Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Anyone here care about anything other than 3d performance...

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
July 9, 2006 4:06:23 PM

Anyone here care about anything other than 3d performance... Looking through the posts here it seems to me that the only area people consider when comparing graphics cards from ATI and NVIDIA is FPS in games. Personally I am about to purchase a new card for my older AGP system, and it’s looking like a ATI x1600 at the mo, because partly it will give a nice boost to WoW (the only game I have) but also give me the best video playback possible (including high dev), and I think ATI have the edge in 2d. Am I a crazy loner in this – or does anyone else care about anything outside games?

More about : care performance

July 9, 2006 4:08:57 PM

High end GPU's arent really designed for anything other than games....so 99% of us will say, its Frame rate, IQ and features that matter to us the most. 2D performance is a very distant 4th place........
July 9, 2006 4:10:58 PM

I'm confused. :?

Of course people compare FPS, that is a very good way of measuring performance. We want the most BANG FOR OUR BUCK. No one wants to buy $$$ for $$ performance.

The Media Center thing hasn't settled in, but I've tasted the Media Center, and I like it. Did you miss the recent article done by THG which compared HD formats so you knew which one would be better to save on your computer?

This is a forum centered around GPUs, not TV Tuners. If and when we want a TV Tuner, we will get one, but right now performance in games is more important. And, anyways, we already have TV's.

~Ibrahim~
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
July 9, 2006 8:09:28 PM

I and a few others are the 2D guys here, but hey we also game, so it's nice to have both.

It's not like your X1600 is better at 2D than Cleeve's X1900, if anything it'd be the other way around thanks to bette 1080P playback on the X1800/1900 and having 2 dual-link DVIs, instead of the usual 1 on most X1600s.

And of course it kicks butt in games.

Heck if you were ONLY interested in 2D then you'd have bought an X1300-HM wouldn't you? :tongue:
July 9, 2006 8:21:23 PM

I do play games quite a bit, so I do have a high end card, but I am extremely interested in processor, RAM and HDD storage as I do a great deal of A/V work along side web-design, so graphics horsepower is important by not the most essential part of my PC. Guess you could say I am more based around a multimedia aspect of PC'ing.
July 9, 2006 8:51:06 PM

I find having dual cards can be good for 2D performance as well, such as using one card per monitor in a dual display setup, and often run more than one video simultaneously. (Often HD, 720p and 1080p)
a b U Graphics card
July 9, 2006 9:18:51 PM

one thing is that the high end stuff <cpu,gpu,ect> wont stay high end
for more than a month or so then it is obsolete. lol!!!

most people here <i think> use their comp for gaming
and gaming is a stress test on any comp.

my girlfriend has an older 3yrs dell and it isnt any faster
than my comp. at normal brosewing the web and such
July 9, 2006 9:41:44 PM

Well, I hate to stick out, but I just use my computer for games. Light office work at the most....

~Ibrahim~
July 9, 2006 9:58:42 PM

The most important things a PC can have are:

1) Reliable Power
2) Quiet operation
3) Sufficient automated backup capabilities

After that, I get to actual PC/3D performance.

Reliable Power is #1, because everything else hinges on the PSU. I'm not a fan of building boxes with 21 Gigawatt PSUs like most poeple seem to today: I actually build boxes with the correct power supply rating: usually not in excess of 450 watts. Occasionally a 550 watt makes it into a box if it's SLI, or has a bunch of SATAII drives inside.

In my view, noise is the biggest issue of all in the computing world of today. That's why I am building almost exclusively passively cooled PCs these days: passive motherboards, passive CPU coolers, passive graphics cards. 120mm case fans at low rpms, and 120mm PSU fans with speed controllers.

The boxes I build are typically almost silent, but have little or no overhead for overclocking. That's just fine, as my clients aren't interested in overclocked machines.

My most recent build is for a guy who does some CAD/design work, uses Microsoft Flight Simulator over New Zealand, in his LS1 glider with the 10 metre mesh for the whole of the country. The nice thing is though, it's driving dual 24" Samsung 244T widescreen LCDs. :) 

Automated backups are taken care of by removable hard drive bays, and giant, tiny-cache PATA drives.
a b U Graphics card
July 9, 2006 10:02:07 PM

yes less coolingfans means less power
and you dont have to worry about them quitting
and overheating something
July 9, 2006 10:09:18 PM

Agreed. I didn't think noise was that big a problem; until I was in a tiny room with a dual-proccessor(not dual-core) server with two Xeon 3Ghzs and 6 six hard drives and enough fans to lower the national temperature avage. You literally had to raise your voice to be heard, and the room is toasty enough to feel like summer--in mid-winter.

If you can't sleep with the computer on, it is too loud...

