Welcome, guest. Register to remove this message!

[Skybolt]

My computer now has two graphics cards, an nVidia GeForce 6100 integrated onto the motherboard and an external nVidia GeForce 8600 on the PCI-E bus. My monitor (Samsung SyncMaster 913N) is only showing a picture from the GeForce 6100. Why is this? The GeForce 8600 can't be broken, because Linux recognises it. Is my monitor incompatible with it?

Ok a n00b Q but just have to ask. You plugged the monitor cable into the VGA or DVI port on the GF8600 card ?
Some motherboards don't automatically switch off onboard VGA if a graphicscard is present.
Check your motherboard manual whether there's a jumper to move to disable onboard VGA or if you have to do it in the BIOS.

The card doesn't have VGA ports. I plugged it into a DVI port using a VGA-DVI adapter.

Then checked that onboard VGA is disabled ?

[palaste]

My computer now has two graphics cards, an nVidia GeForce 6100 integrated onto the motherboard and an external nVidia GeForce 8600 on the PCI-E bus. My monitor (Samsung SyncMaster 913N) is only showing a picture from the GeForce 6100. Why is this? The GeForce 8600 can't be broken, because Linux recognises it. Is my monitor incompatible with it?

Ok a n00b Q but just have to ask. You plugged the monitor cable into the VGA or DVI port on the GF8600 card ?
Some motherboards don't automatically switch off onboard VGA if a graphicscard is present.
Check your motherboard manual whether there's a jumper to move to disable onboard VGA or if you have to do it in the BIOS.

The card doesn't have VGA ports. I plugged it into a DVI port using a VGA-DVI adapter.

Then checked that onboard VGA is disabled ?

I don't know how to check it. I'll have to check from the motherboard manual.

Edit: There doesn't seem to be such an option. At least not on the motherboard itself, I don't know if there is one in the BIOS. I did find a jumper that chooses between a PCI-E x1 or x4 card or the onboard DVI interface, but my graphics card looks like it's PCI-E x16, and the manual says connecting it should automatically disable the onboard DVI interface.


This post has been edited by palaste: 31 January 2008, 10:05

[predaking]

It seems you were right about the thermaltek, Knut. It's usually dead quiet, but sometimes (apparently at random), it starts to make a LOT of noise. I'm altogether happy with the hardware, except I still can't play Crysis on medium settings with a decent framerate, even in 1280*720. Sheesh. There must have been a lot of lazy coding going on at Crytek. Bioshock, for instance, runs super smooth with everything cranked up to the maximum.

[Skybolt]

It seems you were right about the thermaltek, Knut. It's usually dead quiet, but sometimes (apparently at random), it starts to make a LOT of noise. I'm altogether happy with the hardware, except I still can't play Crysis on medium settings with a decent framerate, even in 1280*720. Sheesh. There must have been a lot of lazy coding going on at Crytek. Bioshock, for instance, runs super smooth with everything cranked up to the maximum.

There's heck of a lot of sloppy PC game coding. Just look at Ace Combat 6 Fires Of Liberation for the 'old' Xbox360 it's beautiful (outshines Crysis in graphics) and it show what you can accomplish with some proper coding.

This post has been edited by Skybolt: 8 February 2008, 16:15

[Thunderclash]

It seems you were right about the thermaltek, Knut. It's usually dead quiet, but sometimes (apparently at random), it starts to make a LOT of noise. I'm altogether happy with the hardware, except I still can't play Crysis on medium settings with a decent framerate, even in 1280*720. Sheesh. There must have been a lot of lazy coding going on at Crytek. Bioshock, for instance, runs super smooth with everything cranked up to the maximum.

There's heck of a lot of sloppy PC game coding. Just look at Ace Combat 6 Fires Of Liberation for the 'old' Xbox360 it's beautiful (outshines Crysis in graphics) and it show what you can accomplish with some proper coding.

Frank: I made the mistake of buying a Thermaltake PurePower 680W PSU based on the manufacturer's numbers and a few independent tests. It didn't take long until I found out that the claims of near silent operation were a bit off. My Thermaltake PSU is now resting in its box. I bought a modular MIST 600W PSU as a replacement; that one is working great. The newest versions (revision 3) are even better.

