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

[Luca Villa]

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?

 

[Augustus]

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?

Since one presumes that you won't be building a Vista Basic system, a
certain degree of 3D capability will be desirable for Aero. You don't need
the high end DX10 3D gaming cards for this, but you do need something with
3D ability. Avoid the 64bit interface cards and get something in the $75 to
$100 range from Nvidia or ATI vendors. I'd be looking at the X1300Pro 128bit
and GeForce 7300GT 128bit series as the lower end candidates. Cheap and
plenty fast enough for Aero.

 

[Benjamin Gawert]

* Luca Villa:

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?

Every gfx card (at least from ATI/AMD and Nvidia, be careful with the
VIA/S3 ProSavage and SIS crap) of the last 8 years or so is more than
fast enough for 2D. There simply is no difference in 2D performance any
more.

So what you want is a DX9-capable (means: Vista Aero capable) gfx card.
Even the cheapest low end card will do.

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?

No, simply because all gfx cards of the last 8+ years are more than fast
enough for anything 2D.

Benjamin

 

[Luca Villa]

I think that the NVidia Quadro or ATI FireGL are those that can give
me the highest speed, more than the gaming cards.
Are you completely sure that they cannot make a visible difference
against cheap $50-$100 cards for general Windows use with tens of
opened windows?

 

[Benjamin Gawert]

* Luca Villa:

I think that the NVidia Quadro or ATI FireGL are those that can give
me the highest speed, more than the gaming cards.

No, they won't. Both FireGL and Quadro FX are professional *3D* cards
(the 2D equivalents are Quadro NVS and FireGL MV which are for 2D
multi-monitor solutions) based on the exact same chipsets as the
consumer cards (Geforce/Radeon).

Are you completely sure that they cannot make a visible difference
against cheap $50-$100 cards for general Windows use with tens of
opened windows?

Yes, I am. And yes, I do know the gfx cards including the FireGL and
Quadro quite good as we have a shitload of workstations with these cards.

Of course you're free to go out and spend 2500EUR for a Quadro FX 500
with 1.5GB memory. But for 2D it won't bring you one yota of performance
benefit over a say 30EUR Geforce FX 5200 or any other low end card.

Benjamin

 

[Benjamin Gawert]

* Luca Villa:

I think that the NVidia Quadro or ATI FireGL are those that can give
me the highest speed, more than the gaming cards.

No, they won't. Both FireGL and Quadro FX are professional *3D* cards
(the 2D equivalents are Quadro NVS and FireGL MV which are for 2D
multi-monitor solutions) based on the exact same chipsets as the
consumer cards (Geforce/Radeon).

Are you completely sure that they cannot make a visible difference
against cheap $50-$100 cards for general Windows use with tens of
opened windows?

Yes, I am. And yes, I do know the gfx cards including the FireGL and
Quadro quite good as we have a shitload of workstations with these cards.

Of course you're free to go out and spend say 2500USD for a Quadro FX
5600 with 1.5GB memory. But for 2D it won't bring you one yota of
performance benefit over say a 30EUR Geforce FX 5200 or any other low
end card.

The times when 2D performance was a challenge for computers are over for
at least around a decade now. Even a 1999-vintage Geforce256 gets
bored with everything 2D.

Benjamin

 

[Phil Weldon]

| I think that the NVidia Quadro or ATI FireGL are those that can give
| me the highest speed, more than the gaming cards.
| Are you completely sure that they cannot make a visible difference
| against cheap $50-$100 cards for general Windows use with tens of
| opened windows?
_____

If there were meaningful differences in 2D performance, there would be 2D
benchmark comparisons available. The only thing a more expensive card might
offer is better sharpness IF you were using analog output to your monitor.
And if that is the case, consider spending the extra money you seem to want
to spend on purchasing a digital input flat screen monitor rather than on
excess 3D power. The Vista Aero interface does require 3D performance
(probably the 'Show Windows' function, for example), but most of all make
sure good Vista 64 drivers are available NOW for the card you purchase.

Phil Weldon

|I think that the NVidia Quadro or ATI FireGL are those that can give
| me the highest speed, more than the gaming cards.
| Are you completely sure that they cannot make a visible difference
| against cheap $50-$100 cards for general Windows use with tens of
| opened windows?

 

[DaveW]

You just read the answer to your question on Tom's charts.

 

[Luca Villa]

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/ed...rticle=articles/archive/c0801/07c01/07c01.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.

 

[Dima]

You might take a look at those, which will do hardware decoding of 2D such
as HD movies...
http://www.tcmagazine.com/comments.php?shownews=17337
I believe there's not much point of getting fastest 3D card if you're not
going to do 3D stuff on it.

 

[Mr.E Solved!]

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/ed...rticle=articles/archive/c0801/07c01/07c01.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.

 

[007]

* Luca Villa:


Every gfx card (at least from ATI/AMD and Nvidia, be careful with the
VIA/S3 ProSavage and SIS crap) of the last 8 years or so is more than fast
enough for 2D. There simply is no difference in 2D performance any more.

So what you want is a DX9-capable (means: Vista Aero capable) gfx card.
Even the cheapest low end card will do.


No, simply because all gfx cards of the last 8+ years are more than fast
enough for anything 2D.

Benjamin

Could "all gfx cards of the last 8+ years" drive 1920 x 1200 LCD monitors?

 

[Paul]

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/adnload/37681_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

 

[Fred]

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/adnload/37681_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

 

[Benjamin Gawert]

* 007:

Could "all gfx cards of the last 8+ years" drive 1920 x 1200 LCD monitors?

Analog (i.e. via VGA): yes. The RAMDACs of gfx cards are fast enough for
these resolutions.

With DVI: basically yes except some really crappy Geforce FX
5200/5500/5700 cards with buggy BIOS.

Benjamin

 

[Benjamin Gawert]

* Dima:

You might take a look at those, which will do hardware decoding of 2D
such as HD movies...
http://www.tcmagazine.com/comments.php?shownews=17337

The decoding of video codecs has nothing to do with 2D performance.

I believe there's not much point of getting fastest 3D card if you're
not going to do 3D stuff on it.

Exactly.

Benjamin

 

[Benjamin Gawert]

* 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/ed...rticle=articles/archive/c0801/07c01/07c01.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 shit 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

 

[Thomas Andersson]

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).

 

[007]

* 007:


Analog (i.e. via VGA): yes. The RAMDACs of gfx cards are fast enough for
these resolutions.

With DVI: basically yes except some really crappy Geforce FX
5200/5500/5700 cards with buggy BIOS.

Benjamin

Thank you

 

[Luca Villa]

I'm italian and english is my second language but I don't think I used
the wrong term when I wrote "unlock".

When I go away from my PC I press WinKey+L to lock my PC or I wait for
the screensaver to do the same after 2 minutes of inactivity. Then
Windows writes:
"Press CTRL + ALT + DELETE to unlock this computer
Luca is logged on"

If Microsoft used the wrong term here please don't put the blame on
me.

Note: don't confuse the "unlock" action with a login.