«

On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 09:23:07 +1300, "parrot" <parrot@bird> wrote:

>
>"Mathew Good" <> wrote in message
>news:.. .
>> On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:21:24 +1300, "parrot" <parrot@bird> wrote:
>>
>>>I don't know what will be better, a pci soundblaster live or onboard audio
>>>ADI AD1986A as found in the nvidia geforce 6150 chipset, what I mean by
>>>better is cpu utilization, reliability, compatibility and quality(not how
>>>many channels of sound) of sound and anything else vital I might not have
>>>thought of. And no I can't test this out for myself and it will affect my
>>>purchasing.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> If into games the Soundblaster only uses 4% of the CPU, no onboard sound
>> chip currently sold can
>> compete.
>>
>
>What difference are we talking about though, does onboard use 5% for the
>same speed cpu for example or is the difference a lot greater?
>



No some 20% and more due to its total use of the CPU..

"Mathew Good" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 09:23:07 +1300, "parrot" <parrot@bird> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mathew Good" <> wrote in message
>>news:. ..
>>> On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:21:24 +1300, "parrot" <parrot@bird> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I don't know what will be better, a pci soundblaster live or onboard
>>>>audio
>>>>ADI AD1986A as found in the nvidia geforce 6150 chipset, what I mean by
>>>>better is cpu utilization, reliability, compatibility and quality(not
>>>>how
>>>>many channels of sound) of sound and anything else vital I might not
>>>>have
>>>>thought of. And no I can't test this out for myself and it will affect
>>>>my
>>>>purchasing.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If into games the Soundblaster only uses 4% of the CPU, no onboard sound
>>> chip currently sold can
>>> compete.
>>>
>>
>>What difference are we talking about though, does onboard use 5% for the
>>same speed cpu for example or is the difference a lot greater?
>>
>
>
>
> No some 20% and more due to its total use of the CPU..
>

Thanks but do you know what the onboard audio chip I asked about is like?

On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 12:20:25 +1300, "parrot" <parrot@bird> wrote:

>
>"Mathew Good" <> wrote in message
>news:.. .
>> On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 09:23:07 +1300, "parrot" <parrot@bird> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Mathew Good" <> wrote in message
>>>news: ...
>>>> On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:21:24 +1300, "parrot" <parrot@bird> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I don't know what will be better, a pci soundblaster live or onboard
>>>>>audio
>>>>>ADI AD1986A as found in the nvidia geforce 6150 chipset, what I mean by
>>>>>better is cpu utilization, reliability, compatibility and quality(not
>>>>>how
>>>>>many channels of sound) of sound and anything else vital I might not
>>>>>have
>>>>>thought of. And no I can't test this out for myself and it will affect
>>>>>my
>>>>>purchasing.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If into games the Soundblaster only uses 4% of the CPU, no onboard sound
>>>> chip currently sold can
>>>> compete.
>>>>
>>>
>>>What difference are we talking about though, does onboard use 5% for the
>>>same speed cpu for example or is the difference a lot greater?
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> No some 20% and more due to its total use of the CPU..
>>
>
>Thanks but do you know what the onboard audio chip I asked about is like?
>




All of THEM..

Only the Nvidia one was OK..


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SoundStorm

Here is a link I just found


http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q4...i/index.x?pg=7

On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:21:24 +1300, "parrot" <parrot@bird> wrote:

>I don't know what will be better, a pci soundblaster live or onboard audio
>ADI AD1986A as found in the nvidia geforce 6150 chipset, what I mean by
>better is cpu utilization, reliability, compatibility and quality(not how
>many channels of sound) of sound and anything else vital I might not have
>thought of. And no I can't test this out for myself and it will affect my
>purchasing.
>



http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Ha...mvp/print.html

parrot wrote:
> "Mathew Good" <> wrote in message
> news:...
> > On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 09:23:07 +1300, "parrot" <parrot@bird> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > "Mathew Good" <> wrote in message
> > > news:...
> > > > On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:21:24 +1300, "parrot" <parrot@bird>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > I don't know what will be better, a pci soundblaster live or
> > > > > onboard audio
> > > > > ADI AD1986A as found in the nvidia geforce 6150 chipset, what
> > > > > I mean by better is cpu utilization, reliability,
> > > > > compatibility and quality(not how
> > > > > many channels of sound) of sound and anything else vital I
> > > > > might not have
> > > > > thought of. And no I can't test this out for myself and it
> > > > > will affect my
> > > > > purchasing.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If into games the Soundblaster only uses 4% of the CPU, no
> > > > onboard sound chip currently sold can
> > > > compete.
> > > >
> > >
> > > What difference are we talking about though, does onboard use 5%
> > > for the same speed cpu for example or is the difference a lot
> > > greater?
> >
> >
> >
> > No some 20% and more due to its total use of the CPU..
> >
>
> Thanks but do you know what the onboard audio chip I asked about is
> like?

