Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Best Graphic card for Audio

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
February 15, 2005 9:09:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

According to Dacris Benchmark5 my graphic card (ATI Radeon 9200) is
the bottleneck in my system.
As I don't really bother about games and my computer is mostly
dedicated for audio recording I thought I might save a few quids
(dollars) in the graphic area...was I right? If not, what are the
attributes of a fast graphic card?
What I am looking for is a no frills lean mean graphic card for an
audio PC.
Any suggestion?

BTW:
PC system AMD Athlon 64 3000Mhz
DDR400 3200
Motherboard: Gigabyte K8VT800(pro)
Windows XP Pro
M-Audio Audiophile 192 (24bit/192kHz) with a 64bit optimized driver
(yeah...I am ready for the 64bit generation!!)

Any suggestion is welcomed.
Alex.

More about : graphic card audio

Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
February 15, 2005 9:23:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Alex wrote:
> According to Dacris Benchmark5 my graphic card (ATI Radeon 9200) is
> the bottleneck in my system.
> As I don't really bother about games and my computer is mostly
> dedicated for audio recording I thought I might save a few quids
> (dollars) in the graphic area.

Have you tried turning off bus mastering (if it's an option for your card) and disabling the 3D features?
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
February 15, 2005 11:52:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Alex" <swimmydeepo@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b8a468b9.0502151809.3bbb0708@posting.google.com...
> According to Dacris Benchmark5 my graphic card (ATI Radeon 9200) is
> the bottleneck in my system.
> As I don't really bother about games and my computer is mostly
> dedicated for audio recording I thought I might save a few quids
> (dollars) in the graphic area...was I right? If not, what are the
> attributes of a fast graphic card?
> What I am looking for is a no frills lean mean graphic card for an
> audio PC.
> Any suggestion?
>
> BTW:
> PC system AMD Athlon 64 3000Mhz
> DDR400 3200
> Motherboard: Gigabyte K8VT800(pro)
> Windows XP Pro
> M-Audio Audiophile 192 (24bit/192kHz) with a 64bit optimized driver
> (yeah...I am ready for the 64bit generation!!)
>
> Any suggestion is welcomed.
> Alex.

Alex:

From what I can tell, this benchmark is not audio specific, but rather a
general PC benchmarking app. If that's the case, I doubt that your graphics
card performance would be a bottleneck in audio apps. This is because there
is not a huge amount of graphics processing going on in most audio apps.
Even realtime metering doesn't task the system too much relative to other
operations. Most graphics cards these days are aimed at maximum performance
for 3D gaming, which also won't help you (since at most, audio apps would
use basic line-draw calls, not vertex shading or other functions that games
would implement). I would focus more on the components in your system that
might constitute a real bottleneck for audio performance, including
processor speed, memory amount and access time, and hard-disk access time.
From what I can tell, your rig appears to pretty well configured on the
hardware side for HD recording. A couple of things to consider for maximum
performance would be: separate hard drives for your OS/apps and audio files,
eliminating all unnecessary software (some would argue that even web
browsers/internet apps should not be installed) perhaps by setting up an
"audio only" boot would be the way to go. Finally, you don't list how much
RAM you have. If you plan to use any sampling software, the more the better
(a gig at least?).

Craig
Related resources
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
February 16, 2005 5:35:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Kurt Albershardt" <kurt@nv.net> wrote in message news:37fp80F5ctgchU2@individual.net...
> Alex wrote:
> > According to Dacris Benchmark5 my graphic card (ATI Radeon 9200) is
> > the bottleneck in my system.
> > As I don't really bother about games and my computer is mostly
> > dedicated for audio recording I thought I might save a few quids
> > (dollars) in the graphic area.
>
> Have you tried turning off bus mastering (if it's an option for your card)
> and disabling the 3D features?

Or perhaps uninstalling the card and (certainly any software that might
have been installed along with it), then reinstalling the card... loading
only the drivers and none of the accompanying software that provides
those options.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
February 16, 2005 9:39:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Alex" <swimmydeepo@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b8a468b9.0502151809.3bbb0708@posting.google.com

> According to Dacris Benchmark5 my graphic card (ATI Radeon 9200) is
> the bottleneck in my system.

Bottleneck for doing what?

> As I don't really bother about games and my computer is mostly
> dedicated for audio recording I thought I might save a few quids
> (dollars) in the graphic area...was I right?

IME graphics for audio production net out to be business graphics. It's
strictly 2D, using only the most basic parts of the Windows GDI.

>If not, what are the
> attributes of a fast graphic card?

Why would you care?

> What I am looking for is a no frills lean mean graphic card for an
> audio PC.

I've done a fair amount of multichannel (12) audio work on PCs with the
cheapest on-board shared-memory and/or PCI (not even AGP) graphic cards that
exist. IME the fancier the graphics card, the more likely it is to cause
problems.

> Any suggestion?

