Onboard Audio vs dedicated sound card

[Cloud121]

All right, so I've officially decided on the video cards I'm going to purchase here in a couple weeks. Now I have a dilemma I've since thought decided on, but am now coming back to.

Basically here's the deal: Do I keep one of my three GTS 250s in for PhysX (GTX 550 Ti 2-way SLI + PhysX card), or take it out, and put in a dedicated sound card (GTX 550 Ti 2-way SLI + sound card)?

Batman: Arkham City is really the only game I own at the moment that would need the dedicated PhysX card, as Arkham Asylum and Dark Void will likely be pushing 60 FPS with everything (PhysX included) set to max settings. Though I do plan on buying Metro 2033 (another PhysX game) eventually, and I would need the dedicated PhysX card just to try to stay above 40 FPS (if even that).

Not too mention that taking out the graphics card (currently using 3-way SLI) would put less strain on my power supply (650w).

[Polygon]

Onboard sound is always going to sub par. Just about any dedicated card is going to provide better sound quality. Whether or not you'll hear the difference is another thing. You can have the highest quality sound card but if you have crap speakers you'll never hear the difference.

[Genesaturn]

Poly is spot on. I wouldn't waste money on a dedicated sound card unless you have the means to listen to it properly. I have a 5.1 Creative Labs sound system as well as the Razor gaming headset and its pretty awesome WITHOUT a dedicated sound card. Which is because I built this machine less than a year ago and haven't gotten around to buying one. If your a big PC gamer it can make a world of difference having a dedicated sound card...especially when playing games like Counter-Strike, or Call of Duty. I can hear the direction of opponents more clearly and the sound is extremely rich.

If you don't game much on the PC or use it as like a dedicated dvd/bluray player then I don't think I'd spend the money as it generally doesn't effect music quality.

[Cloud121]

I do have a Logitech 5.1 sound system for my computer, and I'm planning on buying a headset here in a couple weeks as well. Also, I almost game exclusively on my PC now.

[kedawa]

Having a dedicated sound card made a considerable difference back in the days of Windows XP, but these days I wouldn't bother unless your onboard audio is giving you some kind of issue, like noticeable interference or a really bad signal to noise ratio.

[Gamevet]

Having a dedicated sound card made a considerable difference back in the days of Windows XP, but these days I wouldn't bother unless your onboard audio is giving you some kind of issue, like noticeable interference or a really bad signal to noise ratio.


Yeah. My pc board has a built in 7.1 surround with optical out. I've had it connected to the 5.1 in my livingroom and it sounds great.

I'd stick with using the 3rd slot for a physx card. Your power supply isn't enough to handle 3 cards and even (2) GTX 550's is really pushing it. I have a GTS 250 in one of my PCs, and it requires a 475 Watt powersupply. My other PC has a 750 watt powersupply and (2) GTX 460s in sli; it really heats up when the cards start to push it.

[Polygon]

Having a dedicated sound card made a considerable difference back in the days of Windows XP, but these days I wouldn't bother unless your onboard audio is giving you some kind of issue, like noticeable interference or a really bad signal to noise ratio.


Yeah. My pc board has a built in 7.1 surround with optical out. I've had it connected to the 5.1 in my livingroom and it sounds great.

I'd stick with using the 3rd slot for a physx card. Your power supply isn't enough to handle 3 cards and even (2) GTX 550's is really pushing it. I have a GTS 250 in one of my PCs, and it requires a 475 Watt powersupply. My other PC has a 750 watt powersupply and (2) GTX 460s in sli; it really heats up when the cards start to push it.

I don't really agree with that kedawa, and that really doesn't count Gamevet. The again, I guess I should have elaborated on this in my first post. If you're going to use a digital output where the sound processing is being done by an external DAC then by all means, a there is no difference between an onboard sound card and a dedicated card. However, if you're using HDMI or digital coaxial then you're still subject to possible interference. If you're using TOSlink (AKA Fiber Optic) then interference is not an issue. The largest issue with onboard sound cards are shitty DACs (Digital to Analog Converters). The second is interference from other components on the system board. If you're using analog outputs and have some half decent speakers you're most certainly going to hear the difference between a decent dedicated card and ANY onboard card.

If you really want to keep the Physx card and have better sound I would suggest an external sound device like the Extigy form Creative. However, a better option would be TOSlink to a good surround receiver with some good speakers.

[Gamevet]

I don't really agree with that kedawa, and that really doesn't count Gamevet. The again, I guess I should have elaborated on this in my first post. If you're going to use a digital output where the sound processing is being done by an external DAC then by all means, a there is no difference between an onboard sound card and a dedicated card. However, if you're using HDMI or digital coaxial then you're still subject to possible interference. If you're using TOSlink (AKA Fiber Optic) then interference is not an issue. The largest issue with onboard sound cards are shitty DACs (Digital to Analog Converters). The second is interference from other components on the system board. If you're using analog outputs and have some half decent speakers you're most certainly going to hear the difference between a decent dedicated card and ANY onboard card.

If you really want to keep the Physx card and have better sound I would suggest an external sound device like the Extigy form Creative. However, a better option would be TOSlink to a good surround receiver with some good speakers.

Unless you're getting some uber powerful soundcard, it's not an issue on today's (decent) motherboards.

My old LGA775 board has a Realtek ALC888S HD audio chipset that works very well, even with line out and it also supports S/SDIF. I don't run my sound through my video cards. I run it directly from the audio outputs of my PC board, even when I'm using 2.1 surround (line-out) on my desktop.

http://www.realtek.com.tw/products/productsView.aspx?Langid=1&PFid=28&Level=5&Conn=4&ProdID=141

[Cloud121]

Yeah. My pc board has a built in 7.1 surround with optical out. I've had it connected to the 5.1 in my livingroom and it sounds great.

I'd stick with using the 3rd slot for a physx card. Your power supply isn't enough to handle 3 cards and even (2) GTX 550's is really pushing it. I have a GTS 250 in one of my PCs, and it requires a 475 Watt powersupply. My other PC has a 750 watt powersupply and (2) GTX 460s in sli; it really heats up when the cards start to push it.

My current setup is a 650 watt power supply with three GTS 250s set in 3-way SLI mode. The 550 Tis have less power requirements than the GTS 250s (110 watts vs 150 watts).


My old LGA775 board has a Realtek ALC888S HD audio codec chipset that works very well, even with line out and it also supports S/SDIF. I don't run my sound through my video cards. I run it directly from the audio outputs of my PC board, even when I'm using 2.1 surround (line-out) on my desktop.

http://www.realtek.com.tw/products/productsView.aspx?Langid=1&PFid=28&Level=5&Conn=4&ProdID=141

That's mine as well. LGA 775 socket with the exact same Realtek chip.

[Cloud121]

Created a new post, when I meant to add to my above post.

[heybtbm]

Sound cards are a waste of money these days. Especially if you have a high-end motherboard. This has been the case for the last 6-8 years.

Off all the people I know who actively build computers (professionally and personally) NONE use separate sound cards in their rigs (unless requested). I had the same questions as you a few years ago and it was unanimous. It's costs practically nothing for motherboard manufacturers to add high-end audio (5.1 or 7.1) to their boards. Thanks to competitive pressures, they all do it now.

