Sound cards

Kilarney

I'm getting ready to update my desktop PC - probably this fall. In the meantime, I'm doing some research.

My desktop computer is used for nothing fancy except Flight Simulator. Unfortunately, Flight Simulator is a huge resource hog. I use one version older than the current version - which allows me to play the game without breaking the bank on a computer.

One question I have is about the sound card. To put it simply... why do I need one? I use the onboard sound and, well, it works just fine. What advantage does a sound card give you? I definitely don't need things to sound better.

Is the advantage that a sound card frees up the CPU to perform other tasks? If so, how much of a drain on your system does onboard audio really create?

Rym

There's no advantage to having a dedicated sound card unless you're doing something with audio beyond playing it. ^_~ The performance difference is negligible, and in some cases the opposite of what you'd expect.

At the consumer level, there is little difference between soundcards from 10 years ago and modern ones. If the soundcard you have now has all of the connectors you want, keep it. If it doesn't, get a cheap one that does.

Apreche

If you're just playing Flight simulator, then the on board sound card is fine. The only case in which it would not be fine is if you were trying to get super high audio quality with surround sound and all sorts of 3D environmental audio effects. My guess is you have two analog speakers, and maybe you have a subwoofer. Using any modern on-board sound card won't hurt your performance in this scenario. In fact, looking at most on-board sound these days, the on-board card will be way better than what you need. It's also cheaper to get a motherboard with a card built in than it is to buy the card separately.

I can understand why this would be confusing, because back in the day on-board sound cards sucked ass. That has changed. These days if you aren't a professional recording studio, pretty much any sound card will get the job done. As a result, I just look for Linux compatibility. If you're going to use Linux, make sure to do some searches on Google and in forums to see how other people with that motherboard and sound card are doing in Linux. For example, my laptop plays audio just fine, but I can't record with it Linux sound has sucked for years, and it has been my never-ending battle to have it not suck. Ubuntu is helping, but it's still not quite there yet.

kenjura

Straight skinny on sound cards:

Onboard sound card (most modern motherboards have these): usually fine, same quality as PCI sound card (see below). Motherboards components tend to go before PCI or external components.

PCI sound card: they can do anything sound cards can generally do. That being said, all audio components connected to the motherboard in some way will have noise. It will be very noticeable on the analog outputs. If it bugs you, ensure you have a digital connection. Many sound cards don't output normal audio on digital connections--only DVD audio. Ensure yours does, if you care.

External sound card: the only solution for audiophiles (not freaky ones, just people who give a damn about sound) and professionals. They run the 3-digit dollar gamut. The key is them being external, with a digital connection to the computer, to eliminate noise. Also, they are convenient, since all the audio ports are in an external module.


If all you need is basic sound, just make sure your computer has an audio plug. Almost all do, without needing an additional sound card.

Kilarney

It sounds like the onboard audio will be just fine for my purposes.

Now on to the processor. There seems to be little question that the Intel Core 2 Duo provides the best bang for the buck when running flight simulator. (Sorry, AMD!)

The E6300 1.86 ghz is $181 at Newegg.
The E6400 2.14 ghz is $218.
The E6600 2.4 ghz is $308.
The E6700 2.66 ghz is $509.

The E6700 ($509) doesn't seem to be worth the extra $200 for 0.26 ghz extra.
On the other hand, the E6400 and the E6600 seem pretty reasonable.

Is there really that big a difference between the 1.86 ghz and a 2.4 ghz model? I've heard that the ghz doesn't matter as much as you think - or at least that there is not a 30% improvement as the numbers would imply.

Also, I'd love to make my own computer. I've tinkered quite a bit (a few years ago), and it seems manageable. But... I'll be running Windows. (XP is fine - $190.) It seems like that's always the deal killer. Windows is so freaking expensive that it seems to eat up most, of not all, of the do-it-yourself savings.

Apreche

It sounds like the onboard audio will be just fine for my purposes.

Now on to the processor. There seems to be little question that the Intel Core 2 Duo provides the best bang for the buck when running flight simulator. (Sorry, AMD!)

The E6300 1.86 ghz is $181 at Newegg.
The E6400 2.14 ghz is $218.
The E6600 2.4 ghz is $308.
The E6700 2.66 ghz is $509.

The E6700 ($509) doesn't seem to be worth the extra $200 for 0.26 ghz extra.
On the other hand, the E6400 and the E6600 seem pretty reasonable.

