? about graphic cards…

PCI shares bandwidth with other peripherals while AGP has a dedicated path for its transferring of data.
AGP operates faster because no sharing of bandwidth with other peripherals. Other peripherals work faster because no sharing of PCI bandwidth with graphics card.
Also AGP operates at a faster frequency than PCI that increases its total data transferring rate even more.

"Lee O." wrote in message

Hi, newbie here,

I want to install an extension graphic card on my computer. Currently the graphics is built into the Asus motherboard with 64MB of dedicated Ram. I know that cards are available with up to 256MB of Ram.
They are available in both PCI and AGP-8x versions. What are the differences between PCI and AGP-8x? Is one ‘better’ than the other? Does it matter at all? Do I simply make a choice depending on what is on sale?

My computer has 2 open PCI slots and 1 open AGP-8x slot, so that should not be a factor.

I attempted to have HP Help answer this but all I got was a frustrating run around. Will somebody take pity on an old coot and supply an answer for me.

Thanks and cheers Lee O.

In article ,
(Lee O.) wrote:

They are available in both PCI and AGP-8x versions. What are the differences between PCI and AGP-8x? Is one ‘better’ than the other? Does it matter at all? Do I simply make a choice depending on what is on sale?

PCI is a general-purpose bus intended for many different kinds of peripherals. It is a relatively low-speed bus.

AGP was intended just for graphics cards, nothing else. It offers much higher performance and superior bandwidth gor graphics.

An AGP graphics card is far superior in terms of speed and performance than an equivalent PCI graphics card; in fact, many applications that require high-end 3D graphics cards won’t work with PCI, and expect you to have an AGP card.

—
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

tacit wrote:

An AGP graphics card is far superior in terms of speed and performance than an equivalent PCI graphics card; in fact, many applications that require high-end 3D graphics cards won’t work with PCI, and expect you to have an AGP card.

With the introduction of PCI Express in new motherboards and video cards, AGP is going the way of the dinosaur.

And so are the motherboards which lack PCI Express support, ugh.

kctan, tacit and FotoFix,

Thank you all for your responses, they will help make my decision a bit easier. I appreciate you taking the time to inform an old coot.

Cheers Lee O.

Lee O. wrote:

I want to install an extension graphic card on my computer.

Why do you want to do this?

Currently the graphics is built into the Asus motherboard with 64MB of dedicatedRam. I know that cards are available with up to 256MB…

I would think that the features, speed, memory, and whatnot of your graphics card, while important for games, do not matter much for photoshop.

All you need is support for high resolution (at least 1024 x 768) at 32 bit color depth with a sufficiently high refresh rate (say, 60 hz at least). I would expect any 64MB video thingy to do that just fine.

No?

—
Gregor’s Motorradreisen:
http://hothaus.de/greg-tour/

Greg wrote:

<snip>

All you need is support for high
resolution (at least 1024 x 768) at 32 bit
color depth with a sufficiently high
refresh rate (say, 60 hz at least). I
would expect any 64MB video thingy to
do that just fine.
No?
—
Gregor’s Motorradreisen

Thanks Greg,

I am also considering a two monitor set-up, which will require another card, since I have only one output. Correct?

At present refresh seems quite sluggish with fairly large files. So making the move to add a card seems like the way to go.

Oh well, food for thought. that’s why I ask questions.

Cheers Lee O.

Lee O. wrote:

I am also considering a two monitor set-up, which will require another card, since I have only one output. Correct?

Yes, that’s a good reason for a new video card.

At present refresh seems quite sluggish with fairly large files. So making the move to add a card seems like the way to go.

"refresh rate" has nothing to do with file size. CRT monitors, like TVs, flicker. The picture is shown for a fraction of a second, then it goes off, then, it is re-displayed ("refreshed"), and so on. This goes on anywhere between 30 and 150 times per second. At low refresh rates, the flicker effect is noticeable by the human eye and can be quite annoying. At refresh rates above 60 per second ("60 Hz") most people do not perceive the flicker any more. Good monitors and graphics cards these days have refresh rates of 80 Hz or more.

The refresh rate is irrelevant for LCD monitors, those do not flicker.

—
Gregor’s Motorradreisen:
http://hothaus.de/greg-tour/

(Lee O.) wrote in 3178.bay.webtv.net:

I am also considering a two monitor set-up, which will require another card, since I have only one output. Correct?

