[sugarkiss]

Hope it's all right to post this here, since I figured a lot of the people probably know a good deal about graphic cards. Anyway, I'm getting a new computer soon, and I was wondering what opinions you guys had about video cards for someone who mostly does 2d graphic design. I've heard that cards don't matter that much with adobe programs, but I've also heard that it's good to have one with a decent amount of memory. Am I right in assuming the main factors for someone interested in graphic design would be resolution and memory?

Right now, I'm considering getting the Radeon HD 3450 or 3650 (I'm ordering a Vostro from Dell, so those are two of the options). Would either of those cards be good for graphic design 2d work?

I also do enjoy playing with pcsx2, but it's not something that I would base my buying options on. I have fun with it right now, with my ancient pentium 4 PC.

Thanks for any suggestions anyone can give! ;

 

[masta.g.86]

This should be moved to the hardware section.

For 2D graphics design, an SVGA ISA card would be fine. <- late 80s - early 90s tech. :lol:

The important factors to consider would be CPU, amount of RAM, and your video display (monitor).

 

[capo_2k]

I think you're cool with pretty much any card to be honest.

 

[ElijahTW]

yes, any card should be fine, as long as it can output at a decent resolution. (Any modern low-end GPU can output at very high resolutions, so it's not too much of a worry)

Just make sure you have a high resolution monitor and a lot of ram, and a decent CPU.

 

[skoreanime]

Any card should be fine. Even integrated ones should suffice.

Like already mentioned, if you want the best you can get for just images...

Monitor > CPU > RAM IMO.

 

[ElijahTW]

I always thought that ram would be a little more important.

I guess that depends on how large of a image you're working on, how many layers, etc.

 

[jonc2006]

moving to hardware discussion.

 

[skoreanime]

I always thought that ram would be a little more important.

I guess that depends on how large of a image you're working on, how many layers, etc.

True. But unless he works with massive high quality image files, the standard 2GB, 4GB is enough.

 

[ElijahTW]

I suppose I'm thinking back when 512MB of ram was standard and that wasn't really enough for major photo editing. You're right, nowadays standard amounts of ram should be plenty.

 

[Cid Highwind]

As long as the image fits into the framebuffer you'll be fine. You don't want to be doing a 1920*1200 resolution in 32bit on a 32MB videocard. I'd still recommend getting a low end HD4000 series though, mainly for their improved video codec support. I don't know enough about graphical design enough about all other things that matter. I hope you have a good monitor as well, since that's usually the bigger problem when it comes to these things.

 

[sugarkiss]

Wow thanks for all the advice guys! I'm going to get the default option for the card, I believe. Someone mentioned monitors, and I'm getting a new one because I can get a deal on it. My basic stats are:

Quad Q9650 3.0GHz, 12M L2Cache
22 inch Widescreen 2208WFP UltraSharp™ Digital Flat Panel Display
4GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM
256MB ATI Radeon HD 3450

Nice to know I don't have to worry about upgrading to the 200 or so video card, that'll save a good amount for me.

 

[skoreanime]

If you're serious image editing, a dual screen set up will be a god send.

Like I've told many of my friends, once you go dual screen, you don't back :thumb:

 

[runawayprisoner]

If you're serious image editing, a dual screen set up will be a god send.

Like I've told many of my friends, once you go dual screen, you don't back :thumb:

Amen... better be a single Cintiq. Once you go Cintiq, you never go back to traditional displays. lol

That aside, from my experience with Photoshop, it's pretty much like this for anything before CS4:

CPU > Memory > Display > VGA

And then when CS4 comes around...

CPU > Memory > VGA > Display

Just a slight disposition.

Though the general concensus is that pretty much any VGA would do fine, you'll want one with a good fillrate. Ideally something that supports the latest gists and gests of the newer OSes.

Since you're into 2D graphics design, I'd also advice to take a look at Color Correction and Color Profile. A good monitor is a given, but a good graphics card that can do good software Color Correction for accurate color simulation is also quite important. You should experiment with Color Profile on your printer and Color Correction settings to match the output on the screen and your printer at the very least.

 

[sugarkiss]

Wow, thank you so much, Runawayprisoner, you gave me a lot of valuable information. I honestly think the monitor I have now probably isn't calibrated, the colors seem off compared to the ones at school. And then there's the whole thing with Mac's having lighter colored displays. The one I have now is an older pentium 4 from 03. :lol: I'm considering getting a color calibrator that can be attached to the monitor, I don't think they run too expensive (couple hundred bucks I believe) and i've heard they're something very good to have.

Hey, do you know if the Radeon HD3450 has good Color Correction? Also, is there that much of a difference between that one and the HD3650? I'm getting a Dell and the options for the video card include the two HD Raedon cards I mentioned earlier, and either a nvidia GeForce 8800GT or 9800GT. I know, a lot of people like to build theirs, but I like having a warranty.

Thanks again for everyone's help! I'm going to be printing this thread out later for reference. And I would love to have a second monitor, but I honestly don't have the space for it. :heh:

 

[-StrikE-]

ATI graphics cards actually have crap colour correction, as they force minor digital vibrance by default, which is actually why people constantly comment on ATI cards having better colours then nvidia (which is just untrue)
(info provided by squall)