1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

Does the Sound Card affect performance?

Discussion in 'ATI' started by Mike B, Jan 9, 2004.

  1. Mike B

    Mike B Guest

    I wondered if the sound card affects performance, framerate wise. Like say,
    if i have onboard sound.. fairly crappy onboard sound, would it affect my
    fps.

    If so, what is the best sound card to get which has a minimal hit on
    performance?
     
    Mike B, Jan 9, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Mike B

    Vellu Guest

    It might, in a game that has a lot of 3D positioned sound (30+ channels). As
    to which card offers best performance, I have no idea. Creative Audigy
    series is atleast advertised to offer performance. But in comparison with
    onboard audio, I believe almost any current audio card will be an
    improvement. In more ways then just performance.
     
    Vellu, Jan 9, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Mike B

    Andrew Guest

    That is true for some onboard sound, but certainly not all.
     
    Andrew, Jan 9, 2004
    #3
  4. Mike B

    Glzmo Guest

    It all comes down to how CPU dependant the soundchip is. The less CPU
    dependant the soundchip, the more CPU cycles are available for everything
    else in the system.
     
    Glzmo, Jan 9, 2004
    #4
  5. Mike B

    JAD Guest

    sound cards are only as good as their drivers. Having processing done on card is a plus but if your setting 3d, eax, surround, quad
    etc. if the drivers suck the game can falter and crash. Many game problems with crashing that are stubborn troubleshooting problems
    often lead to sound related stuff.
     
    JAD, Jan 9, 2004
    #5
  6. Mike B

    John Russell Guest

    Someone ran the 3dmark sound tests to see the difference and if you have a
    powerful card it really dosn't matter. All I can remember about them was the
    Audigy was the best "card" for lowest cpu loadings, but the winner was the
    nforce2 soundstorm APU!
     
    John Russell, Jan 9, 2004
    #6
  7. Mike B

    Mark Guest

    Yes, really cheap ones would use your CPU to do most of the work.

    Generally speaking you get what you pay for. As others have said if you
    want all the extra sound processing effects
    3D spatial, environment effects etc, then a good card would do a lot of the
    work on board rather than asking the cpu to wok things out.

    In my own experience Audigy 2 is one of the better cards in this respect
    when doing 3D and EAX etc.

    Also some cheaper cards with inferior performance and poor drivers you might
    end up disabling much of the hardware acceleration in Direct Sound (via
    dxdiag program) if you have problems.

    Regards,

    Mark
     
    Mark, Jan 9, 2004
    #7
  8. Mike B

    DaveW Guest

    On-board sound uses CPU cycles, so you get lower frame rates.
     
    DaveW, Jan 10, 2004
    #8
  9. Mike B

    John Russell Guest

    I'm afraid the arrival of the Nvidia soundstorm APU means you can't
    generalise this way.
     
    John Russell, Jan 10, 2004
    #9
  10. Mike B

    Darthy Guest


    Typical onboard sound, yes. Same with video... hence, Intel's
    on-board solutions tend to be the shittiest. with their "3DExtreme" -
    extreme what?!

    I think the SUPER Video card reviews should include onboard video.
     
    Darthy, Jan 11, 2004
    #10
  11. Mike B

    Strontium Guest

    -
    Darthy stood up at show-n-tell, in
    , and said:
    WHY? Mr. 'uptight, I can't handle WPA'? WHY?
     
    Strontium, Jan 11, 2004
    #11
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.