At present refresh seems quite sluggish with fairly large files. So making the move to add a card seems like the way to go.

What you need is a card that accepts input from two monitors rather than running two video cards.
Matrox makes several dual monitor cards as well as triple monitor cards. Their P650 is a good solid card:
http://www.matrox.com/mga/workstation/cre_pro/products/pseri es/p650.cfm

Laura K wrote:

What you need is a card that accepts input from two monitors rather than running two video cards.

Sounds confused. INPUT from monitor? there ain’t no such thing. Maybe the term "video card" is not in use any more and therefore misleading. When I said video card, I meant graphics adapter – the thing you attach computer monitors to. These things used to be called video adapters some 10 or 20 years ago.

Matrox makes several dual monitor cards as well as triple monitor cards.

Yes. Let’s agree on calling them "graphics cards", I think that’s the correct term these days.

—
Gregor’s Motorradreisen:
http://hothaus.de/greg-tour/

"Greg N." wrote in news:dncrom$e0t$:

Sounds confused. INPUT from monitor? there ain’t no such thing. Maybe the term "video card" is not in use any more and therefore misleading. When I said video card, I meant graphics adapter – the thing you attach computer monitors to. These things used to be called video adapters some 10 or 20 years ago.

Make that output. Was halfway through my first cup of coffee when I typed that.
Whatever you call it, there are cards that allow you to connect two or three monitors. The Matrox site at the link I gave has visuals.

Laura K. wrote:

Make that output. Was halfway through
my first cup of coffee when I typed that.

Whatever you call it, there are cards that
allow you to connect two or three
monitors. The Matrox site at the link I
gave has visuals.

That’s what I thought you intended, no problem. I have seen ‘graphics cards’ (thanks Greg) with multiple VGA output terminals and I think that would be something to look for.

Speaking of multiple monitors, what is the procedure for having the image on one monitor and the tools on the other? My impression is that that is the main reason for going multiple. Allows one to work with more screen for the image, correct? Are there compatiblity problems with different brand (mis-match) monitors?

Thanks too to Greg for enlightening me a bit. What I meant by ‘refresh’ was the time it takes for a filter, curve, levels (or whatever) to be applied to the fie I’m working on. Sometimes it seems to take quite a while, especially if the image size is large and/or there are multiple layers involved. I have 1GB Ram and 2.08Ghz clock speed.

Hey, thanks to all for the help.

Cheers Lee O.

(Lee O.) wrote in 3177.bay.webtv.net:

Speaking of multiple monitors, what is the procedure for having the image on one monitor and the tools on the other? My impression is that that is the main reason for going multiple. Allows one to work with more screen for the image, correct? Are there compatiblity problems with different brand (mis-match) monitors?

You set the desktop to display across both monitors. (Right click on your desktop and go to properties. Then click the "settings" tab. At the bottom there’s a box to box to check to "extend my desktop to this monitor" which is greyed out if you don’t have two monitors connected. That’s one way of doing it.) The software that comes with the graphic card often has other ways. Once you get it set up, you drag the tools over to the monitor you want them on. The mouse doesn’t stop at the edge of the monitor, it keeps going and ends up on the second monitor. Adobe programs usually save the position of the palettes once you get them set up.
Monitor brand doesn’t matter. Some cards — Matrox I know do — let you run a CRT and an LCD off the same card.

Laura K. wrote:

<<snip>>

Adobe programs usually save the
position of the palettes once you get
them set up.

Monitor brand doesn’t matter. Some
cards — Matrox I know do — let you ru
a CRT and an LCD off the same card.

Hey Laura, you’re a sweetheart!!! I’m 66. I can get away with that. :-))

Thank you so much. Give yourself a hug from me.

Cheers Lee O.

Laura K wrote:

"Greg N." wrote in news:dncrom$e0t$:

Sounds confused. INPUT from monitor? there ain’t no such thing. Maybe the term "video card" is not in use any more and therefore misleading. When I said video card, I meant graphics adapter – the thing you attach computer monitors to. These things used to be called video adapters some 10 or 20 years ago.

Make that output. Was halfway through my first cup of coffee when I typed that.
Whatever you call it, there are cards that allow you to connect two or three monitors. The Matrox site at the link I gave has visuals.

Yeah… Matrox. Hmmm Overpriced or simply limited production = high price?

Radeon make a graphics card specifically for workstations which like the 2D Matrox, is very expensive and very, very well suited to Photoshop.

