Could someone with muchos graphics knowledge help me prove a point?

krooton · 12 Oct 2006 at 15:08

Some fool on another forum is positive that graphics cards make a noticable difference in the 2D rendering of standard apps.

I agree that there is, but for non graphic-intensive applications the difference would be unnoticable.

We used MS Word as our reference app.

I've tested on my work machine with it's intergrated intel graphics, and the load time of the app (through the netowrk no less as our profiles are web based) was 1.5 seconds.

He is certain that when he underclocked his 7900GT by around 100mhz, there was a multiple second increase in the load time.

Utter tripe.

The amount of gpu power needed to render the 2D layout of a MS Word document is almost nothing, as proven by my own work machine.

As such, if you had an identicle system in every aspect, but one had say an FX 5200, and the other that uber Nvidia card, the most powerful AGP one on the market, there would be no noticable difference in the draw time of loading of MS Word, correct?

Zefan · 12 Oct 2006 at 15:10

It wouldn't take longer to load anyway, it would just look jittery and give you low fps.

That's liek saying FarCry would load quicker depending on your 3dcard... each frame would load quicker indeed, but the application load time is dependent upon the bandwidth between your storage/ram etc.

Metallifux · 12 Oct 2006 at 15:10

I can't see it having an affect on load time, but it certainly has an affect on gui usage, just try uninstalling your gfx driver and scrolling through a word doc.

Zefan · 12 Oct 2006 at 15:12

Metallifux said:
just try uninstalling your gfx driver and scrolling through a word doc.

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.

krooton · 12 Oct 2006 at 15:27

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.

Exactly the point I am trying to make.

He is adamant that upgrading some guys card from a FX 5200 to a 9600 Pro would have a noticable difference in the 2D rendering of standard desktop stuff.

Zefan · 12 Oct 2006 at 15:28

krooton said:
Exactly the point I am trying to make.

He is adamant that upgrading some guys card from a FX 5200 to a 9600 Pro would have a noticable difference in the 2D rendering of standard desktop stuff.

He's a ****head

The Asgard · 12 Oct 2006 at 15:45

I think desktop speed does very between ATI/Nvidia. I get to use many different cards/equipment and although I have never investigated Nvidia is more snapper in 2D than ATI. Just an observation. Its not seconds faster though.

krooton · 12 Oct 2006 at 15:57

The Asgard said:
I think desktop speed does very between ATI/Nvidia. I get to use many different cards/equipment and although I have never investigated Nvidia is more snapper in 2D than ATI. Just an observation. Its not seconds faster though.

The focus of the debate is that some dude that help spec an upgrade is still using his FX 5200.

He isn't a gamer, so it doesnt really matter, the card is more than up to any 2D rendering XP will throw at it, correct?

This other guy says that if the card was upgraded, there would be a noticable improvement to the 2D rendering.

I upgraded the guy to a A64 3200+ with 1G ram (he was using a Duron with 384MB ram).

semi-pro waster · 12 Oct 2006 at 16:07

I'm not sure what I can really say other than the stupidity of some people still surprises me.

The speed of the PC will affect how long the program takes to load up, the graphics card itself won't. Yes an FX5200 is more than capable of any 2D work in XP or any other OS prior to it. I'd tell him to put his money where is mouth is(remember to wash the notes afterwards

) and swap the FX5200 with another other AGP graphics card and note the load times, I'd guarantee that there will be no difference from the graphics card.

The Asgard · 12 Oct 2006 at 16:08

krooton said:
The focus of the debate is that some dude that help spec an upgrade is still using his FX 5200.

He isn't a gamer, so it doesnt really matter, the card is more than up to any 2D rendering XP will throw at it, correct?

This other guy says that if the card was upgraded, there would be a noticable improvement to the 2D rendering.

I upgraded the guy to a A64 3200+ with 1G ram (he was using a Duron with 384MB ram).

Your right what your saying and your advice is sound. My response is to your initial statement.

"Some fool on another forum is positive that graphics cards make a noticable difference in the 2D rendering of standard apps."

There is a difference between Nvidia & ATI. I had a X1900GT at work on my development machine and I switched to an 7900GTO and immeadiately everything felt a lot snappier in 2D. Like I said just an Observation.

krooton · 12 Oct 2006 at 16:17

The Asgard said:
Your right what your saying and your advice is sound. My response is to your initial statement.

"Some fool on another forum is positive that graphics cards make a noticable difference in the 2D rendering of standard apps."

There is a difference between Nvidia & ATI. I had a X1900GT at work on my development machine and I switched to an 7900GTO and immeadiately everything felt a lot snappier in 2D. Like I said just an Observation.

And as he already has an Nvidia card, that becomes moot point?

