Schetter Posted September 6, 2004 Author Share Posted September 6, 2004 Maybe 'obsolete' was too harsh a term. It'll be slipping off the map in a year or so, but definately a budget card in two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExplodingMonkey Posted September 6, 2004 Share Posted September 6, 2004 Originally posted by SITH_ShadowCat Is there anyway I can find out how much my sound card is sucking up my CPU? Sure. 1. Shut down all uncessary programs. 2. Hit Ctrl-Alt-Delete to bring up the Windows Task Manager. 3. Hit the "Performance" tab. 4. Watch the graph and the reading hover around zero if you have little or nothing at all running. 5. Boot your media player and play an MP3. You should then see a spike in the work load the processor has to do to run the MP3. Like I said, for me Creative Labs cards needed 20% to 25% of my CPU, while my Turtle Beach needs around 4% to 7%. Now I'm sure these numbers would be much smaller if I had an uber processor (which will be the case in a couple of months here - Heh heh heh). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SITH_ShadowCat Posted September 6, 2004 Share Posted September 6, 2004 Originally posted by ExplodingMonkey Sure. 1. Shut down all uncessary programs. 2. Hit Ctrl-Alt-Delete to bring up the Windows Task Manager. 3. Hit the "Performance" tab. 4. Watch the graph and the reading hover around zero if you have little or nothing at all running. 5. Boot your media player and play an MP3. You should then see a spike in the work load the processor has to do to run the MP3. Like I said, for me Creative Labs cards needed 20% to 25% of my CPU, while my Turtle Beach needs around 4% to 7%. Now I'm sure these numbers would be much smaller if I had an uber processor (which will be the case in a couple of months here - Heh heh heh). Hmm, that was intresting. It went to about 60% on load (less then a sec), and then floated at around 5-7%. Normal is 2-4%. I'm guessing that it caches it to prevent slow down. Mines intergrated so I'm guessing it uses the System RAM, not bad for an intergrated chip I must say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted September 6, 2004 Share Posted September 6, 2004 Hmmm...I get 11-12% Not that much for the weaker CPU I have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeskywalker1 Posted September 6, 2004 Share Posted September 6, 2004 Thats no way to really test it, remember, task manager itself (the thing that comes up) takes up CPU. Not to mention, in Windows XP there are like.. 30 programs constantly running in the backround. Media Player 10 with a visualization will take some processing power too, not much though. Remember, playing 1 MP3 is one thing, but... think about it, in a game you normally have: Backround music Footsteps Gun Firing (several MP3s/Wavs playing constantly, over and over) Taunts Ambient sounds (Wind, snow, rain etc) ... more. You could possibly have 10 different MP3s playing at the same time, most likley more. Hmm, that was intresting. It went to about 60% on load (less then a sec), and then floated at around 5-7%. Normal is 2-4%. I'm guessing that it caches it to prevent slow down. Mines intergrated so I'm guessing it uses the System RAM, not bad for an intergrated chip I must say. Yeah, of course it will jump to like 60 or something, because a program is loading, it has to use processing speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whoopknacker Posted September 6, 2004 Share Posted September 6, 2004 BTW I was including a MB with 8x and 5.1 Sound integrated, and keyboard mouse speakers too. All graphics cards become obsolete with a couple of years anyhow. All Im saying is dont think that you have to spend alot of mad cash in order to have a good rig. Forget Alienware and the manufacturers, HP DELL Gateway gaming systems, those are not good. I read some guy spent 3000 bucks on his system. Yeah it will run games great for about 3 to 4 years but you could do the same thing with a third of that cost. Trust me you can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExplodingMonkey Posted September 6, 2004 Share Posted September 6, 2004 I know it's kind of a poor man's way to test it out, but what it does do is show you how processor dependent certain sound cards are over others. My tests were conducted while playing the BF'42 mod Desert Combat at 24 channels of sound. I noticed improved frame rate performance in-game and less processor hogging from my sound card once I switched to the Turtle Beach. Now the TB is not for everyone, but I swore off CL's cards after I found out how much they rely on my other hardware. I mean, come on, if I'm gonna shell out $90-$170 for a good sound card, should it not do all of it's work itself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schetter Posted September 6, 2004 Author Share Posted September 6, 2004 Whoop, I looked up at Newegg.com all the components you listed in your post - just those totaled $490, without shipping, the absolute cheapest models I could find that fit your descriptions. Sell that machine for $500 bucks and you're going to be out some cash. I have a Creative Labs Audigy 2 ZS and there is no processor spike between when I'm playing music or not. Care to comment on that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whoopknacker Posted September 7, 2004 Share Posted September 7, 2004 Originally posted by Schetter Whoop, I looked up at Newegg.com all the components you listed in your post - just those totaled $490, without shipping, the absolute cheapest models I could find that fit your descriptions. Sell that machine for $500 bucks and you're going to be out some cash. I have a Creative Labs Audigy 2 ZS and there is no processor spike between when I'm playing music or not. Care to comment on that? Rebates buddy, they are not too hard to find. tigerdirect.com, their selection of video cards stinks but for MB, RAM and cases they are good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JediCrow Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 Looks like I should be able to run it on mediumish settings. I was gonna get a console version. But since I have a PC that should run it and broadband, I'm probably MUCH better off gettin it for the PC, since mouse and keyboard owns a console controller for this type of game, and trackball owns a mouse even more. But the only thing I won't be able to do on PC is play against my brother split screen style. Oh yeah, and PC will be moddable too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt. Bannon Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 my comp will barely run BF, but i dont care about the graphics so long as I can play the game at a decent FPS. and at the people who say there is no 512 mb video card, they've been out for more than a year, they're just so damn expensive that no gamer really has one (they run $550+ )here's one My question is, why cant they just do a fully upgradeable setup? Wouldnt it be nice just to upgrade your ram instead of buying a whole new card? to a mod: stickie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingdomwinds Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 in the sys req, this game needs a direct x9c compatiple sound card. I have onboard sound(integrated) will i still be able to play it? My pc played doom 3 fine so i dont know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SITH_ShadowCat Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 If Doom 3 doesn't have a problem with your card, then Battlefront won't. Anyway, 9.0c is basicly 9.0b with some added features so your sound card won't have a problem if its held up this long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.