mondamoto Posted January 4, 2010 Posted January 4, 2010 This is probably going to sound like a stupid question but I figured I would ask just in case I am wrong. I want to replace the 400 watt power supply on my Asus computer with an 850 watt which will be powerful enough to let me upgrade to a decent video card. What I need to know is this is as simple as removing the old one and replacing it with the new one there is nothing special I need to do or know? I am also having a little difficulty trying to figure out how to deactivate the onboard video card. For the life of me I cannot find anything in the Bios to deactivate it. Do you need to do this on newer computers or is there a jumper on the mother board I need to look for or due I just plug it in and deactivate the old on via windows. I have an Asus CG5270 Essentio running Windows 7 Thanks, Mond
azrael Posted January 4, 2010 Posted January 4, 2010 ...What I need to know is this is as simple as removing the old one and replacing it with the new one there is nothing special I need to do or know? Yes, it is very simple. Be sure you unplug all power cables, then remove it. Also, be sure the PSU fits otherwise, you'll have spent that money for nothing. I am also having a little difficulty trying to figure out how to deactivate the onboard video card. For the life of me I cannot find anything in the Bios to deactivate it. Do you need to do this on newer computers or is there a jumper on the mother board I need to look for or due I just plug it in and deactivate the old on via windows. All you should need to do is just drop in the new video card and the new card should take over for video.
David Hingtgen Posted January 10, 2010 Posted January 10, 2010 What are the alternatives to an ipod? I'm looking for the simplest, cheapest "thing" that can play MP3's. Specifically want one with as few buttons/controls as possible.(it's not for me). ipod shuffle is not an option due to the controls being on the cord. Also---ipod requires itunes, zune requires whatever MS uses. I'm looking for one where I can just take their favorite couple CDs, rip them to MP3s, and put them on their player with minimal fuss.
Chowser Posted January 10, 2010 Posted January 10, 2010 my gf gave me a samsung u5 for xmas cuz i needed a cheap mp3 player for the police car, and it's been working great.
VF-19 Posted January 10, 2010 Posted January 10, 2010 What are the alternatives to an ipod? I'm looking for the simplest, cheapest "thing" that can play MP3's. Specifically want one with as few buttons/controls as possible.(it's not for me). ipod shuffle is not an option due to the controls being on the cord. Also---ipod requires itunes, zune requires whatever MS uses. I'm looking for one where I can just take their favorite couple CDs, rip them to MP3s, and put them on their player with minimal fuss. Try the Sansa Fuze. It also plays FLAC. I just jack it into my computer with the cord (it's not a standard USB cord so don't lose it), and drag and drop stuff onto either the internal memory, or onto the microSD card that you could put in for more storage (up to 16 gb if I remember correctly).
azrael Posted January 11, 2010 Posted January 11, 2010 What are the alternatives to an ipod? I'm looking for the simplest, cheapest "thing" that can play MP3's. Specifically want one with as few buttons/controls as possible.(it's not for me). ipod shuffle is not an option due to the controls being on the cord. Also---ipod requires itunes, zune requires whatever MS uses. I'm looking for one where I can just take their favorite couple CDs, rip them to MP3s, and put them on their player with minimal fuss. The Sandisk Sansa Clip+ is suppose to be a good flash-memory player. And cheap.
VF-19 Posted January 11, 2010 Posted January 11, 2010 The Sandisk Sansa Clip+ is suppose to be a good flash-memory player. And cheap. Not bad. A little small for me, personally, but I really dig the Fuze. It's only a little bit bigger (but thinner), but I find the controls are easy to use, and the battery life is great (24 hours). It helps pass the long night shifts, as the in store music sucks...
Oihan Posted January 11, 2010 Posted January 11, 2010 (edited) What are the alternatives to an ipod? I'm looking for the simplest, cheapest "thing" that can play MP3's. Specifically want one with as few buttons/controls as possible.(it's not for me). ipod shuffle is not an option due to the controls being on the cord. Also---ipod requires itunes, zune requires whatever MS uses. I'm looking for one where I can just take their favorite couple CDs, rip them to MP3s, and put them on their player with minimal fuss. I recommend the Cowow iAudio 7. It's a great DAP that plays just about every audio format out there (like my fav. format: FLAC) with a battery life of about 60 hours, I sh*t you not. You won't need any special software to transfer music over. Just simply copy and paste the music you want in the appropriate folder and it's there. You can browse through your music on the DAP through ID3 tags (I don't know the technical name for this browsing method) ala iPod or you can browse through your music like you would any other file on your PC. Last I checked the price of this player is $130 for the 16GB model. Edited January 11, 2010 by Oihan
mikeszekely Posted January 11, 2010 Posted January 11, 2010 Any advice for someone who spilled a glass of Pepsi on his good Microsoft keyboard? At first, it seemed like it was ok, but the space bar abruptly stopped working, and whenever you hit the "S" key you'd get "2s3d". I'm not real pleased with this development, as the only other keyboard I have handy is a cheaper Logitech one.
