[Help] GFX cards for 2D animation?

[shambf00]

Can anyone help me out with what graphics cards are good for doing 2D animation?

I'm currently using ATI Xpress 200 onboard graphics chipset, but I'm looking to upgrade to cope with video editing and some photoshop work. Is what I've got enough?

This is the second site I've been on, please help.

Thanks.

 

[cleeve]

2d Animation/Photoshop work doesn't really require anything special. The cheapest card will do as well as the best card, all you really need to look for is something with good display quality.

The best CPU you can afford will help, and more RAM is better too.

For video, once again, more RAM and a better CPU is the way to go.
If you're using Premiere PRO, a decent card with 3d functionality is desirable. Other video editing software won't care what videocard you're running.

 

[shambf00]

Thanks,

I have the ATI Xpress 200 running with Athlon 64 3200+ and 512 meg of RAM. Is that OK?

 

[FITCamaro]

Upgrade the RAM to 1GB and throw a lowend x700 256MB card in there. You can get them for like $130.

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

Thanks,

I have the ATI Xpress 200 running with Athlon 64 3200+ and 512 meg of RAM. Is that OK?

If you keep the integrated Xpr200 then move to 1+GB preferably 2GB actually.

Otherwise 1GB (low latency) and a low end X300SE (nice to have an X1300SE though) will be fine IMO.

 

[shambf00]

Cool, cool...i've got a tight budget so I can't put down money on something that wouldn't be absolutely necessary.

If the Xpress 200 is ok then i'd rather keep it, but if I can see substantial imporvement in my kind of work, then I may consider my options.

Considering RAM, upgrading it has been advised quite a few times now. So, would 2 gig RAM be that much of an advantage over 1 gig?

Thanks guys.

 

[zyzplasmaz]

for photoshop, and depending on how big the image/how much your editing the image, more ram will be better. if you constantly add layers/effects and work with huge image then you would most likely see some improvement with 2gigs. i dont think it's necessary but it wouldnt hurt.
for video editing 2gig will most likely help also. i dont video edit but it is alot more memory intensive then pictures.
there is a definite improvement from 512 to 1gig though for just about anything.
for videocard, most video card should be fine as long as it's not intergrated as that uses you system ram and is slower then dedicated video ram. anything around 60 should be more then enough but i recommend you spend a little more and get one with at least 64-128megs (dedicated and not TurboCached or HyperMemory) which will help when you are editing images.
you probably wont see huge differences, but you should feel the difference. like if you switch between applications or refresh images etc will be noticable faster, not alot for everyday usage but with lots of stuff on screen it will be.
also make sure you know what type of free slot you have, if it's agp or pci-express before you buy as they arent compatible.
so if you have a choice between 512->1gig and dedicated video card, you'll probably see more difference with the ram increase.

 

[shambf00]

Good stuff.

Ok, so I want my pc running sharply, and going for 2 gig RAM and dedicated mem of 128 meg on a graphics card sounds like it should be rather snappy for my work.

I've always heard that ATI graphics cards produces better quality images, is that still true?

Thanks a lot guys.

I'll check up tomorrow, I gotta crash now.

 

[bront]

With DVI outs, that's gotten better, and I think that's finaly become much less of an issue than it used to be, (it was more an issue back when ATI was the only maker of their cards, so you got variable quality with Nvidia chips).

2 Gigs of ram will do you the most good. the video card should be fine for 2D work, since you're on a budget. It may be worth getting an X1300 or something along those lines at around $100 at some point, but you can probably deal with what you have till then.

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

Good stuff.

Ok, so I want my pc running sharply, and going for 2 gig RAM and dedicated mem of 128 meg on a graphics card sounds like it should be rather snappy for my work.

I've always heard that ATI graphics cards produces better quality images, is that still true?

Thanks a lot guys.

I'll check up tomorrow, I gotta crash now.

Seperate card > integrated but the difference will be minor. If you can afford a cheap add-in card plus solid memory then that's the best option.
Anything less than an X300 would not be adviseable, and as mentioned the X1300 would be nice (nice to have at least one dual-link DVI for large LCD panels).

ATi and nV are very close in 2D quality, the TMDS are integrated so it's not the board MFR that was falterig but nV's integrated design, they only use external TMDS for the 2nd DVI and usually then the board mfr uses a good quality one like that of SiliconImage. When deciding between the tow I'd still favour ATi for 2D based on nV's past mediocre TMDS quality;
http://www.tomshardware.com/2004/11/29/the_tft_connection/

I doubt you will find anything that will match the X1300, even from Matrox as tough as that is to say. Matrox will probably have beter VGA/analogue output, but that's based on their filtering design, I haven't seen a head-to-head comparo yet with the new x1xx generation.

 

[shambf00]

Yeah, Matrox is kinda expensive, so I think I'm gonna go with the ATI.

Thanks guys.