|
On October 25 2014 19:46 Ropid wrote:
What graphics cards are you using for this and are you connecting the monitor through DVI-D or VGA or DisplayPort?
Graphics card: AMD Radeon 7700
The problem monitor: connected to the pc with DVI-D but has a "connector (sorry don't know the english word)" to make it fit a display port cable.
Second monitor: VGA form the pc then another connector piece to make it fit a display port.
Edit: I took a picture. The blue display port is the trouble monitor.
http://imgur.com/ztay7Qx
|
You did not mention the exact model of your graphics card. I'm guessing from your picture that you have a card from XFX. I can't find a card on their website where the pictures look like your card, so I don't know for sure what ports those are. Your card probably has one DVI-I port, one HDMI port and one DisplayPort port.
You connected one monitor through an adapter from VGA to DVI-A into the DVI-I port of the graphics card. That's the one with the blue connector and the white adapter. This is the monitor with the problem.
The other monitor is connected through an adapter from DVI-D to HDMI into the HDMI port of the graphics card. That's the black cable adapter.
You have one mini-DisplayPort port on the card that's unused.
That's all just guess work but the documentation for the graphics card should mention what it really is if this is wrong.
So, on the monitor that has problems, at the moment everything kind of works, but the picture is blurry, right? That should be caused by you using VGA for this monitor as that's an analog connection instead of digital.
What other cables and adapters do you have, and what kind of ports do you have on your monitor(s)? You mentioned that you had some other problem before this current blurriness issue. At that point, you somehow connected the monitor through a digital connection, so you do have some other cables that you used then?
|
On October 25 2014 23:25 Ropid wrote:
You did not mention the exact model of your graphics card. I'm guessing from your picture that you have a card from XFX. I can't find a card on their website where the pictures look like your card, so I don't know for sure what ports those are. Your card probably has one DVI-I port, one HDMI port and one DisplayPort port.
You connected one monitor through an adapter from VGA to DVI-A into the DVI-I port of the graphics card. That's the one with the blue connector and the white adapter. This is the monitor with the problem.
The other monitor is connected through an adapter from DVI-D to HDMI into the HDMI port of the graphics card. That's the black cable adapter.
You have one mini-DisplayPort port on the card that's unused.
That's all just guess work but the documentation for the graphics card should mention what it really is if this is wrong.
So, on the monitor that has problems, at the moment everything kind of works, but the picture is blurry, right? That should be caused by you using VGA for this monitor as that's an analog connection instead of digital.
What other cables and adapters do you have, and what kind of ports do you have on your monitor(s)? You mentioned that you had some other problem before this current blurriness issue. At that point, you somehow connected the monitor through a digital connection, so you do have some other cables that you used then?
Ty a ton for your help!
I guess I wasn't clear enough. The screen isn't always blurry / broken. Just sometimes. After a restart it goes away. I never had other problems before, however I have had the same problem before. At some point it just stopped happening.
I never had this set up working in any other way: ever since I have had 2 monitors I have been using this set up .
My monitors are both kinda old: the problem monitor only has a display port. My second monitor has a display port (unused atm) and a DVI-D port (used).
Edit: about the graphics card. I like to think I'm not that stupid. I seriously can't find any more information than: AMD Radeon HD 7700 series.
|
United Kingdom20343 Posts
I have the same issues sometimes with VGA monitor that's literally like 12 years old (my secondary) but it didn't really happen at all for quite a while. It used to be blurry or have some visual artifacts that sometimes changed when playing with the cable
|
On October 25 2014 23:43 Amestir wrote:
My monitors are both kinda old: the problem monitor only has a display port. My second monitor has a display port (unused atm) and a DVI-D port (used).
When you type "display port", you actually mean "VGA", right? Are you sure you don't also have a DVI connector on your problem monitor? If you do, you could try your DVI-D cable that you use on the monitor that works fine. It is the white cable in the photo you took. Try the problem monitor using that cable on both the DVI-I port of the graphics card and through the HDMI adapter on the HDMI port of the graphics card. If it works fine connected on both of those ports, go and buy a DVI-D cable to replace your VGA cable.
+ Show Spoiler +I bet you didn't get that there's a type of connector that is literally named "DisplayPort". That's a name like "VGA" or "HDMI" or "DVI-D" are names. It's not a general name for all ports that are used for displays. 
|
On October 26 2014 00:31 Ropid wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2014 23:43 Amestir wrote:
My monitors are both kinda old: the problem monitor only has a display port. My second monitor has a display port (unused atm) and a DVI-D port (used).
When you type "display port", you actually mean "VGA", right? Are you sure you don't also have a DVI connector on your problem monitor? If you do, you could try your DVI-D cable that you use on the monitor that works fine. It is the white cable in the photo you took. Try the problem monitor using that cable on both the DVI-I port of the graphics card and through the HDMI adapter on the HDMI port of the graphics card. If it works fine connected on both of those ports, go and buy a DVI-D cable to replace your VGA cable. + Show Spoiler +I bet you didn't get that there's a type of connector that is literally named "DisplayPort". That's a name like "VGA" or "HDMI" or "DVI-D" are names. It's not a general name for all ports that are used for displays.
Your patience is admirable, tyvm :D I checked my post 3 times. Yes VGA <.< My problem monitor only has a VGA port and a slot for the power. That's it. It's a bit odd since its a lot less old then my second monitor.
Tyvm!
|
If you are lucky, your graphics card and the monitor are both fine (and also their ports), and the issue is the cable connection.
