Sound and integrated sound

[Swampthing]

with the sound situation being what it is in vista, does having a card like the XFI even make sense anymore? I've always had a seperate sound card as i find sound very important in games and such even though it's largely ignored. I have my sound card piped out to a home theatre receiver and some pretty expensive speakers and a powered sub. Back in the day I even bought one of the monster sound cards on the day it was released.

Now though with vista and audio, my xfi card seems like a bit of a waste. None of the eax features work anymore. I can use the openal to enable surround in games but it's not the same as it was and if i understand the project it's just doing a software translation. Wouldn't this mean a CPU hit greater than under XP with sound anyways? Creatives driver support and vista support is terrible in general. And there's always been a static issue with my XFI when i use it with my PODXT.

I'm starting to wonder if there's enough difference between the XFI and the sound chip built in on my gigabyte 965 ds3. But i can't find any comparisons or reviews about this, has anyone seen anything that might show how it stacks up to an XFI?

 

[catalysts17az]

I have no proof when it comes to Vista (gonna skip Vista anyway, too much DRM) weather or not there is a difference in sound but, with a sound card your CPU wont be loosing cycles processing sound. So for that reason alone then if you don't want precious cycles being used to process sound use your sound card.

 

[locutus12]

Originally posted by: catalysts17az
I have no proof when it comes to Vista (gonna skip Vista anyway, too much DRM) weather or not there is a difference in sound but, with a sound card your CPU wont be loosing cycles processing sound. So for that reason alone then if you don't want precious cycles being used to process sound use your sound card.

Unless you own a DFi board, their onboard sound systems are legendary.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: locutus12

Originally posted by: catalysts17az
I have no proof when it comes to Vista (gonna skip Vista anyway, too much DRM) weather or not there is a difference in sound but, with a sound card your CPU wont be loosing cycles processing sound. So for that reason alone then if you don't want precious cycles being used to process sound use your sound card.

Unless you own a DFi board, their onboard sound systems are legendary.

He's right. You lose performance, when you aren't using hardware based sound decoding. It makes no difference how good or bad the onboard sound sounds. Of course, Swampthing is also right. Since all audio is software decoded in Vista, owning a sound card is really a waste.

edit: This is what we get for buying Bill's operating systems. I mean, who could ever completely use 640K of RAM, anyway, right Bill?

 

[Ghouler]

Originally posted by: Swampthing
I'm starting to wonder if there's enough difference between the XFI and the sound chip built in on my gigabyte 965 ds3. But i can't find any comparisons or reviews about this, has anyone seen anything that might show how it stacks up to an XFI?

I doubt anyone's got balls to do reviews of any hardware under Vista, simply for the reason drivers are not as optimized as they are for XP, and that's so with just anything. People complain about nVidia's approach to Vista, but Creative could come up with full release of drivers not just betas, too.

As for hardware acceleration in Vista - it is still a benefit if the game is written to Open AL or you have X-Fi (with ALchemy). MS kinda ditched hardware acceleration of audio in Direct X so that they can push Open AL - that works not only for PC but also for Xbox. So there is good reason (for them) to do that.
For you or me there is Alchemy - it works fine for those who have tried it, so if you have X-Fi and Vista you are on the safe side, I'd say.

I am not on Vista myself, I will upgrade once both OS and all support matures, but I read up on stuff and saw a link to good discussion about Vista and X-Fi here, worth a read:
http://digg.com/hardware/DirectSound3D_games_on_Windows_Vista_ALchemy_FAQ

 

[locutus12]

Originally posted by: myocardia

He's right. You lose performance, when you aren't using hardware based sound decoding. It makes no difference how good or bad the onboard sound sounds. Of course, Swampthing is also right. Since all audio is software decoded in Vista, owning a sound card is really a waste.

edit: This is what we get for buying Bill's operating systems. I mean, who could ever completely use 640K of RAM, anyway, right Bill?

i didnt say he wasnt right, i said DFi boards are legendary for their sound processing, they use high end realtek audio chips that do most of the work unlike your standard integrated sound system which uses the cheaper realtek solutions and a software layer for processing.

as for conventional on-board sound steeling CPU cycles, if youve got a dual core that really doesn't matter in the slightest.

