Appropriate graphics card

[Shizelbs]

I realize that this may be the wrong area for this question, but oh well.

I will be purchasing a new graphics card for GD. I am very familiar with what to look for in a card when it comes to PC gaming, but not for GD. Is a card that is good for gaming generally also good for GD? Or are there other types of cards that would be better?

Thanks.

PS- I will be assembling the PC from scratch myself. I will have complete control over the compenents.

[hewligan]

A card that is good for gaming would generally be overkill for graphic design.

Fancy graphics cards are designed to do 3D graphics fast, or for rendering video. Unless you're working with 3D or video, any modern graphics card will be more than enough.

Even if you are doing that kind of work, you don't need nearly as much grunt in your graphics card as for modern PC gaming.

[Shizelbs]

Thanks. Thats what I figured, but I had to ask anyways.

[hewligan]

One thing I would add, though - avoid onboard graphics.

Most of the major graphic design software is pretty RAM hungry, and you're much better off with a card that's not sucking up your main memory.

Still, for the same reason, you're better off buying a budget graphics card and spending the money you saved on more RAM.

[CamarotaDesign]

get one that can handle dual monitors like a nvidia quadro. You'll find that working with dual monitors makes everything so much easier. I personally feel that a card with a lot of RAM (like 256MB or more) on it is important. and also at least 2gigs of RAM on your machine, plus a lot of HD space is essential for fast design processing.

[hewligan]

What on earth would you need 256MB of graphics card memory for if what you're mostly going to be doing is running photoshop and indesign?

1600X1200 resolution works out at about 6 MB. Even with double buffering, that's only 18 MB. Two monitors? 36 MB. Now, admittedly, these days your OS may offload some processing to the graphics card to make your windows spin around and around or something, but even allowing for that, you'd be hard pressed to actually find a use for more than 64 MB on your graphics card.

Well, except for playing Doom 3 when the boss isn't looking, obviously.

[Shizelbs]

I would never consider onboard graphics. I have yet to use a machine with onboard GPU that didn't make me angry.

When I do buy the graphics card, it will be with gaming and dual monitors in mind. The GD requirements will be met along the way.

[CamarotaDesign]

dont you need fast graphic processing speed and RAM to handle filters and rendering and what not? Or is that all CPU only? I know that my PC setup at work is blazing fast compared to my home PC, but that probably has more to do with the dual CPU's and more RAM in it, But you got to have dual monitor support.

[hewligan]

Photoshop filters and all of that sort of thing are handled by the CPU, your graphics card has nothing to do with it. Your graphics card is all about rendering stuff to screen.

If you're working with 3D graphics, a better graphics card is handy - as it will improve your preview mode, though it has nothing to do with final renders as these are handled by the CPU. The same applies to working with video.

If you're doing the typical graphic design workload of photoshop/illustrator/indesign, a flash graphics card gets you nothing.

There is one other reason to possibly consider a more expensive graphics card - dual DVI out is usually only available on higher end models. If that matters to you, you may need to spend more.

But, mostly, you're better off saving your money and getting more RAM. That's where you'll see some real performance improvement.

[CamarotaDesign]

I agree with what you are saying, however, Flash designers probably can utilize the higher end video cards.

[hewligan]

Maybe. Not for most of the flash I've seen, but there may be some uses where you could.

3D content and video are rarely produced in Flash, usually just embedded in it. Even then, that's still not really the main use. If all you're doing is the typical vector animations or obnoxiously frustrating user interface stuff, you still have no real use for a higher end graphics card.

[Silence04]

Video cards don't have any effect on the time it takes to process a filter, that is handled by your CPU like hewligan mentioned... but the time it takes to actually display that finished filter after it is done processing relies on your video card. Same thing when using the Hand tool or zoom tool.

The only other things that the video cards will affect are Overprint previews, adjustment layers, and any Live effects.

but thinking about the future, CS3 has Live Filter layers, these will heavily rely on your video card... you may want to consider something in the 256mb range if you want your computer to handle the next couple CS upgrades.

[hewligan]

The upgrade you want to worry about is Vista.

All of that stuff, as far as the graphics card is concerned is just the same compositing stuff it's been doing for the last decade or so. None of it even comes close to filling 256MB of Ram.

Of course, the whole thing's irrelevant since Shizelbs also wants a gaming rig. Any decent gaming rig is going to blow the stuff you need for photoshop out of the water anyway.

Except for the fact that photoshop would like more RAM. As much as you can get, really.

[Shizelbs]

Whenever I build a computer, I always go overboard with RAM. When I really sit down and use my computer for a few hours, I have all sort of apps open. Music player, messenger, email, a billion internet pagess, and games of course, so I always go for excessive RAM.