Reading in the computer forum about Windows Experience ratings I checked my DAW and ADK LAPTOP-DAW.

I see a strange thing. CPU, Memory, and Gaming Graphics are all greater than or equal 7.1 on both machines. However on the laptop-daw the Graphics rating is 7.1 but on the DAW it's only 4.9. 

So I go to the AMD site to get the latest drivers for my ATI Radeon 5450 fanless 1GB card. Install the drivers and no change. Still 4.9.

The laptop-daw has on board NVIDIA DTX 460M (M is for "motherboad" I presume). When I try to locate a DTX 460 card I cannot find a fanless version available.

So here are my questions.

1. Is my DAW 4.9 Graphics rating hindering the overall performance of SONAR?
2. Who has a fanless grahics card that rates 7.1 or greater on Win7 64bit and can support 2560x1600?

Bonus Windows Experience question. Who gets a better disk rating than 5.9 and what drives are you using?

bapu


Reading in the computer forum about Windows Experience ratings I checked my DAW and ADK LAPTOP-DAW.

I see a strange thing. CPU, Memory, and Gaming Graphics are all greater than or equal 7.1 on both machines. However on the laptop-daw the Graphics rating is 7.1 but on the DAW it's only 4.9. 

So I go to the AMD site to get the latest drivers for my ATI Radeon 5450 fanless 1GB card. Install the drivers and no change. Still 4.9.

The laptop-daw has on board NVIDIA DTX 460M (M is for "motherboad" I presume). When I try to locate a DTX 460 card I cannot find a fanless version available.

So here are my questions.

1. Is my DAW 4.9 Graphics rating hindering the overall performance of SONAR?
2. Who has a fanless grahics card that rates 7.1 or greater on Win7 64bit and can support 2560x1600?

Bonus Windows Experience question. Who gets a better disk rating than 5.9 and what drives are you using?

Who are you, and what have you done with Bapu?

the short answer is no... Sonar is not even remotely affected by the graphics card... the key thing is that it is a dedicated card and hence consumes little system resources, after that is simply a question of display prowess, and sonar is down in the dirt in terms of GPU requirements...compared to 3D gaming with fog/distance/shading/lighting its nuttin
 
edit 1: p.s. for a desktop its a GTX460
 
edit 2: hey its like this one here in this here machine... clocking 7.5
 
edit 3: i took the gtx460 outta the daw machine and put in an ati 6850 cos it supports three displays

"bapu"
Who gets a better disk rating than 5.9 and what drives are you using?

7.9 = OCZ Vertex 3 SSD (120GBs). 

Alegria

"bapu"

Who gets a better disk rating than 5.9 and what drives are you using?

7.9 = OCZ Vertex 3 SSD (120GBs). 

showoff.....lol

Intel 520 SSD 240GB

It's just too good to put in a PC lol

Has OCZ gotten their act together with their SSD drives?  For quite awhile they were notoriously bad.

Hi,

In the old days with the yukky yukky graphics cards and Windows not handling them correctly, you might have had an issue.

With W7-64bit, I seriously doubt that a video card would be interfering with ANY music thing ... with one possible exception ... let's say that 15 trax are running and the display on that should not be an issue, but on a laptop? ... not the same thing with a display that is not as responsive as your 24-inch on your studio!

My understanding is that laptops need to be way up there to be efficient with Windows (same as the Mac's ... you have to spend a fortune!) ... but with the 64-bit, which is not considered a Home version of Windows, but a version for professionals and network users, in general, you should not have a problem.

Those ratings, btw,  are arbitrary at best, since W7 is inventing numbers that are not real! ... you can get Blind Onion or many other utilities on the net that will read you this information way better than Windows every will! I think that utility was designed to make suggestions so you would spend more money upgrading your computer! ... like more memory usually gets a higher number, for example!
 
Note: I have the same video card (a GTX) on two machines. One with W7-64bit and the other with XP-Pro. The Windows machine has 8G of memory. The XP machien has 4, and of course Windows doesn't even use anything past 3.5 or so. Guess what? ... the running of World of Warcraft on the XP machine is about 11% more efficient than the bigger and better machine with the 64bit. My thoughts are leaning towards the fact that Windows is known for giving us false information and that the 64bit thing is either too tough on most software and hardware, or really not that good!