 

[Roguestar]

Originally posted by: locutus12

Originally posted by: myocardia

He's right. You lose performance, when you aren't using hardware based sound decoding. It makes no difference how good or bad the onboard sound sounds. Of course, Swampthing is also right. Since all audio is software decoded in Vista, owning a sound card is really a waste.

edit: This is what we get for buying Bill's operating systems. I mean, who could ever completely use 640K of RAM, anyway, right Bill?

i didnt say he wasnt right, i said DFi boards are legendary for their sound processing, they use high end realtek audio chips that do most of the work unlike your standard integrated sound system which uses the cheaper realtek solutions and a software layer for processing.

as for conventional on-board sound steeling CPU cycles, if youve got a dual core that really doesn't matter in the slightest.

1) realtek uuurrrrghhhhhh
2) it'll still need controlled by the CPU
3) with more games being mutli-threaded, cores are less just sitting idle. Look at supreme commander for instance.

 

[Swampthing]

I guess the root of my problem is that i'm so fed up with creative's driver's and their lack of driver support and am grasping at any alternative at all to using a creative card that's remotely any good. I've never been overly happy with my XFi as it seems to still have the static noise problem that all my other creative cards have had. And now that EAX is really kinda irrelevant, i guess i was looking at alternatives. I've had an M-audio board in the past but my god that thing was terrible for CPU utilization in games so that got dumped fast.

Just looking for any reasonable solution other than creative.

 

[DaveSimmons]

If you have a dual-core processor then one core is usually sitting idle in games, so using it to drive motherboard audio makes perfect sense.

Even Oblivion which uses the second core a little, leaves plenty of cycles free for audio.

The main reasons you'd want Creative would be with high-end speakers if your motherboard audio is too noisy, and for better EAX support.

I only use my gaming system for games not music, but the onboard audio on the Asus A8N-E works well in games with the Logitech X-530 5.1 speakers I'm using.

 

[Ghouler]

@Swampthing,
Sure you can give a new card a try but you probably won't avoid CPU hit. It is less important then it was in the past though.
But if you had static with different sound cards it may be a bad grounding for the computer or the speakers as well you know. I would try moving both to another power point
(different circuit if you can) to test out. Also make sure sound card does not touch any other card or cables inside of the PC case.

 

[A5]

Originally posted by: Swampthing
I guess the root of my problem is that i'm so fed up with creative's driver's and their lack of driver support and am grasping at any alternative at all to using a creative card that's remotely any good. I've never been overly happy with my XFi as it seems to still have the static noise problem that all my other creative cards have had. And now that EAX is really kinda irrelevant, i guess i was looking at alternatives. I've had an M-audio board in the past but my god that thing was terrible for CPU utilization in games so that got dumped fast.

Just looking for any reasonable solution other than creative.

Well, the M-Audio cards have no Vista driver AT ALL, so that's not really an option. I'm stuck with my craptastic onboard audio now, and I'm actually pretty close to getting a X-Fi because they at least have a driver out.

I think the Auzentech cards have Vista drivers out, but like anything non-Creative they won't support any EAX features beyond version 2, and the 3D audio will have a pretty big performance hit, especially if you enable the DD or DTS encoding.

Once more games are using OpenAL, the situation will be right back where it was before Vista wrt 3D sound (that is, Creative will have low CPU usage and more 3D features, but other cards will have better sound quality).

 

[Keleka]

I've been a creative card owner for years and they have always been behind the ballgame when it comes to having sound card drivers that work well with any window OS. Now the big question as the gentleman above mentioned is really valid. We bought these cards for EAX and the hardware sound acceleration for the most part. Windows Vista doesn't utilize those to features let alone direct sound. So the question is why have an after market sound card at all if its design purpose isn't used?

