Asus Xonar D2X is NOT a gaming card

[chynn]

The Asus Xonar D2X is NOT a gaming card as far as I am concerned because the card crashes every one of the games I play. This is awful because the card sounds so good!

When you combine the crashes with absolutely no (zero, zilch, nada) tech support from Asus, not even a reply or acknowledgment from them, the situation becomes untenable.

Specifically, I upgraded my PC (see signature) to use an Asus P6T Deluxe; Intel i7 965; 3G Crucial memory and Windows XP. Using the Xonar with its latest drivers crashes every one of the games I play:

1. Crashes World of Warcraft if you check "Use Hardware"; causes game motion to "surge" if you do not check "Use Hardware".

2. Crashes Age of Conan during the intro movies(s) if you even enable the card.

3. Crashes Lord of the Rings Online.

When played on an eVGA 680i, X6800, 2G memory, Windows XP, and a Creative X-Fi Elite, the same games do NOT crash!

Even Anandtech suggested that gamers use one of the Creative cards over the Xonar, so don't use the Asus Xonar D2X card for gaming ... even if it does sound twice as good as an X-Fi Elite.

EDIT: 26Feb09. Put the SB X-Fi Elite back into my rig; used Driver Cleaner on the Xonar drivers; loaded the latest SB driver, and everything is back to normal. No crashes ... not even after hours of playing. Sound quality is just not the same though ...

 

[heymrdj]

Off topic but I can't believe you're using an OS as backwards and old as XP on hardware so new

Well maybe not, your use of XP could be an issue.

 

[LOUISSSSS]

pretty sure the card is fine for games. you're just mad because you're having some driver problems. if you still can't fix them just reformat and i'm sure it will work..

 

[Ghouler]

It is not first time I hear about crap in games with Xonar. The issue with this card is that they apparently tried and failed to properly reverse-engineer full EAX. If they got a licence for it (the way e.g. Auzentech did) they would not have this problem now but they chose to try to reverse-engineer it. Don't know if you remember but when Asus first announced Xonars they claimed EAX HD support, Creative stepped up and told them they lie and aint got the licence for full EAX so Asus renamed this to "emulated EAX". But games were written to EAX and not emulated or Asus-imaginated EAX so it is no surprise they sometimes do not work. I dont make that all up, have a look here: http://www.bluesnews.com/cgi-b...ewstory&threadid=86329
EDIT:

Originally posted by: heymrdj
Off topic but I can't believe you're using an OS as backwards and old as XP on hardware so new

Not trying to flame. But is there a single hardware manufacturer crazy enough to risk not to have XP drivers? Vista is officially the FAIL OS, and W7 is in early beta.

 

[chynn]

Originally posted by: heymrdj
Off topic but I can't believe you're using an OS as backwards and old as XP on hardware so new

Well maybe not, your use of XP could be an issue.

Windows XP may be an old OS, but:

1. The FPS rates for games played under XP are 10% better than the same games played under Vista32/64. Check the OS comparison articles that Anandtech produced when Vista was released.

2. Using Vista mandates 2x more memory (6G) and the 64-bit model to run my games with just the 10% FPS penalty. Using 3G memory and Vista32 would choke my games due to Vista's bloated footprint and its addressing limit.

3. Last I heard, the Creative drivers for Vista64 are a bad kludge that crash your system. The Xonar 64-bit drivers don't crash Vista64 ... so long as you don't try to play any games.

We do share a common interest in Windows 7. I may go to the Windows 7 release provided its footprint is smaller than Vista's is and its DirectX 11 engine regains most of the FPS performance that Vista lost.

OTOH, I was playing games on Windows 98SE long after XP was released for the same reasons I am avoiding Vista right now. Bloat and speed! Two service packs later, the bloat is still there but the DX9 performance has been improved.

 

[coreyb]

Originally posted by: chynn

Originally posted by: heymrdj
Off topic but I can't believe you're using an OS as backwards and old as XP on hardware so new

Well maybe not, your use of XP could be an issue.

Windows XP may be an old OS, but:

1. The FPS rates for games played under XP are 10% better than the same games played under Vista32/64. Check the OS comparison articles that Anandtech produced when Vista was released.

2. Using Vista mandates 2x more memory (6G) and the 64-bit model to run my games with just the 10% FPS penalty. Using 3G memory and Vista32 would choke my games due to Vista's bloated footprint and its addressing limit.

3. Last I heard, the Creative drivers for Vista64 are a bad kludge that crash your system. The Xonar 64-bit drivers don't crash Vista64 ... so long as you don't try to play any games.

