Help Me Choose A Graphics Card!

[WmAx]

Actually PCI would bottleneck the card. He would be way better off using the PCI-E slot. (BY FAR)
Also even for image editing, a good 3D card I would still suggest. Specially if its at least 128MB.
The cpu will do most of the calculations, but the gpu would render those calculations quicker.
If it was just text, or browsing then 2D is fine. (until you get into some of the 2D commercial cards that cost big bucks (starting at around 1,300.00+ for a 2D card), the speed and technology in the 3D cards would be better off in this case)(PCI-E card with 256MB memory and a fast core clock for rendering images much faster can be had for as little as 60 or 70 shipped)

I have done alot of graphics work(Freehand, Photoshop, etc.) using various graphics solutions, and a modern 3D card offered me no significant advantage except when comparing to integrated. That's not even a rule, though. In fact, the integrated graphics on the Intel D865GLC board were as quick as one could want for 2D graphics rendering. The 'antique' 32MB G450 card I am using at this moment had no casually noticable speed difference from the 128 MB Nvidia 6200(which is basicly a 6600 with 4 of the 3D pipes disabled and clock frequency reduced somewhat, being the only difference) that I just tested it against, for 2D work.

-Chris

 

[brian32672]

Hmm, sorry to say Chris but I highly disagree.

Anyhow this was from a while back - but it kinda applies here

n Integrated Computing Engines. After Effects users can gain a further edge by plugging ICE's ICEfx card into their PCI Mac or Windows systems. The $4,995 ICEfx card contains 16 high-speed digital signal processors that speed rendering of certain After Effects filters and other processes by a magnitude of five to 12. Unfortunately, the operative word here is "certain." According to ICE, "only processes that have had drivers expressly written for them will be accelerated." ICE has worked closely with Adobe to gain access to "hooks" within After Effects to pass off the processing of functions to the ICEfx card. Another limitation is that ICEfx's acceleration is limited to the 720 x 484/525 video resolutions. This means that it can't provide the much-needed performance improvement for film images.

Also I would look at these rendering charts, hmm if I can find them........
Can't find them now. But this will help to let you know that 2D rendering speed from the graphics card is needed.
http://www.karpfenteich.net/colorful/bitblt.html
Granted, I still wonder for 50 - 70 bucks why would anyone not get a 3D/2D card that works better than 2D strictly card.
And here is a 2D graphics benchmarking/test tool.
http://www.ilog.com/products/views/demos/benchgr/index.cfm

Oh, by the way. For the poster that is talking about image editing. 2D graphics are much more for graphs - bitmaps - and the like.
If you are using Adobe photoshop and using rendering filters - A decent 3D will render images much faster than a cheap 2D card that will have filter limitations on 3D objects. If you are using warp filters then 3D will be needed. If you are just doing something simple like color overlay than 2D is ok.
Still for 50 - 70 dollars, a remotely decent 3D card should be of much more advantage.

 

[brian32672]

Also for the bottleneck questions (on how bad PCI is) here look at this.
http://ffpf.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?Network_Processing_Bottlenecks

 

[MDS]

I don't think the ICE Engine is applicable for WmAx's needs at all. That is for real time rendering of effects for video or complex 3D graphics for a game. Using Photoshop to touch up photos requires almost no graphics processing power at all.

I would agree it's better to get a 3D card rather than 2D only but just about any 2D solution will be sufficient. This article may be enlightening: http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20050302/index.html

 

[brian32672]

I would agree it's better to get a 3D card rather than 2D only but just about any 2D solution will be sufficient. This article may be enlightening: http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20050302/index.html

Yeah I am sure I read that artical quite awhile ago. But we at the moment (for what I thought) was off of WmAx and onto another poster.
At which point, yes 2D can be used. But it will have limitations.
Unless he is doing commercial 2D graphics, I would say it would be much more cost effective for a simple 3D card.

 

[WmAx]

Hmm, sorry to say Chris but I highly disagree.

Anyhow this was from a while back - but it kinda applies here

How does a video-editing specific function card apply here?

Granted, I still wonder for 50 - 70 bucks why would anyone not get a 3D/2D card that works better than 2D strictly card.

Because it does not matter much for the majority of 2D use? This antiquated G450 works sufficiently, in 2D professional application use(vector 2D, raster 2D, etc.). Just tried a modern 3D card, and it did not offer anything compelling in advantage to actual use in 2D that I noticed.

-Chris

 

[WmAx]

Also for the bottleneck questions (on how bad PCI is) here look at this.
http://ffpf.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?Network_Processing_Bottlenecks

Please correlate this with why it is 'so bad' for a 2D rendering card.

-Chris

 

[brian32672]

Please correlate this with why it is 'so bad' for a 2D rendering card.

