Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
titaniumx3 said:In PCMark05, on the test where you have lots of small windows flying about everywhere I noticed a substantial difference in performance when switching from a 9800 pro to an X1900 XT. I doubt you'll ever do anything as intensive as that during normal desktop usage but the point is, a faster card can make a difference in 2D.
General Zod wrote on 12-10-2006 12:45 PM
Soliloquy wrote on 12-10-2006 11:52 AM
Stakker wrote on 12-10-2006 11:49 AM
i dont, but it its slow on other things, i am gonna change it.
other things like what? *** GFX card would only effect graphics rendering. it shouldnt have much (in any) effect on the net / MS office / music production or even photoshop
You what? Shouldn't have much affect on Photoshop? The GFX is a very important aspect of a PC, and regardless of the backend, if a poor performance card is installed the entire experience is affected. For example, my machine instantly loads Word however after reducing the clock speeds the load time increases by a few seconds. [Takes longer to display].
Soliloquy wrote on 12-10-2006 12:50 PM
i didnt say it wouldnt affect system performance, i said it shouldnt have a noticable effect. besides, if all you are doing is loading word up then a GFX card from 5 years ago would be powerful enough.
as for photoshop - as far as i'm aware it doesnt call any GPU specific instructions during image rendering. maybe the application has intergrated itself with the GPU more closely since when i used to use the program (which admittedl was a few years back)
General Zod wrote on 12-10-2006 12:52 PM
I reduced my clock by 100Mhz and memory by 200MHz though I was troubleshooting. Try running Windows in both Safe mode and normal mode and compare the difference in display times. The HD load will remain identical but the application will take longer to display on the screen.
kr00t0n wrote on 12-10-2006 01:03 PM
If it occured in safe mode, that would be because it isn't using the card's drivers, and just the native vga settings in XP.
As Soliloquy says, old graphics cards render it near instantly, even intergrated onboard gfx like in all our work pcs do.
General Zod wrote on 12-10-2006 01:15 PM
Which is precisely the point. A machine installed with high performance HD, RAM, and CPU would experience a bottleneck when displaying 2D/3D images whether in safe mode or Windows mode.
Soliloquy wrote on 12-10-2006 01:23 PM
actually that wasnt his point - you've misinterpreted his post.
his point is that in safe mode any GFX card will display slower as it's running in a native VGA mode with no GPU chipset specific functions (et al) being called. plus more than likely no graphics card memory being utilised and the GPU clock speed throttled back as well.
safe mode is called that for a reason - it uses minimum resources to help diagnose or correct problems safely
a geforce 10 with 10GB of memory and a 9THz GPU clock speed (if such a device existed) would more than likely render the desktop at the same speed as a Geforce 2 MX
kr00t0n wrote on 12-10-2006 01:41 PM
Exactly, safe mode put any sort of processing, graphical or not, on the cpu and cpu alone.
With any sort of gpu, be it an onboard SIS chip in a mobo, a PCI S3 Virge, a Voodoo 3, a 9800 pro, or a pair of 7900GTX's in Sli, the difference in the speed rendering of non-graphic intensive applications would be would neglible and not something to be perceived by the end user.
General Zod wrote on 12-10-2006 01:50 PM
If one compares two identical machines with alternate GFX' installed [7900GT and 7950GT] then the difference is 100% noticeable when comparing side by side. Granted, its minimal however a program is considered to be loaded when displayed on the screen and if a delay within the rendering/refresh/memory dump occurs then the load times are considered slower.
Ah but the OP was making a point about the gfx cards affect on 2d gfx, which clearly it does.Zefan said:That's just having no drivers though. I think nearly any display adaptor nowadays with the correct drivers would perform general gui functions fully without chugging.
Metallifux said:Ah but the OP was making a point about the gfx cards affect on 2d gfx, which clearly it does.
krooton said:He is certain that when he underclocked his 7900GT by around 100mhz, there was a multiple second increase in the load time.
Boogle said:Tell anyone arguing over Windows performance to look here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...winprog/winprog/graphics_device_interface.asp
It basically covers the GDI from a programmers perspective. This is useful - since it clearly shows advanced operations, such as rotation are performed on the CPU almost exclusively. It also shows that when something like Word displays, Word basically just sends a series of bitmaps and text to the graphics card (via the GDI) - with processing taking place on the CPU. The GPU then handles things such as moving the objects around in hardware. So displaying Word initially is almost entirely performed by the CPU.
You can see this (funnily enough) in Safe Mode. Opening an application (including initial display) is as fast in safe mode as it is in Windows normally. However, start interacting with the window where things move around and suddenly the performance is very poor. The GPU has nothing to do with initial display (even in Vista the GPU doesn't have much to do with that), the GPU is purely for manipulating the elements after they've been initially created. That rule applies to Vista as well.
There's a simpler explanation though - the aforementioned person likes to argue/is a troll.