Oihan Posted January 12, 2010 Posted January 12, 2010 Any advice for someone who spilled a glass of Pepsi on his good Microsoft keyboard? At first, it seemed like it was ok, but the space bar abruptly stopped working, and whenever you hit the "S" key you'd get "2s3d". I'm not real pleased with this development, as the only other keyboard I have handy is a cheaper Logitech one. Well, if it's like a standard traditional keyboard then I think you'd be okay with rinsing it under water. Just be sure to give it a day or two to fully dry. Otherwise, I don't know what else to tell ya.
kensei Posted January 12, 2010 Posted January 12, 2010 Any advice for someone who spilled a glass of Pepsi on his good Microsoft keyboard? At first, it seemed like it was ok, but the space bar abruptly stopped working, and whenever you hit the "S" key you'd get "2s3d". I'm not real pleased with this development, as the only other keyboard I have handy is a cheaper Logitech one. Once at work, i had to clean the keyboard, and at the time, only had Windex. I used too much and it slipped between the two sheets with the electrodes or whatever, and this was causing it to type wild things. Once I let it all dry after taking it apart again, it worked.
myk Posted January 13, 2010 Posted January 13, 2010 Alright, I finally decided to buy a widescreen lcd monitor. I'm assuming that some if not most of you guys have the same thing going on, so how do you have yours set up? For example, I have mine set to "full" instead of "fit," which just widens everything and I'm not sure I like it. What about other settings? I honestly have no clue what to do with this thing and my eyes are starting to hurt lol. Meanwhile, with the new Alien vs. Predator almost out I want to make sure that I can play it properly. I can run Modern Warfare, Crysis, FEAR, Left for Dead, etc. on high settings as of now, so do you guys think I should be able to handle the new AvP? I can't seem to find the specs for it anywhere. I'll build another system if I have to-AvP is that important to me. Any suggestions are appreciated!
shiroikaze Posted January 13, 2010 Posted January 13, 2010 (edited) Why don't you set your resolution to the monitor's native resolution? (1920 x 1080 or 1920 x 1200 perhaps?) Also, http://cyri.systemrequirementslab.com/srtest/ Good ol' "Can You Run It?" Test, it will tell you your PC's specs. Also, I'd say you probably be able to run the new AvP at medium-to-high settings... Edited January 13, 2010 by shiroikaze
myk Posted January 13, 2010 Posted January 13, 2010 It's currently set at 1920 X 1080, the highest setting that seems to be available. I've been staring at this screen for so long now that no other adjustments I make seem to show a difference. I had to look up what native resolution was, lol...
shiroikaze Posted January 13, 2010 Posted January 13, 2010 Which monitor do you have and maybe what video card you're using?
myk Posted January 13, 2010 Posted January 13, 2010 (edited) Lol, yeah I guess listing specs might help. I'm running an EVGA 8800 GT with a 20" Hannspree from Best Buy. I can't even install the software cd for the monitor because it calls for Vista or 7. Also, I've used Nvidia cards for the longest time, but I'm thinking about ATI; what would be the ATI equivalent to the 8800 or 9800 GT? Edited January 13, 2010 by myk
rsvictor1976 Posted January 13, 2010 Posted January 13, 2010 Lol, yeah I guess listing specs might help. I'm running an EVGA 8800 GT with a 20" Hannspree from Best Buy. I can't even install the software cd for the monitor because it calls for Vista or 7. Also, I've used Nvidia cards for the longest time, but I'm thinking about ATI; what would be the ATI equivalent to the 8800 or 9800 GT? Radeon 4770 or 4850 are comparable in performance. It also depends on how much video RAM you have on the card. A safe bet would be to go with the 4870 but then you need to make sure you have a compatible power supply.
myk Posted January 13, 2010 Posted January 13, 2010 One of the only reasons why I'd switch to ATI anyway is to have better compatibility with older games like the original Alien vs Predator; Nvidia drivers past 6-something, circa 2002 or so, don't support older games and I miss that one. Although when the new one comes out in February I guess I'll have my hands full...