> BTW:
> PC system AMD Athlon 64 3000Mhz
> DDR400 3200
> Motherboard: Gigabyte K8VT800(pro)
> Windows XP Pro
> M-Audio Audiophile 192 (24bit/192kHz) with a 64bit optimized driver
> (yeah...I am ready for the 64bit generation!!)
>
> Any suggestion is welcomed.

What's the problem? If you can't do click-free 2-channel audio at 24/96 on
this system, then there's something wrong that a fancier graphics card
probably won't fix!
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
February 16, 2005 11:25:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

I do audio and graphics software programming. I wouldn't touch a fast
graphics card for my DAW. Benchmark5 is correct. Your bottleneck is
most certainly the ATI card.

I use a non-hardware graphics card like the matrox dual monitor cards.

Paul
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
February 16, 2005 3:17:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <b8a468b9.0502151809.3bbb0708@posting.google.com> swimmydeepo@yahoo.co.uk writes:

> According to Dacris Benchmark5 my graphic card (ATI Radeon 9200) is
> the bottleneck in my system.

Bottlenecks aren't usually a problem with audio, and in fact, a
bottleneck graphics card may be a good thing.

Any graphics card from the past 10 years is fast enough to handle the
graphics that a DAW requires. The DAW problems associated with graphic
cards has to do with the card wanting some of the computer's resources
when it's already busy processing audio. Fortunately, this isn't much
of a problem today, but if it was, there are fewer things you can do
about it than there used to be (or you need to be much smarter to do
them).

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
February 16, 2005 4:37:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 04:32:59 GMT, Logan Shaw
<lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> Alex wrote:
>
> According to Dacris Benchmark5 my graphic card (ATI Radeon 9200) is
> the bottleneck in my system.
>

Don't sweat the 9200. The 9200 has THE most important feature for audio
work--it's fanless.

No, you won't be able to play Halo 2 or Doom 3 at maximum detail level
and maintain a decent frame rate.

But you're not pushing a lot of 3d graphics, so who cares?

It's more than Good Enough for audio.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
February 16, 2005 4:37:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 13:37:12 GMT, Charles Krug
<cdkrug@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 04:32:59 GMT, Logan Shaw
><lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>> Alex wrote:
>>
>> According to Dacris Benchmark5 my graphic card (ATI Radeon 9200) is
>> the bottleneck in my system.
>>
>
>Don't sweat the 9200. The 9200 has THE most important feature for audio
>work--it's fanless.
>
>No, you won't be able to play Halo 2 or Doom 3 at maximum detail level
>and maintain a decent frame rate.
>
>But you're not pushing a lot of 3d graphics, so who cares?
>
>It's more than Good Enough for audio.

OK -- now, what's the best soundcard for a graphics DAW?

Al
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
February 16, 2005 6:03:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <c0IQd.44815$Th1.35855@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> cdkrug@worldnet.att.net writes:

> Don't sweat the 9200. The 9200 has THE most important feature for audio
> work--it's fanless.

Fanless? When did they start putting fans on graphics cards?


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
February 16, 2005 8:46:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1108574821k@trad
> In article <c0IQd.44815$Th1.35855@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
> cdkrug@worldnet.att.net writes:
>
>> Don't sweat the 9200. The 9200 has THE most important feature for
>> audio work--it's fanless.
>
> Fanless? When did they start putting fans on graphics cards?

Years ago. I can't remember the first one I ever saw.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
February 16, 2005 8:46:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> "Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
> news:znr1108574821k@trad
>
>>> In article <c0IQd.44815$Th1.35855@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>>> cdkrug@worldnet.att.net writes:
>>>
>>
>>>>> Don't sweat the 9200. The 9200 has THE most important feature for
>>>>> audio work--it's fanless.
>>
>>>
>>> Fanless? When did they start putting fans on graphics cards?
>
>
> Years ago. I can't remember the first one I ever saw.
>
>

There are quiet fans available that can be retrofitted to some graphics
cards. The stock fans are often very small and spin at very high speeds
that make a lot of noise.

I built a computer a year ago that was very noisy. Two fans in the power
supply, one on the Pentium-4, one on the motherboard "chipset" chip
(another very small fan, spinning very fast and making a lot of noise),
and the one on the graphics card (a 9600 pro, or something).

I replaced the power supply fans with slower, quieter ones that were
mounted on vibration isolators (by EAR). I replaced the processor
fan/heatsink with a much quieter one. I removed the chipset fan and
heatsink and replaced it with a very large heatsink specifically
designed for it. I replaced the graphics card fan & heatsink with a much
quieter one. MUCH lower overall noise.

Many motherboards have software included that can control the speed of
the processor fan and the chipset fan, as well as report the temperature
of the chips.

