| Forum Index > Tech Support |
|
TheToast
United States4808 Posts
On May 30 2012 10:55 Kiritsu wrote: I am on a home wireless connection. I can connect to battle.net and play custom games on sc2 but can't play ladder. Help please. What happens when you try to play ladder games? | ||
|
Kiritsu
Trinidad/Tobago7 Posts
On May 30 2012 11:14 TheToast wrote: What happens when you try to play ladder games? The orange bar that says "searching for players" never shows up and the game hangs right there. | ||
|
Ficetool
Germany165 Posts
So far it only works for players (like Mediaplayer e.g.) but as I only use Grooveshark this would help me out a lot...So can anyone help me with this? Thanks | ||
|
TheToast
United States4808 Posts
On May 30 2012 11:55 Kiritsu wrote: The orange bar that says "searching for players" never shows up and the game hangs right there. First thing I would suggest is checking that you have all the necessary ports open on your router, more information about that here: http://us.battle.net/support/en/article/starcraft-ii-connection-issue-faq#q-4 Also check that SC2 is allowed through the Windows firewall. | ||
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
| ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On May 30 2012 23:59 infinity21 wrote: What's the easiest way to achieve a triple monitor setup if I have a nvidia gtx 260? Would getting a new graphics card be the cheapest solution? I have one of those smaller cases/mobos so I'm not sure if getting a 2nd graphics card is possible (will have to check when I get home). If you mean for gaming, you really need multi-GPU to pull it off well. (Before Toast shows up arguing for the sake of arguing, I'm not saying you can't do Eyefinity on a single AMD GPU, it's just that the resolution is going to make playing at proper settings and framerate at the same time pretty much impossible, and tons of screen real estate at lowest settings is just pretty fucking stupid.) If you mean multiple displays for 2d mode, you still need a multi-GPU setup, or an AMD card. Nvidia doesn't support 3 displays off a single GPU yet, unless they've started it in the 600s. However, non-gaming mutli-GPU doesn't require matching cards, so you can slap in some cheapo shit if you want, just as long as they're both from the same company. I wouldn't want to try mixing drivers, even if there's some screwy way to do one each of AMD and Nvidia. | ||
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
If your CPU sucks, you can also upgrade to Sandy Bridge or Ivy Bridge and run the third monitor off of the IGP. btw Nvidia supports four monitors off of a single GPU on 600 series (link) | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On May 31 2012 00:53 Myrmidon wrote: If you don't have a usual PCI Express x16 slot open, there exist some low-end graphics cards that fit in PCI Express x1 slots, and others that use PCI. I think you can use one of those in addition to the GTX 260. Those tend to be really overpriced and ancient though. If your CPU sucks, you can also upgrade to Sandy Bridge or Ivy Bridge and run the third monitor off of the IGP. btw Nvidia supports four monitors off of a single GPU on 600 series (link) Outstanding, although the same point applies for gaming with it. I really should get around to catching up on current hardware. There's just so little point, since I gave up on trying to do the price matching thing on builds, since I'm so damn slow at it. | ||
|
niteReloaded
Croatia5282 Posts
Initially I wanted to go for AMD, but after some searching I'm getting some hints that Intel's cpu may be better. The google results are messy, and I really just wanna hear it from someone who knows what they're talking about. (I need to pick a cheap laptop for someone, I'm planning on shipping 4gb of RAM and one of these CPUs) Any comments are welcome. | ||
|
TheToast
United States4808 Posts
On May 31 2012 00:40 JingleHell wrote: If you mean for gaming, you really need multi-GPU to pull it off well. (Before Toast shows up arguing for the sake of arguing, I'm not saying you can't do Eyefinity on a single AMD GPU, it's just that the resolution is going to make playing at proper settings and framerate at the same time pretty much impossible, and tons of screen real estate at lowest settings is just pretty fucking stupid.) If you mean multiple displays for 2d mode, you still need a multi-GPU setup, or an AMD card. Nvidia doesn't support 3 displays off a single GPU yet, unless they've started it in the 600s. However, non-gaming mutli-GPU doesn't require matching cards, so you can slap in some cheapo shit if you want, just as long as they're both from the same company. I wouldn't want to try mixing drivers, even if there's some screwy way to do one each of AMD and Nvidia. I'm not going to argue when you're right.  There's some other funky setups you can do. I remember at my last job setting up a PC that had a dual monitor video card and concurrently used the onboard video device for the third monitor; though I have no idea how we did that. Though I remember it took like 30 minutes to get Windows to properly order each of the monitors. Was a pain in the friggin ass. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
Right, that's why defragging an SSD never hurts, according to some people? Or dust can't block a GPU heatsink and cause heat trouble? Pre-emptive strike. | ||
|
Wabbit
United States1028 Posts
