Audio Performance

We limited audio testing to the Rightmark 3D Sound version 2.2 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.

The Realtek ALC-655 AC97 audio codec was tested with the recently released 3.84 driver set. The Realtek DirectSound audio drivers do not support more than 26 hardware buffers and the OpenAL 1.1 drivers do not support more than 23 hardware buffers at this time, so the scores cannot be directly compared to the HDA Mystique 7.1, Realtek ALC-882, and Creative Labs Sound Blaster X-FI audio solutions in the benchmarks. The Realtek OpenAL 1.1 driver increases CPU utilization up to 8% more than the Realtek DirectSound drivers.

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

The Realtek ALC-655 AC97 audio codec has average CPU utilization rates with reductions of up to 4% in the 3D tests compared to the previous driver release. The HDA Mystique 7.1 Gold has the highest overall utilization rates of the audio solutions tested. The Realtek ALC-655 performance is good, but it does not match the audio quality of the ALC-882 HD audio codec. The Sound Blaster X-FI has the lowest overall rates as expected. Let's find out how these results translate into real world numbers.

Game Audio Performance - Serious Sam II - Branchester Demo

Game Audio Performance - BattleField 2

Game Audio Performance - Splinter Cell Chaos Theory

Game Audio Performance - Call of Duty II - Demo 5

Game Audio Performance - F.E.A.R. - Performance Test

The audio performance numbers remain consistent as the Realtek ALC-655 generally finishes near the HDA Mystique 7.1 and SoundBlaster X-FI. Serious Sam II suffers a loss of 43%, Splinter Cell at 1%, Battlefield 2 at 21%, Call of Duty 2 at 2%, and F.E.A.R. at 4%. The output quality of audio with the Realtek ALC-655 is good and continues to improve with each driver release, but in no way compares to the HD audio codecs or most discreet audio solutions. The majority of home/office users should have no issues utilizing the ALC-655, but we would not recommend it as the primary audio solution for a gaming or HTPC system, considering the overall quality of audio. In fact, the audio quality in most applications sounded flat and lacked clarity.

If you are a serious gamer, then a dedicated sound card is still a requirement to ensure consistent frame rate averages across a wide variety of games. We noticed in previous testing of our Battlefield 2 and Half Life 2 benchmarks that the Realtek AC97 audio codecs would cause stuttering in intensive scenes. The 3.84 driver release does not have stuttering in our current benchmarks while improving performance across the board.

The Realtek 3.84 driver installation installs a basic control panel that features a built-in 10-band equalizer along with the standard mixer and speaker controls. We found the control panel to be user friendly and a definite improvement over the standard Windows audio properties application.

Ethernet Performance Final Words
Comments Locked

35 Comments

View All Comments

  • Palek - Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - link

    Gary,

    There is a spelling error in the last sentence of the 1st page:

    "Let's find out how Epox's offering fairs against the competition."

    The correct spelling is "fares" not "fairs".
  • Gary Key - Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - link

    I had corrected it on the final draft and somehow it still made it in. My fault for not catching it once the article went live last night. It is corrected now as are the ascending chart figures.
  • Googer - Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - link

    Is epox part of Shuttle?

    http://local.google.com/local?q=Epox%20EP-9U1697-G...">http://local.google.com/local?q=Epox%20...utf-8&am...
  • Googer - Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - link

    The ULi M1695 is all about upgradeability and the ASrock implementation uses a 20pin PSU where as the Epox implementation needs a 24pin connection. Based on the benchmarks it also looks like you will need to purchase a PCI-e x1 gigabit controller.

    Speaking from experience, my biggest gripe on the ASrock M1695 is the BIOS is very quirky and can be very very slow to POST.

    Epox is the king if you are an overclocker and overall performance is very impressive compaired to the ASrock ULi M1695.

  • Avalon - Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - link

    8Mb throughput? Are you sure that's not a mistake?
    The only comment on Epox's ethernet score was that it was not competitive...700Mb vs 8Mb...I'd say something is wrong, or a typo?
  • Palek - Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - link

    Yeah, I noticed that, too, then I found the missing "9" outside the graph area. The figure is correct, it's just the layout that is messed up.
  • Gary Key - Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - link

    The actual number is 98.9Mb/s. Our graph engine has a small issue with variances that wide. It placed the 9 into the description field. I updated the text statement to reflect this issue. Thank you.
  • Peter - Friday, March 17, 2006 - link

    While you're updating, you might want to correct the research error that the RTL8201 is a "PCI based solution". It is not, it's just a PHY to the ULi chip's integrated 10/100 MAC.

    Oh, and when are you finally going to stop attributing memory performance to chipsets on AMD64?
  • Cygni - Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - link

    Might have to pick one of these up...
  • Rock Hydra - Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - link

    The Epox EP-9U1697 GLi displayed superb stability with 4 DDR2 modules in Dual-Channel operation at the settings of 2-2-2-7, but it required the command rate to be increased to 2T.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now