soundblaster or onboard audio better?

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by parrot, Feb 26, 2007.

  1. parrot

    parrot Guest

    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.
     
    parrot, Feb 26, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. parrot

    Earl Grey Guest

    parrot 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.
    >
    >

    The motherboard chipset and the Analog Devices onboard DAC is to the
    Intel HDA standard which supersedes AC97, and would be capable of more
    new formats and higher quality than the SB Live.
    It should be supported by the Vista UAA drivers
     
    Earl Grey, Feb 27, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. parrot

    Earl Grey Guest

    Earl Grey wrote:
    > parrot 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.
    >>

    > The motherboard chipset and the Analog Devices onboard DAC is to the
    > Intel HDA standard which supersedes AC97, and would be capable of more
    > new formats and higher quality than the SB Live.
    > It should be supported by the Vista UAA drivers


    PS its also supported in linux by the ALSA module snd-intel-hda
     
    Earl Grey, Feb 27, 2007
    #3
  4. parrot

    Mathew Good Guest

    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.


    But there was a Nvidia Mobo that had a Very good onboard sould chip made by Nvidia some years
    back..
     
    Mathew Good, Feb 27, 2007
    #4
  5. parrot

    Allistar Guest

    Earl Grey wrote:

    > Earl Grey wrote:
    >> parrot 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.
    >>>

    >> The motherboard chipset and the Analog Devices onboard DAC is to the
    >> Intel HDA standard which supersedes AC97, and would be capable of more
    >> new formats and higher quality than the SB Live.
    >> It should be supported by the Vista UAA drivers

    >
    > PS its also supported in linux by the ALSA module snd-intel-hda


    Indeed it is. I use it (Gentoo Linux) and the sound is great.

    Allistar.
     
    Allistar, Feb 27, 2007
    #5
  6. parrot

    Dave Taylor Guest

    Mathew Good < wrote in
    news::

    >
    > If into games the Soundblaster only uses 4% of the CPU, no onboard
    > sound chip currently sold can compete.
    >


    What game, and what CPU did you get your %4 number from?
    Most games now use DirectX, and do not use the old methods of directly
    addressing the hardware. Actually, I think that "the chip" is on the
    motherboard for new built-in onboard sound cards, so it is virtually the
    same as a PCI card.

    I have an old Ensonique for a game port. The sound is poor compared to my
    onboard ADI.
    I do not use or need 5.1


    --
    Ciao, Dave
     
    Dave Taylor, Feb 28, 2007
    #6
  7. parrot

    parrot Guest

    "Dave Taylor" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns98E5CEA549B04daveytaynospamplshot@203.97.37.6...
    > Mathew Good < wrote in
    > news::
    >
    >>
    >> If into games the Soundblaster only uses 4% of the CPU, no onboard
    >> sound chip currently sold can compete.
    >>

    >
    > What game, and what CPU did you get your %4 number from?
    > Most games now use DirectX, and do not use the old methods of directly
    > addressing the hardware. Actually, I think that "the chip" is on the
    > motherboard for new built-in onboard sound cards, so it is virtually the
    > same as a PCI card.
    >
    > I have an old Ensonique for a game port. The sound is poor compared to my
    > onboard ADI.
    > I do not use or need 5.1
    >
    >
    > --
    > Ciao, Dave


    But you can't compare a ensonique to a soundblaster live, from what i
    remember the ensonique was total crap and so could be expected to be
    bettered by a new onboard sound chip.
     
    parrot, Feb 28, 2007
    #7
  8. parrot

    parrot Guest

    "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?
     
    parrot, Feb 28, 2007
    #8
  9. parrot

    parrot Guest

    "Earl Grey" <> wrote in message news:45e3764b$...
    > parrot 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.

    > The motherboard chipset and the Analog Devices onboard DAC is to the Intel
    > HDA standard which supersedes AC97, and would be capable of more new
    > formats and higher quality than the SB Live.
    > It should be supported by the Vista UAA drivers


    Thanks but would the soundblaster not be supported by vista too, not that i
    am interested in vista, only just upgraded to xp and will stick with that at
    least 5 years I would say.
     
    parrot, Feb 28, 2007
    #9
  10. parrot

    Mathew Good Guest

    On 28 Feb 2007 20:18:50 +1300, Dave Taylor <> wrote:

    >Mathew Good < wrote in
    >news::
    >
    >>
    >> If into games the Soundblaster only uses 4% of the CPU, no onboard
    >> sound chip currently sold can compete.
    >>

    >
    >What game, and what CPU did you get your %4 number from?




    Go read of some of the Many sound card reviews only 2 Cards from memory and the Nvida sound chip
    used some 4%, all others use 20% or more.


    >Most games now use DirectX,


    Bollock 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..

    >sand do not use the old methods of directly
    >addressing the hardware. Actually, I think that "the chip" is on the
    >motherboard for new built-in onboard sound cards, so it is virtually the
    >same as a PCI card.





    No the use the CPU to do all the work..

    >I have an old Ensonique for a game port. The sound is poor compared to my
    >onboard ADI.
    >I do not use or need 5.1




    Shame that these facts are know by the masses...

    Go do some more reading like I have done..
     
    Mathew Good, Feb 28, 2007
    #10
  11. parrot

    Mathew Good Guest

    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, Feb 28, 2007
    #11
  12. parrot

    parrot Guest

    "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, Feb 28, 2007
    #12
  13. parrot

    Mathew Good Guest

    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/soundblaster-x-fi/index.x?pg=7
     
    Mathew Good, Feb 28, 2007
    #13
  14. parrot

    Mathew Good Guest

    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/Hardware/Reviews/asus_a8r32_mvp/print.html
     
    Mathew Good, Mar 1, 2007
    #14
  15. parrot

    ~misfit~ Guest

    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.
     
    ~misfit~, Mar 1, 2007
    #15
  16. parrot

    Mathew Good Guest

    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, Mar 1, 2007
    #16
  17. parrot

    Richard Guest

    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/soundblaster-x-fi/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, Mar 1, 2007
    #17
  18. parrot

    ~misfit~ Guest

    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/soundblaster-x-fi/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.
     
    ~misfit~, Mar 1, 2007
    #18
  19. parrot

    Mathew Good Guest

    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/soundblaster-x-fi/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, Mar 1, 2007
    #19
  20. parrot

    Dave Taylor Guest

    Mathew Good < wrote in
    news::

    > Bollock 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
     
    Dave Taylor, Mar 1, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?iso-8859-1?Q?G=E9rard?=

    Problem reinstalling SoundBlaster

    =?iso-8859-1?Q?G=E9rard?=, Sep 8, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    603
    Budweiser
    Sep 9, 2003
  2. Bryan Henderson

    Gigabyte GA-7VA mobo and Soundblaster 5.1 live

    Bryan Henderson, Jan 15, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    567
    B.Al.Zeebub
    Jan 15, 2004
  3. Tom

    Soundblaster 128 & WIN XP

    Tom, Jan 17, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    638
    °Mike°
    Jan 17, 2004
  4. Nick
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    489
  5. =?Utf-8?B?QW50aG9ueQ==?=

    onboard audio drivers issues

    =?Utf-8?B?QW50aG9ueQ==?=, Oct 23, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    371
    =?Utf-8?B?VHJlbmRNaWNybyBDb3JwLg==?=
    Nov 6, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page