Sound Card = 40% more FPS!!!

So if I run at 50FPS now, this sound card will boost it to 70. Gimmie a break. I call bullshit.

But... It's XTREME! ;__________;

Yah, anyways, annoying marketing aside, I can't imagine the card can actually do that. I just bought a Audigy 2 ZS about a week ago, and it really doesnt help THAT much. Now, my Audigy doesnt have an xtreme core proccessor or whatever the heck, but the concept should be the same and I should see some sort of increase, which I don't.

Sound Blaster Live! 5.1

Got it like 2 years ago. $20. Works great and then some.

Actually, I have an X-Fi Platinum Card, and I have to say that it really has some impressive abilities.
I don't know about Battlefield 2, but it definitely could make great sound come from my mediocre speaker system.
The X-Fi cards are definitely powerful, and could easily handle the most complex of music production programs that I threw at it.

I think it has something to do with the audio processing and whether or not it's CPU-dependent or not. So, assuming that one has a card that makes the CPU do some of the work versus one that does it on the audio card, the latter would get more FPS. But 40% more? It may be a powerful sound card, but that's still a load of bull.

In other news, I got my cheapo Catalina 7.1 card today along with 12 feet of optical cable so now the sound runs through my surround system rather than my listen-listen-we're-dying PC speakers. This setup coupled with DualView, BTW thanks Lukage, makes for some tasty computing.

I think the keyword there is,

Quote:

providing up to 40% more FPS

I have an Audigy 2 ZS and all it does basically, besides making my Creative I-Trigue 3300 speakers sound a lot better than before, is add a few extra sound features to the PC Games I play.

The X-Fi is a lot faster than integrated chips at processing EAX and other environmental audio stuff, so it's not much of a stretch to say that it could increase frame rates by 30% or more if you like that stuff. Of course, if you're using integrated sound, you probably don't have EAX enabled in games anyways.

The X-Fi does sound a lot better than the SB Live, though.

Relic, the X-Fi is no FASTER than Onboard sound. It may be able to decode EAC and other codecs, but that's not faster. The only "speed" benefit relative to onboard is that your CPU doesn't have to decode your sound. But that's never intensive enough to give you a 40% FPS boost. That's a load of crap.





....just like Creative's Sound Cards.

Originally Posted by Arainach

Relic, the X-Fi is no FASTER than Onboard sound. It may be able to decode EAC and other codecs, but that's not faster. The only "speed" benefit relative to onboard is that your CPU doesn't have to decode your sound. But that's never intensive enough to give you a 40% FPS boost. That's a load of crap.





....just like Creative's Sound Cards.

Oh come off it. These are easily repeatable benchmarks. You take a machine with integrated sound (and video) benchmark it against a machine with a super-awesome-extreme standalone soundcard (and video), and there you have it. Huge FPS increase.


...What?

Originally Posted by Arainach

Relic, the X-Fi is no FASTER than Onboard sound. It may be able to decode EAC and other codecs, but that's not faster. The only "speed" benefit relative to onboard is that your CPU doesn't have to decode your sound. But that's never intensive enough to give you a 40% FPS boost. That's a load of crap.

....just like Creative's Sound Cards.

actually, some onboard sound chips have awful cpu utilization, sometimes up to 30-ish percent of the cpu while doing enough directsound for 3d games. i think most are down to around 10 percent, but that's still pretty nasty while playing a game that'll want 100 percent.

but, the reality is, just about any sound card will take the load off the cpu, not just the x-fi.

And it matters even less for a multi-core processor due to it's strengths in multi-tasking. Honestly, if you're not a heavy gamer, just get yourself a cheaper soundcard which often times sound just as good as Creative's often overpriced gamer-targeted products.

Originally Posted by Synthesis

I think the keyword there is,

I have an Audigy 2 ZS and all it does basically, besides making my Creative I-Trigue 3300 speakers sound a lot better than before, is add a few extra sound features to the PC Games I play.

Which is why, for $15-20, a Sound Blaster Live! can do the trick just fine. Now, if you're into audio editing and the works, by all means get these premiere cards, but I think for listening to music and gaming, the boost that this really provides isn't much.

Well if the game was somehow using software 5.1+ digital decoding for its sound (Doom 3 engine can do this for example) then I could easily see an increase of that much by moving that sound decoding to a hardware accelerator like the X-Fi. Unfortunately for Creative, most engines don't even offer software digital decoding.

Even if there was no sound in most games today, I highly doubt framerates would jump by 40%. With most sound formats not even using 5% CPU usage on a 700MHz CPU (mine), it's very slim that any sound format drain 40% of the fps on any game.

Originally Posted by www.sega.co.jp

Even if there was no sound in most games today, I highly doubt framerates would jump by 40%. With most sound formats not even using 5% CPU usage on a 700MHz CPU (mine), it's very slim that any sound format drain 40% of the fps on any game.

The X-Fi isn't meant to accelerate sound decoding. It's designed to accelerate EAX and DirectSound 3D effects...reverb, occlusion, HRTF speaker/headphone compensation, and other fun stuff. Onboard sound chips can't do effects, so they rely on the main processor to handle them instead. No matter what sound chip you use, audio decompression is going to be handled by the main processor.

That said, Creative is notorious for...uh, creative marketing, and the 40% figure is probably very optimistic, especially since most people who are gaming with onboard sound won't be using EAX effects. It's not as big of a stretch as you seem to think it is, though.

i've heard that the audigies are pretty bad for sound editing / music creation when compared to other companies' high-end stuff.

Originally Posted by PUG1911

Oh come off it. These are easily repeatable benchmarks. You take a machine with integrated sound (and video) benchmark it against a machine with a super-awesome-extreme standalone soundcard (and video), and there you have it. Huge FPS increase.

I like how you're an idiot.

It's been stated for years that onboard video is shit and we already know it.

Onboard video has no point ANYWHERE in this topic. This is comparing on-board audio performance to soundcard audio performance.

Therefore, your made-up benchmark scenario FAILS.

Originally Posted by Merv Burger

I like how you're an idiot.

It's been stated for years that onboard video is shit and we already know it.

Onboard video has no point ANYWHERE in this topic. This is comparing on-board audio performance to soundcard audio performance.

Therefore, your made-up benchmark scenario FAILS.

He's saying that Creative's claim is based on a comparison between an all onboard system and a 7900GTX + X-Fi system because there's no way a change in sound cards could increase performance that much.

Originally Posted by quazi

He's saying that Creative's claim is based on a comparison between an all onboard system and a 7900GTX + X-Fi system because there's no way a change in sound cards could increase performance that much.

I think Merv is pointing out the fact that a bar of soap is better then onboard sound and that pointing out the obvious is rather rediculous.