Which Video Card?

[Littlenose]

I'm building a new PC so I can edit using photoshop... I'm fairly happy on the processor and the mobo I'm going for, but i have no idea which video card to get.

It appears that nearly all the video cards out there are for 3D gamers, but for 2D quality i'm a bit clueless.

The one I've been looking at is the ATi Radeon 9600, as it appears to be in a decent price range. But i don't know if i'd benefit from the 256MB version over the 128MB. Or if the clock speed on the card [SE, normal, pro or XT versions] will matter.

Any help with this?

[J Rabin]

I have the ATI 9600 XT with 128 MB VRAM in my new Mac G5. Does fine. Editing in PSCS demands more of processor and system RAM than video RAM, in comparison with gaming, which needs lots more video power for 3D rendering.
So, spend the money on system RAM. I put in dual procsessor, which PSCS does recognize with a plug-in from their website, and 2GB system RAM, because that PSCS current limit. My system can handle 4 or 8 GB of system RAM, but PSCS does not use it.
Hope that helps. J

[iwatkins]

Any of these cards really: Matrox (http://www.matrox.com/mga/workstation/digital_design/products/home.cfm).

I run a Parhelia on my Photoshop box and my games/general box runs a Radeon 9700 Pro. You can easily see (without really trying) the difference between these two cards with the same image on the two different screen.

If you are building the machine to do more than just photoshop, i.e. games etc. then you really need to go for a good 3d card, like the Radeons. But if everything is going to be 2D work, go for a Matrox, e.g. the Parhelia etc.

Cheers

Ian

[chris.bailey]

For Photoshop I would second the Matrox Parhelia though it is crap for games.

[JX]

Hi J Rabin,
I have the ATI 9600 XT with 128 MB VRAM in my new Mac G5. Does fine. Editing in PSCS demands more of processor and system RAM than video RAM, in comparison with gaming, which needs lots more video power for 3D rendering.
So, spend the money on system RAM. I put in dual procsessor, which PSCS does recognize with a plug-in from their website, and 2GB system RAM, because that PSCS current limit. My system can handle 4 or 8 GB of system RAM, but PSCS does not use it.
Hope that helps. J

Hi J,

I was going to put a system together specifically for Photoshop. Do you really see a performance increases from the dual processor with Photoshop?

What specs do you recommend for a system?

Thanks

Jim

[J Rabin]

Hi.
I'm a Mac, not a PC user, so can't help you on system specs. I will say that the dual processor performance dif is HUGE, somewhere between 50-100%, because PSCS does recognize it. (Check Adobe website for recognition on P4. They have a free downloadable dual processor plug-in for the Mac.)
Also, the amount RAM makes huge difference. PSCS current limit, I believe, is 2GB, so I got that, not more.
PSCS filter tasks, or noise reduction filters like Noise Ninja, that used to take 8+ minutes now take under 40 secs. Wow! Photokit Sharpening actions that used to take 1+ minute now take under 35 seconds. The SPOD cursor ("spinnning pizza of death") on the screen that used to go round and round, boring me, is no longer an issue.
J

[CyberDyneSystems]

Matrox... Matrox Matrox! :)

[Littlenose]

Thanks for all the input guys... i didn't realise it was so RAM intensive. Because of this i'm likely to go for a low end Radeon and lots of RAM, then upgrade the vid card later on.

[pradeep1]

Thanks for all the input guys... i didn't realise it was so RAM intensive. Because of this i'm likely to go for a low end Radeon and lots of RAM, then upgrade the vid card later on.

You can pick up a SAPPHIRE ATI RADEON 9200 Video Card, 128MB DDR, with DVI/TV-Out for $66.00 at Newegg.com. This will provide you with excellent 2D and even have enough power to play 3D games. I use this card and one thing I like about it is that it does not have a fan to cool the graphics processor. It just uses a passive heatsink. This cuts down on the noise the computer generates overall.

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=14-102-314&depa=0

[Littlenose]

Cheers Pradeep... I was thinking along the radeon range... good idea on the fan noise aspect :D

[samdring]

Any of these cards really: Matrox (http://www.matrox.com/mga/workstation/digital_design/products/home.cfm).

I run a Parhelia on my Photoshop box and my games/general box runs a Radeon 9700 Pro. You can easily see (without really trying) the difference between these two cards with the same image on the two different screen.

Cheers

IanIan

Forgive ignorance but how can you tell the difference and why should there be one?