John Hardy
The John Hardy Co.
www.johnhardyco.com
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
February 17, 2005 12:13:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 17:19:19 -0600, John Hardy
<johnwellshardy@comcast.net> wrote:

>> "Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
>> news:znr1108574821k@trad
>>
>>>> In article <c0IQd.44815$Th1.35855@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>>>> cdkrug@worldnet.att.net writes:
>>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Don't sweat the 9200. The 9200 has THE most important feature for
>>>>>> audio work--it's fanless.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Fanless? When did they start putting fans on graphics cards?
>>
>>
>> Years ago. I can't remember the first one I ever saw.
>>
>>
>
>There are quiet fans available that can be retrofitted to some graphics
>cards. The stock fans are often very small and spin at very high speeds
>that make a lot of noise.
>
>I built a computer a year ago that was very noisy. Two fans in the power
>supply, one on the Pentium-4, one on the motherboard "chipset" chip
>(another very small fan, spinning very fast and making a lot of noise),
>and the one on the graphics card (a 9600 pro, or something).
>
>I replaced the power supply fans with slower, quieter ones that were
>mounted on vibration isolators (by EAR). I replaced the processor
>fan/heatsink with a much quieter one. I removed the chipset fan and
>heatsink and replaced it with a very large heatsink specifically
>designed for it. I replaced the graphics card fan & heatsink with a much
>quieter one. MUCH lower overall noise.

I bought a kit that lets you suspend your harddrives in a rubber
harness. It's amazing how much noise the vibrating drives make, I
never realized how noisy they were until I used this kit.

Al
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
February 17, 2005 1:15:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 16 Feb 2005 08:25:11 -0800, "LightningRod" <paul@scorestudio.com>
wrote:

>I use a non-hardware graphics card like the matrox dual monitor cards.

I use a Matrox Millennium G450 dual head card. It has never caused
any problems with audio.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
February 17, 2005 12:58:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

In article <bt98119f10p8gsr9fosd6jiaoviqkanf6d@4ax.com> playonAT@comcast.net writes:

> I bought a kit that lets you suspend your harddrives in a rubber
> harness. It's amazing how much noise the vibrating drives make, I
> never realized how noisy they were until I used this kit.

I'm actually surprised at how quiet modern hard drives are. I use a
Mackie hard disk recorder and can clearly hear the difference in noise
when using an old versus a new drive in the external drive bay. I've
replaced the original internal drive with one that's much quieter. I
just picked up a Hitachi Deskstar on a good rebate deal at CompUSA and
it's practically silent.

I've also quieted down the power supply and CPU fans, and now it's
kind of like a "which fan is louder?" game. No fan on the graphics
board, though.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
February 17, 2005 6:28:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message news:<4b6dna4Nkb9vrY7fRVn-vQ@comcast.com>...
> "Alex" <swimmydeepo@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:b8a468b9.0502151809.3bbb0708@posting.google.com
>
> > According to Dacris Benchmark5 my graphic card (ATI Radeon 9200) is
> > the bottleneck in my system.
>
> Bottleneck for doing what?
>
> > As I don't really bother about games and my computer is mostly
> > dedicated for audio recording I thought I might save a few quids
> > (dollars) in the graphic area...was I right?
>
> IME graphics for audio production net out to be business graphics. It's
> strictly 2D, using only the most basic parts of the Windows GDI.
>
> >If not, what are the
> > attributes of a fast graphic card?
>
> Why would you care?
>
> > What I am looking for is a no frills lean mean graphic card for an
> > audio PC.
>
> I've done a fair amount of multichannel (12) audio work on PCs with the
> cheapest on-board shared-memory and/or PCI (not even AGP) graphic cards that
> exist. IME the fancier the graphics card, the more likely it is to cause
> problems.
>
> > Any suggestion?
>
> > BTW:
> > PC system AMD Athlon 64 3000Mhz
> > DDR400 3200
> > Motherboard: Gigabyte K8VT800(pro)
> > Windows XP Pro
> > M-Audio Audiophile 192 (24bit/192kHz) with a 64bit optimized driver
> > (yeah...I am ready for the 64bit generation!!)
> >
> > Any suggestion is welcomed.
>
> What's the problem? If you can't do click-free 2-channel audio at 24/96 on
> this system, then there's something wrong that a fancier graphics card
> probably won't fix!



Right then,
It looks like I should be pleased with my initial choice i.e. I'll
keep my ATI Radeon 9200.

I have also understood that benchmarks do a general test which doesn't
necessarily address Audio recording. This is a rather important point
to remember.

I think that the best benchmark is to install the software and do some
test with real music...but this can be quite time consuming especially
as I am still learning about the basic hardware of my system and I am
still on the planning stage of how and where to allocate the OSs
(XPpro, XP64 and 98) in terms of partitining, cluster size etc.

I wonder if there is any benchmark utility dedicated to DAWs.

seen it before? Please let me know.

Alex
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
February 17, 2005 9:05:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Alex wrote:
>
> I wonder if there is any benchmark utility dedicated to DAWs.
> seen it before? Please let me know.

There is a disk test utility called DskBench. It used to be an important part of building a Win32 DAW, but nowadays most disk channels are more than up to the task.
!