SB Live 5.1 vs Asus AD1985 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?SoundMAC=AE?=

I have just built a PC from someone with the following specs...

Asus P4P800-SE motherboard with this on board sound device...
ADI AD 1985 SoundMAX® 6-Channel CODEC
Audio Sensing and Enumeration Technology
S/PDIF out interface support

P4 2.8Ghz
512 MB DDR400

Although it might not be to much of a big deal with a 2.8Ghz processor,
I have the on board sound device disabled in the BIOS because I was
afraid the take some resources. So for now, I have opted for a Sound
Blaster Live 5.1 taken from another PC.

Basicaly, which is better?
Thanks in advance
Eddie Crismond

 

Go for the SB 5.1 I tried the on board sound card and although it was
acceptable the SB is better.

Locust

 

| Go for the SB 5.1 I tried the on board sound card and although it
was
| acceptable the SB is better.
|
| Locust
|
| On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 14:51:21 -0400, "@(none)" <""cris\"@(none)">
| wrote:
|
| >
| >
| >I have just built a PC from someone with the following specs...
| >
| >Asus P4P800-SE motherboard with this on board sound device...
| >ADI AD 1985 SoundMAX® 6-Channel CODEC
| >Audio Sensing and Enumeration Technology
| >S/PDIF out interface support
| >
| >P4 2.8Ghz
| >512 MB DDR400
| >
| >Although it might not be to much of a big deal with a 2.8Ghz
processor,
| >I have the on board sound device disabled in the BIOS because I was
| >afraid the take some resources. So for now, I have opted for a
Sound
| >Blaster Live 5.1 taken from another PC.
| >
| >Basicaly, which is better?
| >Thanks in advance
| >Eddie Crismond
| >


you may be surprised to find out which "sound system" requires more
CPU cycles or system resources. It would not surprise me if the
SBLive drivers eat more CPU than the onboard solution. I'm certain the
sblive is not conservative in allocating memory for soundfonts. I
typically try and minimize the amount of memory allocated to
soundfonts with my SBLive 5.1 (sb0100 card).

 

sblive of course (because its bigger and fatter)