On power...Jeez, I couldn't agree more. Half the time when someone has a problem, it is the PSU.

On backup, I actually have never had a failed hard drive or had catastrophic thing that erased/removed important data. Guess my computer is waiting for something really important, lol!

After reading that post, I have my priorities set like this:

Power
Performance
Noise
And a distant fourth of back-up

~Ibrahim~
July 9, 2006 10:15:31 PM

There is not alot of thought for the "all purpose computer" here as most of us have two or more PC's. I keep my gaming machine away form the kids and wife and let them use the older one I'm on now.
I do agree it's to much about FPS and no one talks about image quality or other features that really make a vid card usefull in every day use such as heat, noise and software. I like the the way ATI is going putting more balanced features in the cards/drivers, thats why I recommened the x1600 as a budget card[ even though I get bashed every time]. I think most PC user [ the other 90% like your mom,grandpa or little sister] would benefit form a x1600[avivo and image quality] then a x800 or 6800.
July 9, 2006 11:59:34 PM

Quote:
High end GPU's arent really designed for anything other than games....so 99% of us will say, its Frame rate, IQ and features that matter to us the most. 2D performance is a very distant 4th place........


I don't know what you consider "high end" GPUs, but a good friend of mine has a PC dedicated to pro CAD work. His GPU cost ~$2K, so to me, that's high end. He's never played any computer games other than like Freecell or Solitaire. But his work is 3-D, for sure. He just happens to be visiting now and is getting quite a kick out of the 3D graphics on our new gen games.
July 10, 2006 4:31:58 PM

Oh really? I guess all work, no play makes Clueless's friend a dull boy. 2K for a GPU, ouch! Was that out of the pocket?

2K GPU must do some pretty damn amazing 3D rendering. And here I am working off of Google SketchUp. Good thing is that this Dell can handle it.

~Ibrahim~
July 10, 2006 4:55:34 PM

i care about price, mainly hahaahah
also, power consumption, consequently, heat and noise levels
July 10, 2006 6:39:27 PM

Quote:
Oh really? I guess all work, no play makes Clueless's friend a dull boy.


He has plenty of things to keep him from getting bored. Bike racing, rock climbing, foot racing, live music, wimmen...

Quote:
Nah, he's got plenty of other interests to keep himslef occupied. 2K for a GPU, ouch! Was that out of the pocket?


It was a business cost, but that doesn't mean it's not painful. As far as I know, the system and software required that or an equivalent card.
a c 106 U Graphics card
July 10, 2006 7:16:53 PM

I make maps for video games. Although they make "really high end" graphics cards for this kind of work, I don't use them. I use a "middle of the road" video card for that. I do however have an sli machine setup, that has two readily available "consumer" cards, that you may deem "high end". And they do crank out the fps, especially in games like F.E.A.R. and Doom. You need it.

You can think that the 7600's are great cards, but when it comes to visuallity, they suck. ..... plain and simple. Don't know why people praise them. Obviously, they don't know any better.

When putting maps together, one of the things you have to take into concideration is how to maximize fps. The more fps you can get, the better the game will play. Layout is everything..... .

To keep this brief........ you bet fps means everything....... for that anyways. But, when doing video viewing, quality on the screen in front of you would mean more than speed.

In the end, you need to decide for yourself what your needs are and run with it.
July 10, 2006 7:35:50 PM

I run ati 800 and 1800 series in all my gaming/video systems just because image quality is better than nvidia, especially on an svid or comp output.
a b U Graphics card
July 11, 2006 5:23:44 AM

2D is really just a subset of 3d when you think about it. That said good 2d cards used to be ones with good ramdacs which helped create clean crisp images on analog monitors. Since DVI the signal to the monitor has been digital and the monitor itself is more important to 2D quality.
July 11, 2006 1:03:35 PM

I'm more like the OP in that I have a X1600 on a general purpose system. It's strong enough to play BF2, Quake 4, FEAR, etc. without spending uber dollars for a card to display Email, Quicken, or Word. It's only a gaming pc about 25% of the time, and it plays movies nice too for solo viewing.
a b U Graphics card
July 11, 2006 3:30:24 PM

Quote:
I do however have an sli machine setup, that has two readily available "consumer" cards, that you may deem "high end". And they do crank out the fps, especially in games like F.E.A.R. and Doom. You need it.


You might needf it for your job, but we don't NEED it, that's overstating it. Sure it'd be nice to have for nothing, but it's not 'needed' heck the only good thing about D3 is that it scales so well across so many lower end cards.

Quote:
You can think that the 7600's are great cards, but when it comes to visuallity, they suck. ..... plain and simple. Don't know why people praise them. Obviously, they don't know any better.