Parrot, a small suggestion; Ask Roger (AKA "Mathew") for citations for his
claims, he's a notorious maker-upper or uses 'data' that is several
generations old.
--
Shaun.

On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 13:56:18 +1300, "~misfit~" <> wrote:

>parrot wrote:
>> "Mathew Good" <> wrote in message
>> news:...
>> > On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 09:23:07 +1300, "parrot" <parrot@bird> wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > > "Mathew Good" <> wrote in message
>> > > news:...
>> > > > On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:21:24 +1300, "parrot" <parrot@bird>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > > I don't know what will be better, a pci soundblaster live or
>> > > > > onboard audio
>> > > > > ADI AD1986A as found in the nvidia geforce 6150 chipset, what
>> > > > > I mean by better is cpu utilization, reliability,
>> > > > > compatibility and quality(not how
>> > > > > many channels of sound) of sound and anything else vital I
>> > > > > might not have
>> > > > > thought of. And no I can't test this out for myself and it
>> > > > > will affect my
>> > > > > purchasing.
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > If into games the Soundblaster only uses 4% of the CPU, no
>> > > > onboard sound chip currently sold can
>> > > > compete.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > What difference are we talking about though, does onboard use 5%
>> > > for the same speed cpu for example or is the difference a lot
>> > > greater?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > No some 20% and more due to its total use of the CPU..
>> >
>>
>> Thanks but do you know what the onboard audio chip I asked about is
>> like?
>
>Parrot, a small suggestion; Ask Roger (AKA "Mathew") for citations for his
>claims, he's a notorious maker-upper or uses 'data' that is several
>generations old.



You are Total Full of Bull with NO Computer training at all, so wind your head in little boy..

Mathew Good wrote:

> All of THEM..
>
> Only the Nvidia one was OK..
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SoundStorm
>
> Here is a link I just found
>
>
> http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q4...i/index.x?pg=7


I found the nvidia one to be totally unsuitable for listening to music
as it would always resample to 48kHz, just like the awefullgy.
Thankfully the x-fi looks to have solved that problem but I will stick
with the one I have which can pass DTS audio at 44.1 without any issues.

Richard wrote:
> Mathew Good wrote:
>
> > All of THEM..
> >
> > Only the Nvidia one was OK..
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SoundStorm

Just as I thought, Roger comes back with a link to the SoundStorm audio that
was included in (some) nForce2 boards four+ years ago and dropped in the
nForce3 chipset.

> > Here is a link I just found
> >
> >
> > http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q4...i/index.x?pg=7


The date on the conclusions page (and in the URL) is 2005. Once again Roger
shows exactly how cutting-edge he really is.
--
Shaun.

> I found the nvidia one to be totally unsuitable for listening to music
> as it would always resample to 48kHz, just like the awefullgy.
> Thankfully the x-fi looks to have solved that problem but I will stick
> with the one I have which can pass DTS audio at 44.1 without any
> issues.

On Thu, 1 Mar 2007 15:33:39 +1300, "~misfit~" <> wrote:

>Richard wrote:
>> Mathew Good wrote:
>>
>> > All of THEM..
>> >
>> > Only the Nvidia one was OK..
>> >
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SoundStorm
>
>Just as I thought, Roger comes back with a link to the SoundStorm audio that
>was included in (some) nForce2 boards four+ years ago and dropped in the
>nForce3 chipset.
>
>> > Here is a link I just found
>> >
>> >
>> > http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q4...i/index.x?pg=7
>
>
>The date on the conclusions page (and in the URL) is 2005. Once again Roger
>shows exactly how cutting-edge he really is.



Please Please Explain you Useless postings, as all are 100% Useless, you are Not a Trained Tech or
computer Eng or have passed any Electrical Regulation tests.

Cutting edge you do not even know what it stand for..

If you know more please post the Links here or Totally shut up..

Mathew Good < wrote in
news::

> ******* they do not for surround and other sound enhancements, The
> Creative's EAX is used, some of the onboard sound chips have support
> for EAX1/2..
>

It does make sense that off loading to a card full of hardware to do EAX
and 5.1 DSP will reduce your CPU load.

--
Ciao, Dave