Re: [H] Wireless Connection Speed
ok I answered part of my own question.. I ran speed tests using a couple of other sites and came up with 5499kbps, 5718kbps and 4509kbps which should equate to 55Mbps, 57Mbps and 45Mbps. So that 2Wire speed test is obviously out of whack. I used a USB extension cord and was able to place the wireless receiver a few feet closer to the modem, although it is still a downstairs/upstairs thing. That helped improve signal strength to "excellent" from "very good" and it seemed to help my ping a bit. At least I didn't get booted off the server last night. When I ran a speed test on the computer where the modem is hooked up, it came in at 58Mbps. If I ran an ethernet cable from the modem upstairs to my computer downstairs I assume I would get the same speed of 58Mbps, correct? Cable length would be about 30 feet, accounting for snaking it through walls etc. I'm not fond of the idea of having to run cable. Would an upgrade of the wireless receiver help in any way? Hey guys, It's been quite a while, Happy Holidays! I just had AT&T install Uverse and among the issues I have with it, they disconnected my DSL and installed a wireless network in my house. So now my ping is way high in online games and now sometimes I get bounced off the servers. Grrr... They installed a 2Wire 3800 HGV-B modem and I have a US-G-AT-02 wireless receiver on my box. The modem is upstairs and my box is downstairs but the distance between the two is about 15 feet. The wireless connection icon on my toolbar says I'm getting 54Mbps, but when I go to 2Wire's page and run a speed test they say I'm getting around 3.40Mbps. Question 1 is, which is correct? Question 2 is, how can I get better throughput? The tech guy suggested running a ethernet cable from the modem to my box but that's a bit of a hassle. Is there a way to improve the wireless efficiency? thanks! Veech
Re: [H] Video card upgrade time
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 10:05 PM, Joe User <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > MSI R4870 T2D1G OC Radeon HD 4870 1GB 256-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP > Ready CrossFire Supported Video Card - Retail > > http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127389 > > I just feel I should try the ATI solution, support AMD, and give this > a chance. I thank everyone for all their input. it is appreciated. Go for it. Based on the review at Anandtech this is almost as fast the nVidia 280 at lower the price.
Re: [H] Video card upgrade time
Hello HWG, Friday, November 21, 2008, 7:50:26 PM, I wrote: > Hello, > Sometime ago, I ask and received advice on a gaming system. It's now > time to upgrade the video card I am thinking. I am a WoW player and > have WotLK. I raid 25 mans. I run XP Pro. All the system does is game. > Running 4GB @ 1066 with the Gigabyte P35 DS3P and a Core 2 Duo 3GHz > e6850 in an Antec 900 case all this is being powered by a Seasonic > s12 80 550w. My current video being an MSI 8800GTX single card. > This board supports SLI but the second slot does not run at 16X, it runs > at 4X. The card I am considering is the ATI (gasp!) 4870X2 which is > like SLI on one card (basically). So I would just replace the card I > currently have. The 4870 is nearly 11 inches long but I understand I > have the room and I will double check before I make the purchase. > ATI v. Nvidia > aside, I want to give ATI a shot here since I have always used Nvidia > and now with AMD at the wheel... plus the 4870 is the hottest thing > right now. > What I seek advice on is this: Is this a wise move? Would Dual SLI > 8800 GTX's be better even with the 16x / 4x thing going on? Something > else that I may not even be aware of? The card is 550 bucks so i > wanted to get some opinions before i shelled out the money. MSI R4870 T2D1G OC Radeon HD 4870 1GB 256-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready CrossFire Supported Video Card - Retail http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127389 I was compelled to try ATI, the Nvidia 260/216 was so close. If I just wanted to stay with the Nvidia camp the choice was clear. I just feel I should try the ATI solution, support AMD, and give this a chance. I thank everyone for all their input. it is appreciated. -- Regards, joeuser - Still looking for the 'any' key... "...now these points of data make a beautiful line..."