Clearly you are not seeing that even for 2D graphics that PCI is 3 to 4 times slower than AGP.
Here is the ABC's of graphic card capabilities.
http://www.matrox.com/mga/theguide/contents/AGPvsPCI.cfm

I don't work a lot with graphics but I have worked with them extensively before.
Probably about 8 or 9 years ago I was really into it.
Before that I was working a lot with syntax.

The graphics I was even slightly working with about 4 years ago where in sizes of excess of 30 to 40MB each file.
Moving that kind of info on a PCI bus for 2D graphics would just take forever.
The 4 times faster AGP, greatly reduced my waiting times for rasterization.

Anyhow, like I said - I am done arguing. So if you want
Go ahead and get in the last word.

 

[Sheep]

I wouldn't call a 6200 a "modern" 3D card. Atleast use a 6600...

You can pickone of those up for cheap (6600)

SheepStar

 

[brian32672]

I wouldn't call a 6200 a "modern" 3D card. Atleast use a 6600

Well he is talking about 2D applications here Sheep. But I have pointed out the bandwith issues on larger files.
Oh by the way, when I had said 40MB files I was also opening a few of those files at once.
Which also needed for that is a great amount of RAM (1 GB minimum)

MY BAD I AM DONE ON THIS THREAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[WmAx]

The graphics I was even slightly working with about 4 years ago where in sizes of excess of 30 to 40MB each file.
Moving that kind of info on a PCI bus for 2D graphics would just take forever.
The 4 times faster AGP, greatly reduced my waiting times for rasterization.

Anyhow, like I said - I am done arguing. So if you want
Go ahead and get in the last word.

I don't see the relevance of the size of the images, as the card is only rendering the on-screen part that is shown. From what I understand, the size of that is calculated from the HxV pixels and bit-depth of the screen setting used.

I asked for a correlation, and I what I meant, was an actual comparison of the effects on practical 2D use of AGP vs. PCI. I know that AGP has a much wider bandwidth than PCI; but the question is what real-world impact does this have on 2D graphics?

It surely is difficult to find PCI vs AGP comparisons today, but looking back at 2000-2001 era, I can find some. It is interesting to note the marginal difference between the 4x AGP card vs. PCI cards in 2D tests at this link: http://www.barefeats.com/graphic2b.htm

-Chris

 

[WmAx]

I wouldn't call a 6200 a "modern" 3D card. Atleast use a 6600...

You can pickone of those up for cheap (6600)

SheepStar

Sheep, I think the 6200 has been around maybe a year at the most. And from what I understand, the 6200 actually is a 6600 that has been software disabled, and that some of them can even be restored to full 6600 3D capability by use of special unlocking software. But 3D is not an issue here, as I am only concerned with 2D.

-Chris

 

[brian32672]

OK really tired of this crud. This will most certainly be the last post.
And like I said before, you clearly do not see the PCI bandwidth issues even in 2D.

So after reading this entire statement - MAKE SURE TO READ THIS PART!!!!!!!!!!!
IN THE BELOW LINK!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1. You cannot take 2D graphics performance for granted. There continues to be a noticeable difference in 2D performance among modern graphics cards at high resolutions.
2. Bandwidth plays an important role in just about everything, even 2D graphics.

Now here is where to start reading the entire thread which is a year or 2 newer than yours.
http://www.firingsquad.com/guides/2dperformance/

Also for older stuff please read some of this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_chip
And this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2D_computer_graphics

After reading all of that and you still think the gpu benchmarking and speeds of gpu as well as PCI and AGP and PCI-E bandwidth have no affect on 2D, then clearly you have some issues.
I have given enough examples that I feel it easily justifies all that is stated in this thread.
Clearly YOU MUST NOT BE WRONG ON ANY POSTS, SPECIALLY WHEN YOU ARGUE WITH MULE AND OTHERS.
If you are trying to get under my skin - you have succeded.

 

[WmAx]

After reading all of that and you still think the gpu benchmarking and speeds of gpu have no affect on 2D, then clearly you have some issues.

I never said any such thing as "no affect", and if I did, please direct me to this.

I have given enough examples that I feel it easily justifies all that is stated in this thread.
Clearly YOU MUST NOT BE WRONG ON ANY POSTS, SPECIALLY WHEN YOU ARGUE WITH MULE AND OTHERS.
If you are trying to get under my skin - you have succeded.

I actually have not tried to get under your skin -- I have only asked questions, asking for substantiation(s). Your link to the Matrox card and the quote that you selected to put into huge bold print actually seems a bit deceptive in this conversation; as specfically in that article, that quote related to the on-card memory bandwidth bus(the memory type used was not fast enough), and was only a significant issue in certain special cases such as resolutions exceeding 1600x1200 or on very large resoluton dual-monitor applications run from the same card simultaneously.

-Chris

 

[MDS]

This argument is now like the debates over the high end cards where one can do 240 frames per second and the competition can only achieve 200 fps. Who cares? You need 60 fps for full motion video without lag so the arguments are academic.