[CyberDyneSystems]

Sam,

Matrox Cards have by far and away the best 2D image quality.. and fastest times in 2D editing like Photoshop.

I have an Nvidia Geforce 4 TI 4600 128MB (at the time the best 3D card avaialble) running to the same monitor as my 16MB Matrox G400.

They run through a KVM switch and the side by side comparison is night and day.

The reason they are better? No one else seems to care about 2D, where as Matrox has allways ruled the roost in 2D performance.



2D IMAGE QUALITY

When someone says "Matrox", what's one of the first things that comes to mind? One answer would probably be outstanding 2D image quality...

...There are some that feel the Matrox 2D mystique is completely overblown. If you insist that there's no difference in 2D image quality, take a look at the frequency response charts that Matrox has provided on their website. If that still causes doubt, then I recommend using your own set of eyes to evaluate the Parhelia's 2D quality....
...The bottom line is that you know that 2D image quality shouldn't be a problem given Matrox's legendary status in this area. Yes, there really is a difference, so don't get sucked into believing that 2D image quality is a thing of the past. ...
...First of all, let's talk about the positives:


Best 2D image quality.
Unparalleled multi-head implementation.
High quality antialiasing technology.
Driver quality is outstanding.
Best driver user interface to date.
Excellent commitment by Matrox engineers to fix driver issues and garner Surround Gaming support.
TV-out is excellent.


I have never seen a better support operation than that of Matrox. I have personally filed bug reports on their website and every one of them was answered by a support representative.



Matrox has been the dominant force in the 2D consumer video card market since the introduction of the Matrox Millennium about 5 years ago.

That card was a major advance in 2D performance, setting a new standard for image quality, speed and driver development. Other cards may have been more popular but very few cards ever surpassed the venerable Millennium in any parameter, and none overall, save the subsequent Matrox Millennium II. Other chip makers, like Rendition and nVIDIA, jumped into the 2D/3D combination card market before Matrox, and Matrox's first attempt, the Mystique, was handicapped by some compromises made in hardware to preserve 3D speed at the cost of 3D image quality. It has taken Matrox a couple of years to re-orient and come back to the market with a no-holds-bared attempt to corner the combination card market. What they have achieved is a combination of 2D image quality and speed that closely matches the Millennium while bringing in high-quality, high-speed 3D...

...Matrox cards generally walk away from the competition as resolution and color depth is pushed higher on large monitors. Also, these other cards, while providing good 3D image quality, do not have the 2D quality to match that of Matrox.

...Thankfully I can say that the 2D is of the highest quality. This is thanks to a combination of numerous on card features such as the excellent chipset, a fast RAMDAC, and the 256-bit dual bus architecture.
Everything on my monitor was coming out clear and vibrant which is a lot more than I can say for a number of other Graphics cards. 2D quality is very important to me as I do a lot of desktop work with websites and images.

VCQ2

Matrox's color rendering technique, called VCQ2, is one of the main reasons why Matrox has such high image quality. It is a technique created and used by Matrox to have high-quality images. VCQ2 calculates all of the rendering with 32-bit precision internally. What this does is give much better image quality over 16-bit rendering, due largely to the much larger color palette. 32-bit color allows for better color blending, resulting in smoother color gradients and transition (Not without a slight performance hit mind you) Because all of the rendering is performed internally at 32-bit, all lighting and blending processes are also done with 32-bit precision, resulting in no color banding or annoying artifacts. So, if you are running your display in 32-bit, you get a great picture quality....

[samdring]

Very helpful - thankyou cos just about to upgrade my set and have no interest in 3d

[iwatkins]

Sam,

Basically what CDS said. :D

If I have Photoshop up on both PCs looking at the same image (both my monitors are identical), you can clearly see a much richer, smoother and more detailed image on my PS PC (running the Parhelia) than on the PC runing the Radeon. When you look at it this way it is a night and day difference.

Cheers

Ian

[samdring]

Ian

Yeah but when I said thanks to CDS there were only half a dozen lines of reply - he's been in and edited it so much that I now no longer understand it!!!! :oops:

Seriously though, Matrox seems worth the extra - thanks

[CyberDyneSystems]

I do have a tendancy to hit "submit" and then decide I have more to say.... :rolleyes:

[pradeep1]

I do have a tendancy to hit "submit" and then decide I have more to say.... :rolleyes:

Teeheehee. I do the same. :p