TVPaint and graphics card technologies

malcooning · Post by **malcooning** » 30 Aug 2007, 01:35

How does TVPaint use graphic card technologies?

Does it make a difference to have bigger dedicated graphics memory, or is the memory effectual in textured environments?

I'm asking, because I want to buy a TabletPC, and the default setup i'm looking at uses an intel x3100 interface, which uses memory shared with the system RAM, or to have a dedicated ATI graphics, with the additional cost.

Since it's all 2D, will I see a difference with/without dedicated graphics memory?

Patrice · Post by **Patrice** » 30 Aug 2007, 06:59

TVP Animation is a 2D animation software so graphic cards are not use as much as by a 3D software. The graphic card is only use by the software interface. All rendering is compute by the CPU.
What you need it is:
- Good CPU
- lots of RAM
- A graphic card that allow you to quickly refresh your display (all actual graphic card)

Peter Wassink · Post by **Peter Wassink** » 30 Aug 2007, 08:23

i'm looking to replace my old pentium 4, So i also like to know more about what makes the optimal TVP platform

What is a good CPU?
it requires quite a study to find your way in the current Intel forest.
For instance...which of the following processors would be better for running TVP?(and why?). Is it simply a case of the more expensive the better?
Or does TVP not really make use of the multicore technology.

a)- 1x Intel® Core™2 Duo E6600 (2,4 GHz, 1.066 MHz, 4 MB cache)
b)- 1x Intel® Xeon® 5140 (2,33 GHz, 1.333 MHz, 4 MB) 1 kW
c)- 2x Intel® Xeon® 5110 (1,66 GHz, 1.066 MHz, 4 MB) 1 kW
d)- 1x Intel® Quad Core Xeon® E5320 (1,86 GHz, 1.066 MHz, 2 x 4 MB cache) 750 W

this is maybe a bit lazy, is could eventually find this out myself, but chances are you know this straight away.

Patrice · Post by **Patrice** » 30 Aug 2007, 09:36

TVP Animation use the multicore technology. So a good CPU is a CPU with a high frequency and many cores.
it seems that the more efficient the CPU is, the more expensive it is.
Here TVP Animation works fine with an Intel Core 2 Duo processor with 3 GB of RAM.
Of Course the Quad Core CPUs are the best CPUs for now.

malcooning · Post by **malcooning** » 30 Aug 2007, 14:20

now, if I have a choice between a graphic card with dedicated memory (256mb) and an onboard graphic interface with shared memory (in which it uses part of the system RAM for it's graphic functions), will I see any difference, or will both cards still use the system RAM instead of any dedicated memory?

Patrice · Post by **Patrice** » 30 Aug 2007, 15:19

Since TVP Animation use many RAM in order to work on Bitmap, it is better to have dedicated memory to let the System RAM to the CPU.

Post by **ematecki** » 03 Sep 2007, 08:16

Tantalus wrote: d)- 1x Intel® Quad Core Xeon® E5320 (1,86 GHz, 1.066 MHz, 2 x 4 MB cache) 750 W

Who wants to sell you this old thing ?
The SLOWEST Quad Xeon at apple is 2.66Ghz !

I would go for a core2duo, I think it's the best perf/price ratio at this time, unless you get a bargain for Xeons .
You WILL anyway have to change it again in less than two years... :(

Peter Wassink · Post by **Peter Wassink** » 03 Sep 2007, 08:39

Thanks Eric this is the kind of info i'm looking for.
although i am not sure what you are referring to when you say: WILL have to change in two years.
could you enlighten me?

but i do get the feeling a lot of big changes are coming and i don't feel like spending 3 to 4K on a machine that will be regarded slow or unsufficient very soon
indeed i think i'll need to buy a relatively cheap machine as a bridge.
because i don't think i will be able to keep using my pentium 4 and stay happy for two more years.

btw:
that quad core was just one in the list at dell, i have no idea how a quad core compares to a regular xeon or duo core. so i just listed a few different ones to see if anyone.
I find it very hard to judge systems on the dell site

hato · Post by **hato** » 04 Sep 2007, 12:55

Hellooo,

It is necessary that I change computer also
you think what of this computer for tvpaint ?

UNITE CENTRALE MD6538 QUAD Q6600-8800GTS
Processeur Intel® Core™2 Quad Q6600 (2,40 GHz, 8M cache L2, bus frontal 1066 MHz ) - Technologie Intel ViiV avec chispet Intel® G33 - Mémoire 3072 Mo DDR2 Dual Channel (2x1024Mo +2 x512Mo) - Carte vidéo nVidia GeForce® 8800GTS 320Mo - 2Dvi – HDCP -

Post by **TVPaint** » 04 Sep 2007, 13:32

hato wrote:Hellooo,

It is necessary that I change computer also
you think what of this computer for tvpaint ?