Same deal with SATA vs ATA. SATA bandwidth is 150 MB/s. The bus can't keep up with that no matter what. ATA's 100 MB/s bandwidth can't saturate the PCI bus, not to mention the fact that there are alot of other factors like whether the program is cpu bound, i/o bound, etc - again academic arguments.

Is a 2.4GHz CPU faster than a 2.0GHz CPU? It depends - once again on a whole lot of factors.

I see nothing wrong with WmAx's questioning. He is trying to determine what best suits his needs as would any smart consumer.

Should I dare say that I just bought an ATI Radeon 9600XT? Oh no, that card can't possibly be good, right? For my purposes, it will be loafing the vast majority of the time. There is no reason to spend big bucks on a super fast card if the workload doesn't warrant it.

 

[brian32672]

I never said any such thing as "no affect", and if I did, please direct me to this.

Not the exact words no affect but please reread your #21 post.

Your link to the Matrox card and the quote that you selected to put into huge bold print actually seems a bit deceptive in this conversation;

Deceptive????????? What is deceptive about bandwidth from this - 2. Bandwidth plays an important role in just about everything, even 2D graphics.

as specfically in that article, that quote related to the on-card memory bandwidth bus(the memory type used was not fast enough),

Deceptive certainly was not my intention. Yes it relates as well as gpu speed. I do have one more link for that issue as well. But no I am not going to give it to you. You go ahead and keep telling people that all they need is a PCI card with minimal bandwidth and that it is certainly not needed over their current PCI-E. (If those are not your exact words - they are very close - and yes I am still talking about 2D)

and was only a significant issue in certain special cases such as resolutions exceeding 1600x1200 or on very large resoluton dual-monitor applications run from the same card simultaneously.

CAN YOU READ???? All test were better once they hit 1600x1200
I am just curious on your first post - Did you not say that you use your card exclusively at 1600x1200? So I am assuming since all tests (in 2D) did better in 1600x1200 that this does not apply to you.
Clearly either I don't get it - or you don't.

I guess, I choose me..................

 

[brian32672]

You need 60 fps for full motion video without lag so the arguments are academic.

I don't know what you and Chris got going on. But almost every thread he has problems in - you will join in.
Which is fine in most cases. But if you to do not see the points here, I just hang my head low.

Anyhow - Actually even 30fps or a tad higher will suffice.
But for no lag - I would go minimum 40fps.

 

[WmAx]

Not the exact words no affect but please reread your #21 post.

You should re-read post no. 21 because the only thing I stated in post no. 21 was my impressions(s) of modern 3 cards vs. a specific integrated video soluiton and the Matrox card, and these had nothing to do with PCI, which seems to be getting mixed into the subject matter here.

Deceptive certainly was not my intention. Yes it relates as well as gpu speed. I do have one more link for that issue as well. But no I am not going to give it to you. You go ahead and keep telling people that all they need is a PCI card with minimal bandwidth and that it is certainly not needed over their current PCI-E. (If those are not your exact words - they are very close - and yes I am still talking about 2D)

At this point, I suggested a PCI card to someone who wanted an inexpensive high quality 2D solution. I have not found any evidence to support that a PCI interface would signifcantly hurt normal 2D use(s). When I asked you for substantiation when you claimed the contrary, you seem to get very upset, for what reason(s), I don't yet know.

CAN YOU READ???? All test were better once they hit 1600x1200
I am just curious on your first post - Did you not say that you use your card exclusively at 1600x1200? So I am assuming since all tests (in 2D) did better in 1600x1200 that this does not apply to you.
Clearly either I don't get it - or you don't.

1. You provide no coorelation of how this perceptually affects real-world uses(s). I would go on, but MDS's post already summed up the issue for me in his last post.

2. The differences: Office Bench 2001, Matrox was 4 percent slower at 1600x1200. Video overlay was equal with both cards at 1600x1200. Officebench index test later in the review, the Matrox was about 8 percent slower in 1600x1200. Not exactly what I would consider significant differences.

Let's assume that the Nvidia card I just tried had at least equal performance, or even better 2D performance as compared to the *winner* in these tests at your link. These marginal differences do not warrant me using a worse quality video card(fuzzier), nor do they warrant buying a much more expensive card(to gain the marginal 2D performance difference and keep the 2D video quality/clarity at the same time). The differences were small enough that I did not notice any difference(s) in actual use.

-Chris

 

[MDS]

I don't know what you and Chris got going on. But almost every thread he has problems in - you will join in.
Which is fine in most cases. But if you to do not see the points here, I just hang my head low.

I obviously don't have any arrangement with Chris. Trust me, I see your points. You get angry that he would question what you say as if you are the final word on the topic of graphics. Your perspective is that of a gamer and games are the ONLY thing that stresses the graphics subsystem.

 

[brian32672]

Your perspective is that of a gamer and games are the ONLY thing that stresses the graphics subsystem.

Please reread post #28...........