Realkek Onboard Audio Spec SheetRealtek Onboard Audio Specs

Creative Audigy 4 Spec Sheet

So with Windows Vista the true question is if nothing new takes advantage of what modern sound cards ofter. Why use them?

*Update* After uninstalling my Audigy 4 and enabling onboard sound of my Realtek ALC883 since Windows Vista does not use hardware acceleration in sounds, from this point on unless sound card manufactorers come out with something that really takes advantage of OpenAL or the new sound layers then its not worth wasting money on an add in sound card if your motherboard comes with high definition audio. Of course this is personal opinion alone. I see no noticeable performance or loss of game using onboard sound.

 

[Ghouler]

you overlook a good few things:

(1) A sound card is a sound processor. Onboard sound is just a digital to analog converter with a driver running on CPU. So is it hardware versus software question. I believe software cannot replace hardware. Sure you can have 80 core CPU taking care of everything including your audio, your video, your washing, your dreaming and your walking-the-dog, I still think it is better to have CPU doing just its job and I might make decision myself what I want to use in other areas.

I mean sure you can use onboard graphics as well - it just won't be as good as the job done by the dedicated component. It is same with audio. Data thruput for audio might be smaller but data sensitivity is even higher - this is why dedicated processor makes difference

(2) Full openAL support. Audigy cards have full openAL support. With that any game written to Open AL and not only to Direct X still can be accelerated by audio hardware. With all EAX effects - unlimited to just EAX 2 - which is basic set of extensions from I think around 1997 (where they launched Live card)

(3) ALchemy - there is ALchemy so called wrapper that translates DX3D audio into OpenAL on-the-fly. It is only for X-Fi but everyone expects Creative to add support for Audigy, too.

 

[Keleka]

Originally posted by: Ghouler
you overlook a good few things:

(1) A sound card is a sound processor. Onboard sound is just a digital to analog converter with a driver running on CPU. So is it hardware versus software question. I believe software cannot replace hardware. Sure you can have 80 core CPU taking care of everything including your audio, your video, your washing, your dreaming and your walking-the-dog, I still think it is better to have CPU doing just its job and I might make decision myself what I want to use in other areas.

I mean sure you can use onboard graphics as well - it just won't be as good as the job done by the dedicated component. It is same with audio. Data thruput for audio might be smaller but data sensitivity is even higher - this is why dedicated processor makes difference

(2) Full openAL support. Audigy cards have full openAL support. With that any game written to Open AL and not only to Direct X still can be accelerated by audio hardware. With all EAX effects - unlimited to just EAX 2 - which is basic set of extensions from I think around 1997 (where they launched Live card)

(3) ALchemy - there is ALchemy so called wrapper that translates DX3D audio into OpenAL on-the-fly. It is only for X-Fi but everyone expects Creative to add support for Audigy, too.

What gives Creative cards their umph if you will? Hardware acceleration namely correct? Thats gone in Vista. So your older games don't benifit at all using an add on sound card if your running Vista do they? I can't relate an add in video card to add in sound simply because the latest and greatest video cards are built for Vista and namely DX10.

What made Creative sound great was features like EAX and Direct Sound which are now history from this point on at least. High Definition Intel onboard Audio is actually excellant in sound quality. Nothing like onboard sound was a few years ago.

I guess my argument is that sound doesn't suffer much using onboard in games if at all. Have you ever saw specs on ALC883 Audio? I'll posted the link in the previous thread. I guess i'm taking a look at sound hardware from a future perspective. Creative is trying to get their latest cards working well with OLDER games in Windows Vista and with Alchemy have had great success.

New games aren't going to be written around old audio formats eventually. Get what i'm saying? Without hardware acceleration Creative vs high quality onboard sound is pretty much nill in comparison. I haven't noticed much a difference at all pulling my Audigy 4 and using my onboard ALC883. If i spend 150 bucks i want to hear 150 bucks better worth of sound and you wont get that not even with Creative's top card now. In previous OS's you did. OpenAL and onboard sound quality is only gonna improve from this point.

