graphic card selection

[Guest]

What kind of user am I?

My user profile is: mainly Photoshop 6, some web browsing, some administrative, occasional gaming.
I would like to build me a new system that would speed my Photoshop, and not ruin me in the process.

For speeding Photoshop operations I understand that I need:
1. Memory. The more and speedier, the better. I’ aiming at 512Mb 133 at 222, good brand.
2. CPU. Id. Thinking of 1GHz.
3. Discs....to load and unload images....maybe dual 7200 rpm with raid 0. (SCSI a bit over my budget)
4. Graphics card.

My question is: what is really my requirement for that graphics card?
I’m confused about this, because all I read in announcements, discussions, forums, is about more and better 3D performance. Is this because good 2D is taken for granted, or I’m not finding the right forum? What about, for instance, image quality?
Any suggestions are welcome.

 

[HolyGrenade]

<b>Memory:</b> You can get DDR memory which seems to be fast enough.
<b>CPU:</b> An AMD Athlon-C @ 1.2GHz - They seem to be cheap enough.
<b>HDD:</b> IDE Harddrives are quite fast these days. Ultra ATA-100 is the latest in IDE. IBM Hard drives are the best (well, in my opinion.)
<b>Graphics Card:</b> This ones a bit more complicated. If you're really serious about 2d graphics editing, i.e. Photoshop, then matrox seems to be one of the best choices. the latest card is the G450, I haven't seen it in action but its predecessor gives immaculate 2D quality. Their 3D performance is quite poor compared to the competition. On the other hand the GeForce2 Ultra from nVidia is the best 3D Card out their, but it is rather expensive. Pricewise, the GeForce GTS can be a comprimise, standing somewhere in the middle.


<i><b><font color=red>"2 is not equal to 3, not even for large values of 2"</font color=red></b></i>

 

[noko]

To be frank, the Radeon 2d quality is better than the GF2 and almost as good as the matrox. Radeon 3d is on par with the GF2 in 32bit color and higher resolutions.
<A HREF="http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/articles/super_he_video_shootout_10-00/8.shtml" target="_new">http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/articles/super_he_video_shootout_10-00/8.shtml</A>
Sharky review goes into picture quality. Just remember getting a good 2d card doesn't mean you will get good 2d unless you have a medium to high end monitor. This review gives you shots of scenes with the Radeon describing Image Quality mostly in 3d if you are interested.
<A HREF="http://www.digit-life.com/articles/radeon/index.html" target="_new">http://www.digit-life.com/articles/radeon/index.html</A>
This review I like comparing a GF2 and Radeon. I know there are other cards out there and if 2d is it then a Matrox may be the ticket for you. The below review you may think would be bias if you just read the first paragraph but surprisenly it is very objective in my opinion.
<A HREF="http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2001q1/radeon/" target="_new">http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2001q1/radeon/</A>

For me 2d and 3d image quality is paramount and that is the main reason why I went with the Radeon, also due to its very good video capability sold me on it.


<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by noko on 03/14/01 04:40 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[pvsurfer]

noko: Refreshing to read such a well written post!

I'm a heavy user of image-editing software, consuming at least 60% of my PC-time. The rest of my PC-time is taken up with MS Office apps and the internet (less than 5% of my time is spent on games or 3D).

I had read the articles (links) you provided, and more. They are well worth reading, but I would advise anyone to try to find a place where you can view these card-monitor configurations first-hand. For example, some people prefer Aperature Grill monitors for their vivid colors while others hate the visible "wires". It's just personal taste.

When I was in the looking phase (just before Xmas), I didn't find the Radeon's 2D quality to be as good as the G450's. But the Radeon's 3D and gaming qualities (which were not all that important to me) were without question, superior to the G450

When I had to make the video card-monitor decision, image-quality was my very first priority. Without wanting to drop a bundle on rediculously expensive graphic workstation products, I finally decided on the Matrox G450 (16MB since I only use one monitor) and the Samsung Syncmaster 900NF monitor (which I felt was just as good as the best 19" Sony and less expensive!). I couldn't recommend any video products more for anyone who's the same type of user as I am.

 

[HolyGrenade]

I haven't seen anything on the radeon, But I have seen images from a G400 Dual head on a huge 24" monitor with those 4 bnc connectors (RGB + something else) Really cool.

<i><b><font color=red>"2 is not equal to 3, not even for large values of 2"</font color=red></b></i>