I have been using Radeon "entry Level" graphics cards for several years and getting well controlled colour balance and ease of adjustment.

The thing is unless you play games, you have no value in an advanced "3D" graphics card. They don’t work one bit faster than the lower priced versions. What makes them work faster is memory.
—
Of course AlienJones is not my real name…

In article ,
says…

Laura K. wrote:

Make that output. Was halfway through
my first cup of coffee when I typed that.

Whatever you call it, there are cards that
allow you to connect two or three
monitors. The Matrox site at the link I
gave has visuals.

That’s what I thought you intended, no problem. I have seen ‘graphics cards’ (thanks Greg) with multiple VGA output terminals and I think that would be something to look for.

Speaking of multiple monitors, what is the procedure for having the image on one monitor and the tools on the other? My impression is that that is the main reason for going multiple. Allows one to work with more screen for the image, correct? Are there compatiblity problems with different brand (mis-match) monitors?

Thanks too to Greg for enlightening me a bit. What I meant by ‘refresh’ was the time it takes for a filter, curve, levels (or whatever) to be applied to the fie I’m working on. Sometimes it seems to take quite a while, especially if the image size is large and/or there are multiple layers involved. I have 1GB Ram and 2.08Ghz clock speed.
Hey, thanks to all for the help.

Cheers Lee O.

Though Adobe recommends 128MB of VidRAM on the card with CS2, I’ve got an older Matrox 64MB that runs fine with CS2. Regardless of the VidRAM that you have on-board, you are likely to not get re-draws much faster. A new processor and RAM will allow more speed there.

Though I’ve used Matrox for years, several other mfgrs offer "dual-head" cards.

One thing to check, when spec’ing a new dual-head card, is how they handle different monitors with different rez and refresh. Probably not that big a deal now, but I had to settle for lower rez on one of a pair of matched Hitachi 21" screens due to the Matrox driver and W2K OS. No biggie, as the other monitor is only for tools palettes. Actually, this is kinda’ neat when I get a Web site with tiny, tiny fonts in IE – I just drag that window over to the lower-rez monitor for an automatic Zoom. Still, check out how each card handles dissimilarities between monitors. Most newer ones don’t bat an eye, but some older ones might hiccup a bit.

Hunt

Hunt wrote:

<<snip>>

Still, check out how each card handles
dissimilarities between monitors. Most
newer ones don’t bat an eye, but some
older ones might hiccup a bit.
Hunt

Thanks for the heads-up, Hunt. That’s why we ask questions. :-))

Cheers Lee O.

In article ,
says…

Hunt wrote:

<<snip>>

Still, check out how each card handles
dissimilarities between monitors. Most
newer ones don’t bat an eye, but some
older ones might hiccup a bit.
Hunt

Thanks for the heads-up, Hunt. That’s why we ask questions. :-))
Cheers Lee O.

I understand. I’m in the process of building a new workstation and am pondering all of the possibilities for vid-cards too. While mine will be 90% PS, I do some vid-editing, and am looking into a high-end LSI setup, but it HAS to work well with PS. Don’t mind spending the $’s, but I don’t want to give up ANYTHING in PS.

Hunt

PS, I’ve used Matrox with PS for almost a decade now, and have had no problems, but will probably be going with nVidia for both the chip-set and the vid-card(s), only because they offer more for the vid end of things. As others have stated, Matrox is not cheap, but mine have always worked, and they always had the right driver for it. Can’t beat that kind of support.

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 02:37:01 GMT, Alienjones himself
wrote:

Laura K wrote:

"Greg N." wrote in news:dncrom$e0t$:

Sounds confused. INPUT from monitor? there ain’t no such thing.

Yeah… Matrox. Hmmm Overpriced or simply limited production = high price?
Radeon make a graphics card specifically for workstations which like the 2D Matrox, is very expensive and very, very well suited to Photoshop.
I have been using Radeon "entry Level" graphics cards for several years and getting well controlled colour balance and ease of adjustment.

I have used Matrox cards for years, and i like them. I bought my first Matrox card because supposedly it had the sharpest 2D graphics around.

Is that still true, compared with nVidea and ATI? I’ve heard that ATI is "almost" as sharp as Matrox.

Does this even matter if you’re getting an LCD monitor?

Father Kodak (not my real name either, but at least I don’t get flames in my email inbox.)