Or unlike you they are their life's blood and they just want acceptable levels of performance.
Seriously what kind of connection do you have? I bet you it sucks, my OC192 here at work is great, I don't see how anyone can praise ADSL or Cable! :tongue: :mrgreen: :tongue:

Quote:
The more fps you can get, the better the game will play. Layout is everything..... .


FPS isn't everyting for every game though, some require far higher numbers than others. A slow creeper like SplinterCell needs nowhere near the framerate of UT2K4.

Quote:
To keep this brief........ you bet fps means everything.......


To keep it simple, it depends on the situation, as you say later, like so many things.
For UT2K4 I'd sacrafice shiny beautiful graphics for the speed of a fast kill thanks to FPS, however I'll suffer the occasional hiccup in a game like Oblivion to get the absolutely most beatiful and immersive experience possible. Would I like 100+FPS in all games, sure, but right now, even with an SLi setup (even dual GX2s) you're not going to get that in every game. So it's a question of balancing needs.

Quote:
for that anyways. But, when doing video viewing, quality on the screen in front of you would mean more than speed.


Unless that speeds is 4 frames per second running 1080P on a GF2MX. I think then you'd be willing to move down to shard 480P @ 30FPS.

Quote:
In the end, you need to decide for yourself what your needs are and run with it.


Exactly, and that's why there's never a single right answer, except when may Crashman gives it. :twisted:
July 11, 2006 4:00:08 PM

Required, then? I see...And here I was thinking the 7950GX2 was expensive...

~Ibrahim~
July 11, 2006 4:25:44 PM

Quote:
Required, then? I see...And here I was thinking the 7950GX2 was expensive...


Indeed. The software is so expensive that they bundle a PC with it.
a b U Graphics card
July 11, 2006 4:27:03 PM

Quote:
2D is really just a subset of 3d when you think about it.


Not really the different cards have different strengths. In 2D the Ati's have a 10bit per channel advantage they share with Matrox and 3DLabs. In proffesional 3D nV cards have a sub pixel precision advantage they share with 3DLabs.

Quote:
That said good 2d cards used to be ones with good ramdacs which helped create clean crisp images on analog monitors. Since DVI the signal to the monitor has been digital and the monitor itself is more important to 2D quality.


And as previous tests showed, the quality of ATi's integrated TMDS were better (no recent tests, last were X8 vs GF6); now that they have their full line with at least one dual-link TMDS, there's still somewhat of an advantage. The only nV cards with dual TMDS are nV's very high end , and then a sprinkling of specialty cards. I'm sure in the future that will change too, but for now there is that difference.

As for the quality of 3D some of the techniques like HQAF are not related to the 2D quality but the way the card renders 3D.

There are differences, it's just that you will find in most cases that they aren't the biggest concern for gamers. But pick someone who needs those features and you have a no contest situation.
a b U Graphics card
July 11, 2006 4:31:05 PM

Quote:

Indeed. The software is so expensive that they bundle a PC with it.


OMG! It's not that stuff I see late at night on Informercials!?!

Not the "Sigin up for one of my tutorial DVDs and get a free PC." guy?

:tongue: :mrgreen: :tongue:
July 11, 2006 4:33:05 PM

Quote:

I don't know what you consider "high end" GPUs, but a good friend of mine has a PC dedicated to pro CAD work.


I was excluding CAD based machines and those crazy ass $1000+ Quatro's, Wildcats, FireGL's etc......I actually thought the OP meant 2d performance on GPU's such as the 78 &7900 and the X18 &X1900....hense my "high end" comment.

But yeah, once you purchase a VGA for $2k....everything else seems like chump change.
a b U Graphics card
July 11, 2006 4:36:35 PM

How about an Evans & Sutherland solution for $20K? 8O

Heck I bet if you buy the Sim Housing you probably get the cards for free, ah what's $20K out of $500K-2M? Act now and we'll through in this juicer! :twisted:
July 11, 2006 4:38:31 PM

Sorry, but I can buy quite a nice car for $20k. I do buy new hardware quite regularly and some say I sometimes spend to much money, but that right there is the loan for a house, car, business etc etc.....so imo, HELL no!
a b U Graphics card
July 11, 2006 4:59:11 PM

But it's got 16 VPUs on 4 cards! You'd be the coolest kid on your block! :twisted:
July 11, 2006 5:01:12 PM

Quote:
But it's got 16 VPUs on 4 cards! You'd be the coolest kid on your block! :twisted:


Or the nation.....

Yeah, thats keeping up with the Jones'....not for me. I can even dream that kind of cash right now :cry: 
July 11, 2006 5:16:31 PM

Quote:

Indeed. The software is so expensive that they bundle a PC with it.


OMG! It's not that stuff I see late at night on Informercials!?!