Everyone agrees then that there is no need for him to pay money to upgrade his graphics card if he isn't a gamer?

semi-pro waster · 12 Oct 2006 at 16:19

krooton said:
Everyone agrees then that there is no need for him to pay money to upgrade his graphics card if he isn't a gamer?

No need to upgrade, however it will limit his upgrade potential in future if he sticks with AGP here. If I remember from the other thread he doesn't upgrade much anyway so it doesn't matter hugely.

krooton · 12 Oct 2006 at 16:30

semi-pro waster said:
No need to upgrade, however it will limit his upgrade potential in future if he sticks with AGP here. If I remember from the other thread he doesn't upgrade much anyway so it doesn't matter hugely.

It was a case of him already having an AGP card and not being a gamer, so speccing him a PCI-E mobo would up the overall cost of the spec which had a tight budget.

He would also get next to nothing if he tried to sell the FX 5200 to fund anything else.

Plus, should he need to, 9xxx cards are going pretty cheap second hand for the time being, or he could the X1300 AGP route.

Boogle · 12 Oct 2006 at 18:50

All 2D goes through the GDI, it is accelerated by the graphics card - but not by much. Things like transparancy are almost exclusively performed by the CPU. 2D performance peaked around the Voodoo 2 / Rage II / TNT. Since then performance differences are fairly minor and mostly to do with the drivers.

Having said that, memory bandwidth can make minor differences since the framebuffer is held in video memory. Basically the faster the video memory, and the faster the interface between CPU/RAM and video memory - the faster the 2D. It will be minor though, the framebuffer is only a couple of megs with a 1600x1200 resolution - and since the bandwidth is measured well over 10GB/sec its not going to make much difference

Vista however, will scale with faster 3D accelerators

Tetras · 12 Oct 2006 at 18:54

Apologies if I missed it but what exactly would the benefit be even if this guy was right? It isn't like Word taking a second longer to load up means anything to average user

krooton · 12 Oct 2006 at 19:36

Tetras said:
Apologies if I missed it but what exactly would the benefit be even if this guy was right? It isn't like Word taking a second longer to load up means anything to average user

He's the argumentative sort that never admits defeat :rolleyes:

I would link to the thread, but I'm not sure if you are allowed to in OCUK, hehe

Cyber-Mav · 12 Oct 2006 at 19:37

krooton said:
Some fool on another forum is positive that graphics cards make a noticable difference in the 2D rendering of standard apps.

this is true, on my old cirrus logic 512KB ISA graphics card i remember dragging windows to be very slow and jerky/tearing like when you put a new graphics card in your pc and it doesn;t have its drivers intalled.
then switching to an ati rage 128 card mate everything ultra fans and thats all just in 2d apps.

so the guy on the other forums is making sense.

however the 2d speed of all gfx card seemed to have saturated at the point where the old riva tnt/matrox millennium/rage128 etc were out. now only the 3d speed increases since there is not much more than can be done with 2d.

if the guy is saying that going from 6600gt to a 7900gt will increase the rate at which you can scroll text in windows, them im sorry to say that he popped out of his mammas wrong hole :rolleyes:

MuSsEr · 12 Oct 2006 at 19:40

the guy seems like a plank to me

the graphics card is barely used while in windows, hence why your "idle" tempertaure in windows is so much lower than when your card is actually doing anything

maybe it'll make a difference in windows vista when it actually need the gfx card to do some things but at the moment, no it makes no difference

any small annomalies of 0.5 secs - 1 sec are probably down to the application itself being made by microsoft and therefore rubbish, or some of it still being loaded into memory from the last time it was opened or something

tell the guy to stop using computers and go and join a professional swim team...then drown

Cyber-Mav · 12 Oct 2006 at 21:26

gfx card will made a difference in windows vista aero view.

krooton · 13 Oct 2006 at 00:25

Cyber-Mav said:
this is true, on my old cirrus logic 512KB ISA graphics card i remember dragging windows to be very slow and jerky/tearing like when you put a new graphics card in your pc and it doesn;t have its drivers intalled.
then switching to an ati rage 128 card mate everything ultra fans and thats all just in 2d apps.

so the guy on the other forums is making sense.

however the 2d speed of all gfx card seemed to have saturated at the point where the old riva tnt/matrox millennium/rage128 etc were out. now only the 3d speed increases since there is not much more than can be done with 2d.

if the guy is saying that going from 6600gt to a 7900gt will increase the rate at which you can scroll text in windows, them im sorry to say that he popped out of his mammas wrong hole

Haha, he quoted the first half of your post as if to say it proved me wrong, even when you clearly said that 2D rendering peaked in cards made 9 years ago in the second half.

He maintains that he is correct.

I tested the 'startup' time of MS Word on my home machine, give or take a second, but then the whole machine is a big step up from my work one, so if the performance gain is a measly 0.5 seconds, surely the fact I have an A64 at 3Ghz and 1GB ram would account for more of that than my X1800XT does.

What a noob!