Jump to content
Alexander Lundgren

Possible to run Cakewalk with 32MB graphics card? Matrox G200

Recommended Posts

In the System Requirements for Cakewalk, there is no mention of graphics card. Would the latest Cakewalk run smoothly on system with 32MB graphics card (Matrox G200)?

It is new, high end machine with plenty of CPU power, just the graphics is not that good.

Any help would be greatly appreciated 🙂

Edited by Alexander Lundgren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cakewalk is pretty light on graphics use. I've always used the on-board Intel graphics card with Cakewalk without any issues.

As long as Windows still supports the Matrox G200, it should be fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matrox cards are pretty pedestrian in terms of the load presented to the system so that's good for a daw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

msmcleod: I'm just running Cakewalk on super low-end laptop with onboard Intel graphics and it runs great! :-) but I think Intel HD graphic cards have 128MB of memory and much faster clock speed?

bitman: That was what I was thinking too. I can buy new graphics card, but I'm not sure if it would be actually better for DAW computer. On the other hand, I'm affraid that this card might be so slow that it will cause latency / lags / stutter when running Cakewalk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before jumping to a conclusion, I would recommend testing your system first. DAWs are primarily 2D, so are not intense on graphics. High end graphics cards are geared to provide 3D rendering to unload the CPU, which is not necessary for a DAW. As your CPU is high end, you may see core loading a little higher since the CPU will be needed to render graphics, but I doubt you would really notice it. Even on a "high end" graphics card, the delta in 2D benchmark over something generic isn't much at all... you only see massive jumps in performance for 3D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You will probably see an improvement in the image quality with a Matrox card.

On the other hand 32MB might be a bit too low. At one stage when I was running Sonar X3 I had a 4-screen setup with 128MB each on two screens and 64MB each on the other two. There was a noticeable different in performance. The latter two were more sluggish.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Kev said:

You will probably see an improvement in the image quality with a Matrox card.

On the other hand 32MB might be a bit too low. At one stage when I was running Sonar X3 I had a 4-screen setup with 128MB each on two screens and 64MB each on the other two. There was a noticeable different in performance. The latter two were more sluggish.

This is exactly what I needed to know. Will buy nice GPU for my system. Thank you, Kev!

Edited by Alexander Lundgren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unlike gaming, Sonar has no real moving parts (besides drawing Wave forms, some plug ins  and meters being the only real GPU draw).

A GPU will only lighten the load on the RAM. Which in my opinion isn't much. I use dual DVI/VGA onboard graphics as well. I see no issues. However that graphics card your referring to is a relic. I would be more conrened about drivers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're running an Intel socket 1151 CPU, use the onboard video instead of the Matrox G200.

We used a LOT of Matrox cards... but that was ~20 years ago.

The onboard Intel GPU will be significantly faster.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all due respect to original poster, when I saw 32mb, I first thought that he said 32GB!! I was like that's overkill!! Then I went back and re-read it and when it sunk in I LOL! Had not seen specs like that in.....20yrs!!

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is 32MB even enough to run a modern Windows GUI on?

And do they make one with a PCIe interface?

 

Edited by abacab

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main concern could be the slot...  AFAIK, 32MB old Matrox cards used AGP slot which is obsolete in high end CPU. Even original PCI slot is rare in current era motherboards.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am currently  using two monitors with the integrated Intel HD graphics, one using HDMI, and the other with DVI. No problem with shared system memory, and no lag ever in display response for 2D purposes.

In the Passmark Performance Test "2D Graphics Mark", my Intel HD scores in the 46% percentile. Not too bad for a 7 year old, 3rd gen Intel Core i3 system. It totally sucks at 3D, but that's not what I use it for. The raw score was 521 vs. the world average of 588.

2D Graphics Mark includes: simple vectors, complex vectors, fonts and text, Windows interface, image filters, image rendering, and Direct 2D.

https://www.passmark.com/products/pt.htm

 

 

Edited by abacab

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...