🚀 go-pugleaf

First and most obvious from the names is that one has a 16 bit-wide internal structure, and the other has 
a 128-bit wide internal structure, so one can process 2 bytes of sound data at a time and the other can 
process 16 bytes at a time. This makes a huge difference in throughput. Now the PCI bus probably only 
32-bits wide, so the 128 may not really be 8 times as powerful, but it has the potential to be more than 
twice as fast. This is probably used to do more things at once, allowing a fuller feature set.

None of this has anything to do with the quality of the sounds produced, just the capability to service more 
and possibly more diverse requests in the same time frame.

This is all just deduction from the names. I have no empirical evidence or experience with the 128. I have 
used lots of SB-16's (ISA and PCI) and had a SB 64 before I gave up on Creative Labs and passed the 
cards on to others. AFAIK, the cards are still working as designed in the machines they are in.

In article <8f16f76b.0110170448.4a0f7423@posting.google.com>, Roger Shum wrote:
> Subject: Difference between CT4740 (SB 16 PCI) and CT4750/1 (SB PCI 128)
> 
> Hi, there,
> The model number of Creative's sound card is quite confusing.
> 
> I would like to know what are the difference between these two models:
> CT4740 and CT4750?
> 
> Thanks,
> Roger
>

Werner Kliewer
in Winnipeg

"Werner Kliewer" <vkliewer@mpi.mb.ca> wrote in message
news:VA.000002ab.09e4b12e@mpi.mb.ca...
> First and most obvious from the names is that one has a 16 bit-wide
internal structure, and the other has
> a 128-bit wide internal structure, so one can process 2 bytes of
sound data at a time and the other can
> process 16 bytes at a time.

Of course this isn't true. It turns out that the two cards are
different versions of the same basic technology that originated with
the Ensoniq AudioPCI. I suspect you could unsolder the DSP and DAC
from any of these cards, interchange them, and they'd still all work.

The SB PCI 16 is the cheaper card and has historically had a Codec
chip with the lower performance. I tried a recent-production PCI 128
just recently, and it had degraded significantly since when I tested
it for www.pcavtech.com a couple of years ago.

I've pretty well written off the whole series of cards, whatever name
CL puts on it.