Is there really that big a difference between the 1.86 ghz and a 2.4 ghz model? I've heard that the ghz doesn't matter as much as you think - or at least that there is not a 30% improvement as the numbers would imply.

Hold off on CPUs for awhile. Rym is keeping a close eye on CPUs because he is finally buying a new computer of his own. I can definitely say that the Core 2 Duo seems to be the hotness right now. However, the AMD equivalent, the X2, just got a huge price drop. It's a very bad time to buy a CPU right now because the market is in flux. Wait for the next equilibrium, and the answer will become obvious.

Also, I'd love to make my own computer. I've tinkered quite a bit (a few years ago), and it seems manageable. But... I'll be running Windows. (XP is fine - $190.) It seems like that's always the deal killer. Windows is so freaking expensive that it seems to eat up most, of not all, of the do-it-yourself savings.

If the only thing you need Windows for is Flight Simulator, then Linux might be the option for you. Linux has plenty of awsome flight simulators available like Flight Gear and X-Plane. Heck, you might be able to run these on your current hardware and forget about buying a new computer altogether.

If you do need to stick with Windows, then building your own computer doesn't save you that much. The Microsoft tax only adds about $40 to the cost of a Dell, but a copy of Windows in a box is around $200. That means that if you are going to buy a new Windows license, you have to save more than $150 on the hardware alone in order to actually save money total. I have heard from people that you can get legal Windows licenses at steep discounts if you know the right people and places. Don't ask me though, I have no idea. I'm still using the two free XP licenses I got when I was in college.

Right now I'm using my Dell here at work with the 1.86Ghz Core 2 Duo 6300. I gotta say, it's pretty damn fast. It's definitely the fastest desktop computer I've ever used. If you're definitely going to stick with Windows maybe you should just wait for the next update to Dell's product line.

kenjura

I contradict.

The Core 2 Duo is rock-solid. Back when it was released, I determine the 6600 was optimal. That may or may not be true anymore, but it certainly seems like a sweet spot.

I do not recommend running Windows XP 32-bit on the X2. It is a 64-bit chip which emulates 32-bit. The Core 2 is no different in theory, but the implementation is wildly different. I've almost never experienced such an unstable computer as when I was running XP 32 on my Athlon 64 X2 processor. When I switched to Windows XP 64, the problem went away. I can't speak for linux, because I don't run it on that processor.

The Core 2 is faster and more stable than the Athlon. I'm using a Core 2 system now, and it's the pinnacle of stability. Go with the Core 2 Duo, and you will not be disappointed. The X2 is cheaper for a reason.

Apreche

The Core 2 is faster and more stable than the Athlon. I'm using a Core 2 system now, and it's the pinnacle of stability. Go with the Core 2 Duo, and you will not be disappointed. The X2 is cheaper for a reason.

This is all true, but it's all about the price:performance ratio. If the X2 is fast enough for what you do, then it might not be worth paying %50 more dollars for %25 more power. Also, IMHO, the selection of motherboards for AMD chips is so much nicer. If money is no object, Intel all the way. If money is tight, you have to do some tricky math to figure out which is right for you. My bet is that after a couple more market cycles, AMD will be in serious trouble. It's a good thing they bought ATi, or they'd be going nowhere fast. If they don't come out with an amazing new chip architecture in the next year or two, we'll be back to a world of one CPU manufacturer. Of course, the same was true for Intel a couple years ago, and they pulled it off. Let's home AMD does the same to keep the competition fierce.

Rym

With the current price-cuts, you can get the fastest X2 that exists for more than $100 less than the E6600. Most benchmarks show similar performance between high-end X2s and mid-range Core2s.

Theoretically, April 22nd is the day to wait for. If the Core2 drops in price as expected, the price gap will narrow considerably, bringing the Core2 back into the equation.

You also have to consider that AMD motherboards seem to be much better per dollar than current Intel ones if you want nForce chipsets.

Kilarney

I checked out a system using parts from newegg: Click here.
It's only $150 than a comparable unit from Dell. (And I'm sure I left something out of my wishlist - I did it very quickly.)

I'm no fan of Dell, but their prices really are pretty good.

My main requirements are:
E6600 processor
2 GB RAM
GeForce 7900 GS video card

Everything else is pretty flexible.