Re: 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
news:a3e1df21-9def-4986-90c1-...
>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?

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 here:
> 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.

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 here:
>> 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.

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

Paul

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 here:
>>> 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:

> 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 here:
> 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

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).

> 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.

* 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

* 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

"Thomas Andersson" <> wrote in message
news:...
> 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