I guess you could try with a different VGA cable or a new VGA-to-DVI adapter. I don't know if that's a good idea because buying new cables might just be a waste of money. You could just try to disconnect and reconnect everything for now, pull and push on all connections between the card and adapter and VGA cable and the monitor's port.
If that seems to do something, there's "electrical contact cleaner". It's sold in a spray can and a small can is 5 € or so. That might work if the issue is oxidization of the connectors of the cable or the VGA-to-DVI adapter, not something inside the cable or adapter. You would spray it into the connectors of the cable and adapter (but only the cable/adapter, not on the ports of the graphics card or monitor!).
The ingredients of that contact cleaner spray is mostly alcohol and a bit of grease. The alcohol evaporates and if you spray a lot you will have a greasy mess. After using it, you would wait until it's dry and then wipe away excess grease and then see if that fixed a bad connection without buying new cables.
|
boot order:
1. SSD
2. CD ROM
3. HDD
Is this correct or should I remove CD ROM and HDD from that boot order? I think HDD is increasing the boot time because boot has to go all three through until Win7 is ready?!
|
nah not really, if ssd is in first spot and it has windows on it, it'll just boot windows and be done with it
afaik
|
Best power supply under $300 for a single GPU and i7 4xxx CPU build?
|
|
|
United Kingdom20343 Posts
7990 and 295x2 are single graphics cards, but dual GPU
|
I knew that. figured it would be interesting throwing them in there though since even if they're dual GPU, they're still used as a single graphics card (i imagine they act like two cards in crossfire?) and they're insane power hogs.
wptlzkwjd will probably be fine with a 450W psu since only a handful of high end AMD cards require more than that. then again, the power drawn by an overclocked 780 ti does rival that of the R9 290X.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7492/the-geforce-gtx-780-ti-review/16
total system power shows 425W, which comes a bit close to 450W. on second thought, you could probably add gtx 780 ti (/titan, but who uses titans, lol) to the list of GPUs requiring a 500W PSU. then again, that's with an overclocked i7-4960X (6 core, haswell I think?).
bah, the answer would be 450W generally speaking OR 550W if you're talking about high end cards overclocked* with overclocked i7.
*except for the GTX 970 and 980
|
United Kingdom20343 Posts
On October 29 2014 23:50 Incognoto wrote:I knew that. figured it would be interesting throwing them in there though since even if they're dual GPU, they're still used as a single graphics card (i imagine they act like two cards in crossfire?) and they're insane power hogs. wptlzkwjd will probably be fine with a 450W psu since only a handful of high end AMD cards require more than that. then again, the power drawn by an overclocked 780 ti does rival that of the R9 290X. http://www.anandtech.com/show/7492/the-geforce-gtx-780-ti-review/16total system power shows 425W, which comes a bit close to 450W. on second thought, you could probably add gtx 780 ti (/titan, but who uses titans, lol) to the list of GPUs requiring a 500W PSU. then again, that's with an overclocked i7-4960X (6 core, haswell I think?). bah, the answer would be 450W generally speaking OR 550W if you're talking about high end cards overclocked* with overclocked i7. *except for the GTX 970 and 980
That's from the wall, also it's a pretty bad overclock. Low max boost clock, temp at 85c so probably throttling
425w from wall with 90% efficiency PSU = ~380w from the PSU. I also can't find their test system. Maybe it's lga2011 6-core @~4ghz? I think i've seen that one used before. 4960x is Ivy Bridge because intel like to confuse people for profit
i've always said 450 (or less) for most GPU's, 550 for oc'd big die (like a 780ti/290) - A 970 is pretty directly comparable to a 770, there will probably be another maxwell GPU next year with +50% ROPs/384bit and a ton of cores that they can slot in at ~225-250w stock that will take over for 780ti market segment and power budget
|
|
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37103 Posts
My condo is experiencing internet issues right now. For some reason, hooking up an ethernet cable to the modem and then connecting that to my laptop works fine. But the minute I connect it to a router, I get a warning message saying "addtional log in info may be required" and then w/e website I try to visit just takes me to my ISP address site. Does anyone know why this issue is being caused and how I can fix it?
|
Hi hi, I just got an USB 3.0 16GB flash drive and I'm about to format it to exFAT. My main purpose for it is to watch anime and films (large files) on my TV but probably other stuff too. Should I go with large allocation size? With factory set FAT32 HD Tune showed 40 to 90MB/s so I'm not sure if the speed might be an issue or rather the Atom CPU in the TV x).
Thanks!
|
My TV is from 2010 or so and it does not know exFAT, can only do FAT32. Just make sure the same isn't true for your TV.
|
I haven't tried it but it's from 2013, has smartTV and such. I already had to format an older flash drive to NTFS because FAT32 allows only up to 4GBs per file. For some reason I missed the exFAT option (I was probably formating it on my old laptop with WinXP), now I was able to google that exFAT is supposed to be better for flash drives, I'm just not sure about the allocation size xD.
|
On November 02 2014 04:53 Ropid wrote:My TV is from 2010 or so and it does not know exFAT, can only do FAT32. Just make sure the same isn't true for your TV.
Damn, so it looks like even a relatively new TV can't read exFAT. So I formated it in NTFS and tried 32kB allocation size for a fair comparison, here are the results:
http://i.imgur.com/PO6AYir.png
vs.
http://i.imgur.com/CQIdH1j.png
Not that insane difference but there are other technological advantages of exFAT considering how flash works. Has anyone tried formating their SSD drive in exFAT? Does that work? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