Skybolt: If severely bugged games were released on the consoles, they would not sell due to bad reviews and potential buyers avoiding them like the plague. However, on the PC, games publishers seem to be more willing to take chances and release games that have not been fully tested and debugged, just because they can release a downloadable patch at a later date. For some reason this is accepted by the industry. Take PC game "Company Of Heroes", for example: Fine game, but how many patches so far? Close to 15 (over 2 GB downloaded), if I'm not wrong. What if they waited to release the game until if was finished? The game is still being tweaked and the latest patch was released in December 2007, well over a year after the game's initial release. You can't do this on the consoles; you have to make sure that everything is a-okay before you set a final date for release. For the most part today games are ported across the different platforms, but if the publishers concentrate their efforts on the console releases (that's where the big money are), precious little extra time will be spent to streamline the PC release. And it doesn't help that many PC users aren't willing to pay for full-price games, even great games, because they can download it for free from the 'Net, thereby undermining their own gaming platform of choice. I'm confident we would have seen both a wider range and better quality games if games publishers dared to invest more in games developement for the PC. Whenever you see a PC game being hailed as a classic with 5+ million units sold worldwide, then think about how many millions pirated copies that are also out there. The PC platform has a severe image problem that won't go away until (a) people start respecting copyright and actually buy the games, making more games publishers see the potential income and investment possibilities in new games technology on the PC platform, or (b) games publishers come up with a copy protection method that actually works perfectly...
NB! Sorry for derailing on the topic.


Knut Ingar

This post has been edited by Thunderclash: 9 February 2008, 11:42

[Skybolt]

It seems you were right about the thermaltek, Knut. It's usually dead quiet, but sometimes (apparently at random), it starts to make a LOT of noise. I'm altogether happy with the hardware, except I still can't play Crysis on medium settings with a decent framerate, even in 1280*720. Sheesh. There must have been a lot of lazy coding going on at Crytek. Bioshock, for instance, runs super smooth with everything cranked up to the maximum.

There's heck of a lot of sloppy PC game coding. Just look at Ace Combat 6 Fires Of Liberation for the 'old' Xbox360 it's beautiful (outshines Crysis in graphics) and it show what you can accomplish with some proper coding.

Frank: I made the mistake of buying a Thermaltake PurePower 680W PSU based on the manufacturer's numbers and a few independent tests. It didn't take long until I found out that the claims of near silent operation were a bit off. My Thermaltake PSU is now resting in its box. I bought a modular MIST 600W PSU as a replacement; that one is working great. The newest versions (revision 3) are even better.

Skybolt: If severely bugged games were released on the consoles, they would not sell due to bad reviews and potential buyers avoiding them like the plague. However, on the PC, games publishers seem to be more willing to take chances and release games that have not been fully tested and debugged, just because they can release a downloadable patch at a later date. For some reason this is accepted by the industry. Take PC game "Company Of Heroes", for example: Fine game, but how many patches so far? Close to 15 (over 2 GB downloaded), if I'm not wrong. What if they waited to release the game until if was finished? The game is still being tweaked and the latest patch was released in December 2007, well over a year after the game's initial release. You can't do this on the consoles; you have to make sure that everything is a-okay before you set a final date for release. For the most part today games are ported across the different platforms, but if the publishers concentrate their efforts on the console releases (that's where the big money are), precious little extra time will be spent to streamline the PC release. And it doesn't help that many PC users aren't willing to pay for full-price games, even great games, because they can download it for free from the 'Net, thereby undermining their own gaming platform of choice. I'm confident we would have seen both a wider range and better quality games if games publishers dared to invest more in games developement for the PC. Whenever you see a PC game being hailed as a classic with 5+ million units sold worldwide, then think about how many millions pirated copies that are also out there. The PC platform has a severe image problem that won't go away until (a) people start respecting copyright and actually buy the games, making more games publishers see the potential income and investment possibilities in new games technology on the PC platform, or (b) games publishers come up with a copy protection method that actually works perfectly...
NB! Sorry for derailing on the topic.


Knut Ingar

I get you, but fact is this has been a problem since birth of the PC games even back in 97,98,99 where few people even could download a game were annoyed with several bugs. Also there's a hughe copying market for consoles too and different kind of boot chips are used like falcon for xbox360 etc... so the issue was with PS1 and PS2, a lot of people had copied games for those consoles.

But nevertheless if PC game developers were interested in making good coded games i'm pretty sure people would invenst in the also due to less steeper hw demands.

