• A Great friend to the HardForum with a great kid that he is trying to get a scholorship to continue his schooling. Please give hime a vote! Only 24 hours left! Thanks.
    If you have an VOTE FOR KEENAN!

Onboard Audio Vs. Soundblaster.

O

overclockers

n00b
Joined
Jun 15, 2009
Messages
40
Right now I am running onboard audio and have been for some time. I recently was thinking about how much of my system resources go to my onboard audio. If I were to get a Soundblaster would it be worth the extra system performance?
signature_gtx285.jpg

I dont really notice that my sound is of bad quality. It just makes me want to know if it slows my system down. Especially when gaming.
 
not worth upgrading a soundcard just to get the little (if any) increase in performance
 
If your looking for "increased performance" by transitioning to a card, and for that reason only... not a good way to go. Poor drivers can absolutly trash performance, and bloatware (Creative) enhances poor performance.

You want to get rid of your onboard sound for sonic performance. Better for music, movies, gaming, and pr0n. :)
 
Agreed with above posters.
Note that you dont need to install all the bloatware with Creatvies cards, so a Creative card will be fine if you are selective what you install.

A long time ago the performance difference was greater but its not worth considering now unless you have a very slow PC (for gaming).
In which case you should invest the cash speeding it up.
 
Not only do you improve your FPS compared to onboard audio, you also get much better sound....but is "trendy" to bash Creative :rolleyes:
 
Conker said:
Auzentech has some good stuff.
Click to expand...

Agreed, I'm listening to Mylo on my Prelude (analogue out) with CMSS-3D stereo Xpand and marvelling how ace it is :)

ps with Creative/Auzentech Prelude cards (they use the same sound processor), be sure to try turning the Crystalizer off and setting the EQ instead if you have a decent hifi, otherwise you will likely end up with boomy bass, lack of deep extension except for a few notes and shrill treble.
Crystalizer is a useful feature if your hifi isnt good at reaching the deep end or is lacking in treble cripsness as it will give you 'some' deep frequencies and adds more attack to the treble.
 
Atech said:
Not only do you improve your FPS compared to onboard audio, you also get much better sound....but is "trendy" to bash Creative :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Riiight...Then please allow me to clarify for those who nit pick. How is the all the "stuff" that would be placed on your HD should you choose the option for a normal install not considered bloat (and I fully understand that one can choose to customize their install, but there are always new people about, who won't do this).

My post has nothing regarding anything trendy... its a statement of fact.

If you want to minimize the :rolleyes:bloatware:rolleyes: you can download the custom drivers from DanielK, specific to creative products.

Now, back to the OP, outside of the attempted spreading of horse manure. Unless your running a older processor, with limited RAM, and with limited HD space, the CPU hit is negligible. The bottom line that you want improved audio (regardless of games, movies, music, pr0n, whatever), and you will get it with a separate, dedicated card. The next question is that what do you want to use it for, and how much do you want to spend?

You don't think the sound is that bad probably because you don't know any different. This is by no means a slam against you, hell, I was in the same boat years ago. As you upgrade components on your PC, you really start to notice what you've been missing.

Upgrading your audio is no different than upgrading your video card, adding more RAM, a faster CPU. It's what you use it for that matters.
 
HyperTension said:
If your looking for "increased performance" by transitioning to a card, and for that reason only... not a good way to go. Poor drivers can absolutly trash performance, and bloatware (Creative) enhances poor performance.

You want to get rid of your onboard sound for sonic performance. Better for music, movies, gaming, and pr0n. :)
Click to expand...


Yeah, can't forget the pr0n in true X-Fi.

My two cents: If you're happy with onboard audio, stick with it. After I made the leap to a soundcard through (Titanium Fatal1ty), I noticed a big improvement in percussion, even with my craptastic Creative speakers.
 
overclockers said:
Right now I am running onboard audio and have been for some time. I recently was thinking about how much of my system resources go to my onboard audio. If I were to get a Soundblaster would it be worth the extra system performance?
signature_gtx285.jpg

I dont really notice that my sound is of bad quality. It just makes me want to know if it slows my system down. Especially when gaming.
Click to expand...

Take a look at the Asus Xonar DX if you're considering doing that. It's drivers have a very small footprint, have more options, and require less tweaking than Creative cards. And it's inexpensive too (about $60 AR from newegg/zipzoomfly).

And contrary to what some others may claim, this is not Creative bashing. I've had a number of Creative products (starting with Diamond Monster -> Soundblaster something or other -> Audigy ->Audigy 2 ZS ->Audigy 2 SZ Gamer -> Creative X-Fi Gamer -> Logitech Z-Cinema (USB speakers) -> Creative X-Fi Platinum -> Asus Xonar DX).

The X-Fi is better than the old Creative cards in terms of amount of bloatware it installs, but they still install a fair share. In terms of sound quality, Audigy 2 ZS Gamer was the only one I remember sounding good. The Audigy 2 ZS Vanilla I had went staticky on me. Both X-Fi's sounded hollow and harsh and the X-Fi Platinum recently died on me, causing fun issues with my pc by sending bizarre signals to it, causing random cd-drive ejects and preventing them from reading properly.