Just for kicks i checked CPU useage while playing a song on WMP that came with Vista. CPU use is 1-2% with onboard sound. Playing COD2 with all settings maxed at 1280x1024 showed 50% CPU use on task manager..

Keleka

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: Keleka
high quality onboard sound

That's an oxymoron right there. You can't have high quality on-board sound, the analog interference along the motherboard alone compared to a dedicated card is enough to make it subpar. As for if dedicated cards will be worth it for other reasons, the answer is "we'll see." In the short-run, having an X-Fi means you get full EAX acceleration on all current and upcoming OpenAL games and a lot of DS3D games(via ALchemy), and lower overall CPU utilization once the release the next driver with all the kinks worked out. In the long-run, it will depend on if Creative is successful pushing OpenAL versus devs opting to use DirectSound in conjunction with a pure-software audio renderer.

 

[Keleka]

Originally posted by: ViRGE

Originally posted by: Keleka
high quality onboard sound

That's an oxymoron right there. You can't have high quality on-board sound, the analog interference along the motherboard alone compared to a dedicated card is enough to make it subpar. As for if dedicated cards will be worth it for other reasons, the answer is "we'll see." In the short-run, having an X-Fi means you get full EAX acceleration on all current and upcoming OpenAL games and a lot of DS3D games(via ALchemy), and lower overall CPU utilization once the release the next driver with all the kinks worked out. In the long-run, it will depend on if Creative is successful pushing OpenAL versus devs opting to use DirectSound in conjunction with a pure-software audio renderer.

Read the specs that i have linked to both sources of sound above. Both use Digital to Analog coversions as well as Analog to Digital. and both have SPDIF digital output. You know i never since owning Creative cards have used EAX outside of what sounds the game assigned to it. Most gamers in fact bought Creative cards because they helped remove cpu load. We have duel and quad core processors that don't suffer that deficiency anymore. What does that mean to me? Well hardware acceleration don't carry as much weight as it used to.

Personally speaking as of right now. I see no reason to go purchase an X-fi card. I'm actually going to waiting for a card that takes full advantage of OpenAL and Directx 10. Creative isn't the only name in computer audio for what its worth. It's just the biggest name. If i was a sound card manufactorer i would want to be the first kid on the block to get an add on sound chip/card certified for Windows Vista thats for sure. Their are none right now that i can find but i would almost bet Creative, Turtle Beach or some other company is rushing to get that certification. I would be if i was a sound card company.

Don't take me for an expert i'm not . My opinions are based on what i know and don't necessarily make them right ..

 

[ViRGE]

I'll go through these one by one:

Both use Digital to Analog coversions as well as Analog to Digital. and both have SPDIF digital output.

Umm, what? You have to use DACs and ADCs in a soundcard, since all the audio processing is done on digital data. This is equivalent to saying a motherboard includes a socket for a processor. As for the quality of those components, the ALC883 is rated for 95db SnR, while the Audigy Value is rated for 100, and the X-Fi at 109. SnR becomes increasingly meanless after a certain point, but that point is about 100db; at 95db you're going to be able to recognize problems. And the 85db on the ADC is atrocious, though I don't expect anyone to ever hook up anything besides a mic to the ALC883 anyhow.

You know i never since owning Creative cards have used EAX outside of what sounds the game assigned to it. Most gamers in fact bought Creative cards because they helped remove cpu load. We have duel and quad core processors that don't suffer that deficiency anymore. What does that mean to me? Well hardware acceleration don't carry as much weight as it used to.

You make a valid point here to a degree. We do have more CPU these days, but that doesn't mean we need to be wasting it. Much like video rendering, we can always aspire towards better sound quality, and that means more processing is required to do so. Good head related transfer functions(HRTFs) are still too CPU intensive for general use, never mind multiple-order reflections and other processing techniques. Tying audio to the CPU means we're effectively giving up on any sort of meaningful improvement in audio quality, just take a look at the features and performance of integrated video on motherboards.

Personally speaking as of right now. I see no reason to go purchase an X-fi card. I'm actually going to waiting for a card that takes full advantage of OpenAL and Directx 10.

