Re: 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!

"Luca Villa" <> wrote in message
news:32f32095-187a-4262-8162-...
>> 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

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
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).
>
>

Q6600@2.66Ghz 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
news:...
> 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:
> 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:
> Q6600@2.66Ghz 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
> news:...
>> 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
>>
>>
>

* 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 <RoIdj.1$>,
Dima <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 (@2.8) and 6.1 GHz of other AMD power...
http://folding.stanford.edu - got folding? Team 53560

2006 ZG1000A Concours "Blueline" COG# 7385 CDA# 0157