We do share a common interest in Windows 7. I may go to the Windows 7 release provided its footprint is smaller than Vista's is and its DirectX 11 engine regains most of the FPS performance that Vista lost.

OTOH, I was playing games on Windows 98SE long after XP was released for the same reasons I am avoiding Vista right now. Bloat and speed! Two service packs later, the bloat is still there but the DX9 performance has been improved.

That is not an issue anymore. You will get similar performance with xp and vista, have you seen any recent articles or comparisons?

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: Ghouler
It is not first time I hear about crap in games with Xonar. The issue with this card is that they apparently tried and failed to properly reverse-engineer full EAX. If they got a licence for it (the way e.g. Auzentech did) they would not have this problem now but they chose to try to reverse-engineer it. Don't know if you remember but when Asus first announced Xonars they claimed EAX HD support, Creative stepped up and told them they lie and aint got the licence for full EAX so Asus renamed this to "emulated EAX". But games were written to EAX and not emulated or Asus-imaginated EAX so it is no surprise they sometimes do not work. I dont make that all up, have a look here: http://www.bluesnews.com/cgi-b...ewstory&threadid=86329
EDIT:

Originally posted by: heymrdj
Off topic but I can't believe you're using an OS as backwards and old as XP on hardware so new

Not trying to flame. But is there a single hardware manufacturer crazy enough to risk not to have XP drivers? Vista is officially the FAIL OS, and W7 is in early beta.

Except Vista isn't fail, and thanks to its minor growing pains (specific to this thread, the problems introduced with the new way these new OSes handle sound), the virtually identical Windows 7 (ie Vista + features they promised to include with Vista in the first place) will be a huge hit.

 

[chynn]

To CoreyB:

No, sir, I have not seen any recent Vista64 vs XP32 performance comparisons. If you would provide links to the referenced material, I would be most happy to read the articles. Knowledge beats the heck out of opinion every time and it is much easier on the ego too ...

 

[heymrdj]

http://www.winmatrix.com/forum...ex.php?showtopic=18284


Here you go .

 

[Leyawiin]

Originally posted by: heymrdj
Off topic but I can't believe you're using an OS as backwards and old as XP on hardware so new

Well maybe not, your use of XP could be an issue.

Thats a rather ridiculous assumption. XP is more widely used (still) than Vista and every hardware manufacturer is just as likely (or more) to provide driver support for that "old" operating system. Hardware acceleration in sound cards is less problematic with XP than Vista.

ASUS drivers support for certain games or some issue with the O.P.'s particular PC might be a more likely culprit than some unfounded claim about his operating system.

 

[TidusZ]

Originally posted by: chynn

Originally posted by: heymrdj
Off topic but I can't believe you're using an OS as backwards and old as XP on hardware so new

Well maybe not, your use of XP could be an issue.

Windows XP may be an old OS, but:

1. The FPS rates for games played under XP are 10% better than the same games played under Vista32/64. Check the OS comparison articles that Anandtech produced when Vista was released.

Well, THERES your problem!

The xonar might suck but you're not really convincing me. Unless you can take it back I think it makes sense to at least try a format and vista to see if that fixes it, going back to your old card is a step backwards not forwards. Kinda like using windows xp actually.

 

[shingletingle]

Originally posted by: chynn

Originally posted by: heymrdj
Off topic but I can't believe you're using an OS as backwards and old as XP on hardware so new

Well maybe not, your use of XP could be an issue.

Windows XP may be an old OS, but:

1. The FPS rates for games played under XP are 10% better than the same games played under Vista32/64. Check the OS comparison articles that Anandtech produced when Vista was released.

2. Using Vista mandates 2x more memory (6G) and the 64-bit model to run my games with just the 10% FPS penalty. Using 3G memory and Vista32 would choke my games due to Vista's bloated footprint and its addressing limit.

3. Last I heard, the Creative drivers for Vista64 are a bad kludge that crash your system. The Xonar 64-bit drivers don't crash Vista64 ... so long as you don't try to play any games.

We do share a common interest in Windows 7. I may go to the Windows 7 release provided its footprint is smaller than Vista's is and its DirectX 11 engine regains most of the FPS performance that Vista lost.

OTOH, I was playing games on Windows 98SE long after XP was released for the same reasons I am avoiding Vista right now. Bloat and speed! Two service packs later, the bloat is still there but the DX9 performance has been improved.

Ummm...no. I've used an X-Fi XtremeMusic and the new X-Fi Titanium with Vista64 for well over a year now and they have not caused me any issues.