Not the "Sigin up for one of my tutorial DVDs and get a free PC." guy?

:tongue: :mrgreen: :tongue:

That's hilarious. No, actually, I was teasing. He still had to pay for the PC but the software cost much more than the box and I think the box ran $8K.
July 11, 2006 5:47:33 PM

lol....Could be one and the same. I guess we will need some photo's to compare, lol!

~Ibrahim~
a b U Graphics card
July 11, 2006 5:51:04 PM

Quote:

That's hilarious. No, actually, I was teasing. He still had to pay for the PC but the software cost much more than the box and I think the box ran $8K.


Yeah I know.

The funny thing is how much wer pay for this stuff because we have to, yet in 3-5 years what's it worth.

In Toronto I have a shelf at my parents' house that has about $25+K worth of original software (which is not as many titles as you'd think) and now most of it is worthless other than sentimental reason (anyone want dBaseIV ? 50% off MSRP! :twisted: )

At least now work pays for the stuff I use, but still it's one of the biggest costs we have, even for apps we sometimes use like 30mins a week.
July 11, 2006 5:54:32 PM

Wow, must be good at what it does. I don't where they get the money for these workstations... I've only seen few software that cost that much: My dad's office management software, ran around 10k. Don't know who gets paid for that, but they must be rolling in dough. Great Support, though.

~Ibrahim~
July 11, 2006 6:47:27 PM

Quote:
Wow, must be good at what it does. I don't where they get the money for these workstations... I've only seen few software that cost that much: My dad's office management software, ran around 10k. Don't know who gets paid for that, but they must be rolling in dough. Great Support, though.

~Ibrahim~


Well in fact most specialized Cad software cost much more than that, I work with a App designed exclusively for 3D Structural Steel modeling (Tekla Structures) which runs in at about 28K per station (CND), that's the buying cost which to that you have to had the 5K/year maintenance fee to keep it up to par..And I don't know if it was mentionned but paying upward of up to 3k for dedicated Cad gfx cards is never an overkill since every second you gain is money saved in the end..That is if you intend to work with it. :wink:
July 11, 2006 6:50:30 PM

I own a Eng/Surveying company and use AutoDesk Land Desktop software... it costs me over $8,000 per seat and almost $2,000 per seat in maintance update costs...
July 11, 2006 6:51:14 PM

Mind you, that is only the CAD software, not any hardware costs...
July 11, 2006 6:54:30 PM

Quote:
Mind you, that is only the CAD software, not any hardware costs...


Same here..
a b U Graphics card
July 11, 2006 7:14:40 PM

Yep, it's amazing how much area licenses cost.

Like I said we have some apps we use 'maybe' 5-10 mins a day, but it costs a ton, and we have like 4-5 apps like that.
July 11, 2006 7:45:35 PM

Quote:
Well, I hate to stick out, but I just use my computer for games. Light office work at the most....

~Ibrahim~


i think i once used paint....
July 11, 2006 10:10:58 PM

Haha, paint. Yeah, my dad was telling me that updating it is outrageously expensive, too, and it seems to have numerous updates, lol...There goes my half gaming rig money, lol.

~Ibrahim~
July 12, 2006 12:40:43 AM

Quote:
At least now work pays for the stuff I use, but still it's one of the biggest costs we have, even for apps we sometimes use like 30mins a week.


For sure. I've been had by the short hairs by the software man myself. Way back when, I really got into programming. Probably should have kept to it and gotten rich selling to a captive audience. Imagine being the main player in a successful piece like, say... Photoshop!
July 12, 2006 12:47:57 AM

Quote:
I own a Eng/Surveying company and use AutoDesk Land Desktop software... it costs me over $8,000 per seat and almost $2,000 per seat in maintance update costs...


I hear that. I met a survey engineer that used AutoDesk on a couple of desks and some relatively inexpensive program for his junior engineers. He'd import their drawings into AutoDesk and finish it there. I don't know if that was really a gain in the long run or not.
July 12, 2006 1:26:14 AM

Quote:
Not the "Sigin up for one of my tutorial DVDs and get a free PC." guy? :tongue: :mrgreen: :tongue:


Not the "Get a lightning fast computer for only $35 a week" guy? $35 a week for a year gets you paying $1800 for a POS basic PC with a 2GHz Celeron and 256MB of RAM.
July 12, 2006 1:28:05 AM

Quote:
Mind you, that is only the CAD software, not any hardware costs...


Add another $1500 for the video card alone.
July 12, 2006 1:29:31 AM

$1800?!?!?! Holy f*cking sh!t. That is a load of cash for that. I feel sorry for all the people who fall into that trap and all those getting those Pentium Dual-Cores...Shame.

~Ibrahim~
!