[Thunderclash]

Received my newly flashed motherboard from PS Data during the week. Finally I was able to fire up the Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 CPU and get the system running. On Friday after work I originally wanted to tune the settings, especially the OCZ overclocked memory, but a problem occurred at work and I had to do a continuous follow-up Friday evening and throughout the night, getting two to three hours of sleep and then continuing throughout most of Saturday as well. I can't believe my luck..... Anyway, woke up Sunday morning and got started on the PC, installing Windows Vista 32-bit (the PC is now an XP Pro/Vista Ultimate 32-bit OS dual-boot) and giving Crysis a go. All settings were set to High and the game was running at the 1600 x 1200 resolution. Not 100 % jerk free, but it looked pretty good. And the previous mention of sloppy programming; Crysis' AI (or lack of) is a joke. Too many enemy soldiers were actually backing up in my direction without taking cover when I was shooting at them, even when I was sitting in a crouched position in plain sight. I've seen Crysis get top marks online and in a few games magazines, but the game should have gotten a swift kicking for its dimwitted computer opponents. AI my a$$.... .


Knut Ingar

[SureShot]

My new rig is running.

Corsair TX650W PSU 52amps on single 12v rail
Antec Nine Hundred case with 4x120mm and 1x200mm case fans.
Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 Wolfdale 3.16GHz CPU
Gigabyte GA-P35C-DS3R motherboard with DDR2 and DDR3 support and also DDR2 OC 1200Mhz support and FSB 1600Mhz OC support.
2x 1GB Kingston Value PC6400 Ram
Gainward BLISS GeForce 8800GT Golden Sample 1024MB
Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro CPU cooler
Samsung SpinPoint T166 250GB 16mb cache Sata II 300 harddrive
Samsung SH-S203D DVD/RW drive
Alps 3'5 floppy drive

Benchmark results.
3Dmark03 http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=5739489
3Dmark05 http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm05=4029517
3Dmark06 http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=5346209

However I'll probably be getting GeForce 9800GTX when it comes instead.

This post has been edited by SureShot: 24 February 2008, 16:02

[Protek]

Installed XP SP3 Releace Canditate on Thursday evening. The good: it still boots. The bad: no so-much-hyped difference in performance.

I am really considering getting the Matrox TripleHead2Go Digital Edition and two extra 17" LCDs. It would be an investment of 500€. "What's the point in this", you may ask. In Flight Simulator it will give the ultimate experience of being there, when you have three monitors side-by-side. You have a totally different understanding of depth and space with the two side monitors providing a side view.

[SureShot]

Surround gaming FTW.
You should get Track IR also to follow your head movement, then you won't need the POV switch on your joystick.

[palaste]

Or if the card and the game support it, all three displays could be active simultaneously?

[palaste]

It seems you were right about the thermaltek, Knut. It's usually dead quiet, but sometimes (apparently at random), it starts to make a LOT of noise. I'm altogether happy with the hardware, except I still can't play Crysis on medium settings with a decent framerate, even in 1280*720. Sheesh. There must have been a lot of lazy coding going on at Crytek. Bioshock, for instance, runs super smooth with everything cranked up to the maximum.

There's heck of a lot of sloppy PC game coding. Just look at Ace Combat 6 Fires Of Liberation for the 'old' Xbox360 it's beautiful (outshines Crysis in graphics) and it show what you can accomplish with some proper coding.

Frank: I made the mistake of buying a Thermaltake PurePower 680W PSU based on the manufacturer's numbers and a few independent tests. It didn't take long until I found out that the claims of near silent operation were a bit off. My Thermaltake PSU is now resting in its box. I bought a modular MIST 600W PSU as a replacement; that one is working great. The newest versions (revision 3) are even better.

Skybolt: If severely bugged games were released on the consoles, they would not sell due to bad reviews and potential buyers avoiding them like the plague. However, on the PC, games publishers seem to be more willing to take chances and release games that have not been fully tested and debugged, just because they can release a downloadable patch at a later date. For some reason this is accepted by the industry. Take PC game "Company Of Heroes", for example: Fine game, but how many patches so far? Close to 15 (over 2 GB downloaded), if I'm not wrong. What if they waited to release the game until if was finished? The game is still being tweaked and the latest patch was released in December 2007, well over a year after the game's initial release. You can't do this on the consoles; you have to make sure that everything is a-okay before you set a final date for release. For the most part today games are ported across the different platforms, but if the publishers concentrate their efforts on the console releases (that's where the big money are), precious little extra time will be spent to streamline the PC release. And it doesn't help that many PC users aren't willing to pay for full-price games, even great games, because they can download it for free from the 'Net, thereby undermining their own gaming platform of choice. I'm confident we would have seen both a wider range and better quality games if games publishers dared to invest more in games developement for the PC. Whenever you see a PC game being hailed as a classic with 5+ million units sold worldwide, then think about how many millions pirated copies that are also out there. The PC platform has a severe image problem that won't go away until (a) people start respecting copyright and actually buy the games, making more games publishers see the potential income and investment possibilities in new games technology on the PC platform, or (b) games publishers come up with a copy protection method that actually works perfectly...
NB! Sorry for derailing on the topic.