 

[chynn]

Thanks everyone for your input.

I found the ExtremeTech article most interesting. I knew Vista had better CPU allocation and scheduling algorithms, but did not know it had better memory allocation algorighms too.

Looks like I'm going to have to bite the bullet and switch to Vista ... as soon as I can find the cash to replace 3x1G memory with 3x2G memory and purchase a Vista Ultimate.

Vista's performance may have improved, but its bloated footprint remains the same.

Now if Asus would come up with some decent gaming drivers for their D2X sound card, I would be in heaven!!! If you have not heard a Xonar DX2, you have no idea how much better sound can sound.

 

[chynn]

Originally posted by: chynn
Thanks everyone for your input.

I found the ExtremeTech article most interesting. I knew Vista had better CPU allocation and scheduling algorithms, but did not know it had better memory allocation algorighms too.

Looks like I'm going to have to bite the bullet and switch to Vista ... as soon as I can find the cash to replace 3x1G memory with 3x2G memory and purchase a Vista Ultimate.

Vista's performance may have improved, but its bloated footprint remains the same.

Now if Asus would come up with some decent gaming drivers for their D2X sound card, I would be in heaven!!! If you have not heard a Xonar DX2, you have no idea how much better sound can sound.

No Vista for me ... not ever. Looks like I shall hold off until October 22, 2009, when W7 is released. DX11 in RC1 already runs my games as fast as or faster than XP 64-bit does and the W7 footprint has been reduced somewhat ... although it's still a 6G pig.

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: chynn

Originally posted by: chynn
Thanks everyone for your input.

I found the ExtremeTech article most interesting. I knew Vista had better CPU allocation and scheduling algorithms, but did not know it had better memory allocation algorighms too.

Looks like I'm going to have to bite the bullet and switch to Vista ... as soon as I can find the cash to replace 3x1G memory with 3x2G memory and purchase a Vista Ultimate.

Vista's performance may have improved, but its bloated footprint remains the same.

Now if Asus would come up with some decent gaming drivers for their D2X sound card, I would be in heaven!!! If you have not heard a Xonar DX2, you have no idea how much better sound can sound.

No Vista for me ... not ever. Looks like I shall hold off until October 22, 2009, when W7 is released. DX11 in RC1 already runs my games as fast as or faster than XP 64-bit does and the W7 footprint has been reduced somewhat ... although it's still a 6G pig.

There is something amusing about swearing off Vista 64 bit when you admit to using XP 64 bit.

 

[CKent]

This may or may not be relevant, but I'm having zero issues running games with a Xonar DX & win XP pro sp3.

 

[Puffnstuff]

My son uses a dx and I use a d2x and both work just fine in games. I replaced a x-fi with the sonar because I grew tired of the repeated problems I was having with it in vista.

 

[starams5]

Originally posted by: Puffnstuff
My son uses a dx and I use a d2x and both work just fine in games. I replaced a x-fi with the sonar because I grew tired of the repeated problems I was having with it in vista.

Ditto all of the above. I also switched to the D2X after repeated bad driver releases from Creative. My Fatality sat on the shelf for a long time, I decided to try the Fatality with Win7 in my other rig and surprisingly it has been performing well just like it did with XP, just like old times. I favor my D2X but I'm currently okay with both cards.

 

[terentenet]

I have used Vista Ultimate x64 since it was out, didn't have a problem with it. I liked the way it looked and it was smooth to work on. People just like to whine that performance has dropped by 10%... but XP was created to run on what? Athlon XP 1700 and 1G of RAM? Time has passed, here comes Vista, created to run on Dual cores and quad cores and i7, hardware performance has increased by 700% if not even more, but still, we like to whine about that 10% loss. Of course it will run slower, XP also runs slower than 98 on the same hardware (if compatible with both).
I think this progress is normal. When I first had Vista, I had a X6800 processor and 4Gb ram. It ran slower than XP. I still have that machine, with XP installed on it (my gf's rig).
Even when I had my QX9650 and 8Gb RAM, my Vista ran smoother and better than my girlfriend's XP.

The fact that you lost your 10% of performance is thechnology's way of telling you to upgrade your hardware!

 

[Morbid666]

i run vista 32. was using DX untill it died on me. i RMAd it to asus & got D2X back! i was happy until i found out it was DOA. shame. i got refound now & wondering what card to buy....

 

[zgmfx10a]

buahahahahahaha,,, Should'a gotten the X-Fi and did the oamp mod.. BEST evar...