[Gamevet]

My current setup is a 650 watt power supply with three GTS 250s set in 3-way SLI mode. The 550 Tis have less power requirements than the GTS 250s (110 watts vs 150 watts).



That's mine as well. LGA 775 socket with the exact same Realtek chip.

Why not just get a GTX 560 Ti card? It blows the doors off of a 550 ti, overclocks very well and is only about $80 more. The price of (2) 550 Ti cards is going to be more than the single 560 Ti and the performance won't be that much better.
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html

Are you running a QX9xxx processor? You're probably bottlenecking three GTS 250s if you're using a dual-core or low-end quad. I bottlenecked my (2) GTS 460s while running the Metro 2033 benchmark test; even with a Q9650 @ 3.3 Ghz. It's the first time I'd seen my videocards running at only 70%.

[Kitsune Sniper]

Sound cards are a waste of money these days. Especially if you have a high-end motherboard. This has been the case for the last 6-8 years.I've seen motherboards that have such crappy audio it makes Windows act all wonky. And this was during the past eight years. The minute I could buy a separate sound card, I did so.

[Cloud121]

Are you running a QX9xxx processor? You're probably bottlenecking three GTS 250s if you're using a dual-core or low-end quad. I bottlenecked my (2) GTS 460s while running the Metro 2033 benchmark test; even with a Q9650 @ 3.3 Ghz. It's the first time I'd seen my videocards running at only 70%.
I've got a Quad-core QX6700 Kentsfield chip at 2.66 GHz, overclocked at 3.2 GHz.

[Gamevet]

I've got a Quad-core QX6700 Kentsfield chip at 2.66 GHz, overclocked at 3.2 GHz.

I'd go with the 560 Ti and use one of your 250's for Physx. You're really pushing that cpu, if you try to use two 550 Ti cards along with a GTS 250.

[Cloud121]

I've always wanted to know exactly how the CPU bottlenecking the GPU works? Based on some limited reading I've done, it bottlenecks when you're doing something that's more fitted for the CPU (playing at a lower resolution, turning graphical effects off, etc.), where the GPU isn't pushed that much, so the majority is dumped to the CPU.

How would my CPU bottleneck dual 550 Tis, but not a single 560 Ti?

[Gamevet]

I've always wanted to know exactly how the CPU bottlenecking the GPU works? Based on some limited reading I've done, it bottlenecks when you're doing something that's more fitted for the CPU (playing at a lower resolution, turning graphical effects off, etc.), where the GPU isn't pushed that much, so the majority is dumped to the CPU.



When a game is demanding a high amount of data calculations from your CPU and memory (exceeding what they can offer) to your videocards, the cards won't reach above 90% load. When I was running the Metro 2033 benchmark, I noticed that no matter what changes I made to AA and AF, the results stayed around 53 fps at 1920x1080. Disabling sli and using one card, netted results that were about 5-8 fps lower; my CPU couldn't meet the demands of those 2 cards in sli. I would keep task manager open, so I can see the load on all 4 cores of my CPU. The sli configuration was taxing my CPU at near 100%, while one card kept it around 70%. Looking at the stats in Afterburner showed that my cards were running at about 70% with sli and the single card configuration showed a load above 95%. Most of the time, the sli configuration perfomed very well, but in the case of Metro 2033, the demands for the CPU were too much.


How would my CPU bottleneck dual 550 Tis, but not a single 560 Ti?

You're asking the CPU to manage 2 cards vs 1. I've read reviews comparing my two GTX 460's in sli vs a single GTX 480. The 460 usually won, but games that put a demand on the CPU didn't do as well as the single card solution. Also, your current setup might not bottleneck with (3) GTS 250's, since they have GDDR3 memory (512 MB?), but you're talking about (2) videocards with 1 Gig of GDDR5.

You will see simular results on this review for the 550 Ti in sli.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/08/22/msi_n550gtxti_cyclone_ii_sli_video_card_review/6


For Metro 2033, the SLI configuration with two MSI N550GTX-Ti Cyclone II video cards turned out to be the slowest option. It was the only one that was not playable with 4X MSAA selected. We had to either turn the AA setting down to "AAA" (Analytic Anti-Aliasing) or select the "High" graphics option to make the game playable at 1920x1200. We chose to select AAA, because it had a less significant impact on the game's appearance. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570, the AMD Radeon HD 6950, and the MSI N560GTX-Ti Hawk all allowed us to choose 4X MSAA over AAA, which was more effective at reducing jagged edges.

With 4X MSAA selected on the MSI N550GTX-Ti Cyclone II SLI setup at 1920x1200, the raw framerate in this game was as good as it was using the MSI N560GTX-Ti Hawk, but the gameplay was totally unacceptable. The input lag was huge, which made aiming at the enemies exceedingly difficult. There was also a jittery quality to the gameplay, which was uncomfortable to look at for most of the test procedure.

The 550 Ti seems like a really good option vs. the 560 Ti, but you also have to take into consideration that those two cards will consume more power, create more heat and sometimes not run as smooth as a single card solution. Also, the price of two GTX 550 Ti cards, isn't better than that of a single GTX 560 Ti. Two GTX 550 Ti cards with full load will require 515 watts vs. 465 for a single GTX 560 Ti. I don't think you can add your GTS 250 into that setup.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/08/22/msi_n550gtxti_cyclone_ii_sli_video_card_review/9

[Cloud121]

Hm... Well how about a GTX 560 Ti 448? It's essentially a slightly crippled GTX 570. 448 core vs 480, and I believe it has just slightly less raster units than the 570. Otherwise, exact same card. Even the power consumption is the same.

Okay, looking at the bottom link you gave me, it says that a GTX 570 is about 475 watts at full load. Hm... Would it be safe to keep one of my GTS 250s in there for PhysX? I could possibly get 60+ FPS in Arkham City everything set to max.

[Gamevet]

Hm... Well how about a GTX 560 Ti 448? It's essentially a slightly crippled GTX 570. 448 core vs 480, and I believe it has just slightly less raster units than the 570. Otherwise, exact same card. Even the power consumption is the same.

You could get a GTX 570 for pretty much the same price. I saw the 448 core GTX 560 Ti at Fry's; They wanted $319 for the card. You could pick up the Galaxy version of the GTX 570 for $300.

Edit: The price went down on the 448 core. PNY has a GTX 570 for a little over $300.

http://www.frys.com/product/6916217?site=sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG

http://www.frys.com/product/6486272?site=sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG



Okay, looking at the bottom link you gave me, it says that a GTX 570 is about 475 watts at full load. Hm... Would it be safe to keep one of my GTS 250s in there for PhysX? I could possibly get 60+ FPS in Arkham City everything set to max.

No, you won't be able to run your GTS 250. You also have to factor in your 130 Watt CPU (under full load), system fans and HDDs. I'm amazed you could even run three GTS 250s with that power supply.

[Polygon]

Unless you're getting some uber powerful soundcard, it's not an issue on today's (decent) motherboards.

My old LGA775 board has a Realtek ALC888S HD audio chipset that works very well, even with line out and it also supports S/SDIF. I don't run my sound through my video cards. I run it directly from the audio outputs of my PC board, even when I'm using 2.1 surround (line-out) on my desktop.

http://www.realtek.com.tw/products/productsView.aspx?Langid=1&PFid=28&Level=5&Conn=4&ProdID=141


Sound cards are a waste of money these days. Especially if you have a high-end motherboard. This has been the case for the last 6-8 years.

