-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Sound Card vs. Onboard Sound
- Thread starter Dogsbody
- Start date
Kingofcomputer
Diamond Member
4 kinds -
hardware sound card - a powerful sound processing chip with built-in ac97 codec or separate ac97 codec chip.
example: SB Live, Audigy, Santa Cruz, etc
software sound card - a codec mainly, uses your system cpu to process.
example: ESS Solo
hardware onboard sound - same as hardware sound card, just put that chip onto the motherboard.
example: Creative 5880
software onboard sound - just add an ac97 codec chip, using motherboard chipset's embedded sound = using system cpu to process.
example: VIA 686 southbridge + any brand ac97 codec
A codec chip is an interface to link the sound processor to the input/output jacks.
Every sound card or motherboard with onboard sound has codec.
When a motherboard says onboard ac97 codec, it means nothing, it just means the codec meets ac97 standard.
hardware sound card - a powerful sound processing chip with built-in ac97 codec or separate ac97 codec chip.
example: SB Live, Audigy, Santa Cruz, etc
software sound card - a codec mainly, uses your system cpu to process.
example: ESS Solo
hardware onboard sound - same as hardware sound card, just put that chip onto the motherboard.
example: Creative 5880
software onboard sound - just add an ac97 codec chip, using motherboard chipset's embedded sound = using system cpu to process.
example: VIA 686 southbridge + any brand ac97 codec
A codec chip is an interface to link the sound processor to the input/output jacks.
Every sound card or motherboard with onboard sound has codec.
When a motherboard says onboard ac97 codec, it means nothing, it just means the codec meets ac97 standard.
Kingofcomputer
Diamond Member
Not much difference in quality, but big difference in performance.
I tried VIA 686 embedded sound, when playing mp3 by winamp, scrolling in IE will cause the music pause.
Also, it only can play 1 stream at a time - cannot play a mp3 and a wav together at the same time.
I tried VIA 686 embedded sound, when playing mp3 by winamp, scrolling in IE will cause the music pause.
Also, it only can play 1 stream at a time - cannot play a mp3 and a wav together at the same time.
Creative 5880 is very CPU driven ... not a good example for hardware sound.
Intel's chipset sound engines, VIA's 686 one and SiS "7012" are perfect examples for CPU driven sound. VIA's 8233/8235 is better, so is the SiS "7018" found in 630/730/540 chipsets. This is a licensed Trident 4DWave engine, also found in ALi chipsets.
The trend however is toward CPU driven chipset integrated sound on a fastfastfast bus (SiS 746 and 648 chipsets even give it a dedicated realtime high bandwidth link), combined with a multichannel codec. Given the amount of CPU overkill we have today, it won't hurt much.
Sound on PCI, especially the sophisticated solutions, are severely limited by the bandwidth constraints of the PCI bus - and so are the older chipset solutions like VIA 686B or ALi's.
Dogsbody, you got CPU driven sound there, on a medium speed bus (Intel's HubLink). With the MP3 decode having to be done by the CPU no matter what sound card, moving to a PCI based solution will make the overall system load WORSE.
regards, Peter
Intel's chipset sound engines, VIA's 686 one and SiS "7012" are perfect examples for CPU driven sound. VIA's 8233/8235 is better, so is the SiS "7018" found in 630/730/540 chipsets. This is a licensed Trident 4DWave engine, also found in ALi chipsets.
The trend however is toward CPU driven chipset integrated sound on a fastfastfast bus (SiS 746 and 648 chipsets even give it a dedicated realtime high bandwidth link), combined with a multichannel codec. Given the amount of CPU overkill we have today, it won't hurt much.
Sound on PCI, especially the sophisticated solutions, are severely limited by the bandwidth constraints of the PCI bus - and so are the older chipset solutions like VIA 686B or ALi's.
