I'll take photos of the ports at home tonight, just to make sure I have it plugged in right.
I don't think it's a problem with the video card, as that was working just fine last time the PC was operating. It's more likely some simple problem that I, in my vast ignorance, have overlooked.
Did you plug the monitor in with VGA or DVI? You want to use DVI. Then press the buttons on the monitor to switch it between VGA and DVI mode, so it is looking at the correct input.
I have a Core 2 quad 2.83GHz with 8GB of RAM and a AMD 6870 graphics card. Is it worth it to do a full upgrade, or should I just throw a new graphics card at it?
I have a Core 2 quad 2.83GHz with 8GB of RAM and a AMD 6870 graphics card. Is it worth it to do a full upgrade, or should I just throw a new graphics card at it?
As always, what are you doing with it? Games need very little CPU power (Depending on the genre).
When you say 6870... isn't that relatively modern for a GPU?
I got it in Nov of 2010. Is that not ancient?
Don't you run battlefield just fine? You have more RAM than you need. The CPU you listed isn't the strongest, but it should be fine. If anything, the most significant performance upgrade is going to be an SSD.
When you say 6870... isn't that relatively modern for a GPU?
I got it in Nov of 2010. Is that not ancient?
Don't you run battlefield just fine? You have more RAM than you need. The CPU you listed isn't the strongest, but it should be fine. If anything, the most significant performance upgrade is going to be an SSD.
But it doesn't run silky smooth on ultra. Yeah, the computer is mostly fine. I just haven't upgraded in two and half years, this is very weird for me.
You're complaining that a 2 and a half year computer runs a 2 and a half year game fine?
Besides, games are developed to work on consoles now-a-days, so they are being held back graphically. Wait until the PS4 and Xbox 720 come out, and you'll see recommended game requirements go up.
I just realized my mobo/cpu is from 2007. Oy. I don't need to upgrade yet, but soon. I have enough games to tide me by until I get the next new shiny PC game that will require me to do some upgrading.
Now the monitor is just plugged into DVI. I finally got it to respond, but it only says "no connection. Check signal cable". Pushing buttons only puts it back into power save mode,. Could the video card have gotten loose?
Now the monitor is just plugged into DVI. I finally got it to respond, but it only says "no connection. Check signal cable". Pushing buttons only puts it back into power save mode,. Could the video card have gotten loose?
Re-seat the card already! This is not hard Judith. :P
Yesterday I was made aware of something quite interesting that I should have realized on my own. There are 120Hz monitors. This seems to be the best one.
The problem is that none of them are IPS. At the present time we are forced to choose between this higher refresh rate and accurate colors. You can't have both. If you're playing real time games to win doubling your maximum frame rate is probably better than making sure the colors are accurate. 120fps vsync in Counter-Strike.
That won't help me in BF3, I'm only getting about 40-50 fps.
Pro players will turn the settings all the way down and have top end GPUs to get the 120fps so they can shoot you in the head. I'll stick with my Ultrasharps.
There may be theoretically infinite frames in real life, but your brain is still just a CPU.
It doesn't process every single frame, because it can't.
You're brain perceives motion in iterations above 15fps, beyond that, things look smoother, then it gets to a certain point and your brain is just saturated by frames.
That's why we have high speed cameras to observe the things our eyes miss.
That won't help me in BF3, I'm only getting about 40-50 fps.
Pro players will turn the settings all the way down and have top end GPUs to get the 120fps so they can shoot you in the head. I'll stick with my Ultrasharps.
I'm aware, and have them all the way down already.
Actually, there probably is a limit to the total number of frames in real life due to Planck time and other quantum mechanical effects. I'll let the resident physicists here fill in the details as I'm not sure I can do it properly (if I am even doing it properly now) with my layperson's knowledge.
EDIT: I AM ARIA. I FORGOT TO LOG OUT OF BRONZDRAGON. SORRY. Bronz actually likes 3D I think. He is also a poopy head.
I don't think people can really process more than 70-80FPS, but more importantly; If something helps my enjoyment of something I value that over something that "actually [helps] you in a competitive FPS", and I think you should too. That said, I'm not sure how much the Nvidia 3D would add to my gaming experience. I hope more than 3D movies in the cinema or 3D enabled on 3DS games, which IMO, detracts.
Comments
I don't think it's a problem with the video card, as that was working just fine last time the PC was operating. It's more likely some simple problem that I, in my vast ignorance, have overlooked.
If you dare, and you're pretty sure it should work, you might wanna check if the video card is plugged in.
This is assuming your computer turns on without trouble. Does it actually turn on?
I have a Core 2 quad 2.83GHz with 8GB of RAM and a AMD 6870 graphics card. Is it worth it to do a full upgrade, or should I just throw a new graphics card at it?
Besides, games are developed to work on consoles now-a-days, so they are being held back graphically. Wait until the PS4 and Xbox 720 come out, and you'll see recommended game requirements go up.
I guess I'll just leave it until the new consoles up the ante.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824014270
The problem is that none of them are IPS. At the present time we are forced to choose between this higher refresh rate and accurate colors. You can't have both. If you're playing real time games to win doubling your maximum frame rate is probably better than making sure the colors are accurate. 120fps vsync in Counter-Strike.
Why not just have depth perception?
What's the maximum frames that your brain can perceive?
It doesn't process every single frame, because it can't.
You're brain perceives motion in iterations above 15fps, beyond that, things look smoother, then it gets to a certain point and your brain is just saturated by frames.
That's why we have high speed cameras to observe the things our eyes miss.
But maybe 120fps isn't close to that limit.
I don't think people can really process more than 70-80FPS, but more importantly; If something helps my enjoyment of something I value that over something that "actually [helps] you in a competitive FPS", and I think you should too. That said, I'm not sure how much the Nvidia 3D would add to my gaming experience. I hope more than 3D movies in the cinema or 3D enabled on 3DS games, which IMO, detracts.