Off all the people I know who actively build computers (professionally and personally) NONE use separate sound cards in their rigs (unless requested). I had the same questions as you a few years ago and it was unanimous. It's costs practically nothing for motherboard manufacturers to add high-end audio (5.1 or 7.1) to their boards. Thanks to competitive pressures, they all do it now.

Once again I have to disagree.

For starters, sounds cards are not powerful. They actually don't put out much wattage as the signal is going to be amplified by the speakers of a separate amplifier. Second, power output and sound quality aren't mutual. In fact I would say they have absolutely nothing to do with each other. I for one build computer professionally. I don't build customer systems with dedicated sound cards unless requested either. Doing it otherwise wouldn't make sense. You would increase the cost of the computer for something the customer isn't going to even notice because they're probably hooking up to a pair of $10 speakers anyhow. I also build all of my own computers. I listen to a lot of music on my main system, and thus it has pretty nice speakers and good dedicated sound card. My main system has a high end board with onboard sound. And with my headphones and my Klipsch speakers I can hear the interference and it just plain sounds like crap. Switch over to my $30 Creative 2.1 system and you can't hear the difference. They don't put high end sound cards on boards for the same reason we don't install dedicated sound cards in customer builds. It adds to the cost and the majority of people won't hear the difference.

I use my systems to demonstrate to customers. One of them was impressed with how good my speakers on my main system sounded. Without telling me he went out and bought the same speakers. Later he gave me a call thinking there was something wrong. He got the same speakers but it sounded like crap. I ordered him a dedicated card and put it in. After that it sounded great. As I said, you will never hear the difference on crappy speakers. Put on some good headphones or speakers and you will hear the difference.

My suggestion still stands that you should TOSlink to an external amp, either a surround sound reciever or maybe a T-amp to some good monitors. That way you can keep your Physx card and still have good sound quality.

[Cloud121]

I'm going to post my entire system specs just to try to make this easier to figure out:

XFX Core Edition 650w PSU
XFX nForce 780i Motherboard
Intel QX6700 Kentsfield 2.66GHz (OCed at 3.2 GHz)
nVidia GTS 250 (x3) in three-way SLI
8 GB Kingston HyperX T1 DDR2 RAM 800 Mhz (OCed at 1066 Mhz)
Onboard Audio (RealTek ALC88S Chip)
Western Digital Velociraptor 160 GB HDD (Master)
Western Digital Gaviar Green 2TB HDD (Slave)
LG IDE DVD-RW drive
Logitech Z506 5.1 Speaker System


This is the reason why I'm confused on the power supply thing. Going by nVidia's page, and Hardware Compare, the GTS 250 is 150 watts at idle. So with htree of them, wouldn't it theoretically be 450 watts at idle? The GTX 570 is 220 at idle. Throw in one of the GTS 250s for a PhysX card, it would be 370 at idle. That still less power consumption than my three 250s put together at idle. So even under full load, shouldn't it draw less power than my current setup?

The GTX 560 448 is 210 watts idle, according to Hardware Compare. Just in case that 10 watts really makes a difference. GTX 560 448 vs GTX 570. (http://www.hwcompare.com/11142/geforce-gtx-560-ti-448-vs-geforce-gtx-570/)

I'm going to assume this has a lot to do with the fact the 570 would need two power adapters plugged in, whereas the 250 only requires one?

Actually, now that I think about it some more, I suppose I could just go a single GTX 570/560 Ti 448, and just overclock it. That would help make up for the difference in the lack of a PhysX card.

[Gamevet]

It's not the idle power you have to worry about, it's when the system is under a heavy load.

Just the other day I was running furmark on my PC. The UPS I have it plugged into provides 700 watts of power, but when my 750 Watt PC powersupply was pulling more power than the UPS was rated for, it started going into alarm. I had to shut down Furmark before the UPS gave out.


I have a very simular board to yours. I have the XFX 750i extreme edition motherboard. It only has (2) PCI-E X16 2.0 slots thought.


You can calculate your system power using this site. http://www.thermaltake.outervision.com/Power

With (1) GTX 560 ti and your GTS 250, the site shows the system power draw at 565 Watts. With the 570, the number jumps up to 628 Watts, using a 90% load. I just used it for my setup, and with (2) GTX 460s and my slight over-clock, the system would require 600 watts. My 750 Watt power supply isn't what I'd though it was and from what I've read on the internet, this unit needs to be replaced soon since it starts to show problems once is passes 650 Watts.


Here are a few shots of my PC and the results for your system with a GTX 570. ;)

[Gamevet]

Once again I have to disagree.

For starters, sounds cards are not powerful. They actually don't put out much wattage as the signal is going to be amplified by the speakers of a separate amplifier. Second, power output and sound quality aren't mutual. In fact I would say they have absolutely nothing to do with each other. I for one build computer professionally. I don't build customer systems with dedicated sound cards unless requested either. Doing it otherwise wouldn't make sense. You would increase the cost of the computer for something the customer isn't going to even notice because they're probably hooking up to a pair of $10 speakers anyhow. I also build all of my own computers. I listen to a lot of music on my main system, and thus it has pretty nice speakers and good dedicated sound card. My main system has a high end board with onboard sound. And with my headphones and my Klipsch speakers I can hear the interference and it just plain sounds like crap. Switch over to my $30 Creative 2.1 system and you can't hear the difference. They don't put high end sound cards on boards for the same reason we don't install dedicated sound cards in customer builds. It adds to the cost and the majority of people won't hear the difference.

I use my systems to demonstrate to customers. One of them was impressed with how good my speakers on my main system sounded. Without telling me he went out and bought the same speakers. Later he gave me a call thinking there was something wrong. He got the same speakers but it sounded like crap. I ordered him a dedicated card and put it in. After that it sounded great. As I said, you will never hear the difference on crappy speakers. Put on some good headphones or speakers and you will hear the difference.

My suggestion still stands that you should TOSlink to an external amp, either a surround sound reciever or maybe a T-amp to some good monitors. That way you can keep your Physx card and still have good sound quality.

I don't use cheap speakers with my setups. Even when my PCs are connected at my desktop, I'm using a ($240 in 1993) RCA all-in-one stereo (2.1 surround) that has a built-in sub and Dolby NR. I decided to do a little test this evening, using a Sony headset (compared very well with my brother's studio headset he used in sound production) a CD played directly from the stereo and then from my 2009 HP media center PC. I paused the music, cranked up the volume and listened for any hiss or hum sounds; It was clean of any system interference. The music quality was about the same, be it from the PC CD player, the RCA stereo (when RCA used to be good) or a Pansonic MP3/CD player. The high range was crisp, the mid-range was clear and the bass wasn't distorted.

I ask you this. Do you think the soundchips in the Xbox 360 and PS3 are garbage?