Dogsbody, you got CPU driven sound there, on a medium speed bus (Intel's HubLink). With the MP3 decode having to be done by the CPU no matter what sound card, moving to a PCI based solution will make the overall system load WORSE.
regards, Peter
CNR risers just place the codec on the riser card, making an electrically clean design of the analog circuitry easier than directly on the mainboard - and allowing barebone OEMs a last minute decision on which options to fit, without having to rip out the entire mainboard again. Same as with AMR or CNR modem cards - it's just the physical interface and D/A converters, the brain is elsewhere.
To what kind of engine that codec connects isn't specified. Most of the time it's the chipset integrated sound engine.
You need to erase the "AC97 codec=bad" equation from your head. The real question is what sound engine is being used.
Dogsbody, what I was trying to say is that for the purpose of listening to music (directly from CD or MP3-decoded by the CPU), you might even be better off with the integrated sound because it's on a faster bus than any PCI card would be.
regards, Peter
To what kind of engine that codec connects isn't specified. Most of the time it's the chipset integrated sound engine.
You need to erase the "AC97 codec=bad" equation from your head. The real question is what sound engine is being used.
Dogsbody, what I was trying to say is that for the purpose of listening to music (directly from CD or MP3-decoded by the CPU), you might even be better off with the integrated sound because it's on a faster bus than any PCI card would be.
regards, Peter
Thanks for all the information, Peter. One more question for you if you don't mind. I'm getting ready to put together another system. It will also be used for general use and listening to music, but also for DVD authoring and copying. Since I'm starting from scratch, should I stick to onboard sound, or go with a sound card? If onboard sound, can you recommend a motherboard? I haven't decided if I'll go with a P4 or an AMD chip yet. Thanks again for all the help.
Spike
Diamond Member
dogsbody:
If you are building a new system and are looking to use it to watch DVD's I would go with a seperate sound card. They are cheap, reduce CPU usage, and give you the option of hooking up a 4.1 or digital out speaker setup (unless you buy a motherboard with that new on-boared audio that does 6.1) I don't know a whole lot about soundcards (definitly less than peter) but I did use onboard for a while before I switched to a cheap SB live and I really like the difference. good luck
-spike
If you are building a new system and are looking to use it to watch DVD's I would go with a seperate sound card. They are cheap, reduce CPU usage, and give you the option of hooking up a 4.1 or digital out speaker setup (unless you buy a motherboard with that new on-boared audio that does 6.1) I don't know a whole lot about soundcards (definitly less than peter) but I did use onboard for a while before I switched to a cheap SB live and I really like the difference. good luck
-spike
It's amazing how people always jump on threads and make the same generic claims that have been proven inaccurate further above.
If you do DVD authoring and copying, it's all going to be digital data which someone else will reproduce as images and sound. You want large, fast, and reliable mass storage there, as well as a backup solution.
If you want to replay DVDs, then make sure your next board has a 5.1-channel capable sound solution, and a graphics card with full blown DVD video decode assisting hardware - be it chipset integrated, onboard, or on a card. There are sound solutions that can decode the DVD's AC3 sound data format in hardware, offloading the CPU - but this is such an abysmal task for a current CPU that it doesn't matter much, especially because while replaying a DVD on a graphics card that assists it best (ATi, SiS chips), the CPU load isn't anywhere near 100 percent. More like 15 to 20 percent.
regards, Peter
If you do DVD authoring and copying, it's all going to be digital data which someone else will reproduce as images and sound. You want large, fast, and reliable mass storage there, as well as a backup solution.
If you want to replay DVDs, then make sure your next board has a 5.1-channel capable sound solution, and a graphics card with full blown DVD video decode assisting hardware - be it chipset integrated, onboard, or on a card. There are sound solutions that can decode the DVD's AC3 sound data format in hardware, offloading the CPU - but this is such an abysmal task for a current CPU that it doesn't matter much, especially because while replaying a DVD on a graphics card that assists it best (ATi, SiS chips), the CPU load isn't anywhere near 100 percent. More like 15 to 20 percent.
regards, Peter