I do simple edits to large 2-D images (Windows 10, 64-bit with Windows Paint). Will a graphics card speed things up?

Task
I frequently make very basic and simple edits to largish 2-D images (say 800MB).

Problem
Things get jerky when I move chunks of the picture (even small ones) around.

Question

I currently have integrated on-board graphics. I am thinking of buying a graphics card to speed things up. I know that many graphics cards are designed largely to cope with 3-D gaming. I'm not convinced an upgrade will do anything for my 2-D problem.

Would I gain any speed of editing by buying a graphics card for my simple 2-D work?

Update

I have downloaded Gimp and Paint.net as suggested. I see an immediate improvement with both. I particularly like Gimp as the interface is intuitive to me. The jerkiness has gone but there is still a noticeable (but much shorter) time for redrawing on very large images. However it is very smooth and therefore much more pleasant to look at. Can I assume that Gimp is optimised to work with any new graphics card I buy?

Details

Software - I currently use the default Paint program that comes with Windows. It is perfectly adequate in terms of functionality.
I never run into the limit of my 8GB of RAM. There is always plenty of memory available. I don't have a paging file for virtual memory.
I have all SSD disks so transfers are very fast.
System information

OS Name Microsoft Windows 10 Home
System Manufacturer Hewlett-Packard
System Model p7-1058uk
System Type x64-based PC
Processor Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2600 CPU @ 3.40GHz, 3401 Mhz, 4 Core(s), 8 Logical Processor(s)
Locale United Kingdom
Installed Physical Memory (RAM) 8.00 GB
Total Physical Memory 7.91 GB
Available Physical Memory 2.48 GB
Total Virtual Memory 7.91 GB
Available Virtual Memory 2.83 GB
Page File Space 0 bytes

Motherboard information

Motherboard

Integrated graphics
*Integrated video is not available if a graphics card is installed.
•Supports PCI Express x16 graphics cards
•DVI-I output port
•HDMI output port

chasly from UK

Posted 2015-10-29T14:08:25.960

Reputation: 113

You don't mention what application you are using to edit these files. The application would have to be designed to be hardware accelerated. You also don't indicate if the application is 32-bit or 64-bit which would make a huge difference. Update your question so more precise answers can be submitted. Please provide how much memory is being assigned currently to your iGPU currently. – Ramhound – 2015-10-29T14:18:59.737

The program was mentioned: Windows Paint – David Vernon – 2015-10-29T14:21:00.580

WIndows paint isn't terribly efficient. Its also not GPU accelerated. So no. – Journeyman Geek – 2015-10-29T14:32:45.623

@JourneymanGeek, Looks like I need a better program then--if only to make use of the hardware I already have. – chasly from UK – 2015-10-29T14:35:23.133

@DavidVernon - Windows Paint does not appear in any revision of this question. Which is the reason I asked. I read the question again, and noticed it is simply referenced as "the default Paint program" easily missed.

– Ramhound – 2015-10-29T15:10:47.973

"Can I assume that Gimp is optimized to work with any new graphics card I buy?" - You shouldn't assume this. I don't even believe that Gimp is hardware accelerated. It certainly is more efficient then Paint is. There are dozens of both paid and free alternatives to Paint which specifically indicate they have the capability to be hardware accelerated. You should stick with those solutions. – Ramhound – 2015-10-29T15:16:40.070

I agree @chaslyfromUK, I think you meant that comment for Ramhound – David Vernon – 2015-10-29T15:36:07.120

@chaslyfromUK - I appreciate the clarification. – Ramhound – 2015-10-29T15:47:15.307

This has me curious. What formats? – Journeyman Geek – 2015-10-30T00:55:03.880

@JourneymanGeek, Whom are you asking? Are you asking about jpeg, gif, etc. or, if not, what do you mean by 'formats'? – chasly from UK – 2015-10-30T01:33:10.190

yup, and what the resolution of the image is. I was messing with a 17 000 x 17 000 pixel image, and paint can work on and save it but not open it. – Journeyman Geek – 2015-10-30T01:37:41.530

Answers

Broadly speaking:

Your CPU is not a bottleneck
Adding a graphics card with extra fill rate, shading computation ability, faster memory etc. WILL improve performance
Even if you do install a graphics card, you will need to plug your display into it (obvious perhaps!)
The effectiveness of any fix will depend on the efficiency of the software you're using. Paint will use VERY basic functions of a new graphics card, but has not been engineered to use any advanced features at all. You will likely still see some jerking when moving things around (causing memory to cleared and filled again!)
You will hit a memory limitation at some point down the track as well 8GB with integrated graphics is not as much as you'd think: Integrated graphics use (slow and finite) system memory for graphics tasks. You seem to be monitoring that fine though

Can I suggest 'Gimp' or similar. It's free, and has been engineered to provide optimised performance, instead of jerkiness.

www.gimp.org/windows

David Vernon

Posted 2015-10-29T14:08:25.960

Reputation: 804

Your final point is a good one for me to think about. I use Paint because it is free, has a simple interface and provides all the functionality I need. Maybe I should shop around for other freebies or an inexpensive alternative. Any recommendations? P.S. I have no problem buying extra RAM, in fact I plan to max it out to 16 GB on my current machine. – chasly from UK – 2015-10-29T14:21:09.967

@chaslyfromUK Take a look at paint.net.

– aphoria – 2015-10-29T14:22:47.203

Update - I've tried 'em both--looking good. I'll update my question in the light of this. – chasly from UK – 2015-10-29T14:46:48.830

For 2d and simple graphics card and a decent display could boost you up a little in your 2d images. I mentioned the graphics card for a multi monitor setup just incase you wanted to use more then one monitor which makes editing a little easier. As for the nvidia quadro they can become expensive I found a few in my garage from teardowns and forgot about that! :)

NetworkKingPin

Posted 2015-10-29T14:08:25.960

Reputation: 2 186

You seem to be using the term quadro generically. I thought it was the name of an Nvidia range. Are you saying Nvidia would be best or did you mean something else? – chasly from UK – 2015-10-29T14:32:15.780

@chaslyfromUK yes basically that is my bad I was meaning it didn't need to be too memory intensive but something decent to allow the picture quality to look better on the monitor. I will be more vague in the future. – NetworkKingPin – 2015-10-29T14:33:42.403

eh. Quadro would be pricy and not that much use unless the software used it. Picture quality for this sorta thing is fine even with onboard. Don't be vague, defend your assertations ;p – Journeyman Geek – 2015-10-29T14:39:49.030

Having read all the comments and answers, I'm going to summarise my conclusions.

(1) Forget about Windows Paint. (a) It can't use a graphics card efficiently and (b) Gimp and paint.NET are better/faster even without extra hardware.

(2) Choose software that allows hardware acceleration.

(3) Given 2, a graphics card will make a worthwhile difference.

Notes

Gimp 2.8.14
It is my understanding that, as of 29 Oct 2015, Gimp does not support hardware acceleration or multi-cores as standard although these have been in the works for some time and may be available on an experimental basis.

paint.NET 4.0
Supports both Direct2D hardware acceleration and multi-threading.

Thanks to all for their help.

chasly from UK

Posted 2015-10-29T14:08:25.960

Reputation: 113