UNITE CENTRALE MD6538 QUAD Q6600-8800GTS
Processeur Intel® Core™2 Quad Q6600 (2,40 GHz, 8M cache L2, bus frontal 1066 MHz ) - Technologie Intel ViiV avec chispet Intel® G33 - Mémoire 3072 Mo DDR2 Dual Channel (2x1024Mo +2 x512Mo) - Carte vidéo nVidia GeForce® 8800GTS 320Mo - 2Dvi – HDCP -

I think you won't have any problem

You can even enhance the perfs with a high speed hard drive. what is the HD configuration ?

Peter Wassink · Post by **Peter Wassink** » 04 Sep 2007, 13:34

After reading this thread i'm no longer sure if this separate graphics card is even necessary. depends on what monitor(s) you want to attach i guess
The Dell dimension series does not even provide an optional graphics card!

instead they have this integrated on the motherboard:
integrated Intel® Graphics Media Accelerator 3000

if this would work i can get a
Intel® Core™2 Duo E6600 Processor (2,4GHz, 1.066 MHz, 4 MB cache)
+4GB memory
+500 GB Sata Hardisk (7.200 rpm)8 MB DataBurst™-cache
for less then € 1000

anyone an idea if this GMX3000 would cut the cake in working TVP?
if it does i might just get me a system like this.

hato · Post by **hato** » 04 Sep 2007, 14:57

I think you won't have any problem
You can even enhance the perfs with a high speed hard drive. what is the HD configuration ?

HD 7200rpm, for HD more powerful one would be needed? it is not the same price...

Link: http://www.planete-saturn.fr/frontend/i ... media.html

sorry big picture

ZigOtto · Post by **ZigOtto** » 04 Sep 2007, 16:23

Tantalus wrote:...
+500 GB Sata Hardisk (7.200 rpm)8 MB DataBurst™-cache
for less then € 1000

anyone an idea if this GMX3000 would cut the cake in working TVP?
if it does i might just get me a system like this.

I would recommend at least 2 HDs, 1 for the System and Data,
and 1 other (the speeder one for your Temp partition),
ideally 2 identical HDs configured in Raid, 1 HD 10.000 rpm for Temp,
and optionally one last for an alternative OS (Linux with multiboot).

Peter Wassink · Post by **Peter Wassink** » 04 Sep 2007, 16:57

ZigOtto wrote:I would recommend at least 2 HDs, 1 for the System and Data,
and 1 other (the speeder one for your Temp partition),
ideally 2 identical HDs configured in Raid, 1 HD 10.000 rpm for Temp,

thanks for this suggestion
i know very little about raid.
i read that a Raid1 config influences the write speed somewhat, is this why you recommend the 10.000 rpm?

Does the system consider two disks in raid1 configuration as one disk? so that the setup you describe above would require 3 disks?

or can you still dedicate one disk of the raid for the system and have the temp partition on the other?

malcooning · Post by **malcooning** » 04 Sep 2007, 17:34

A RAID of 2 drives, will usually yield faster read stats than a single drive, even if it's a 10,000rom one. my 2 7200rpm drives are 150% faster than my one 10,000rpm one. And, in fact, the 2 drives were cheaper than the single drive. once raided the 2 (or 3 or more) are no longer separable. They will be read by the system as one disk. You can, though, create partitions normally on them, and then install the system into one of the partitions. But bear in mind 2 points:

1. You have many types of RAID. some are information safe, some are fast read/write. If you want to keep expenses lower and noise levels too, you would go for 2 hard drives. Which limits you to about 3 main RAID types. But since you in the first place create a RAID to increase speed, you probably would opt for RAID 0, which is the fastest, but the most unreliable in case of failure of one of the disks. Therefore it's not advisable to install an OS on a RAID 0 drive as you'd loose everything if one of the drives goes bust.

2. if you intend to use XP instead of Vista, The OS won't recognize the SATA drives from bootup, only from within Windows itself (where it runs the SATA drivers). You can get it to work if you slipstream the drivers into an XP installation image (not always easy) or you have a motherboard that recognizes SATA drives just as it does IDE ones. Usually only new Motherboards do so.

Just to mention, my setup uses one 120GB 10,000 RPM drive for OS, 2x80GB 7200 RPM drives RAID 0 which is used for temp and project files, and one more 60GB drive for backing up all important files, and store all background activity such as downloads and music. I'm happy with the setup. I have Xeons 4 years old, and a motherboard chipset 3 years old, with memory of the slower kind, but it runs better than so many newer setups that I don't even think of changing it. There are no bottlenecks in the setups, and that's what you should aim for when designing a system. Actually, HD makes things more tricky, and you can resolve that with a RAID of 3 or more drives.

hope this sheds some light.