VOGONS


First post, by Baoran

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

In dos games. does the sound blaster version you have affect the performance? Would you get more performance by installing older sound blaster version?

Reply 1 of 18, by bjwil1991

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Depending on the hardware (processor, speed, ISA bus clock speed). The performance can also be the amount of RAM installed, video card chip and bus type (ISA, MCA, VLB, PCI), processor speed, things of that nature. I've used a Sound Blaster 16 WaveEffects CT4170 in my 486 back until 2012 when the board stopped working with an S3 Bahamas Paradise 64 VLB video card without issues. Currently, I have a Sound Blaster 16 CT2740 with the CT1747 bus (OPL3 Integrated) with 3 more ISA cards: 3Com EtherLink III 3C509-TP, Music Quest Clone card (1st version by keropi), and a Tandy 3-Voice Compatible Sound Card made by Texelec, DX4100 OverDrive, 32MB RAM, 2GB CF (CF-IDE), Dual High Density Floppy Drive (Epson SD-800), 32X CD-ROM (not working properly), and Windows 95C + MS-DOS 6.22 and it works without issues.

Like I said, it depends on your hardware. Remember: the chipsets on certain sound cards are speed sensitive. My Socket 7 computer didn't like my Aztech Sound Galaxy NX Pro since I didn't have the -5VDC in the PSU, and it was too fast, but, it worked in my Packard Bell Pack-Mate 28 Plus without issues.

Anything above the 486, I suggest a PCI version of the Sound Blaster since they still supported DOS gaming. I have a Sound Blaster Live! 5.1 Platinum in my Windows 98SE machine and another Sound Blaster Live! 5.1 installed in my Windows XP machine and the one in my Windows 98SE machine works well with DOS (supports GM and MT-32 emulation, which is closer to the real MT-32).

Discord: https://discord.gg/U5dJw7x
Systems from the Compaq Portable 1 to Ryzen 9 5950X
Twitch: https://twitch.tv/retropcuser

Reply 2 of 18, by Baoran

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

I have 486 33Mhz with 8Mb ram and some tseng labs vlb video card. Currently I have been using Sound blaster CT2290 version in it. I also have older sound blasters like CT1320C and CT1600, so I was wondering if I would get better performance in games like doom if I used older sound blaster in the system? I also have newer sound blasters like CT2800 and CT4520 but those probably wouldn't help with performance.

Reply 3 of 18, by bjwil1991

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Good specs right there. I'd say the SB Pro 2 CT1600 would work out better. The CT1320C (SB 1.5) requires a 386 maximum, but, I believe that should work with your system without issues (if the FM speed is too fast, switch to the CT1600).

Discord: https://discord.gg/U5dJw7x
Systems from the Compaq Portable 1 to Ryzen 9 5950X
Twitch: https://twitch.tv/retropcuser

Reply 4 of 18, by Baoran

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

How much better performance I might get with an older sound blaster? I just want to know because the computer is kind of hard to take apart, so I'm trying to find more information before doing that.

Reply 5 of 18, by dionb

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++

Tbh, you are best-placed to check this yourself...

Just benchmark performance, then swap out the cards and repeat. It might be hard to take apart, but it will give you the relevant info for your PC with your cards and your software. I don't see us adding anything to that 😮

Reply 6 of 18, by Baoran

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

I was just thinking that since I have a fairly common system, someone might have experience of trying different sound cards on a 486 pc and if that makes enough performance difference for it to be worth to take it apart. It has been working fine since I built it and I have been getting around 14 fps in doom.

Reply 7 of 18, by fitzpatr

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

I don't think that the sound blaster card itself will make any difference, especially if it's ISA. What can make a difference is the options you choose, as in 8-bit/16-bit, mixing rate, etc. This still is mostly negligible.

Realistically, I wouldn't worry about it.

MT-32 Old, CM-32L, CM-500, SC-55mkII, SC-88Pro, SC-D70, FB-01, MU2000EX
K6-III+/450/GA-5AX/G400 Max/Voodoo2 SLI/CT1750/MPU-401AT/Audigy 2ZS
486 Build

Reply 8 of 18, by root42

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

I wouldn't expect any significant difference either, apart from the parameters that fitzpatr mentioned.

But feel free to do so e benchmarking yourself! Could be interesting.

YouTube and Bonus
80486DX@33 MHz, 16 MiB RAM, Tseng ET4000 1 MiB, SnarkBarker & GUSar Lite, PC MIDI Card+X2+SC55+MT32, OSSC

Reply 9 of 18, by Baoran

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

I did few tests with doom.
Sound and music turned off: 5207 realticks
Sound Blaster CT2290: 5807 realticks
Sound Blaster CT1320C: 5564 realticks
Sound Blaster CT1600: 5802 realticks.