shiroikaze Posted January 13, 2010 Posted January 13, 2010 (edited) I'm assuming your monitor is this model? Hannspree 20" HF-207HPB It says the monitor's resolution is 1600 x 900, have you tried setting your desktop's resolution to that already? Also, I have an old Geforce FX5200 on my dad's computer, I had some trouble setting the resolution for the new monitor as well--The desktop was blown up and I actually had to scroll to see the entire desktop. Changing the signal to an HD format in Nvidia's control panel did wonders. Maybe that'll help too? Edited January 14, 2010 by shiroikaze
myk Posted January 14, 2010 Posted January 14, 2010 Yeah that's it. I have it set on 1920 x 1080 or something like that. I think it's better, but letters look...I dunno, smaller and not as sharp or something. I'm reading about something callled "clear-type" in xp but I just realized how amazing Call of Duty 4 looks so I've been playing instead of tuning lol...
Hiriyu Posted January 14, 2010 Posted January 14, 2010 Yeah that's it. I have it set on 1920 x 1080 or something like that. I think it's better, but letters look...I dunno, smaller and not as sharp or something. I'm reading about something callled "clear-type" in xp but I just realized how amazing Call of Duty 4 looks so I've been playing instead of tuning lol... You absolutely need to set your LCD monitor to display its native resolution (1600x900), else your image will be stretched or distorted. You may be able to get away with a lower resolution which preserves the same aspect ratio, but why would you want to? All lowering the resolution to the next matching aspect ratio serves to do is to give you less screen real-estate (less viewable onscreen), defeating the purpose of having a widescreen in the first place. 20" widescreens are on the very small end of the scale anyway, so you really don't want to lower the resolution in any case. Given the screen resolution you have, you have no reason whatsoever to upgrade your video card unless you're using Vista or Win7 and want to take advantage of DX11, which isn't a big deal as of yet. If for whatever reaon you do want to go DX11, then the ATI 5000 series is the only game in town. Your current 8800GT is more than capable of whatever you throw at it with that monitor under DX9/10/.
myk Posted January 14, 2010 Posted January 14, 2010 (edited) You absolutely need to set your LCD monitor to display its native resolution (1600x900), else your image will be stretched or distorted. Given the screen resolution you have, you have no reason whatsoever to upgrade your video card unless you're using Vista or Win7 and want to take advantage of DX11, which isn't a big deal as of yet. If for whatever reaon you do want to go DX11, then the ATI 5000 series is the only game in town. Your current 8800GT is more than capable of whatever you throw at it with that monitor under DX9/10/. Hmm....I assumed that native resolution was the maximum setting/resolution that you could set the monitor to. So, set it to 1600x900 then? I did notice that that when I played AvP2, the game no longer fills the screen as it did on 1920x1080. Is that right? As for the video card, you're right in that the 8800GT is capable but my system probably isn't. I'm still running a 3.0 P4 that I built back in '05 with just 2 G's of RAM. I should at least be dual-core by now. BTW thanks for all of the input guys, I appreciate it... Edited January 14, 2010 by myk
Vince Posted January 15, 2010 Posted January 15, 2010 Hmm....I assumed that native resolution was the maximum setting/resolution that you could set the monitor to. So, set it to 1600x900 then? I did notice that that when I played AvP2, the game no longer fills the screen as it did on 1920x1080. Is that right? As for the video card, you're right in that the 8800GT is capable but my system probably isn't. I'm still running a 3.0 P4 that I built back in '05 with just 2 G's of RAM. I should at least be dual-core by now. BTW thanks for all of the input guys, I appreciate it... most games allow you to set resolution in the option, if it did use the highest setting for your monitor it might be because the video card can't handle it. if you are not ready to get a new pc, i say don't spend money on high end video card instead step up a bit and something with 1g of ram. P4 3.0 won't run cryis, I tried, with a 1G ati 3 something hd. are you running xp64? I don't recall xp32 will use more than 3g of ram. a qual core, maybe e8200 ( or 8500??), even diy kit, pair with a single 1g 4850 (around $100) with play cryis. I did it with a 9550 with a 1g 4850 ran cryis resolution at 1600x1050 and firefox running on a second screen at 1600x1050 with no problem.