Huh? Cards that fully utilize OpenAL are already on the market(the X-Fi being the biggest one of course), and DirectX10 doesn't include any significant new features for audio. In this respect it's not like video, Microsoft isn't mandating a bunch of new audio features with every DX revision.

Creative isn't the only name in computer audio for what its worth. It's just the biggest name. If i was a sound card manufacturer i would want to be the first kid on the block to get an add on sound chip/card certified for Windows Vista thats for sure. Their are none right now that i can find but i would almost bet Creative, Turtle Beach or some other company is rushing to get that certification. I would be if i was a sound card company.

For obvious reasons, Microsoft isn't on good terms with about anyone other than Realtek, C-Media, etc. Vista made their lives a great deal easier as Vista does everything except the A/D conversions, so now making an integrated audio product is as simple as selling a DAC+ADC and a driver so Windows knows about it. However for all the guys making discrete audio cards, their lives have been turned upside down because they have to rebuild most of the components of their drivers, and Vista doesn't allow the low-level access that XP did that would make all of this easy. Certainly the discrete manufactures are working towards Vista certification since the lack of it will hurt sales, however as difficult as it is they're going to have to cut down on their product lines due to the chilling effect Vista has.

 

[Gautama2]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: locutus12

Originally posted by: catalysts17az
I have no proof when it comes to Vista (gonna skip Vista anyway, too much DRM) weather or not there is a difference in sound but, with a sound card your CPU wont be loosing cycles processing sound. So for that reason alone then if you don't want precious cycles being used to process sound use your sound card.

Unless you own a DFi board, their onboard sound systems are legendary.

Since all audio is software decoded in Vista, owning a sound card is really a waste.

Unless your using ASIO or Kernel Streaming, but thats not used in games.

 

[ViRGE]

Originally posted by: Gautama2

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: locutus12

Originally posted by: catalysts17az
I have no proof when it comes to Vista (gonna skip Vista anyway, too much DRM) weather or not there is a difference in sound but, with a sound card your CPU wont be loosing cycles processing sound. So for that reason alone then if you don't want precious cycles being used to process sound use your sound card.

Unless you own a DFi board, their onboard sound systems are legendary.

Since all audio is software decoded in Vista, owning a sound card is really a waste.

Unless your using ASIO or Kernel Streaming, but thats not used in games.

Don't forget OpenAL.

 

[Keleka]

Umm, what? You have to use DACs and ADCs in a soundcard, since all the audio processing is done on digital data. This is equivalent to saying a motherboard includes a socket for a processor. As for the quality of those components, the ALC883 is rated for 95db SnR, while the Audigy Value is rated for 100, and the X-Fi at 109. SnR becomes increasingly meanless after a certain point, but that point is about 100db; at 95db you're going to be able to recognize problems. And the 85db on the ADC is atrocious, though I don't expect anyone to ever hook up anything besides a mic to the ALC883 anyhow.

Actually most of my games and music sound perfectly fine on the ALC883. I'm using Microsofts WHQL drivers atm. Realteks control panel has EAX settings you can adjust again i don't use it. I think you are taking this to a technical level that i or most never intend to reach. But thank you for the sincere non inflamatory! debating. I use my PC for gaming and surfing and email as well as watching a DVD here and there. I don't use my PC to record music or for studio sound editing and the likes. So i'm just voicing my personal opinion in relation to how I use my PC.

You make a valid point here to a degree. We do have more CPU these days, but that doesn't mean we need to be wasting it. Much like video rendering, we can always aspire towards better sound quality, and that means more processing is required to do so. Good head related transfer functions(HRTFs) are still too CPU intensive for general use, never mind multiple-order reflections and other processing techniques. Tying audio to the CPU means we're effectively giving up on any sort of meaningful improvement in audio quality, just take a look at the features and performance of integrated video on motherboards

Again i'm speaking from a gamer perspective not music industry proffessional if you will. I look at how will my system perform under conditions i use it for. Again I'm just your average hard core gamer like a majority of PC users are that likes voice in games but thats the extent of my audio needs. I'm in the Audigy/Live group of Creative card owners. X-Fi dont mean alot. They are actually doing a wonderful job on getting that card to do things using work arounds "Alchemy" So the question is how or if the Audigy 4 has any better sound quality then the Realtek ALC883 from a spending another $150.00 for an X-Fi perspective.
I'm looking forward to NEW games not old games of the past so why pay for something that doesn't give me all i paid for.. Make sense?