On May 31 2012 01:04 niteReloaded wrote: Which processor is better: Intel B815 vs AMD E-450? Initially I wanted to go for AMD, but after some searching I'm getting some hints that Intel's cpu may be better. The google results are messy, and I really just wanna hear it from someone who knows what they're talking about. (I need to pick a cheap laptop for someone, I'm planning on shipping 4gb of RAM and one of these CPUs) Any comments are welcome. B815 is far better. It's built on the Sandy Bridge architecture, which is much more advanced. You can see some synthetic benchmarks (which can be fairly representative of real-world performance) for both of these. The B815 is ~50-100% faster. http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Celeron-B815-Notebook-Processor.64413.0.html http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-E-Series-E-450-Notebook-Processor.60138.0.html | ||
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
On May 31 2012 01:04 niteReloaded wrote: Which processor is better: Intel B815 vs AMD E-450? Initially I wanted to go for AMD, but after some searching I'm getting some hints that Intel's cpu may be better. The google results are messy, and I really just wanna hear it from someone who knows what they're talking about. (I need to pick a cheap laptop for someone, I'm planning on shipping 4gb of RAM and one of these CPUs) Any comments are welcome. B815 is a mainstream CPU, a Sandy Bridge (like they have on desktops, laptops, servers), just cut down on features most people don't care about, and run at a relatively low clock speed. It's a powerful yet power-efficient CPU, scaled down to not be as powerful. E-450 is the full-fledged version of a CPU design intended to be low-power and low-performance, destined for netbooks and the like. B815 comes out to be about twice as fast as the E-450. Both are dual cores. The integrated graphics on both are about similar in performance. Both should be able to play HD videos and the like, in general, but the E-450 is in more trouble if GPU acceleration isn't available for some reason. Intel integrated graphics have more drivers-related compatibility issues though. E-450 power consumption should be a bit lower, meaning longer battery life, given an equal battery (but it may not be given an equal battery in practice). The difference, however, is not as great as the nominal TDP values suggest: 35W vs. 17W. edit: ninja'd. You know, in a lot of situations the extra CPU processing capability isn't needed, so I'd suggest going for lower power consumption, but it doesn't seem like the E-450 is that much better in terms of idle draw. Maybe the difference is overshadowed by motherboard, chipset, RAM, hard drive, etc. power draws. | ||
|
TheToast
United States4808 Posts
On May 31 2012 01:10 JingleHell wrote: Right, that's why defragging an SSD never hurts, according to some people? Or dust can't block a GPU heatsink and cause heat trouble? Pre-emptive strike. The SSD thing I said was a good question, and was clearly just theorizing. Though I did some reading and corrected myself, did I not? Also, I never said dust can't block a GPU heatsink. I said it was highly unlikely that dust alone would cause the temps to sit at 80C when idle. | ||
|
niteReloaded
Croatia5282 Posts
On May 31 2012 01:27 Wabbit wrote: B815 is far better. It's built on the Sandy Bridge architecture, which is much more advanced. You can see some synthetic benchmarks (which can be fairly representative of real-world performance) for both of these. The B815 is ~50-100% faster. http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Celeron-B815-Notebook-Processor.64413.0.html http://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-E-Series-E-450-Notebook-Processor.60138.0.html On May 31 2012 01:28 Myrmidon wrote: B815 is a mainstream CPU, a Sandy Bridge (like they have on desktops, laptops, servers), just cut down on features most people don't care about, and run at a relatively low clock speed. It's a powerful yet power-efficient CPU, scaled down to not be as powerful. E-450 is the full-fledged version of a CPU design intended to be low-power and low-performance, destined for netbooks and the like. B815 comes out to be about twice as fast as the E-450. Both are dual cores. The integrated graphics on both are about similar in performance. Both should be able to play HD videos and the like, in general, but the E-450 is in more trouble if GPU acceleration isn't available for some reason. Intel integrated graphics have more drivers-related compatibility issues though. E-450 power consumption should be a bit lower, meaning longer battery life, given an equal battery (but it may not be given an equal battery in practice). The difference, however, is not as great as the nominal TDP values suggest: 35W vs. 17W. edit: ninja'd. You know, in a lot of situations the extra CPU processing capability isn't needed, so I'd suggest going for lower power consumption, but it doesn't seem like the E-450 is that much better in terms of idle draw. Maybe the difference is overshadowed by motherboard, chipset, RAM, hard drive, etc. power draws. Thank you both <<<<<<33333333 | ||
|
scudst0rm
Canada1149 Posts
On May 30 2012 22:54 Ficetool wrote: Hey I was wondering if it was possible to apply the media keys of my Steelseries 6gv2 to Grooveshark.com? So far it only works for players (like Mediaplayer e.g.) but as I only use Grooveshark this would help me out a lot...So can anyone help me with this? Thanks I've looked in to this. Apparently grooveshark doesn't expose an API to do global hotkeys so it's not possible with the browser player. I believe there are some unofficial desktop clients that support global hotkeys, but I don't know how good they are. | ||
|
chroniX
517 Posts
| ||
|
Wabbit
United States1028 Posts
And if you do that, yes, the integrated graphics will be usable via the motherboard's video outputs. | ||
|
candyshopgirl
Sweden28 Posts
| ||
|
chroniX
517 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
OSC
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
OSC
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
Serral vs Bunny
ByuN vs GgMaChine
CranKy Ducklings
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