azrael Posted January 15, 2010 Posted January 15, 2010 Hmm....I assumed that native resolution was the maximum setting/resolution that you could set the monitor to. So, set it to 1600x900 then? Windows should be hiding modes you cannot display. And if you were able to set your resolution higher than the native resolution of your monitor, that probably means Windows can't detect the native resolution of your monitor. The native resolution for monitors is normally, as you may have guessed, found on product web pages, manuals, or even on the packaging. And while your video card may be able to use resolutions higher than the native resolution of the monitor, they may not be supported by the monitor. It's best to keep in mind that the resolutions supported by the video card are normally higher than what your monitor may support. As they say, always consult your manuals.
myk Posted January 15, 2010 Posted January 15, 2010 (edited) Yeah that's the problem with buying cheap-o parts, as my monitor didn't have a manual and the set-up cd only wants vista or 7; I found the native resolution and it's 1600x900, as Hiriyu pointed out. Because of the upcoming Alien vs Predator I was thinking of upgrading, but I wasn't sure what to get-the last system I built was back in '05, and I don't even think they had dual-core processors back then. I'm not even sure what parts to look at now, but maybe I'll just get a better mb, dual core processor and call it a day. Now, I'm not trying to build a high-end system, so what do you guys think about this: http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/Se...&CatId=1599 Edited January 15, 2010 by myk
shiroikaze Posted January 15, 2010 Posted January 15, 2010 (edited) Dude, you live in San Diego. Take advantage of living close to Fry's. Their CPU + motherboard combos are pretty much the best prices you can get. Here's a list of combo sales compiled from October of last year: http://slickdeals.net/forums/showthread.php?t=1800959 Right now, this is what they have currently for sale: Intel Core i7-920 + MSI X58 Pro-E for $330 Intel Core i3-530 + Gigabyte GA-H55-UD2H for $185 AMD Athlon II X3 425 + Biostar MCP6P M2+ for $60 Not as hot as some of their earlier deals, but decent nonetheless. Edited January 15, 2010 by shiroikaze
azrael Posted January 15, 2010 Posted January 15, 2010 Now, I'm not trying to build a high-end system, so what do you guys think about this: http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/Se...&CatId=1599 Dude, you live in San Diego. Take advantage of living close to Fry's. Agreed, check out Fry's. You might find a good deal. If you want to build a decent, cheap system, I suggest looking at an AMD-setup. They're cheaper than Intel and you get about as good a bang-for-your-buck. A Core i3-setup will also bring you decent performance for cheap.
Vince Posted January 16, 2010 Posted January 16, 2010 Agreed, check out Fry's. You might find a good deal. If you want to build a decent, cheap system, I suggest looking at an AMD-setup. They're cheaper than Intel and you get about as good a bang-for-your-buck. A Core i3-setup will also bring you decent performance for cheap. maybe i5 + ati 5600 (just because it's cheaper)?
mikeszekely Posted January 16, 2010 Posted January 16, 2010 maybe i5 + ati 5600 (just because it's cheaper)? If you plan on playing games, you'll get more bang for your buck if you cheap on the CPU and splurge on the GPU.
myk Posted January 16, 2010 Posted January 16, 2010 (edited) Agreed, check out Fry's. You might find a good deal. If you want to build a decent, cheap system, I suggest looking at an AMD-setup. They're cheaper than Intel and you get about as good a bang-for-your-buck. A Core i3-setup will also bring you decent performance for cheap. Yeah I built a couple of AMD systems with combo's purchased from Fry's in the past and I was always satisfied with them. I'm not sure how I made it back to Intel but that's just the way it goes I guess. I'll look into the AMD's; are there any peculiarities or special considerations that come with the AMD setups? Also, do you guys think my 8800 GT should get replaced? Here's an AMD combo I was looking at: http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/Se...&CatId=4297 Now, I'm just looking at the processor speeds, and from what I can see this AMD setup is faster than the Intel combo I posted earlier; are there certain guidelines to look for when comparing the two types of processors asides from posted CPU speeds? Edited January 16, 2010 by myk