For obvious reasons, Microsoft isn't on good terms with about anyone other than Realtek, C-Media, etc. Vista made their lives a great deal easier as Vista does everything except the A/D conversions, so now making an integrated audio product is as simple as selling a DAC+ADC and a driver so Windows knows about it. However for all the guys making discrete audio cards, their lives have been turned upside down because they have to rebuild most of the components of their drivers, and Vista doesn't allow the low-level access that XP did that would make all of this easy. Certainly the discrete manufactures are working towards Vista certification since the lack of it will hurt sales, however as difficult as it is they're going to have to cut down on their product lines due to the chilling effect Vista has.

I agree with you. I'm not saying i like how MS handled sound in Vista but whats done is done so we have to look foward. They aren't gonna back up the OS just to make sound card manufacturers happy are they? I think your gonna see some new sound cards come out fairly soon agree. I still stand by my advice that onboard sound is actually quite decent for most people's demands and they should wait for newer sound cards to come out The first person/company to market a high quality sound card that has the Certified for Windows Vista logo on it is gonna be one rich company. The X-Fi will never get that logo imho.

Again thanks for the discussion.

 

[ViRGE]

Alright, I get where you're going with this. So here's a slightly less techy argument on why discrete soundcards are better:

1. Onboard audio tends to use subpar equipment for doing analog/digital conversions. This means that any audio coming in or out will have more background noise/hiss than with a discrete card. Also, motherboards are very noisy, as they have all sorts of power and signal lines running all over the place, and this causes interference on the lines going from the audio controller to the analog audio ports; discrete cards don't have this problem because they have the large space of a PCI(-e) board to work with and which is isolated from the motherboard. This isn't something you have to be an audio professional to hear, even listening to a quiet song on your computer may be enough that you can hear the noise.
2. The things I mentioned about multiple-order reflections and HRTFs should be important to you, since they're related to gaming. HRTFs are how the audio card morphs an audio stream to make it sound like it's coming from a direction where there is no speaker, this is critical for headphone users and has a lot to do with how 3D positional sound works so well. I'll skip the reflection talk, but it falls in to the same area.
3. The above require either a lot of CPU time or a dedicated DSP for audio processing, this is something an integrated solution can't compete in.
4. Integrated solutions also can't compete on features; Creative only made EAX 1 and 2 open standards, 3 and higher are closed. EAX 2 does a good enough job to establish where sounds are coming from, but is inferior in how it handles morphing sounds to fit an environment(or multiple environments), nor does it allow more than 32 distinct sounds at once(these go by quickly when you have multiple guns going off, for example). This is actually one of the big differences between what you have and even an Audigy, where you can get 64 voices and all the environmental effects.
5. New games will still use the features of discrete cards, just in a different way. Instead of using the EAX feature set through the now-defunct DirectSound3D, they will use OpenAL. However I will fully admit that no one knows in the long run whether this will be the de-facto standard or not. Games may choose just to use software-only engines, but at least for the next couple of years there's already a well-established lists of engines and games that will be using OpenAL.
6. Microsoft did need to rewrite the Windows audio stack, but they could have done a better job about it. They basically decided to make Windows do all the work(presumably so that there weren't any weaknesses in the chain to break DRM implementations) when they could have put hooks in to help the providers of discrete solutions.
7. The X-Fi will get certified, it may take some time, but it's too important to X-Fi sales to pass up.

