Discussion in 'Soundcards, Speakers HiFI & File formats' started by playst, Jan 2, 2013.
how was i proven wrong can u tell me in detail plz.....
yes, old games actually..
what games? Dude I have used many soundcards since the early-mid 90, including Gravis UltraSound, various Creative Labs cards (AdLib, SB Pro, also AWE32, Live etc), also Asus sound cards. Not saying I'm a sound snob, but I always tend to run a sound card (or in certain cases back in the day even 2 sound cards) so I would say I have some experience. I've also ran a numerous amount of on-board chips. I can tell you now there was NOT ONE occasion when I upgraded my sound card to get better fps. I upgraded to get better sound.
Nobody buys them to gain frame rates. Please show me a chart where sound card offers a noticeable fps improvement over on-board sound. Also, you asking if there's difference in fps between Titanium HD and ZxR is completely out of whack, nobody is thinking about that when buying a sound card because there simply isn't any measurable difference.
The burden of proof lies upon the claimant. The little proof you've provided I've refuted, you had no comeback. Are you seriously pushing this? Just man up and admit to being wrong. My word.
did u read the 2 links i posted?
Old games meaning <2004. And that's the era when EAX reigned supreme; with hardware processed sound being standard developer coding practice. That hasn't been the case in years. Fast CPU decoded sound rendering algorithms are the standard now.
I can't think of a single game made in 2004 or before that which wouldn't already be getting hundreds of FPS with a Conroe CPU and a midrange GPU.
yes. the first link shows X-Fi XtremeMusic (which I owned for some 3 years btw) at 640x480. a resolution nobody ever used for gaming in 2005. it's like benching cpus at 800x600 and going "wow, look at this, massive improvement blah blah blah". doesn't work like that. I can run any benchmark on my SB Z and onboard chip and they will return pretty much identical results.
It's like saying that running mouse/keyboard with a high polling rate (1000Hz) will decrease performance. It won't. Yes, it's more resource heavy, but you'll never see any difference.
so with newer dx11 titles (crysis3, nfs mw 2013, sleeping dogs and tomb raider etc...) it doesnt matter if i have an x-fi extreme music or x-fi titanium HD or zxr, all sound decoding will be done through the cpu...
but what about older hardwares like intel E8500 and mobo with i975x chipsets?
Yes, unfortunately. Sound card/onboard chips just do secondary processing on the decoded audio data and then output to your speakers/headphones. They make a difference on output quality, but not performance.
e8500 will suck in most games nowadays, no matter how many sound cards you put in that rig. I don't really understand what you're trying to say here.
What he doesn't understand is that there's no way around the CPU calculated sound component in modern games. You can't cheat your way around that no matter what. The only option is buying a new CPU.
And to be honest, the sound processing routines don't even take up that much CPU, even on games like BF3. The CPU will struggle because of other aspects of the game far more than it will due to sound.
also, ever since I remember, nobody ever bought a sound card to improve their fps.
i am asking will upgrading my sound card to titanium HD from xtrememusic make any difference; a simple YES or NO answer will suffice...
yes, it'll improve your sound.
no, you will not see any fps increase. I've pretty much made that clear above a few times already.
You, Sir, are MISTAKEN! I have benched Crysis at 800x600 LOW, with (onboard) and without sound (disabled), on an i7 930 @3.61GHz. I got:
133.10/168.1/211.93 FPS with no sound.
121.39/161.125/202.25 FPS with sound.
THIS could have meant (by a chimp hair) the difference between maintaining 120FPS min and not maintaining 120FPS min.
This is fantastic for owners of 120Hz 5" LCDs and 1950s CRTs! 800x600 120Hz gaming with pixellated trees in all its glory!
But...oh...I don't have a 120Hz monitor, neither do I play at 800x600...oh well (back to bed).
(HINT: I hope this post is taken humorously. No offense is intended to anyone at all)
how of cpu does the sound processing routines take up? sound blaster Z series vs X-fi titanium series
in terms of what?
ati666, new games more often than not use software-based audio processing. If I am not mistaken, this audio processing is handled by the CPU and not by the card, judging by its proprietary nature (as games can use their own audio engines). Creative cards, AFAIK, accelerate EAX- and OpenCL- based audio, meaning you most probably won't even have the card processing audio in hardware.
This immediately makes any comparisons in performance between a soundcard and onboard (or another soundcard) a moot point.
Anyways, if you give me around 2 weeks, I'll be benching with my friend's Sound Blaster Z, on my i7 930 and his i7 3770K. Perhaps I'll get a Conroe rig as well, as well as a Pentium 4 rig, if you like (to show extreme cases). I would be able to give you cold hard numbers.
ok, so its better if i just stick with my current xfi extreme music?