What features or specs on a 3D graphics card are responsible for 2D performance.

[xMax]

i couldnt help but notice that 2D video cards are usually only for multi-monitor support. And the latest 3D cards from Nvidia and ATI just make virtually no mention of 2D performance.

 

[Matthias99]

Theoretically, memory speed is probably the most important thing (since most intensive 2D operations involve copying and/or combining large buffers), although the latency of the CPU-to-videocard connection is also important. RAM size can be an issue when working at high resolutions, although a 64+MB card is unlikely to have any problems at any remotely normal 2D resolution.

For all practical purposes, any card you can buy today is plenty fast for any 2D-only application. This was an issue when you had single-pipeline GPUs at 100Mhz with 8MB of 100Mhz RAM; the videocard is probably not going to be your bottleneck in any 2D app these days.

 

[dug777]

yeah a 9200SE will do just about anything a 512mb x1800xt/512mb GTX can do in the 2d realm...

someone was trying out a 2d benchmark on here a while back, anyone know what happened to that?

 

[xMax]

I know they are both probably overkill, but for a really high resolution animation playback in an uncompressed format (AVI), which would do me better, an ATI 1800 XL or an Nvidia GeForce 7800 GTX?

 

[route66]

You should buy a Matrox - their focus is 2D.

Unfortunately I only know Matrox by reputation - 10 years ago they were top bananna in 2D and since that time I have stopped caring about 2D and only cared about 3D - so their reputation may now be unwarranted...

 

[xMax]

Matrox is solid, but they are pretty outdated these days. I think their newest line of products are over 2 years old if not 3. And thats when cards and monitors were analog.

I think im just going to stick with the ATI 1800 XL. That card should be more than enough as it is, and i think that it may actually perform better in 2D than the X1800 XT. I couldnt help notice in some shootout how the XL outperformed the XT in CPU utilization. But im not sure if that has anything to do with 2D with playback of uncompressed formats. But it does show that the XT doesnt dominate in all categories.

 

[route66]

Uhm.. They have DVI. And PCI-E. Seriously, goto someplace with Matrox fanatics, they can hook you up with the straight dope - they are probably worse than ATI and nVidia fanboys. Also, your 2-3 years is a bit far fetched - they are very behind in 3D but that's not their focus, providing the best 2D card is their focus that's why you should look at them.

Anyways, the 1800XT is overkill - as is probably any 3D video card over $200.

edit - better wording so I don't sound like a jerk.

 

[xMax]

I dont know about Matrox. They havent even reached DDR2 yet with their memory as their clock speeds are pretty low. Also, they only have like two PCI-e cards, which i need, as all their cards seem to be more focused on multi-display solutions, as i completely do not need this since i have only one display.

Im going to stick with my ATI X1800 XL. That should be plenty.

Max