I believe it's pretty telling, when MaximumPC lists the best of the best, and they don't even bother to mention sound cards.

http://www.maximumpc.com/best-of-the-best

And their media PC uses onboard sound as well. ;)

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/build_it_first-class_gaming_media_pc_living_room

[Polygon]

I don't use cheap speakers with my setups. Even when my PCs are connected at my desktop, I'm using a ($240 in 1993) RCA all-in-one stereo (2.1 surround) that has a built-in sub and Dolby NR. I decided to do a little test this evening, using a Sony headset (compared very well with my brother's studio headset he used in sound production) a CD played directly from the stereo and then from my 2009 HP media center PC. I paused the music, cranked up the volume and listened for any hiss or hum sounds; It was clean of any system interference. The music quality was about the same, be it from the PC CD player, the RCA stereo (when RCA used to be good) or a Pansonic MP3/CD player. The high range was crisp, the mid-range was clear and the bass wasn't distorted.

I ask you this. Do you think the soundchips in the Xbox 360 and PS3 are garbage?

I believe it's pretty telling, when MaximumPC lists the best of the best, and they don't even bother to mention sound cards.

http://www.maximumpc.com/best-of-the-best

And their media PC uses onboard sound as well. ;)

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/build_it_first-class_gaming_media_pc_living_room

1. You're using an all in one system and you're going to try and tell me that you don't use cheap speakers? I can guarantee you that you have cheap speakers and you will never hear the interference or hiss. Also, RCA hasn't been good for 40 years. And back in 1993, $230 was cheap. Just remember that a CD player was about $800. A good receiver cost about $400-$500. And you can add another $400 and up for speakers. And this was for good quality consumer end components, not even audiophile components. I hate to tell you, but you have the definition of cheap. Your speakers are most likely made out of straight paper, have poor signal to noise ratio, frequency response, and it doesn't end there. Your "sub" isn't really a sub. It's a full range speaker. I'll bet that the speaker cabinets are made out of plastic or particle board, not solid wood. Beyond the speakers, the amplifier driving them isn't a great amplifier either. Sony, also has never been known for great speakers or head phones. You think that the highs are crisp, the mids are clear. But ignorance is truly bliss. If you think that an RCA all in one system from 1993 is decent then you don't know quality.

2. Now, as for the X-Box/PS3 comment, that depends. If you're using stereo via the composite, yes. If you're using optical or HDMI then the X-Box or the PS3 aren't doing the processing. The receiver you're connecting them to is. Therefor the onboard sound has nothing to do with the sound quality.

3. Maximum PC is not any sort of authority on sound quality. And just because they don't list a sound card on that little list is not indicative of anything.

4. How many times do I have to say this? Sure, their media PC has onboard sound. My media PC has onboard sound. But, like them I'm sending the audio to the receiver via the HDMI on the video card. The onboard isn't used, just like in the case of the X-Box/PS3. The audio is processed by the receiver.

I suggest you go hang out on the Head-Fi or Audioholics forums and find out what quality is and learn more on this subject. ;)

[Gamevet]

1. You're using an all in one system and you're going to try and tell me that you don't use cheap speakers? I can guarantee you that you have cheap speakers and you will never hear the interference or hiss. Also, RCA hasn't been good for 40 years. And back in 1993, $230 was cheap. Just remember that a CD player was about $800. A good receiver cost about $400-$500. And you can add another $400 and up for speakers. And this was for good quality consumer end components, not even audiophile components. I hate to tell you, but you have the definition of cheap. Your speakers are most likely made out of straight paper, have poor signal to noise ratio, frequency response, and it doesn't end there. Your "sub" isn't really a sub. It's a full range speaker. I'll bet that the speaker cabinets are made out of plastic or particle board, not solid wood. Beyond the speakers, the amplifier driving them isn't a great amplifier either. Sony, also has never been known for great speakers or head phones. You think that the highs are crisp, the mids are clear. But ignorance is truly bliss. If you think that an RCA all in one system from 1993 is decent then you don't know quality.

That's my desktop. It's still better than a crappy Logitec 2.1 surround speaker system, and yes I have that setup (X-230) connected to my 32" CRT that I use for console gaming. The speakers on that RCA system are injection-molded polypropylene and yes, the sub is inside of the box; I've seen it when I opened up the case to repair the CD drive. You obviously didn't bother to look at the attached picture, because what you have described was nothing like that. And yes, I have heard poor quality analog sound, when I had a crappy 2002 HP computer connected to it.

In my livingroom, I have over $1,000 in speakers, that I paid for in the 90's. My center channel has JBL 2600 bookshelf speakers, my front channel has Technics (Pioneer) SB-CR77 speakers with a 12" subs and my rear channel has (cheap quality if you ask me) Advent Prodigy Towers. Yes, I have hooked up my gaming PC (not the crappy HP) via the fiber to my reciever in the livingroom and I hear every step behind, to the left and in front of me. Does that mean I would need an unnecessary sound card to improve my sound?





2. Now, as for the X-Box/PS3 comment, that depends. If you're using stereo via the composite, yes. If you're using optical or HDMI then the X-Box or the PS3 aren't doing the processing. The receiver you're connecting them to is. Therefor the onboard sound has nothing to do with the sound quality.

Exactly! And if you're going to build a gaming PC, don't you think your audio equipment should be up to par as well?



3. Maximum PC is not any sort of authority on sound quality. And just because they don't list a sound card on that little list is not indicative of anything.

I doubt your expertise on PC building is greater than that of a professional magazine staff that has access to the greatest hardware available.

Yeah, analog hookups aren't that great, but if it sounds clean, why would you add a sound card for slightly better analog sound?



4. How many times do I have to say this? Sure, their media PC has onboard sound. My media PC has onboard sound. But, like them I'm sending the audio to the receiver via the HDMI on the video card. The onboard isn't used, just like in the case of the X-Box/PS3. The audio is processed by the receiver.



I suggest you go hang out on the Head-Fi or Audioholics forums and find out what quality is and learn more on this subject. ;)

Yeah, but you're saying you won't hear those sounds using cheap speakers. So, why would he need to use the additional uDAC, when his current setup really isn't going to expose those flaws?

*Edit* While loading Crysis Warhead on my gaming PC, I did hear a faint noise caused by the DVD drive, coming through my speakers. The sound did stop after about 3 seconds, but it was very faint. I had the volume turned up pretty high though.

[Cloud121]

So I decided to go the single card route, and bought a GTX 570 Superclocked. (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=110813206530&ssPageName=ADME:X:RTQ:US:1123) I want to say the most powerful card I can get without buying a new power supply?

[Gamevet]

Nice!
Did you check out that system power calculator I posted on the other page? You might be able to use that GTS 250, as long as you HDDs are SATA.

[Cloud121]

Yeah I did, and it looks feasible, but I don't want to risk frying my tower just for the sake of a few extra frames per second in Arkham City. Both of my HDDs are SATA though (I just realized I forgot to post that little bit in my specs above).

Appreciate all the help. I'm super pumped to get my super clocked card! (Okay, that was REALLY lame.... :)).

Also, since this supports 3-way SLI, I plan on getting two more of these in the future when I get a better motherboard/processor. What would you recommend for power supply? 1000w? Or would I need to go so far as a 1200w?

[Gamevet]

Yeah I did, and it looks feasible, but I don't want to risk frying my tower just for the sake of a few extra frames per second in Arkham City. Both of my HDDs are SATA though (I just realized I forgot to post that little bit in my specs above).

Appreciate all the help. I'm super pumped to get my super clocked card! (Okay, that was REALLY lame.... :)).

