$400 on eBay) quad-head "high-performance 2D rendering engine" MPEG-2 and WMV9 decode acceleration source: http://www.nvidia.com/object/IO_30901.html - ATI FireMV 2400 (~$400 on eBay) quad-head "ATI's FireMV(tm) multi-view 2D workstation acceleration cards are designed exclusively for the financial and corporate marketplaces." http://ati.amd.com/products/firemvseries/index.html Finally, I found a very interesting 2D benchmark comparison between these 2 cards and a $3699 priced Quadro FX 4500 X2 he http://www.computerpoweruser.com/edi...01%2F07c01.asp The Quadro FX 4500 X2 performed significantly better in all the 2D (and 3D) tests. Now I miss the final prove that I would not perceive this 2D speed difference when I'm working with tens of standard Windows applications/ windows. For example every time I unlock Windows I currently have to wait 10-15 seconds for all the windows and icons to be restored/ painted on the screen. My system has a Geforce 7300 card. I wonder if the graphic card can positively influence this speed. What the hell are you going on about? Every time you "unlock" Windows? Are you posting via Babelfish? If you are using a specialty application that requires a Quadro, you should have half a clue more than you do. If you do not, you are wasting everyone's time. I say spend the $3699 and have the fastest 2d-windows unlocking experience this side of DOS. The OPs original posting mentions Vista. Perhaps the confusion is over Aero compositing. If the machine was coming out of standby, the video card doesn't have power when the computer is sleeping, and the video card needs to be reloaded from the ground up. All those composited windows would need to be loaded from system memory, or even re-rendered. In my mind, that is not a "2D thing". Something entirely different. ******* For some "2D fun", try a benchmark like this old timer: "WinTune 98 1.0.43" http://comunitel.tucows.com/win2k/ad...681_30039.html Leave just the "Video Test" selected and let it run three times. These are my results, on a 9800Pro and a 3.1GHz P4. Summary RADEON 9800 PRO - 1280x1024@32bits/pixel 290±0.42(0.14%) Video MPixels/s Video Details AccOpt: Normal Total video time (s): 3.6 Window open time (s): 0.0033 Text scroll time (s): 0.029 Line drawing time (s): 1.9 Filled objects time (s): 0.44 Pattern blit time (s): 0.0032 Text draw time (s): 0.5 DIB blit time (s): 0.78 Window close time (s): 0.017 Presented more for its comedy value than anything else. There was a time when results like that mattered. It'd be interesting to see what someone with a powerful system can manage for comparison. Here you go C2duo E6600 running XP Summary Radeon X1950 Series 1280x1024@32bits/pixel 340±1.4(0.4%) Video MPixels/s Video Details AccOpt: Normal Total video time (s): 3.1 Window open time (s): 0.005 Text scroll time (s): 0.18 Line drawing time (s): 1.5 Filled objects time (s): 0.28 Pattern blit time (s): 0.0012 Text draw time (s): 0.8 DIB blit time (s): 0.36 Window close time (s): 0.0037 |
Fastest graphic card for Windows workstation use (2D, not gaming)
* Paul:
I find the text results rather curious. Maybe it is due to ClearType or something ? My OS is Win2K, and maybe that makes a difference. The solution to this riddle is to see relevance (or better: the lack of) of BitBlt for 2D performance. Benjamin |
Fastest graphic card for Windows workstation use (2D, not gaming)
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. |
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:44 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HardwareBanter.com