Graphic Card

[skyboy]

Hi CS member,

Need your advise. Currently I using on-board graphic card and and use this desktop for photoshop. Is it the on-board graphic card good for photoshop or graphic application? Do I need to purchase separate graphic card for it? :think:

Rgds
Sky

 

[limcc]

any current graphic card/chip will do for photoshop. you should worry more on monitor instead.

 

[scandisk]

how much is the onboard memory ? if its 128MB then its more than enuf to run 2d graphics application.

 

[skyboy]

any current graphic card/chip will do for photoshop. you should worry more on monitor instead.

Thanks. What is the min requirement of the monitor?? :think:

 

[tunster]

Graphic card is merely a "display processor" for your photoshop. The GPU don't even utilize most of the time. Separate graphic cards good for games, 3D rendering and lately, H-D playback.

 

[dankar]

The graphic card does contribute in a fast work flow and productivity. Under 'Preference' in photoshop, select 'Performance', there is an option for 'Enable 3D Acceleration'.

In photoshop, the size of ram comes first, with ideal range being from 1.6GB to 2.2GB, with a maximum of 4GB being the threshold. Followed by processor and graphic card.

You can try running this program to test the different speed of your components:
http://www.retouchartists.com/pages/speedtest.html???

Here are the results, from running speedtest on my Macpro with both 4GB and 8GB configuration:
1 Memory State, 0 Apps
4GB: 27.5 sec 8GB: 27.8 sec

1 Memory State, Apps CS3 PS, AI, ID, LR, FH MX, DW, FL, Nikon NX and Safari
4GB: 35.1 sec 8GB: 29.5 sec

30 Memory State, Apps CS3 PS, AI, ID, LR, FH MX, DW, FL, Nikon NX and Safari
4GB: 1:17.3 sec 8GB: 1:07 sec

30 Memory State, Apps CS3 PS, AI, ID, LR, FH MX, DW, FL, Nikon NX and Safari
Simultaneously with all these running
- NX opening 7 x Nikon D2X raw (unopen size 22mb)
- CS3 AI Converting 54.2mb CMYK file (artwork size 170x66cm) to 138.1mb CMYK 200dpi PSD
4GB: 5:36.6 sec 8GB: 1:33.7 sec

Try running the program with your on-board GPU first, then when you have upgrade your GPU, run it again to see the differences in time. Hope this helps.

 

[limcc]

Thanks. What is the min requirement of the monitor?? :think:

the best you can afford, after all, you'll be starring at it for hours if you frequently editing pictures. IMHO, minimum a monitor with VA panel. that pretty much exclude most if not all 22" LCD on the market. :bsmilie: TN panel with their cheap production cost and fast pixel response time, is the favorite among manufacturer and most consumer--they dont care much about image quality anyway, just cheap will do.

TN panel isnt crap but there are better panel out there, if you dont think the price different is justified, by all means, get TN cause other panel is getting harder to find everyday...:dunno:

Wikipedia
LCD screens in a nutshell
TN Film - Samsung SM226BW vs P-MVA - Viewsonic VX2025WM vs S-IPS - NEC 20WGX2
Google

The graphic card does contribute in a fast work flow and productivity. Under 'Preference' in photoshop, select 'Performance', there is an option for 'Enable 3D Acceleration'.

that option only override software rendering of 3D layers using the 3D card's GPU--hardware acceleration.

You can try running this program to test the different speed of your components:
http://www.retouchartists.com/pages/speedtest.html???

this test only run on Mac...

Try running the program with your on-board GPU first, then when you have upgrade your GPU, run it again to see the differences in time. Hope this helps.

you wont see any difference. to display 1920x1200 resolution, the graphic card only needs 1920x1200 x 32bit color = 9,216,000 bytes or 9.2MB of video RAM. the system RAM is used to hold the image data, the bigger the image dimension as well as the added parameter--layer, undo steps, etc, the more RAM is needed. if its not sufficient, the HDD will come into play--thats the scratch disk function.

remember that image/picture/photo editing is basically 2D, no 3D rendering is required thus the most powerful GPU--at the moment nvidia 9800GX2 with 2xG92--is powerless here.

anyhow, lets presume 3D graphic card is of real use in Photoshop, still, any current graphic card/chip is good enough.

 

[dankar]

the best you can afford, after all, you'll be starring at it for hours if you frequently editing pictures. IMHO, minimum a monitor with VA panel. that pretty much exclude most if not all 22" LCD on the market. :bsmilie: TN panel with their cheap production cost and fast pixel response time, is the favorite among manufacturer and most consumer--they dont care much about image quality anyway, just cheap will do.

TN panel isnt crap but there are better panel out there, if you dont think the price different is justified, by all means, get TN cause other panel is getting harder to find everyday...:dunno:

Wikipedia
LCD screens in a nutshell
TN Film - Samsung SM226BW vs P-MVA - Viewsonic VX2025WM vs S-IPS - NEC 20WGX2
Google




that option only override software rendering of 3D layers using the 3D card's GPU--hardware acceleration.



this test only run on Mac...



you wont see any difference. to display 1920x1200 resolution, the graphic card only needs 1920x1200 x 32bit color = 9,216,000 bytes or 9.2MB of video RAM. the system RAM is used to hold the image data, the bigger the image dimension as well as the added parameter--layer, undo steps, etc, the more RAM is needed. if its not sufficient, the HDD will come into play--thats the scratch disk function.

remember that image/picture/photo editing is basically 2D, no 3D rendering is required thus the most powerful GPU--at the moment nvidia 9800GX2 with 2xG92--is powerless here.

anyhow, lets presume 3D graphic card is of real use in Photoshop, still, any current graphic card/chip is good enough.

Thanks for the insight. Anyway, the GPU does play a part in some factors of Photoshop not just for 3D. (See Page 4)
http://www.photoshopforphotographers.com/pscs2/download/whatsnewinPSCS3.pdf

Retouch has PC version too. They might have taken it off already??
http://www.retouchartists.com/pages/results.html

Ran this test on a MBP (2.5ghz, GeForce 8600M GT 512MB, 4GB ram) with 'enable 3D acceleration':
1st attempt: 42 seconds, 2nd attempt: 43 seconds, 3rd attempt: 42.2 seconds

Ran this test on a MBP (2.5ghz, GeForce 8600M GT 512MB, 4GB ram) without 'enable 3D acceleration':
1st attempt: 44 seconds, 2nd attempt: 45 seconds, 3rd attempt: 44 seconds

The time differences are not much. So without a lower spec GPU to test on a similar rig, can't be sure if there would be a differences between a low-spec and high-spec GPU. One thing sure is there is a marginal difference with and without 'enable 3D acceleration'.

Also, if running dual monitor set-up, a good GPU helps too.

 

[theRBK]

what CS3 asks of the 3D acceleration is very basic stuff to help display the image, not crunch the numbers in image processing... any current budget card should be more than able to do it... using a faster card is not going to change speed...