Re: [H] Possible new video cards
JB, OK. I did say "about 1980.. :) If you say 1995, then that's when it was. It was the first nVidia card by Canopus IIRC. Sorry. It has been a long time. Duncan At 09:26 11/25/2008 +, you wrote: Uh, you've run Nvidia graphics cards since 1980? when Nvidia's very first part was NV1, aka the Diamond Edge 3D circa 1995 or so? On 25 Nov 2008, at 04:03, DHSinclair wrote: Alex, Thank you. I understand your value/performance metric. At this point, I would be happy to follow this path! It seems that the collective has soured on nVidia. Perhaps drivers, perhaps card architecture; I just do not know ATM. All I know, is that the general "push" seems to be toward ATI. I am playing stupid here. I feel caught between 2 strong camps. The last video card I did any serious research on with way back with the GeForce4 series cards. I suspect a lot has changed/upgraded. I have run nVidia video cards since ~1980. I still run many. But, the conventional wave seems to point to ATI ATM. Have I missed something? Thank you, Duncan At 19:35 11/24/2008 -0800, you wrote: I was just giving other opinions for best bang for the buck based on budget. In what way does Nvidia does not have their shit together? I'm not partial to either brand, only to value-performance. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of DHSinclair Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 6:50 PM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] Possible new video cards Alex, So, are you suggesting to blow off the 4670 and just focus on the 4350 until I can afford the 4780? Thank you for the link, but I may have drawn the wrong conclusion. I am not opposed to an nVidia solution, but at the moment, it seems that nVidia just does not have their sh** together. Some words might help. Best, Duncan At 13:49 11/24/2008 -0800, you wrote: >http://www.gpureview.com/superlatives.php > > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of DHSinclair >Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 11:50 AM >To: Hardware Group >Subject: [H] Possible new video cards > >Seeking opinions. Thinking of ordering these 2 video cards. > >http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127390 > >MSI 4350/512 ~$40.00 USD >This card would be used for bringing up new systems mostly. It could end up >being my primary "office" video card. I do like the 'no-far' design. And, >it seems to have nice mid-level power for what I do with my office machine. > >http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127383 > >MSI 4670/512 ~81.00 USD >This card would be used for my Gaming machine. I just can not stretch the >dollars to the 4870 ATM. But, it is still a possibility; based on the >JoeUser search/research! >If this card works for gaming, I may even get another (or two) and use them >as my "basic" video card for the new P5Q3 m/b's. > >Suggestion welcome. The plastic is buzzing. :) >Thank you, >Duncan
[H] WinXP DATA Partition size?
Stealing this thread slightly, (+added to sub line). Can you have two WinXP "DATA only" partitions that are almost full that are "perfectly defragged" by other operations while being shrunk to slightly over their content sizes? OR was that a bad idea? In case that is not clear. I shrunk my wife's computers partitions, moved them around, and added all the un-allocated space that I accumulated along the way to her "C" drive. Swap file (and all) is on "C", etc... Rick Glazier DHSinclair wrote: What is a reasonable partition size for WinXP?
Re: [H] WinXP Partition size?
Funny we got back on this. I just non-distructively increased my wifes boot drive "C" from 45G to 85G as she was not good at using the 64G data partition set up originally for her. ;-( (I have my own data partition on there too...) Backing up is the biggest reason to keep the "C" drive small... FWIW, Rick Glazier From: "Soren" If you place progs and utils on another drive letter, 4-8 Gigs is sufficient. That is, if the swap file is set to a static size (e.g. 1.5*RAM) DHSinclair wrote: What is a reasonable partition size for WinXP?
Re: [H] Possible new video cards
Uh, you've run Nvidia graphics cards since 1980? when Nvidia's very first part was NV1, aka the Diamond Edge 3D circa 1995 or so? On 25 Nov 2008, at 04:03, DHSinclair wrote: Alex, Thank you. I understand your value/performance metric. At this point, I would be happy to follow this path! It seems that the collective has soured on nVidia. Perhaps drivers, perhaps card architecture; I just do not know ATM. All I know, is that the general "push" seems to be toward ATI. I am playing stupid here. I feel caught between 2 strong camps. The last video card I did any serious research on with way back with the GeForce4 series cards. I suspect a lot has changed/upgraded. I have run nVidia video cards since ~1980. I still run many. But, the conventional wave seems to point to ATI ATM. Have I missed something? Thank you, Duncan At 19:35 11/24/2008 -0800, you wrote: I was just giving other opinions for best bang for the buck based on budget. In what way does Nvidia does not have their shit together? I'm not partial to either brand, only to value-performance. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of DHSinclair Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 6:50 PM To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com Subject: Re: [H] Possible new video cards Alex, So, are you suggesting to blow off the 4670 and just focus on the 4350 until I can afford the 4780? Thank you for the link, but I may have drawn the wrong conclusion. I am not opposed to an nVidia solution, but at the moment, it seems that nVidia just does not have their sh** together. Some words might help. Best, Duncan At 13:49 11/24/2008 -0800, you wrote: >http://www.gpureview.com/superlatives.php > > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of DHSinclair >Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 11:50 AM >To: Hardware Group >Subject: [H] Possible new video cards > >Seeking opinions. Thinking of ordering these 2 video cards. > >http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127390 > >MSI 4350/512 ~$40.00 USD >This card would be used for bringing up new systems mostly. It could end up >being my primary "office" video card. I do like the 'no-far' design. And, >it seems to have nice mid-level power for what I do with my office machine. > >http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127383 > >MSI 4670/512 ~81.00 USD >This card would be used for my Gaming machine. I just can not stretch the >dollars to the 4870 ATM. But, it is still a possibility; based on the >JoeUser search/research! >If this card works for gaming, I may even get another (or two) and use them >as my "basic" video card for the new P5Q3 m/b's. > >Suggestion welcome. The plastic is buzzing. :) >Thank you, >Duncan
