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

[Luca Villa]

The Quadro FX 4500 X2 performed significantly better in all the 2D

Where does the article say that?

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=cach...nd+Dual+Displays"+2d&hl=it&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=it

 

[Augustus]

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]

when shown actual facts

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

 

[Benjamin Gawert]

* 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=cach...nd+Dual+Displays"+2d&hl=it&ct=clnk&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

 

[Benjamin Gawert]

* 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

 

[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?

 

[Riffrafter]

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

 

[Mr.E Solved!]

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!

 

[JLC]

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

 

[Folk]

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?

Be gone, troll.

 

[Dima]

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]

 

[Dima]

[email protected] 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

 

[Benjamin Gawert]

* 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

 

[Benjamin Gawert]

* 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

 

[Paul]

[email protected] 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

 

[Benjamin Gawert]

* 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

 

[Patrick Vervoorn]

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.

 

[Outback Jon]

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
(e-mail address removed)
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

 

[Patrick Vervoorn]

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.

I don't think the benchmark was intended as that. It's also ridiculously
short; it finishes while I barely see the screen flashing.

My question was more a comment: I think that benchmark is ridiculously
outdated, and gives no meaningful indication whatsoever. I tried running
it a 2nd time, and I got totally different outcomes, indicating it's much
too short to really 'measure' anything.

[snip]

Regards, Patrick.

 

[Jack R]

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.

Following this thread with curiosity...
My numbers:
E6600 @ 3.2GHz; 2GB RAM; 8800GS; 1680 x 1050, Vista Ultimate 32 bit:
BitBlt:
avg: 3315.5 fps [3885.4 MB/sec]
max: 7275.9 fps [8526.4 MB/sec]
min: 106.0 fps [124.2 MB/sec]

ReverseBlt:
avg: 3970.8 fps [4653.3 MB/sec]
max: 6063.5 fps [7105.7 MB/sec]
min: 1831.0 fps [2145.7 MB/sec]

It runs so fast, it's just a blink on the screen.
(Oh, and this is with a ton of 'stuff' running)

Jack R