If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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! |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
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). |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Fastest graphic card for Windows workstation use (2D, not gaming) | Luca Villa | Nvidia Videocards | 39 | December 31st 07 01:59 AM |
Fastest graphic card for Windows workstation use (2D, not gaming) | Luca Villa | Ati Videocards | 39 | December 31st 07 01:59 AM |
which graphic card serie Workstation or Gaming? | Giovanni Azua | Nvidia Videocards | 14 | February 23rd 05 09:31 PM |
which graphic card serie Workstation or Gaming? | Giovanni Azua | Ati Videocards | 15 | February 23rd 05 09:12 PM |
sw7525gp2 for graphic workstation ? | BabaLouie | Intel | 1 | October 10th 04 01:11 PM |