Audio Performance

Audio Performance - Empty CPU - 26 Buffers

Audio Performance - 2d Audio - 26 Buffers

Audio Performance - DirectSound 3D HW - 26 Buffers

Audio Performance - DirectSound 3D EAX2 - 26 Buffers

We limited audio testing to the Rightmark 3D Sound version 2.1 CPU utilization test and tested with sound enabled to show the performance effects on several games. The Rightmark 3D Sound benchmark measures the overhead or CPU utilization required by a codec or hardware audio chip.

The BlueGears/HDA Mystique 7.1 Gold has the highest utilization rates of the audio solutions tested. BlueGears has confirmed a new driver release within the next 30 days that will offer improved performance in several areas. The RealTek A380 driver release continues to improve CPU utilization rates. The Sound Blaster X-FI has the lowest rates with the Realtek ALC655 solution on the Albatron board following closely. Let's find out how these results translate into real world numbers.

Game Audio Performance - Splinter Cell Chaos Theory

Game Audio Performance - Serious Sam II - Branchester Demo

Game Audio Performance - Wolfenstein-Enemy Territory-Radar

Serious Sam II has an average loss of 26%, Wolfenstein Enemy Territory at 10%, and Splinter Cell at 11%. The surprising number is the performance of the Sound Blaster X-FI in Serious Sam II with a 46% decrease in frame rates. The game definitely sounded better on the X-FI and Mystique 7.1 Gold, but after repeated listening, the Realtek ALC850 and ALC655 are generating the audio streams correctly in the game. Obviously, if you are a serious gamer, then a dedicated sound card is still a requirement to ensure consistent frame rate averages across a wide variety of games.

While the Realtek ALC850 and ALC655 codec offer acceptable CPU usage for most office applications or games, it is not competitive in audio quality with the on-board HD audio options on the ATI or Intel boards.

Ethernet Performance Final Words
Comments Locked

37 Comments

View All Comments

  • Gary Key - Wednesday, January 4, 2006 - link

    quote:

    I agree, I feel that the article makes some unfounded and moreover highly irresponsible statements, such as "in fact, the current price structure almost ensures that your nForce4 purchase should be an SLI-capable motherboard." SLI is not worth it in any way, shape, or form from any cost/performance standpoint, unless you happen to be the enthusiast user who wants the highest possible performance available today no matter the cost. For everyone else SLI is worthess...and yet how many new users are going to go out and waste their cash on an SLI board because of statements made in the article like the one above?


    As stated in the article the current pricing structure lends itself to the purchase of an SLI capable motherboard if the nForce4 is your chipset of choice. Even if you do not utilize SLI you at least have the option of doing so, if not for gaming, then for multiple monitor support and excellent performance utilizing two x8 lanes. If you look at the current support from the motherboard suppliers and product plans it is very obvious that SLI/CrossFire capable motherboards are becoming the standard across all price points. Our statements were based on these facts regarding the motherboard choices available. If you consider the potential cost/performance benefits then why pay the same amount of money for a board that is not capable of SLI or CrossFire and will probably not receive the same level of support over the lifespan of the product.
  • bob661 - Wednesday, January 4, 2006 - link

    quote:

    SLI is not worth it in any way, shape, or form from any cost/performance standpoint, unless you happen to be the enthusiast user who wants the highest possible performance available today no matter the cost.


    Isn't this a contradiction?
  • Capt Caveman - Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - link

    What are you talking about? You can get a SLI board for $70.
  • andlcool - Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - link

    for the asus one, it should be ddr and not ddr2.
  • ElFenix - Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - link

    still, should be a good price for stock speed boards
  • ElFenix - Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - link

    looking at the first chart i mean. doesn't seem to fall off much eh?

    <--- wants an edit function
  • Gary Key - Tuesday, January 3, 2006 - link

    The Foxconn board offered excellent stability throughout testing although it certainly is not targeted at the overclocking crowd. The performance was certainly acceptable and without the benchmarks you probably would not be able to tell the difference between it and the other boards. The layout is really nice unless you plan on utilizing two video cards with two slot cooling solutions as the space becomes very tight between the two x16 slots.

    I would like an edit function also. ;->

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now