How's it going with the new video card? Did it exceed your expectations?



Also, since this supports 3-way SLI, I plan on getting two more of these in the future when I get a better motherboard/processor. What would you recommend for power supply? 1000w? Or would I need to go so far as a 1200w?

1200 watts is over-kill, especially with 3 way sli using the 570. I'd recommend 850 / 1000 Watt 80 + Bronze certified. Corsair seems to be highly praised for their power supplies.

http://www.amazon.com/Corsair-Enthusiast-Certified-Compatible-platforms/dp/accessories/B004MYFODS

[BetaWolf47]

Sound cards are a waste of money these days. Especially if you have a high-end motherboard. This has been the case for the last 6-8 years.

Off all the people I know who actively build computers (professionally and personally) NONE use separate sound cards in their rigs (unless requested). I had the same questions as you a few years ago and it was unanimous. It's costs practically nothing for motherboard manufacturers to add high-end audio (5.1 or 7.1) to their boards. Thanks to competitive pressures, they all do it now.

Umm, that makes no sense. If none of the people you know who build PC's have used dedicated sound cards, how do you know that onboard sound is actually as good? I mean, there's so much more to sound processing than the number of channels that are supported. I've seen some of my online friends get budget sound cards (Asus Xonar DG, which costs about $30 USD) and then tell me that it makes a world of difference over their onboard sound. It's the same as that person who refuses to build a computer and tells everyone that the $800 HP with a low-end GPU is "good enough" for them.

The problem with dedicated audio isn't that some don't support 5.1 or 7.1. It's crosstalk, and lack of other features. I'd never own a gaming PC without a dedicated sound card.

[Cloud121]

How's it going with the new video card? Did it exceed your expectations?

Have not received it yet. I should be getting it on Friday. Now, I want to say that the power connectors are the same as my GTS 250s, only it requires two of them?

[Gamevet]

Umm, that makes no sense. If none of the people you know who build PC's have used dedicated sound cards, how do you know that onboard sound is actually as good? I mean, there's so much more to sound processing than the number of channels that are supported. I've seen some of my online friends get budget sound cards (Asus Xonar DG, which costs about $30 USD) and then tell me that it makes a world of difference over their onboard sound. It's the same as that person who refuses to build a computer and tells everyone that the $800 HP with a low-end GPU is "good enough" for them.

The problem with dedicated audio isn't that some don't support 5.1 or 7.1. It's crosstalk, and lack of other features. I'd never own a gaming PC without a dedicated sound card.

Don't you think it's kind of odd that a publication like Maximum PC builds all kinds of gaming rigs, yet they don't bother with sound cards?

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/dream_machine_2011_how_we_created_best_pc_ever

[Kitsune Sniper]

That could be because many of the newer video cards already -have- audio output built in.

The card that just died on me had it, and it disabled my normal sound card. I had to manually turn that off since I don't use HDMI.

[Zing]

I always used a dedicated sound card due to the CPU overhead of the on-board audio. I used software specifically intended to test and benchmark sound cards and their drivers, and the on-board audio was pushing 9% CPU usage with "hardware" streams. The dedicated card only used 4% and had more features.

[Gamevet]

9% seems awful high. What CPU were you using?

I know when I was checking out the option, because of the idea that onboard audio was taking up CPU resources. After checking out many websites, most agreed that it was no longer an issue.

[Zing]

Intel P4 3.4Ghz… :D

[heybtbm]

Umm, that makes no sense. If none of the people you know who build PC's have used dedicated sound cards, how do you know that onboard sound is actually as good?

Is this a serious question?

These aren't high school kids building their first rig, I'm talking about people who do this professionally. Sure, they'll stick in a sound card if you tell them you want one (more money for them)...but when you seek their knowledge and expertise, they all say the same thing. High-end motherboards have high-end sound built in. It costs motherboard manufacturers practically nothing to add these features. A stand-alone sound card is redundant in these setups.

Does this mean sound cards are always equal (or inferior) to on-board sound? Of course not. I'm sure there are plenty of kick-ass sound cards out there. Nice motherboards just have them now too.

[Gamevet]

Intel P4 3.4Ghz… :D

I guessing that was the reason why the numbers were so high.

Most decent motherboards in the past 7 or 8 years have onboard soundchips that take the load off of the CPU.

[kedawa]

Soundcards used to be way better for people who wanted to drive their speakers directly from the PC, without any sort of external amp.
I have no idea if that's still the case.

[Gamevet]

Soundcards used to be way better for people who wanted to drive their speakers directly from the PC, without any sort of external amp.
I have no idea if that's still the case.

That makes sense, since a lot of people used cheap line-out speakers back in the day. Companies like Logitech have been selling inexpensive 2.1 surround-sound setups, that have their own power for a good while now. Why buy a $50 soundcard, when you could get a decent (power driven) speaker setup for a few dollars more?

[kedawa]

A good friend of mine used to drive four big speaker cabinets from his soundblaster. I don't know how his computer didn't melt.

[BetaWolf47]

Is this a serious question?

These aren't high school kids building their first rig, I'm talking about people who do this professionally. Sure, they'll stick in a sound card if you tell them you want one (more money for them)...but when you seek their knowledge and expertise, they all say the same thing. High-end motherboards have high-end sound built in. It costs motherboard manufacturers practically nothing to add these features. A stand-alone sound card is redundant in these setups.

Does this mean sound cards are always equal (or inferior) to on-board sound? Of course not. I'm sure there are plenty of kick-ass sound cards out there. Nice motherboards just have them now too.

Yes, that was a serious question. There is no way for integrated audio to eliminate the problem with crosstalk. On top of that, I've never seen an integrated sound card that supports OpenAL and positional audio. I've got a Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi Titanium Professional on my system. The positional audio it supports allows you to hear things in every direction with just headphones. I don't know how many times that being able to hear an enemy sneak up behind me has saved my butt. Having experienced this type of audio, I'd sooner own a high-end sound card and a $150 or $200 GPU than merely a $300 GPU. If the person in question is a music enthusiast, and not a gamer, then the difference is even more apparent.

Honestly, I view people who think onboard audio can come anywhere near a dedicated card the same way as I view people who use something like a Radeon HD 6310, play at 800x600, and say that it is "good enough".

[kedawa]

Yes, that was a serious question. There is no way for integrated audio to eliminate the problem with crosstalk. On top of that, I've never seen an integrated sound card that supports OpenAL and positional audio. I've got a Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi Titanium Professional on my system. The positional audio it supports allows you to hear things in every direction with just headphones. I don't know how many times that being able to hear an enemy sneak up behind me has saved my butt. Having experienced this type of audio, I'd sooner own a high-end sound card and a $150 or $200 GPU than merely a $300 GPU. If the person in question is a music enthusiast, and not a gamer, then the difference is even more apparent.

Honestly, I view people who think onboard audio can come anywhere near a dedicated card the same way as I view people who use something like a Radeon HD 6310, play at 800x600, and say that it is "good enough".

Aside from the quality of the components and the board layout, why would onboard audio have any more crosstalk than a dedicated soundcard?
Properly implemented onboard audio is every bit as good as a dedicated card when it comes to spitting out 2 channel music.
Buying a fancy soundcard to listen to MP3s is like having a McDonalds happy meal delivered on a silver platter.

