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.

* 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

"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?

* 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

"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

* 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

* 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

| 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?

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?

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?