Audio Performance

We limited audio testing to the Rightmark 3D Sound version 2.0 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.

Audio Performance - Empty CPU - 32 Buffers

Audio Performance - 2d Audio - 32 Buffers

Audio Performance - DirectSound 3D HW - 32 Buffers

Audio Performance - DirectSound 3D EAX2 - 32 Buffers

As you can see, none of the onboard audio solutions were quite as low in CPU utilization as the Abit AudioMAX 7.1 solution. The Gigabyte 8N SLI Quad Royal uses the "almost standard" Realtek ALC850 found in most high end NVIDIA AMD SLI systems. The current drivers limit the 3D sound buffers to a maximum of 25.

Audio Performance - DirectSound 3D EAX - BattleField 2

Audio Performance - DirectSound 3D EAX - Splinter Cell Chaos Theory

Audio Performance - Wolfenstein - Enemy Territory - Radar Demo

The Battlefield 2 numbers are highly disappointing as the Gigabyte 8N SLI Quad Royal implementation of the Realtek ALC850 sound solution creates a 27% loss in frame rates in this highly popular on-line game in which sound is as critical as frame rates. Both Splinter Cell Chaos Theory and Wolfenstein Enemy Territory have an acceptable loss of 10%. Obviously, if you are a serious gamer, then a dedicated sound card is a requirement.

While the Realtek ALC850 codec offers acceptable CPU usage and sound for most office applications or internet based flash games, it is not competitive in audio quality with the MSI P4N Diamond or Gigabyte GA-8I955x on-board audio solutions.

We are still finalizing our expanded audio testing suite and will introduce this in the near future along with results from the MSI P4N Diamond and Gigabyte 8I955x Royal boards.

Ethernet Performance Final Words
Comments Locked

44 Comments

View All Comments

  • SpaceRanger - Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - link

    Yup.. Just compared the two, and they are IDENTICAL Pic's, just doctored to show THG and AT... VERY WEAK!!!!!

    THG:
    http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a342/Arathon/ten...">THG 10 Monitor Image

    AT:
    http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a342/Arathon/ten...">AT 10 Monitor Image
  • johnsonx - Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - link

    I doubt one photo or the other was actually doctored, but it is pretty amazing that NOTHING is moved between the two shots... not even the mouse has moved so much as a butt-hair.

    This does lend credence to the theory that Gigabyte prepared the 10-monitor shots themselves.
  • at80eighty - Thursday, October 13, 2005 - link

    quote:

    not even the mouse has moved so much as a butt-hair.


    You got issues with butt hair ? :-)
  • BigLan - Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - link

    It looks like this shot was taken at a gigabyte facility, probably in taiwan or china... the blue and red stickers on the monitors look to be chinese characters.
  • vijay333 - Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - link

    My guess would be that Gigabyte did this for each one of the sites that it had sent samples to, assuming that they would not be able to set this up themselves (monitors, cards etc). Still, this should have been mentioned in the review itself...
  • Gary Key - Thursday, October 13, 2005 - link

    Good Day,

    I did not want to use the Gigabyte lab shot since THG had already published their version of it. However, since we could not get the revision 2 3D1 cards in time for testing I thought there would be more comments about lack of proof on 10 monitors than issues with the lab shots. I should have noted that in the article.

    I was able to get 8 monitors to work with the video setup I had available. However, I found utilizing four monitors was an ideal situation with the two 7800 GTXs. :-)
  • Bitter - Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - link

    Seems a bit....odd, that THG has the exact same picture of the 10 display setup using the exact same displays with associated cables and hardware (and even boxes) in the exact same place...with the sole differance being the background color and logo. Yet THG had their review on 10/4. Yet both sites talk about setting up the system with 10 displays as if they had the gear in house...I smell something rotten here. When you look at the test setups they read almost in stereo. Did either one of these sites actually have the hardware "in the shop" to test any of this out on????
  • johnsonx - Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - link

    yeah, as soon as I saw that shot I quickly clicked on "Comments" to see if anyone else had already pointed it out... early bird gets the worm I guess.

    If I had to guess, I would venture that both THG and AT reviewed the hardware at a common location hosted by Gigabyte.

  • phaxmohdem - Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - link

    Obviously this board is teh suxors since there is no uber AMD variant. What is this now THG?? Pfft.

    More seriously though, that is kinda cool in its own right. While I wouldn't mind having 4 monitors, 10 seems a bit overkill unless you are an uber l33t day trader or something. I mean wholy crap! Can you imagine the heat that bad boy will put out too? STRONG ass power supply + P4 Dual Core + 4 High End Graphics Cards??? + HDD's + RAM = Heat Stroke in the comfort of your office chair.
  • Chuckles - Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - link

    So...
    4x$500 for graphics+~$250 for the board+$1000 for the CPU+$200 for RAM.

    $3500 for a system. Geez.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now