mikeszekely Posted January 16, 2010 Posted January 16, 2010 Yeah I built a couple of AMD systems with combo's purchased from Fry's in the past and I was always satisfied with them. I'm not sure how I made it back to Intel but that's just the way it goes I guess. I'll look into the AMD's; are there any peculiarities or special considerations that come with the AMD setups? Also, do you guys think my 8800 GT should get replaced? Here's an AMD combo I was looking at: http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/Se...&CatId=4297 Now, I'm just looking at the processor speeds, and from what I can see this AMD setup is faster than the Intel combo I posted earlier; are there certain guidelines to look for when comparing the two types of processors asides from posted CPU speeds? Processor speeds rarely provide an accurate measure of real processing power anymore. It's really only useful when comparing processors within a family, and even then it's not always a sure thing (for example, a 2.67GHz Core 2 Duo might not have the performance of a 2.66GHz Core 2 Duo if the 2.67 was part of the internally-named "Conroe" line and the 2.66 is part of the "Wolfdale" line). And obviously, a Core 2 beats anything with a Pentium label, and the fastest Core 2 Quad can't hang with the slowest Core i5 or Core i7 (not sure where the Core i3 fits in yet). And of course, that's just the Intel side. Things get even murkier when you start comparing Intel to AMD, although the rule of thumb is that AMD gets solidly beat on the high end, but provide more bang for your buck in the low to mid-range. The best thing to do is to check benchmarks against other processors, and from what I can tell the processor in that combo (an AMD Athlon II X2 240, for those of you who don't feel like clicking myk's link) performs quite well, especially given it's price. Since you're going to be using your system for gaming, here are the benchmarks that are probably of the most interest for you. The idea here is that it outperforms it's closest Intel competitor, the Pentium E5200, but other tests on other pages show that it's lagging behind the Core 2 Duo E8200. On the flip side, the E8200 costs nearly double the X2 240. In fact, the X2 240 is a little cheaper than the E5200, which makes it a better value there. At the end of the day, the thing to really keep in mind is that pretty much all but the most entry-level CPUs are just fine for most everyday computing and, and with gaming your GPU is going to be a bigger factor than your CPU (a Core i7 with a GeForce 8800GTS is not going to outperform a Core 2 Duo with a GTX 280). You really only need to invest in a very high-end processor if you do a lot of processor-intensive tasks like media encoding on a daily basis. In short, the combo you picked is fine. It's a solid mid-range processor and a capable if unremarkable motherboard (that'd actually make a decent home theater box). As for upgrading the GPU, it's not a bad idea. The 8800GT is still a solid performer that can handle most games on the market, but it is getting a little long in the tooth as Nvidia expands their GTX line and ATI has their HD 5000 series. I would hold off on that until you get definite specs for AvP, though. I made the mistake of upgrading my video card one time when I found out a new game was coming out that I wanted, and the card I bought wound up only playing that game on the low settings.
Vince Posted January 16, 2010 Posted January 16, 2010 If you plan on playing games, you'll get more bang for your buck if you cheap on the CPU and splurge on the GPU. I DID NOT check the price on the i5 , haven't even think about all the P55, P58 stuffs cost. but I think upgrading video card is always cheaper than the cpu + mobo + ram, spend a little more up front on the foundation would probably expend the usable life of the system.
Vince Posted January 16, 2010 Posted January 16, 2010 (edited) Yeah I built a couple of AMD systems with combo's purchased from Fry's in the past and I was always satisfied with them. I'm not sure how I made it back to Intel but that's just the way it goes I guess. I'll look into the AMD's; are there any peculiarities or special considerations that come with the AMD setups? Also, do you guys think my 8800 GT should get replaced? Here's an AMD combo I was looking at: http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/Se...&CatId=4297 Now, I'm just looking at the processor speeds, and from what I can see this AMD setup is faster than the Intel combo I posted earlier; are there certain guidelines to look for when comparing the two types of processors asides from posted CPU speeds? have you read reviews on Tom's hardware? they have pretty good suggestions. If you are not going to be multi tasking, AMD is great, otherwise Intel might be a little better. I'll spend more on the cpu every time, there is no point to get a video card for the highest resolutions while you brand new monitor won't support it. Edited January 16, 2010 by Vince
mikeszekely Posted January 17, 2010 Posted January 17, 2010 have you read reviews on Tom's hardware? they have pretty good suggestions. If you are not going to be multi tasking, AMD is great, otherwise Intel might be a little better. I'll spend more on the cpu every time, there is no point to get a video card for the highest resolutions while you brand new monitor won't support it. I still say cheap on the CPU, splurge on the GPU. It's not just about resolution. It's about high texture quality, 16x anti-aliasing, full-screen anistropic filtering, high-level particle effects, dynamic shadows and lighting, etc.
eugimon Posted January 17, 2010 Posted January 17, 2010 I still say cheap on the CPU, splurge on the GPU. It's not just about resolution. It's about high texture quality, 16x anti-aliasing, full-screen anistropic filtering, high-level particle effects, dynamic shadows and lighting, etc. I agree. In terms of game performance, you're gonna get a lot more mileage out of a high end video card than you will with a top of the line CPU
Recommended Posts