[Gamevet]

My onboard audio has 7.1 surround available through SPDIF or Optical S/SPDIF out. Why use analog when you have digital ports, especially when you can hook it up to a real surround sound system. I rarely use headphones.

[Cloud121]

Well I got my GTX 570 today, and re-installed Arkham City, set everything to max and.... Very minor performance boost versus the 3-way SLI I had previously. I put in one of my 250s for PhysX and that BARELY increases the FPS count.

Part of me feels like I wasted my money, but at the same time, this graphics card will last me several years, and I knew I had to upgrade regardless. It's my processor that's bogging the game I believe. I can play the game with everything set to max except PhysX and easly get 60 FPS, but PhysX is why I bought the PC version over the console version in the first place. Even in DirectX 9 mode my processor chokes, barely hitting 40 FPS in the benchmark, and bottoming out at 5 FPS with PhysX set to maximum.

Though I can report that the Blu-Ray rips of my Gundam play perfectly now. I don't know if it's the fact I have a new GPU, or a dedicated sound card now, but they used to be out of sync by as much as five seconds. Not anymore.

[BetaWolf47]

Aside from the quality of the components and the board layout, why would onboard audio have any more crosstalk than a dedicated soundcard?
Properly implemented onboard audio is every bit as good as a dedicated card when it comes to spitting out 2 channel music.
Buying a fancy soundcard to listen to MP3s is like having a McDonalds happy meal delivered on a silver platter.

That's sort of true about MP3's. However, some dedicated sound cards have features that restore sounds lost during MP3 conversion. Upper-end Creative sound cards have a Crystalizer that makes them sound better. It's also a well-known fact within computer audio enthusiasts that onboard audio has more noise than dedicated audio. Dedicated ones have a higher signal-to-noise ratio, allowing you to turn up the volume louder before it starts to distort and get staticky. Better quality lossy formats, and also lossless formats, will sound better.

[Gamevet]

Well I got my GTX 570 today, and re-installed Arkham City, set everything to max and.... Very minor performance boost versus the 3-way SLI I had previously. I put in one of my 250s for PhysX and that BARELY increases the FPS count.

Part of me feels like I wasted my money, but at the same time, this graphics card will last me several years, and I knew I had to upgrade regardless. It's my processor that's bogging the game I believe. I can play the game with everything set to max except PhysX and easly get 60 FPS, but PhysX is why I bought the PC version over the console version in the first place. Even in DirectX 9 mode my processor chokes, barely hitting 40 FPS in the benchmark, and bottoming out at 5 FPS with PhysX set to maximum.

Though I can report that the Blu-Ray rips of my Gundam play perfectly now. I don't know if it's the fact I have a new GPU, or a dedicated sound card now, but they used to be out of sync by as much as five seconds. Not anymore.

You can monitor your CPU performance by opening up task manager and clicking on performance. Spread the box out so it'll show a longer amount of time. You can also download MSI afterburner for free. Even if you don't overclock your 570, you can use the tool to monitor GPU usage and temps.



That's sort of true about MP3's. However, some dedicated sound cards have features that restore sounds lost during MP3 conversion. Upper-end Creative sound cards have a Crystalizer that makes them sound better. It's also a well-known fact within computer audio enthusiasts that onboard audio has more noise than dedicated audio. Dedicated ones have a higher signal-to-noise ratio, allowing you to turn up the volume louder before it starts to distort and get staticky. Better quality lossy formats, and also lossless formats, will sound better.

If you're not noticing the noise, why bother? It's like buying a $500 videocard ($150 for a solid soundcard) when your current card is already running games at 55 fps.

[Polygon]

That's my desktop. It's still better than a crappy Logitec 2.1 surround speaker system, and yes I have that setup (X-230) connected to my 32" CRT that I use for console gaming. The speakers on that RCA system are injection-molded polypropylene and yes, the sub is inside of the box; I've seen it when I opened up the case to repair the CD drive. You obviously didn't bother to look at the attached picture, because what you have described was nothing like that. And yes, I have heard poor quality analog sound, when I had a crappy 2002 HP computer connected to it.

In my livingroom, I have over $1,000 in speakers, that I paid for in the 90's. My center channel has JBL 2600 bookshelf speakers, my front channel has Technics (Pioneer) SB-CR77 speakers with a 12" subs and my rear channel has (cheap quality if you ask me) Advent Prodigy Towers. Yes, I have hooked up my gaming PC (not the crappy HP) via the fiber to my reciever in the livingroom and I hear every step behind, to the left and in front of me. Does that mean I would need an unnecessary sound card to improve my sound?

NO!

Because you're running fiber to the receiver and the receivers DACs are doing the processing. For the hundredth damn time.


Exactly! And if you're going to build a gaming PC, don't you think your audio equipment should be up to par as well?

Yes, I do. That's why I have great analog speakers on my computer with a dedicated sound card and a good receiver and speakers on my HTPC with no dedicated sound card.


I doubt your expertise on PC building is greater than that of a professional magazine staff that has access to the greatest hardware available.

I wouldn't make that assumption. I've taken apart an Alienware straight from the factory with two amateur build errors. So, it seems I know better than Alienware who you would think know better than PC Magazine. Also, I never made that assumtion myself. I'm damn good at building computers and I would put my skills up against them any day. However, my point was that they aren't experts on audio quality. So, I'm not going to give a crap about their opinion concerning such things.


Yeah, analog hookups aren't that great, but if it sounds clean, why would you add a sound card for slightly better analog sound?

If that were that case, I wouldn't. But if you have good speakers the difference isn't slight.


Yeah, but you're saying you won't hear those sounds using cheap speakers. So, why would he need to use the additional uDAC, when his current setup really isn't going to expose those flaws?

*Edit* While loading Crysis Warhead on my gaming PC, I did hear a faint noise caused by the DVD drive, coming through my speakers. The sound did stop after about 3 seconds, but it was very faint. I had the volume turned up pretty high though.

No, you won't. Which is why I was saying you should get dedicated card if you had good speakers. I have said this entire time that you shouldn't bother if your speakers aren't up to par with a dedicated card. It's really frustrating because I don't think you've read half of what I've posted in this thread.


My onboard audio has 7.1 surround available through SPDIF or Optical S/SPDIF out. Why use analog when you have digital ports, especially when you can hook it up to a real surround sound system. I rarely use headphones.

Which is the way to go IF you have a good receiver with good speakers available.

[Gamevet]

NO!

Because you're running fiber to the receiver and the receivers DACs are doing the processing. For the hundredth damn time.

Dude, I already know that. If you're going to spend the cash to build a gaming PC, hooking it up through an analog connection should be you last option.

If your reciever doesn't have digital inputs, it's time to upgrade.


If that were that case, I wouldn't. But if you have good speakers the difference isn't slight.

Like I've said, I have good speakers. I've seen/heard the best speakers that are out there, so I know the difference between crap, decent, good and high quality. And, I pointed out that I'd heard a very slight sound (cross-talk) coming from the motor of my DVD drive when it was spinning at full-speed.





I wouldn't make that assumption. I've taken apart an Alienware straight from the factory with two amateur build errors. So, it seems I know better than Alienware who you would think know better than PC Magazine. Also, I never made that assumtion myself. I'm damn good at building computers and I would put my skills up against them any day. However, my point was that they aren't experts on audio quality. So, I'm not going to give a crap about their opinion concerning such things.



