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