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
  #1  
Old December 28th 07, 11:32 PM posted to alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.matrox
DaveW[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 219
Default Fastest graphic card for Windows workstation use (2D, not gaming)

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?



  #2  
Old December 29th 07, 04:14 AM 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:
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.


  #3  
Old December 29th 07, 05:06 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)

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.

I tried to find a later version of that benchmark, but haven't managed
to find a download.

Paul
  #4  
Old December 29th 07, 07:22 AM posted to alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.matrox
Fred
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 148
Default Fastest graphic card for Windows workstation use (2D, not gaming)

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


  #5  
Old December 29th 07, 08:45 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:

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


Yeah, right. Manufacturers websites as the reference. Now *thats* a
reliable source....NOT

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


Funny, the site that opens on my webbrowser doesn't talk about 2D
performance but multimonitor setups: "We got our hands on a several
multimonitor graphics adapters and threw them at a mishmash of monitors
of different sizes and resolutions to see if our personal video wall
could really improve our productivity"

The Quadro FX 4500 X2 performed significantly better in all the 2D
(and 3D) tests.


Where does the article say that?

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.


Ever thought why no-one is talking about 2D performance any more nor why
2D performance hasn't been benchmarked by reputable magazines and
hardware sites for ages? Again for you: 2D performance of the last ~8
years or so is *more* than fast enough for *anything* 2D, period. That's
a fact. And if you understand how 2D acceleration works i.e. under
Windows and why the bandwidth needed for 2D is incredible low, much
lower than even the cheapest crap gfx card provides, then you know why
no-one talks about 2D performance any more.

BTW: things like video decoding support (MPEG2/HDTV etc) is *not* part
of the 2D performance. In fact, video hardware support has basically
*nothing* to do with gfx performance. It's done by a separate part of
hardware that is integrated in todays GPUs.

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.


No, it can't. The waiting time has nothing to do with the gfx card. If
you logon to Windows the appropriate user profile has to be loaded.
Especially if you're on a network (ADS) this can take several seconds
because the local Windows has to retrive user data from the server. Even
on a standalone PC this can take some time, depending on disk
performance, CPU and memory. The gfx card simply does **** about that.

You came here for an advice and you got it. If you don't believe us fine
then go ahead and buy the most expensive gfx card that you can find if
you think you will getter 2D performance. But I'd recommend you get at
least a basic understanding how these things really work.

Benjamin
  #6  
Old December 29th 07, 11:00 AM posted to alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.matrox
Thomas Andersson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 122
Default Fastest graphic card for Windows workstation use (2D, not gaming)

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).


  #7  
Old December 29th 07, 04:28 PM posted to alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.matrox
Augustus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 735
Default Fastest graphic card for Windows workstation use (2D, not gaming)

You came here for an advice and you got it. If you don't believe us fine
then go ahead and buy the most expensive gfx card that you can find if you
think you will getter 2D performance. But I'd recommend you get at least a
basic understanding how these things really work.

Benjamin


You're wasting your time with this guy. He obviously didn't come here for
real advice and is 100% equipped with unbendable preconcieved opinions not
based on fact. Even worse, not willing to read and learn when shown actual
facts. Let him go out and get his Quaro and FireGL.


  #8  
Old December 29th 07, 06:40 PM 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:

Argh, I see that that page is protected. You've to read the Google
cache copy of it to see the full review with the 2D benchmark results:

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=1&gl=it


I think you probably refer to the PC Mark 05 results. Well, it might
look to you that way but just reading some numbers without having a clue
what has been tested doesn't help.

FYI:

- the "2D Graphics Memory" tests are testing the bandwidth of the gfx
memory for 2D copy operations. The relevance to real world applications
is *zero* because memory bandwidth isn't a limiting factor for 2D for
almost a decade now.

- The "2D WMV video playback" test has a mis-leading title: it doesn't
test 2D performance but the performance of video playback, done by
simply playing back a HDTV video (1920x1080) with Windows Media Player
at maximum possible frame rate. It doesn't tell you *anything* about 2D
application performance, it just tells you how well HDTV videos can be
played back by Windows Media Player. This test is just nonsense as
todays cards often support HDTV hardware playback with certain players
or additional software, so basically this test is useless.

- "2D Transparent Windows" creates 30 Windows with a sweeping "fading"
effect (alpha blending). The number just tells you how many of these
Windows can be created per second, it's not only affected by the gfx
hardware but also by the driver and even by what other processes are
running on the computer. While this test at least has some remote
relevance to real work (Window drawing) it also has no real world
relevance as you never ever see or notice the difference between a
system that can draw 3800 of these windows per second or "just" 2800.

Mind you, understanding hardware is no idiot's game where you just have
to compare some numbers. If you don't know what exactly has been tested,
how this stuff works and interacts and what also influences the results
you can't read anything from the numbers.

Benjamin
  #9  
Old December 29th 07, 06:44 PM 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:

I only see words, not facts, here, and noone even reported a link to
words of a reputable sources.


if you want ressources then do your homework. But you better dig very
deep because you won't find any somewhat recent reliable source for a
topic that is a no-brainer for almost a decade now.

You came here with your question and this question has been answered by
people that very obviously know much more than you do about hardware in
general. If you don't believe in what we tell you why did you even came
here to ask? You probably are way better when buying the most expensive
gfx card you can find. At least it saves you the trouble about using
your brain.

Augustus, I think you're right. We're just wasting our time.

Benjamin
  #10  
Old December 29th 07, 08:32 PM posted to alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,alt.comp.periphs.videocards.matrox
Riffrafter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9
Default Fastest graphic card for Windows workstation use (2D, not gaming)


"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).



Bingo!

Faster processing under Vista for standard "Desktop" Windows apps will be
*much* more impacted by a faster processer and plenty of RAM (2GB minimum).
Couple that with a decent $100 video card and you'll be in very good shape.

I have a middle of the road Dell with an AMD X2 5200+ CPU and 4GB RAM. From
"locked" desktop to everything back and ready to work is under 2 seconds.
From Sleep mode to everything back (desktop and all open windows apps ready
to go) is under 5 seconds.

I also have an NVIDIA 8800GT, but that only helps me in 3D gaming (and boy
does it help!), but I got essentially the exact same desktop response using
the 7300LE that originally came with my system. The 7300 LE probably costs
less than $50 today and it handled Aero and standard windows apps under
Vista very well...

-Riff

 




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 01:59 AM
Fastest graphic card for Windows workstation use (2D, not gaming) Luca Villa Ati Videocards 39 December 31st 07 01:59 AM
Fastest graphic card for Windows workstation use (2D, not gaming) Benjamin Gawert Matrox Videocards 6 December 29th 07 01:06 PM
Fastest graphic card for Windows workstation use (2D, not gaming) Augustus Matrox Videocards 0 December 28th 07 06:19 PM
which graphic card serie Workstation or Gaming? Giovanni Azua Nvidia Videocards 14 February 23rd 05 09:31 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:13 PM.


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.