I didn't say a computer manufacturer, because those guys aren't out to give you the best bang for your buck. That's like showing up in a Corvette at a custom car show.

Maximum PC has far more resources than you. They get the best of the best hardware available. If you had looked at the link I posted above, you can clearly see that the $12,500 computer they've built, didn't have a sound-card included.

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/dream_machine_2011_how_we_created_best_pc_ever

Alienware is crap, btw. Dell crap to be exact! It's also an assembly line product.

[Polygon]

Dude, I already know that. If you're going to spend the cash to build a gaming PC, hooking it up through an analog connection is a joke. If your reciever doesn't have digital inputs, it's time to upgrade.

1. Not everyone has the money to hook their computer up to a receiver and a nice set of speakers.

2. A good dedicated card and analog speaker setup is a lot less expensive and as long as you get good quality stuff, the sound quality just as good unless we start comparing DACs.

3. Analog isn't crap. Many true audiophiles would slap you upside your head for making that kind of statement. It's not about the output, because, in the end it's all analog. It's about the DACs.


Maximum PC has far more resourses than you. They get the best of the best hardware available. If you had looked at the link I posted above, you can clearly see that the $14,000 computer they've built, didn't have a sound-card included.

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/dream_machine_2011_how_we_created_best_pc_ever

Alienware is crap, btw. Dell crap to be exact! It's also an assembly line product.

1. I never argued that.

2. If someone is building a $14,000 computer, I think they're going to spring for a receiver rather than computer speakers.

3. Just because they built a $14,000 computer doesn't make it the best. It simply makes it the most expensive. Normal people don't build $14,000 computers.

4. Alienware is crap since they were bought by Dell. The computer I'm speaking of came out of Alienware before that.

5. Just because you have a lot of resources and money to build computers for a magazine does not mean you have a lot of knowledge. Like I said, I would put my skill up against theirs any day.

[Polygon]

I'm done with this argument. I thought I said it as simply as I could with my first post, but I'll post it again so PLEASE read it.

1. If you have good dedicated computer speakers, get a dedicated sound card.

2. If you don't stick with onboard.

3. If you have the money, or one already available use a digital output to a receiver.

[Gamevet]

4. If you're going to spend the cash on a soundcard, make sure it's actually better (should cost you more than $100) than what you already have.



1. Not everyone has the money to hook their computer up to a receiver and a nice set of speakers.

2. A good dedicated card and analog speaker setup is a lot less expensive and as long as you get good quality stuff, the sound quality just as good unless we start comparing DACs.

3. Analog isn't crap. Many true audiophiles would slap you upside your head for making that kind of statement. It's not about the output, because, in the end it's all analog. It's about the DACs.

And I'd slap them back upside the head with my copy (used during my courses in Electronics) of Grob Basic Electronics (the book opened up to hi and low pass filtering) and then a backslap with Introduction to Digital Electronics (with the pages upened up to DACs).

Digitial Surround > Analog surround.

There's a big difference between sound used for gaming, HTPC and some fat dude sitting around listening to music.




1. I never argued that.

2. If someone is building a $14,000 computer, I think they're going to spring for a receiver rather than computer speakers.

It was an example. Just about every budget build they've published did not have a sound card. They had one issue that had 6 different levels of gaming PC, from a $600 rig to a $4,000 rig and none of them had soundcards added.



3. Just because they built a $14,000 computer doesn't make it the best. It simply makes it the most expensive. Normal people don't build $14,000 computers.

Why wouldn't they put that sound card in though? They've already spent $12,500.



4. Alienware is crap since they were bought by Dell. The computer I'm speaking of came out of Alienware before that.

Alienware has been crap for a looooong time. So, unless that computer you took apart was from 2002, you're looking at a corporate built Alienware product that had Dell's influences dating back to 2002.


5. Just because you have a lot of resources and money to build computers for a magazine does not mean you have a lot of knowledge. Like I said, I would put my skill up against theirs any day.

Don't fool yourself. Companies like Intel, AMD and NVidia, not only send publications/sites like Maximum PC their hardware before the public gets ahold of it, they get every detail about the internal designs of those products as well. They put up the silicone map of the CPU and GPU they are reviewing, every time a new product comes out. And if it's a new generation chipset, they go into great detail about what has changed from the previous generation.


If there is anybody that is qualified on building an enthusiast PC, it's Maximum PC.

[BetaWolf47]

Not everyone is able to get surround sound though. I've got my PC in the corner of a family room, where other people sit, relax, and watch TV. A great sound card and a great set of headphones is a great option to have. You can't get comparable audio out of anything integrated.
I didn't say a computer manufacturer, because those guys aren't out to give you the best bang for your buck. That's like showing up in a Corvette at a custom car show.

Maximum PC has far more resources than you. They get the best of the best hardware available. If you had looked at the link I posted above, you can clearly see that the $12,500 computer they've built, didn't have a sound-card included.

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/dream_machine_2011_how_we_created_best_pc_ever
Looking at the comments of that article, the reason they didn't include a sound card is because they didn't have room in the case for one after putting in 3 GTX 580's. Damn shame too, because they only chose 2.1 audio for that setup.

[Gamevet]

Not everyone is able to get surround sound though. I've got my PC in the corner of a family room, where other people sit, relax, and watch TV. A great sound card and a great set of headphones is a great option to have. You can't get comparable audio out of anything integrated.

That's cool dude. We all have different setups and different sound needs. For me, analog is what I use when the surround system in the livingroom isn't available. I usually keep my (2) PCs in my office/gameroom, and when I get a game that I would much rather play in surround (the 52" LCD doesn't hurt either) I'll move it into the living room.

Not everyone is going to experience cross-talk from their onboard sound. I've witnessed it once on my current gaming PC, but the sound was so faint (I had the sound cranked up as well) that I had to really concentrate on the sound to hear it. I haven't heard it since though. As far as hiss or any of the other sounds that can be caused by outside interference, I'm not hearing it. I think it's just silly for someone to say you're not hearing it, because your speakers suck, or you don't know what good sound is; it just comes off as being pretentious.

Not everyone's situation, or needs, is going to be the same. If your sound isn't up to par and analog is the best option for you, yeah a soundcard just might be the solution you're looking for. I just wouldn't suggest someone run out and get a cheap $40 card and expect it to be a huge improvement.




Looking at the comments of that article, the reason they didn't include a sound card is because they didn't have room in the case for one after putting in 3 GTX 580's. Damn shame too, because they only chose 2.1 audio for that setup.

Yeah, they'll look at the graphics and system performance first. Still, once in a great while they'll throw in a sound card, but it's pretty rare. They build it for gaming and performance, and it seems that they feel the onboard sound is good enough. I tend to agree with them.

If I ever get a sound card, it's going to be expensive. I'm usually not the guy that settles for just good enough when purchasing something; it's more like bang for the buck.

[Cloud121]

You can monitor your CPU performance by opening up task manager and clicking on performance. Spread the box out so it'll show a longer amount of time. You can also download MSI afterburner for free. Even if you don't overclock your 570, you can use the tool to monitor GPU usage and temps..

