Intel SE440BX-2 and on-board audio

[Slainte]

What's the consensus about the embedded sound on this old board(SE440BX-2) ? Use it or disable it and install a sound card?


Q=1-081-49FIVE

 

[snotling]

If my memory is reliable, It was a Yamaha codec.

ANY 15$ sound card is better than this.

 

[Crashman]

I have one of those boards here, it's not just a codec, it's the full audio chip.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[Crashman]

It's OK, it's the Yamaha XG sound processor present on older $30 sound cards (circa 1998). I think it's actually a bit better than the Soundblaster 64 PCI.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[Slainte]

Thanks Crashman------I'll keep the Yamaha as I really don't need a heavy SB anymore. Just something that works .
Slainte!

Q=1-081-49FIVE

 

[Crashman]

Snotling, most boards didn't come with base codecs back then (some cheap boards did), but instead came with actual PCI sound processors, such as the Yamaha XG, Soundblaster PCI (1370/1371), or ESS AudioDrive (1868, etc).

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[Crashman]

OH, something else just occured to me! The GOOD boards, such as Gateway, Dell, and Compaq OEM boards, used PCI sound processors, while CHEAP boards, such as home builders and PC shops used, came with low end codecs!

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[snotling]

I did not dare contradict the great crashman on such an unimportant issue (5 year old sound card!) but the Intel made SE440BX-2 boards also only used the cheap Codec.

 

[Crashman]

Amazing that the company that invented the idea of AC97 codecs (fairly sure it was Intel anyway) continued to use sound processors on their own boards until something like 1999!

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[snotling]

Let's just say that DOS games "sound" and joystick compatibility in Win98 was a big Issue. Intel was indeed one of the major supporters of the AC97 standard, Microsoft was another. They both wanted unified driver architecture and board makers wanted against it. (or was it the other way around?)

This talk about 440BX chipsets made me want to have a look at my old boards in my museum of "what was once great and should inspire hardware manufacturers of today" the 440BX takes a lot of place in it.

I have three versions of Intel made 440BX boards. One using the full yamaha sound chip, another using only a Codec and the last has a PCI creative sound on it.

(I also own a 440LX FIC Board that I should not even mention.)

To make a long story short, Intel played it safe bye supporting the new standard in its chipsets while supplying the "proven effective PCI sound card solution" on it's mid range and high end MBs.