A Computer hardware and components forum. ComputerBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » ComputerBanter.com forum » Video Cards » Matrox Videocards
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Fastest graphic card for Windows workstation use (2D, not gaming)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old December 29th 07, 10:13 PM posted to alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.matrox
Mr.E Solved!
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 887
Default 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!
  #12  
Old December 30th 07, 02:44 AM posted to alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.matrox
JLC
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 146
Default 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


  #13  
Old December 30th 07, 09:11 AM posted to alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.matrox
Dima[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 26
Default 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).



  #14  
Old December 30th 07, 09:36 AM posted to alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.matrox
Dima[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 26
Default 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 -
[email protected]/pixel
2900.42(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
[email protected]/pixel
3401.4(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



  #15  
Old December 30th 07, 09:55 AM posted to alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.matrox
Benjamin Gawert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,019
Default 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
  #16  
Old December 30th 07, 09:59 AM posted to alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.matrox
Benjamin Gawert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,019
Default 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

  #17  
Old December 30th 07, 10:24 AM posted to alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.matrox
Paul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,411
Default 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 -
[email protected]/pixel
2900.42(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
[email protected]/pixel
3401.4(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



  #18  
Old December 30th 07, 10:33 AM posted to alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.matrox
Benjamin Gawert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,019
Default 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
  #19  
Old December 30th 07, 05:58 PM posted to alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.matrox
Patrick Vervoorn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 117
Default 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.
  #20  
Old December 30th 07, 08:19 PM posted to alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.matrox
Outback Jon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 42
Default 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
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 02:59 AM
Fastest graphic card for Windows workstation use (2D, not gaming) Luca Villa Ati Videocards 39 December 31st 07 02:59 AM
Fastest graphic card for Windows workstation use (2D, not gaming) Benjamin Gawert Matrox Videocards 6 December 29th 07 02:06 PM
Fastest graphic card for Windows workstation use (2D, not gaming) Augustus Matrox Videocards 0 December 28th 07 07:19 PM
which graphic card serie Workstation or Gaming? Giovanni Azua Nvidia Videocards 14 February 23rd 05 10:31 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 ComputerBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.