I looked at the monitor after benchmarking Arkham City several times. My 250 is typically showing up as about 40% usage versus 99% of my 570 (obviously). Granted, the 250 is being used solely for PhysX, but I want to say it's being bottlenecked?

[Gamevet]

I looked at the monitor after benchmarking Arkham City several times. My 250 is typically showing up as about 40% usage versus 99% of my 570 (obviously). Granted, the 250 is being used solely for PhysX, but I want to say it's being bottlenecked?


Yeah, but did your CPU max out?


If you really want to see your PhysX card being pushed, download the Mafia II demo. It comes with a system benchmark tool.

http://store.steampowered.com/agecheck/app/50130/

[gepeto]

Need some advice

A month ago I was looking for a hdmi card for my pc and picked up a asus gtx 550 ti for about 100.00. I since built me a new semi power rig system and I am reading everyones post about this card and that one. It has been a minute since I was heavy into pc games. So the question is should I just upgrade to a 560 ti or just pick up a gtx 550 ti and sli em since I already have one.

How bad is a single 550 ti card when running games. LOL This thread reminds me of the old voodoo ge force battles.

[Gamevet]

Need some advice

A month ago I was looking for a hdmi card for my pc and picked up a asus gtx 550 ti for about 100.00. I since built me a new semi power rig system and I am reading everyones post about this card and that one. It has been a minute since I was heavy into pc games. So the question is should I just upgrade to a 560 ti or just pick up a gtx 550 ti and sli em since I already have one.

How bad is a single 550 ti card when running games. LOL This thread reminds me of the old voodoo ge force battles.

The 560 ti will outperform (2) 550 ti cards in sli. It's a close matchup with a couple of games, but the 560 ti will over-clock higher and perform better in most cases. I'd pick up the 560 ti and use your 550 ti for Physx.


http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/08/22/msi_n550gtxti_cyclone_ii_sli_video_card_review/3

[gepeto]

The 560 ti will outperform (2) 550 ti cards in sli. It's a close matchup with a couple of games, but the 560 ti will over-clock higher and perform better in most cases. I'd pick up the 560 ti and use your 550 ti for Physx.


http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/08/22/msi_n550gtxti_cyclone_ii_sli_video_card_review/3

a guy on craigslist has a evga nvidia 560 2gb not the ti is non ti 560's okay?

[Gamevet]

a guy on craigslist has a evga nvidia 560 2gb not the ti is non ti 560's okay?

Not really. You're looking at a GTX 460 with higher over-clocks.

Unless you are running 2 monitors, or have a single monitor capable of running at a resolution of 2560 x 1600, you'll never use that extra 1 gig of video memory.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/geforce-gtx-560-amp-edition-gtx-560-directcu-ii-top,2944.html

You can purchase the EVGA GTX 560 Ti SC for $230. It's a real bargain at that price.

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=7191453&SRCCODE=WEBGOOPA&cm_mmc_o=mH4CjC7BBTkwCjCV1-CjCE&gclid=CPyHpaSYn64CFQNeTAodZm-R5A

If you had asked this question about 6 months ago, I would have suggested (2) 1024 MB GTX 460s in sli (that's what I run), but the prices have jumped back up, since it has been discontinued. It pretty much offered a better performance than a single GTX 480.

[gepeto]

Thanks for all the help. One more Question. I have a bunch of old games from the 90's through early 2000. Like star trek the fallen ,Bridge commander to the swat games. Can these run on Widows 7 is it a hassle or is it easier just to make a low end win 98\2000 system?

If I recall the big thing back then was gl. LOL Games like King Pin and AvP.

[sheath]

I have only poked around online about this a few times. I have a Soundblaster Awe 64, Awe 64 Value, a Sound Blaster 16, and my typical Realtek onboard audio with my Asus motherboard. I've tried each for my HTPC with my Dolby Prologic Tuner. With only a single headphone to RCA cable they all sounded identical, so I use the onboard sound to free up a PCI slot.

What I have been wondering is whether there would be a way to hook up my HTPC to take advantage of the 5.1 sound output that I would have if I had a PC sound system instead. I don't have an optical input on my tuner, so I am guessing the answer is no.

[Gamevet]

You can use a digital coaxial connection Sheath. Even my old Pro-logic receiver had that.

Another option is running it through the HDMI port of your video card.

[sheath]

My tuner is from 1992, it doesn't have HDMI, but there is a coax input I have never tried using. I'm not even sure how I would go about hooking that up to my PC sound. Any help would be appreciated.

-edit-

Nevermind, there isn't even a coax input for it. It does look like I have RCA inputs for the "Video" input that has all of the inputs. I'll have to look into some more headphone to RCA cables and see if that works!

-edit-edit-

Nevermind again, even if I get all of the "SPDIF" Outs hooked up to the appropriate inputs on my Pro Logic Tuner everything online says I will hear less on the satellite speakers than I do now with stereo output from the HTPC. That is a bummer.

[Gamevet]

I have only poked around online about this a few times. I have a Soundblaster Awe 64, Awe 64 Value, a Sound Blaster 16, and my typical Realtek onboard audio with my Asus motherboard. I've tried each for my HTPC with my Dolby Prologic Tuner. With only a single headphone to RCA cable they all sounded identical, so I use the onboard sound to free up a PCI slot.

What I have been wondering is whether there would be a way to hook up my HTPC to take advantage of the 5.1 sound output that I would have if I had a PC sound system instead. I don't have an optical input on my tuner, so I am guessing the answer is no.

I did a little experiment tonight. I decided to hook up my gaming PC to the 24" LG monitor on my desktop, using the HDMI port and outputting the sound from the monitor to my 2.1 surround stereo. The sound was actually a little cleaner, and I could hear instruments that weren't quite as crisp using the analog output of the onboard sound. I'd also noticed that my benchmarks on Heaven improved by about 500 frames. I decided to check out my CPU usage, and it substantially dropped while using the digital sound output vs. the onboard sound. You might want to try that out, if your monitor has an HDMI port.

[sheath]

I did a little experiment tonight. I decided to hook up my gaming PC to the 24" LG monitor on my desktop, using the HDMI port and outputting the sound from the monitor to my 2.1 surround stereo. The sound was actually a little cleaner, and I could hear instruments that weren't quite as crisp using the analog output of the onboard sound. I'd also noticed that my benchmarks on Heaven improved by about 500 frames. I decided to check out my CPU usage, and it substantially dropped while using the digital sound output vs. the onboard sound. You might want to try that out, if your monitor has an HDMI port.

Unfortunately, when I built this HTPC I did not have anything with HDMI, so I made sure the Video card had Component, VGA and DVI out. I'm seriously wondering what would happen if I took five headphone to RCA cables and hooked up every output on my sound card to my tuner's five input "Video" mode. I guess I'll head over to monoprice at some point and get all the cables I need to see if that helps.

That is interesting that the HDMI out on the video card takes a strain off the CPU usage, I wouldn't think that onboard audio would use the CPU. I wonder if a dedicated sound card saves CPU time.

[kedawa]

Both onboard and dedicated audio consume CPU cycles when running Windows7/Vista because of how the audio driver works, but an actual sound card will generally use less.
I imagine the same is true for the audio chipset integrated into the video card, but I have no firsthand experience with such cards.