At any rate, if you're happy with your integrated audio solution that's fine, I'm certainly not trying to make you sour. However as a technical solution, integrated audio falls short of the needs of everyone other than basic home and office users, and that discrete audio card manufacturers can offer a better product. As a hardcore gamer I bet you could appreciate the difference even an Audigy makes(unless you have headphones), and I'm a bit surprised that you'd go to an integrated audio solution unless the only games you had been playing didn't support OpenAL at all(since you can't currently get ALchemy for the Audigy).

 

[Ghouler]

keleka,
it is not true what you are saying about no hardware acceleration under Vista. There is no hardware acceleration for Direct X titles in Vista itself - but it does not decrease X-Fi functionality under Vista - yes - it still processes sound in hardware.

If you install Creative application called ALchemy - even old games work with hardware acceleration under Vista. While new games in OpenAL do not require this and will run on X-Fi hardware under Vista, too.

ALchemy link - hardware acceleration for DX games in Vista

It is not all just about hardware accelerated audio in games, either.
One of the features X-Fi has is the 24 bit betterizer. It works fine for some mp3 but it really enhances sound from internet radio. I have pandora on all the time. This X-Fi 24 bit betterizer makes it sound much much better IMO.

Vista might be a stop gap OS like Windows Millenium was. I am perfectly fine with XP if I upgrade this will be ubuntu. I wish there was X-Fi driver for linux.

You prefer onboard sound that is a plain codec with a driver for piece of code run on CPU. Fair enough. I admit one thing - it is cheaper solution then extra card as it cost virtually nothing. So if you get something for "free" you on the win. (see my sig ) But don't tell me cheapest codec with a driver for code run on CPU is technically and sonically better then dedicated sound card.

I prefer dedicated piece of hardware to take care of sound, same as I prefer to have graphics card for graphics.

 

[tkistre]

This is one of more interesting debates I've read in while. I am not using Vista at this time. I use a computer for gaming, research, email and some video editing (mostly personal stuff for friends and family.) I haven't used a dedicated sound card in at least 4 years. The motherboards I've used usually have the better onboard audio than the cheaper boards. I can definately see what all of you have been saying on the technical side, and I believe that is important. For myself, the onboard solutions I've been using have been sufficient for me.

When everyone talks about the onboard audio using more CPU cycles and not performing as good as a dedicated sound card, my main question is this. Even if it is, will I see any real world performance difference? Synthetic benchmarks in lots of test/comparisms will show one product out performing another by what appears a considerable amount, but in real world performance, it is nil. What are your thoughts on this?

 

[Philippine Mango]

Originally posted by: tkistre
This is one of more interesting debates I've read in while. I am not using Vista at this time. I use a computer for gaming, research, email and some video editing (mostly personal stuff for friends and family.) I haven't used a dedicated sound card in at least 4 years. The motherboards I've used usually have the better onboard audio than the cheaper boards. I can definately see what all of you have been saying on the technical side, and I believe that is important. For myself, the onboard solutions I've been using have been sufficient for me.

When everyone talks about the onboard audio using more CPU cycles and not performing as good as a dedicated sound card, my main question is this. Even if it is, will I see any real world performance difference? Synthetic benchmarks in lots of test/comparisms will show one product out performing another by what appears a considerable amount, but in real world performance, it is nil. What are your thoughts on this?

Well considering the X-Fi improves framerates from an audigy 2zs, yes I'd say there is something tangible from onboard and X-Fi...

 

[tkistre]

Ok, let's take framerates per say. If my framerates go from 100 fps to 125 fps by adding a sound card, I wouldn't be able to tell the difference. You see what I'm saying, no real world performance. Of course I just made those numbers up, I don't know how many framerate it would increase, but after a certain point, it really doesn't matter, th human eye can not tell the difference. My PC has 2GB memory, Athlon64 4200+, 7900GS OC video card on Asus nForce 4 motherboard with onboard sound. I play F.E.A.R., Counterstrike: Source, Splinter Cell (latest) and a few others. None of the games stutter or have any problems performance wise, so if I added a dedicated audio card, would I see any performance gain?