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).

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

* 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

* 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

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

* 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

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.

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

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.

"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