Athlonix: doesn't matter what swanky features they add, it's still in the mobo thus experience massive amounts of interference, some have a riser card that puts the stuff that makes the digital signals into analog away from the mobo but they're still not as good as a dedicated sound card.
-
-
The perfomance impact of onboard is extreme. Next point is audio quality. with REAL directsound support the audio quality is superior to onboard ****. Then, audigy and X-Fi cards support more than only 16 or 32 channels in hardware. The realtek wont. Even if the driver says: Directsound supportet it is all done in software. The Realtek only simulates hardware acceleration to increase compatibility.
The Hd standard is quite fine today, in terms of music quality its good enough. But never compare it to a real DSP, especially if you never had such a card.
You will even have more frames with an ISA Soundblaster 16 than with Realtek, but on this old cards EAX isnt emulated.Comment
-
then the game developers should just focus on opengl instead. imagine crysis with forced aa. lawlOriginally posted by Athlonix View PostComment
-
i'd argue that point on the grounds of the performance hit is negible, i used to run a Yamaha card (love my audio) but after problems, and space issues in the case, i decided to try realtekaudio, i know scarey thought, i'm running a optical 7.1 HD off the board and the framerate is still holding strong, while i appreciate a separate audio processor the new chips seems to work very well.Originally posted by [FfFC]_-(MAD)-_ View PostComment
-
as far as i know the dx 10.1 cards have on-die memory just for AA, which means you will have no performance difference with AA turned on or off. at least thats what nvidia planned, dunno about the new ati cards if they got that feature or not. and thats why theres forced AA, or the forced AA is the reason for the on-die memory. either way, thats how it works.Originally posted by Latera1us View PostComment
-
i think it's worth noting having a hardware audio card lowers framerate, BUT the audio tends to outweigh the frame loss, i mean were talking 2-3 fps, which isn't much.Comment
-
Not only 2-3 Frames. Depends on how much frames you have, and if EAX is enabled.
if you have an average framerate of 70, a Audigy would pump up it to 75 - 80 likely. And: 3D sound quality is dramatically increased. You get more sound sources (depends on settings) and your CPU isnt working that hard to give you some audio.Comment
-
Thanks for the responses regarding on board vs. dedicated hardware.
In my experience it seems the latest games... Cross-platform games... Just have better compatibility and performance using on board audio than a sound card. I don't know if this is because of how the games are coded... And it might be on a game-to-game basis... But I have had no problems and better frame rates than when I had my Audigy 2 installed.
However, I agree the sound quality is much better with a sound card too. There is more discrete separation of channels, true EAX and other features. But again, certain games seem to run slower than others when using a sound card vs. the integrated chip and for now I've decided to just stick with on board. I wouldn't do this if I had a three year old motherboard, though...Comment
-
memory is something, but you still need higher processing power for aa, maybe they make a separate processing unit just for aa, like they made with the unified shader architecture for shader operations.Originally posted by gouki666 View PostComment
-
nobody will disagree xp is faster
but when i run games in DX9 with the XP Sp2 mode in vista, crysis for instance, looks like a flat *** game with no colour vibrance. It looks really really gross.Comment
-
hick...
don't tell me about system capabilities, various system setups.. and state that you've used several dozen "countless" machines and say that none of them seem to perform any different.. either your completely full of **** or well, i guess to a less tone, just lieing.
The nforce 680i has had issues, LOTS of issues, while alot of the problems have been resolved.... there are still some that are prevailent.. that's why a number of people don't use the 680i boards for thier top end machines, because they just aren't reliable performance wise. Top it off, nvidia royally sucks for providing decent vista drivers... guaranteed, running vista on that board chipset isn't going to be all that great.
MSI board, was it nforce as well?
Tell you what, when you setup that 8800 on a intel x38 or even a p35, and install all the drivers nessary for it.... hell i'll even throw out a cheap board that doesn't pretty **** good while not providing all that much for bios options... which is a Asus P5K-SE..... or if you want, perhaps a asus maximus x38 or gigabyte DQ6 x38 board would be your top end for todays motherboard markets..... intel does up a **** good high performing chipset for xp and vista.. and intel has put alot of effort into making vista work **** well with it.
Got a creative x-fi.... get rid of it if you using vista.. it'll only hurt the results even more... absalute garbage is the term used for creative....
Don't bother with ADI or any other onboard solution.... excluding realtek....
realtek ALC88x series HD onboard solutions typically have the best performance and quality for sound devices in windows vista.... top it off, if you get a realtek hd solution with dolgy digital live! or DTS connect... your set for the best surround sound experience with very little to no frame rate impacts (onboard solutions are always improveing)
Your likely to see even less of a performance impact using an ATI card... i won't explain why AGAIN.... but depending on the hardware in use, between windows xp and vista, the performance in marginal and within margins of error.... occasionally i've seen significant performance improvements in vista over xp in a number of games ranging from so old it was difficult to get working in xp.. but apparently works flawlessly in vista.... to brand spanking new...
UT99 comes to mind as one of the games that has a ***** of a time working in xp and works wonderfully in vista with no extra work involved... Mind you yes, with alot of work, you can get ut to run in xp.. trust me.. it's not nearly as smoothy silk as it is in vista... specially with the HRes textures in use...
I could rattle of a number of other games as well that show the same results...
All i know is that yes, quite often with a 8800 or any nvidia video card i've touched with vista, has always performed under par...Comment
-
I'm not sure if its related to peoples dvd drive issues and other problems, but if you have a spare 10-20 mins read this. Its an analysis of basically the DRM in Vista.
One of the reasons i'm not going to go vista for at least a long while.
Another is Someone i know's laptop doesn't work with drivers for almost anything at all, from USB flash drives to digital cameras. I have no idea why, even when you update drivers.Comment
-
I don't think the problems are related. Everything that i read said vista's DRM was the same as XP's except for the addition of the HDCP ****.I'm not sure if its related to peoples dvd drive issues and other problems, but if you have a spare 10-20 mins read this. Its an analysis of basically the DRM in Vista.Comment
-
hey aa4x and af16x plz? k thanks.Originally posted by Im a Chef View PostHick here are some screenshots of the map u were talking about with my max res and it was a solid fps the whole time
I did not know what corner but here are two corners lol bad bot bad
Comment
-
Negative, you can get the full Vista software package for X-Fi cards at this link:Originally posted by DHJudas View Post
http://www.youp-pax.org/viewthread.p...extra=page%3D1
My experience is just the opposite. UT99 runs better on XP than Vista and I use Chris Dohnals enhanced OpenGL renderer. I run an 8800GTX. As I said before, it may be a different story for ATI users.Originally posted by DHJudas View Post
Much to my surprise, there is one game in particular, that does run better on Vista than XP, and that is BF2.
I'm going to run some more tests, because the thing I can't figure out is why Unreal Editor for UT3 runs so much better in Vista than XP. I'm going to try and to edit the UTEngine.ini file and change the AllowD3D10 option from true to false and see if that helps in Vista. I'll post back and let you know.Comment
Comment