On 10 Aug 2006, at 3:31 AM, Tyler Turner wrote:
And you've never shown any evidence to dispute the
fact that on my very own machine I've been able to
show that with more graphic card features enabled,
performance in Finale slows down.
I don't know how I could possibly produce evidence that you don't see
what you're seeing on your machine. I'm not doubting your results as
reported. But frankly, I'm still unconvinced that the results you are
describing are explained by inadequate 2D performance on your
graphics card, or that a more expensive card would give you
significantly better 2D results. This flies in the face of everything
I've ever read about video cards -- and believe it or not, I've read
a lot about video cards.
This is just silly though. You're telling me that
because I'm simply not able to find many articles
addressing 2D performance that it some how indicates
the performance has equalized?
Yes, in fact. I'm saying that every authority I trust, backed up by
ever 2D benchmark I've ever seen, supports the view that there is
effectively no difference in 2D performance between modern video
cards. That's why you don't see many 2D benchmarks in video card
reviews -- they aren't interesting. When you're talking about modern
video cards, 2D benchmarks are virtually identically across the board
-- which, BTW, you can easily verify by consulting the recent video
card reviews that still bother with 2D benchmarks. (There *are* some
out there, you know.)
Given that my view is the mainstream view, I think it's entirely
reasonable of me to say that the burden of proof is on you to provide
counterexamples, supported by empirical evidence (i.e., benchmarks).
But you've already said you don't care what I think -- fair enough,
but if that's the case, why do you keep coming back to this issue?
Seriously, I'm more than happy to let the whole thing drop at this
point (and I suspect everyone else is too).
Believe me. If my X600 stumbles badly at this
resolution, I have GOOD reason to believe a 7300GT
would stumble if I was trying to run 2 displays on it
at a much higher resolution.
Tyler, I honestly do not want to be unduly confrontational here, but
seriously, you are the person who did not know the difference between
the 7300 GS and the 7300 GT, and earlier tried to cite GS benchmarks
as if they were representative of GT performance. These two cards are
in fact based on completely different architectures -- the GS card
uses a G72 chipset, and the GT card uses the (much faster) G73
chipset. All I'm saying is, before you make statements like the
above, you might want to at least read some 7300 GT reviews -- like
the one I cited last email. Or these ones:
http://www.ngohq.com/home.php?page=Articles&go=read&arc_id=86
http://www.gamepyre.com/reviewsd.html?aid=758&p=1
http://www.lanaddict.com/rev/185/1/
http://www.ausfx.com/reviews/NVIDIA/Inno3D7300GT.php
Naturally, these reviews all focus exclusively on 3D performance (for
reasons I have already explained), but let's grant, for the sake of
argument, your implied claim that 3D performance is a good predictor
of 2D performance. Even so, all these reviews agree that the 7300 GT
is the most powerful budget graphics card currently on the market.
It's certainly a *huge* leap in performance from your Radeon X600,
and outperforms every other graphics card in this price range. So
absent some benchmarks to the contrary, I'm afraid I don't actually
agree that you have "GOOD reason to believe" that the 7300 GT would
stumble in 2D applications, even when driving two hi-res monitors.
Cheers,
- Darcy
-----
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://secretsociety.typepad.com
Brooklyn, NY
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
