EPTThere's nothing special about multiple monitors, a $30 card could do it and even most motherboards can do two displays.
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread - Page 63
| Forum Index > Tech Support |
When using this resource, please read the opening post. The Tech Support forum regulars have helped create countless of desktop systems without any compensation. The least you can do is provide all of the information required for them to help you properly. | ||
|
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
There's nothing special about multiple monitors, a $30 card could do it and even most motherboards can do two displays. | ||
|
IMKR
United States378 Posts
also, if theres no needed special requirements for more than 2 monitors, whats the about things like " support three monitors without the use of display port" and i also read other topcis such as "this item allows ability for x monitors" and such | ||
|
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
| ||
|
IMKR
United States378 Posts
On October 15 2013 15:26 skyR wrote: AMD only put two TMDS transmitters in their cards before the 200 series so one for DVI and the other one was shared between the DVI and HDMI so you had to use display port if you wanted three or more monitors from a single card. It's a non issue for modern setups since every card supports two monitors and your motherboard can support another two. If you're worried about stuff like this than you're just way overthinking. Yeah, i get that ALOT on things i pursue lol. I dunno why but its just my personality. I tend to over research and try to optimize w/e I do so i dont put stuff (or features) to waste. Also, research on one topic brings up more terms/topics I have to look up, and its just an endless cycle. Anyways, so is the mobo i chose out okay? or is it still overkill if i will not be doing any SLI/Crossfire with it? (meaning i should look for a H81 or B85 mobo???) | ||
|
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
| ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
How do you know so much stuff q_q | ||
|
mav451
United States1596 Posts
| ||
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
When a new graphics card actually offers a GPU of a different design or is able to cram more parts in due to using a more advanced (typically: smaller size) manufacturing process, then there actually may be reasons to get the new product. Usually a new release will have worse price/performance, but it might carry some new features or have better performance for the power consumption or something else like that. This release is top-to-bottom a straight rehash of cards available 1-2 years ago (except for maybe a feature on the R7 270X and the yet-unreleased and actually new R9 290X / 290). Because they're listed as new and a lot of people won't know better, the prices are disproportionately high relative to worth, especially when you consider the games bundle on the old parts. | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
I also understand what you're getting at. When you say new feature are we talking about something like Nvidia's Shadowplay and things like that? I imagine that it might be possible to get more performance out of the same chip by increasing clockspeed, but since we can already OC our cards ourselves then these new cards aren't better than the old ones. Unless it's possible for the manufacturer to have the card be stable at higher clock speeds? That would depend more on the guys adding the coolers (like Gigabyte or ASUS) though. Also the R9 290X is going to use a new chipset, so that's the card really worth looking no? Not buying per se, just to look at. | ||
|
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
The newer cards guarantee a higher memory clock but that isn't really worth it at the cost of $30 more and 2-3 games. New features could be anything. In this case, it would be True Audio and not having to use displayport for a third display. | ||
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
Reviewers look at things in terms of progression and history as well as having the articles stand true when revisited in the future; thus, the focus is often on card launch prices and trends. That doesn't mean that the new cards are better values than old stock getting discounted, and that's not what's being said if you read more carefully (hopefully). | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
thanks both of you, love learning more about hardware ^^ | ||
|
IMKR
United States378 Posts
in this site, i filtered out the potential H81 mobos. http://pcpartpicker.com/parts/motherboard/#qq=1&c=92 and to my understanding, a Micro ATX is bigger than a mini ITX. so why is the mini ITX cost about $20 more? i also found this deal on newegg. http://www.newegg.com/Product/ComboDealDetails.aspx?ItemList=Combo.1460544 is that good deal?? since im already looking to get a regular gtx 660 and a mobo. but the price on the gtx 660 ti in that deal is ~~$250. So im thinking its nto worth it and just better to buy GTX 660 and a ~~$70 - $130 mobo and save a hundred dollars | ||
|
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
| ||
|
IMKR
United States378 Posts
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/1OY3J even in the mobo i picked out, there was only like 4 ATX H87 mobos | ||
|
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
| ||
|
Ironpool
United States9 Posts
I decided to go with a CPU/Motherboard upgrade rather than a Video Card upgrade. The question I have this time is it worth going for a i5 4670K with Z87 over a i5 4430 with H87 if I don't plan on overclocking at all. Again, I'm open to advice and suggestions, thanks! | ||
|
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
| ||
|
Ironpool
United States9 Posts
On October 16 2013 08:55 skyR wrote: If you are not overclocking than a 4670k and Z87 would just be a waste of money. You could get a 4670 with a H87 / H81 / B85 for less and get the exact same performance. Would there be a significant difference between the 4430 and the 4670? | ||
|
skyR
Canada13817 Posts
| ||
| ||
