N
news_reader
Looking for a manufacturer of video card that does not use a fan for
cooling, any sugestions on makers/models
cooling, any sugestions on makers/models
news_reader said:Looking for a manufacturer of video card that does not use a fan for
cooling, any sugestions on makers/models
Looking for a manufacturer of video card that does not use a fan for
cooling, any sugestions on makers/models
news_reader said:Looking for a manufacturer of video card that does not use a fan for
cooling, any sugestions on makers/models
Looking for a manufacturer of video card that does not use a fan for
cooling, any sugestions on makers/models
news_reader said:Not looking for game specs, a faster video processor than my mx-440 that I
have now
Not looking for game specs, a faster video processor than my mx-440 that I
have now
news_reader said:Not looking for game specs, a faster video processor than my mx-440 that I
have now
I also have an MX-440 (Nvidia, that is) with 128 MB of ram. The first time
I opened the case to look around, I was surprised to notice that it did not
include a fan, but thought that it did. When I would run a video game, a
fan would go into high gear. After loading mother board monitor, I noted
that the CPU temperature would rise above 130 degrees F. Of course, it was
the CPU fan going flat-out.
My question: since the video card contains its own processor and ram, why
is the CPU (P4) taking such a hit (temperature-wise).
I also have 1 GB of
RAM which (I thought) would help the situation.
The computer, an H-P, uses
a duct to conduct hot air from the CPU to the room, which doesn't leave much
room for an elaborate fan/heatsink combo.
Allright then, going to a 5200 or 9550 won't do anything for standard
windows usage at this point. Is the MX440 a 64 bit card, and the 5200 128
bit? Do I gain any noticable speed for loading windows or graphics??
news_reader said:Im running a P4 2.8 and 1g ram, so thats ok.....I assume
kony said:No.
Unless graphics means 3D games. About 8 years ago it
mattered for video/DVD playback because at that point only
ATI had decent motion compensation but these days any card
is sufficient for 2D performance, except perhaps integrated
video because it's robbing the system of memory bandwidth-
even so modern DDR-memory-based integrated video is also
plenty fast enough for 2D when configured optimally
(correctly).
news_reader said:was looking at a performance increase in loading/running 2D apps, thinking
that a faster video prosessor would make a difference.
Synapse Syndrome said:Really can't see how you think a more powerful GPU could lead to faster
loading, or running of any non 3D applications. The only difference that
you could possibly see is that windows would be redrawn more quickly when
you drag them around the screen very fast. I can see difference in this
between my Matrox G450 and Parhelia cards.
ss.
news_reader said:was looking at a performance increase in loading/running 2D apps, thinking
that a faster video prosessor would make a difference.
GT said:No, to improve any normal windows tasks (barring some 3D work), the only
way you can improve speed is by upgrading the CPU, memory or hard disk. If
applications are taking ages to open, then look at the memory or hard disk
for a bottleneck. If things are generally slow, then look at the CPU and
memory for a bottleneck.
If you have opened several applications at once and the hard disk
continues to thrash (click) away, then you have run out of memory and the
PC is using the hard disk as RAM, which is slow - get more RAM. If this is
not the case, then look at a new CPU and/or hard disk.
Lots of conbinations and options there!!