The Xonar DX sounds very nice and if you're going to go for a cheap upgrade, it's your best best. I'd stear clear from Creative X-Fi products, as generally I've found that onboard audio sounds better.Creative may have more detail than onboard, but decent onboard usually has a smoother frequency response and sounds smoother/warmer. If you want a cheap upgrade, go with the Xonar. If you want to spend more, check out the Xonar Essence XT, HT Omega, or Auzenteck X-FI.

Creative cards are primarily designed for gaming, not for movies/music and it shows. They're better for EAX (mostly important for spacial placement in 5.1/7.1 surround systems), but have cheaper components and sound worse. I would either stick with onboard or go with a Xonar.

I was pretty happy with my setup when I had an Audigy 2 ZS Gamer, but then I "upgraded" to an X-FI, which sounded more detailed, but also sounded hollow and harsh no matter how much I tweaked it. This lead me to assume it was my speakers and prompted me to go through a number of upgrades assuming the speakers were to blame, but now that I had a really nice set of speakers and a good soundcard (having tested against the Creacraptive cards I have), I can tell you the Asus is better. I would not be suprised if Creative intentionally design with poor components and bad algorithms to make people feel like they HAVE to keep upgrading their sound card. That's pretty much all Creative are good for these days - making you realize you really want something else.

They used to be decent back when they had compeition, but they've been the biggest market player for a while now and while Auzenteck have gone on and started making high-end X-Fi cards with quality components and perhaps more options. Creative mostly is just sticking to their market segment and name recognition since they rightly assume that most people buying soundcards have heard of Creative, they're the brand most dominant in retail stores, most of the people are either interested in gaming or have never heard better and as such won't notice what they're missing.
 
Last edited:
seemlessthunder said:
The Xonar DX sounds very nice and if you're going to go for a cheap upgrade, it's your best best. I'd stear clear from Creative X-Fi products, as generally I've found that onboard audio sounds better.Creative may have more detail than onboard, but decent onboard usually has a smoother frequency response and sounds smoother/warmer. If you want a cheap upgrade, go with the Xonar.
Click to expand...

Go play with an filter/EQ...what is next...the "Golden Ear"?
 
Atech said:
Go play with an filter/EQ...what is next...the "Golden Ear"?
Click to expand...

That's all well and good, but Creative has conveniently removed their EQ from all of their budget cards. You have to get one of their most expensive ones to get that functionality back. Also, the Audigy 2 ZS Gamer sounded better WITHOUT EQ and sounded much better with, much as the Xonar does.

Of course, you can do that in music playback programs, but for movies or games you won't be able to. The Xonar gives you a driver-based EQ and a smaller footprint to boot. It also lets you manually set the bass cutoff and a load of other things nicely absent from the Creative cards.
 
Atech said:
Go play with an filter/EQ...what is next...the "Golden Ear"?
Click to expand...


Apparently, for this thread the ":rolleyes:" is just for you. Audio quality is in the ear of the end user.

While I do agree that virtually anything is better than onboard sound, I personally find it hard to believe (outside of low end cards) that the statement of smoother & warmer on onboard sound vs. separate card hard to believe.

Lower end card like the X-gamer are definitely more driven for games vs. music (meaning FLAC / APE / Lossy encoded / CD). Mp3 (yes, that includes 160bit VBR) you will NOT notice a significant improvement, and that's more driven by the quality of the track vs. anything else.
 
Uncle Jim said:
Sound cards with hardware acceleration still give better performance:
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1042178/impact-of-sound-processing-on-cpu-use-investigated
Click to expand...

Problem is, that 'statement' (not review) is over 2 years old and we only get to read the conclusions, no letting us see the results.
They tested with Quake IV only and got a 5 to 6% performance delta.
At what res? What game settings?
I'm not prepared to take this on face value as it is presented with a veil over the data so we cant judge for ourselves
Something tells me that is deliberate.
The tiny test subset makes the statement presented of no practical worth by itself any way.
 
Last edited:
Nenu said:
Problem is, that 'statement' (not review) is over 2 years old and we only get to read the conclusions, no letting us see the results.
They tested with Quake IV only and got a 5 to 6% performance delta.
At what res? What game settings?
I'm not prepared to take this on face value as it is presented with a veil over the data so we cant judge for ourselves
Something tells me that is deliberate.
The tiny test subset makes the statement presented of no practical worth by itself any way.
Click to expand...

Better performnace AND better sound...sure that is a bad thing.
 
Atech said:
Better performnace AND better sound...sure that is a bad thing.
Click to expand...

Hey I'm not against the idea at all, but unambiguous results are necessary otherwise it feeds the fanboys/trolls or sets the wrong precedent.
I'm all for using an add in card with hardware acceleration personally, hence why I own a Prelude.
 
Agh.. The Inquirer: If only the ethernet could transmit smell, the subtle wiff of chicken and pig shit would fill the air.

Using the Inquirer as a point of reference should get you an automatic kick in the nuts and teabaged by some homeless gent, and a vasectomy with a Tetanus laced rusty scalpel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top