Knut Ingar

I get you, but fact is this has been a problem since birth of the PC games even back in 97,98,99 where few people even could download a game were annoyed with several bugs. Also there's a hughe copying market for consoles too and different kind of boot chips are used like falcon for xbox360 etc... so the issue was with PS1 and PS2, a lot of people had copied games for those consoles.

But nevertheless if PC game developers were interested in making good coded games i'm pretty sure people would invenst in the also due to less steeper hw demands.

You wacky youngsters, you. The problem with game piracy dates back to the early 1980s, way before PCs could play any games beyond Solitaire.

[SureShot]

Or if the card and the game support it, all three displays could be active simultaneously?

99% of serious flightsims support multi-monitoring.

It seems you were right about the thermaltek, Knut. It's usually dead quiet, but sometimes (apparently at random), it starts to make a LOT of noise. I'm altogether happy with the hardware, except I still can't play Crysis on medium settings with a decent framerate, even in 1280*720. Sheesh. There must have been a lot of lazy coding going on at Crytek. Bioshock, for instance, runs super smooth with everything cranked up to the maximum.

There's heck of a lot of sloppy PC game coding. Just look at Ace Combat 6 Fires Of Liberation for the 'old' Xbox360 it's beautiful (outshines Crysis in graphics) and it show what you can accomplish with some proper coding.

Frank: I made the mistake of buying a Thermaltake PurePower 680W PSU based on the manufacturer's numbers and a few independent tests. It didn't take long until I found out that the claims of near silent operation were a bit off. My Thermaltake PSU is now resting in its box. I bought a modular MIST 600W PSU as a replacement; that one is working great. The newest versions (revision 3) are even better.

Skybolt: If severely bugged games were released on the consoles, they would not sell due to bad reviews and potential buyers avoiding them like the plague. However, on the PC, games publishers seem to be more willing to take chances and release games that have not been fully tested and debugged, just because they can release a downloadable patch at a later date. For some reason this is accepted by the industry. Take PC game "Company Of Heroes", for example: Fine game, but how many patches so far? Close to 15 (over 2 GB downloaded), if I'm not wrong. What if they waited to release the game until if was finished? The game is still being tweaked and the latest patch was released in December 2007, well over a year after the game's initial release. You can't do this on the consoles; you have to make sure that everything is a-okay before you set a final date for release. For the most part today games are ported across the different platforms, but if the publishers concentrate their efforts on the console releases (that's where the big money are), precious little extra time will be spent to streamline the PC release. And it doesn't help that many PC users aren't willing to pay for full-price games, even great games, because they can download it for free from the 'Net, thereby undermining their own gaming platform of choice. I'm confident we would have seen both a wider range and better quality games if games publishers dared to invest more in games developement for the PC. Whenever you see a PC game being hailed as a classic with 5+ million units sold worldwide, then think about how many millions pirated copies that are also out there. The PC platform has a severe image problem that won't go away until (a) people start respecting copyright and actually buy the games, making more games publishers see the potential income and investment possibilities in new games technology on the PC platform, or (b) games publishers come up with a copy protection method that actually works perfectly...
NB! Sorry for derailing on the topic.


Knut Ingar

I get you, but fact is this has been a problem since birth of the PC games even back in 97,98,99 where few people even could download a game were annoyed with several bugs. Also there's a hughe copying market for consoles too and different kind of boot chips are used like falcon for xbox360 etc... so the issue was with PS1 and PS2, a lot of people had copied games for those consoles.

But nevertheless if PC game developers were interested in making good coded games i'm pretty sure people would invenst in the also due to less steeper hw demands.

You wacky youngsters, you. The problem with game piracy dates back to the early 1980s, way before PCs could play any games beyond Solitaire.

Yea but we're talking games that actually are worth pirateing
Narh i too had some copies for my old Amstrad 128.

This post has been edited by SureShot: 25 February 2008, 18:52

[palaste]

Slightly off topic, but anyway:
It makes me feel so old to suddenly find out there are people in college who have never seen a Commodore 64.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Commodore_64#Picture

[Groundsplitter]

Slightly off topic, but anyway:
It makes me feel so old to suddenly find out there are people in college who have never seen a Commodore 64.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Commodore_64#Picture

Haha! That's hilarious. Best laugh I have had in quite some time.
"Can we swap the picture of the keyboard at the top for one of the whole computer?"