It seems that only CT1320C helps with performance a bit, but probably not enough to really matter.

Edit: Sound Blaster CT2800: 5800 realticks. I tested this one too because I thought I might as well test that all my old sound blaster cards that are not in any of my retro PCs still work.

Reply 11 of 18, by Baoran

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
oeuvre wrote:

CT1350b yo

I have not seen that one. Would it be better?
My CT1320C is from 1990 and it is actually surprising that it still works perfectly after almost 30 years.

CT1320C.jpg
Filename
CT1320C.jpg
File size
1.79 MiB
Views
1011 views
File license
Fair use/fair dealing exception

Reply 12 of 18, by Jo22

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
Baoran wrote:
oeuvre wrote:

CT1350b yo

I have not seen that one. Would it be better?
My CT1320C is from 1990 and it is actually surprising that it still works perfectly after almost 30 years.

https://www.vogonswiki.com/index.php/Creative_Labs
Depends on point of view. The CT1350B is the Sound Blaster II, and it's DSP chip supports auto-init DMA.
In contrast, your card supports CMS/GameBlaster music out of box, once you've installed the Philips chips.
If you've got an Sound Blaster 1.5, there's a chance the DSP might be on the same level as of that of a Sound Blaster 2.0.
So they would be akin except for the lower noise level the CT1320C has (your card might be "better" than the CT1350B).

"Time, it seems, doesn't flow. For some it's fast, for some it's slow.
In what to one race is no time at all, another race can rise and fall..." - The Minstrel

//My video channel//

Reply 13 of 18, by Ozzuneoj

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
Baoran wrote:
I did few tests with doom. Sound and music turned off: 5207 realticks Sound Blaster CT2290: 5807 realticks Sound Blaster CT1320C […]
Show full quote

I did few tests with doom.
Sound and music turned off: 5207 realticks
Sound Blaster CT2290: 5807 realticks
Sound Blaster CT1320C: 5564 realticks
Sound Blaster CT1600: 5802 realticks.

It seems that only CT1320C helps with performance a bit, but probably not enough to really matter.

Edit: Sound Blaster CT2800: 5800 realticks. I tested this one too because I thought I might as well test that all my old sound blaster cards that are not in any of my retro PCs still work.

Any chance that the CT1320C's lack of stereo sound support would account for the difference in speed? Presumably, the CPU would have less to process if the game was set up for mono sound only.

Now for some blitting from the back buffer.

Reply 14 of 18, by fitzpatr

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
Ozzuneoj wrote:
Baoran wrote:
I did few tests with doom. Sound and music turned off: 5207 realticks Sound Blaster CT2290: 5807 realticks Sound Blaster CT1320C […]
Show full quote

I did few tests with doom.
Sound and music turned off: 5207 realticks
Sound Blaster CT2290: 5807 realticks
Sound Blaster CT1320C: 5564 realticks
Sound Blaster CT1600: 5802 realticks.

It seems that only CT1320C helps with performance a bit, but probably not enough to really matter.

Edit: Sound Blaster CT2800: 5800 realticks. I tested this one too because I thought I might as well test that all my old sound blaster cards that are not in any of my retro PCs still work.

Any chance that the CT1320C's lack of stereo sound support would account for the difference in speed? Presumably, the CPU would have less to process if the game was set up for mono sound only.

That's my guess as well since both the Sound Blaster 1.5 and Sound Blaster Pro 2 are 8-bit for all intents and purposes. OPL2 (mono) vs. OPL3 (stereo) is likely a big/the biggest factor.

MT-32 Old, CM-32L, CM-500, SC-55mkII, SC-88Pro, SC-D70, FB-01, MU2000EX
K6-III+/450/GA-5AX/G400 Max/Voodoo2 SLI/CT1750/MPU-401AT/Audigy 2ZS
486 Build

Reply 16 of 18, by Baoran

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

I used the same settings for all the cards. Both music and sound are just "sound blaster" in the setup program, so would the game know to take advantage of stereo sound?

Reply 17 of 18, by fitzpatr

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member
Baoran wrote:

I used the same settings for all the cards. Both music and sound are just "sound blaster" in the setup program, so would the game know to take advantage of stereo sound?

Assuming that the SET BLASTER Type is being correctly changed, DOOM may be reading it and adjusting accordingly. You could try keeping the CT1600 in, but changing the T= value between 1 (Sound Blaster 1.0 or 1.5), and 4 (Sound Blaster Pro 2) to see if it makes a difference.

MT-32 Old, CM-32L, CM-500, SC-55mkII, SC-88Pro, SC-D70, FB-01, MU2000EX
K6-III+/450/GA-5AX/G400 Max/Voodoo2 SLI/CT1750/MPU-401AT/Audigy 2ZS
486 Build