If you stock your built PC with parts that are the right choice the first time, your Windows installation will run better and faster.

Please Login or Register to read the rest of this article. Gold/Silver Membership required.

Post from: PCMech. Helping Normal People Get Their Geek On And Live The Digital Lifestyle.

Building A “Perfect” Windows PC

Well I suppose if NVIDIA didn’t do it I’m sure someone else would have.

Did you just build the most awesomest superest kick-assing-est computer ever (most likely for gaming)? Well, guess what – it’s obsolete. Darn that modern technology.

Okay, in all seriousness, yes this card can be used (obviously) – but certainly not for gaming because what a waste that would be. If you want a real-world example of where this sucker can be put to good use, that would be medical imaging.

Oh, and if you want one, it’s $3,499.

And I swear, if I hear one gamer nerd say, "LOL HOW MANY FPS CAN I GET ON FULL SETTING CRYSIS WITH THAT?!" or anything to that effect, I will personally come to your house and kick you in the jewels.

[Source: ars technica]

Post from: PCMech. Helping Normal People Get Their Geek On And Live The Digital Lifestyle.

NVIDIA Releases Crap We Don’t Need, A 4GB Video Card

If you ever go through the PCMech forums here and read about the newest gaming machines people are putting together, usually there is a (and in some cases 2) pretty powerful and, of course, expensive graphics card included. If you aren’t looking to drop top dollar for a top of the line card, then consider either a second generation or a budget card.

I came across an interesting article which puts graphic cards costing less than $100 to the test. The article goes into some really intricate details, but the author draws the following conclusion:

If you have a monitor that’s 1280×1024 or smaller, a very affordable graphics card like the $80 Radeon HD 4670 will allow you to play many of the latest games with ease. Even at 1680×1050, in fact, the Radeon HD 4650 and GeForce 9600 GSO can produce acceptable frame rates. You may have to compromise a bit, dialing back features like antialiasing or in-game image quality settings, in order to get acceptable performance in the most demanding of today’s games, but the compromises probably won’t be too terrible.

Of course, if you are a gamer, the card will not be future proof by any means. Think of this though: in about a year or so the cards which currently sell for $300+ dollars will probably drop to the $100 range and, most likely, would be good enough to play the current games at that time. This way you have only spent ~$200 (instead of $300 to begin with) and you may even be able to sell your old card on eBay.

Post from: PCMech. Helping Normal People Get Their Geek On And Live The Digital Lifestyle.

Is A ‘Budget’ Graphics Card Good Enough For You?

–START OF THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE–

It has been announced that DirectX 11 will include a completely new type of graphics rendering called ray-tracing. Wait a minute. It’s not new. In fact, it’s been around since the 80’s. How come it took so long to be implemented for public use? How does it work? What advantages does it have over current-gen graphics? These questions are about to be answered.

Ray-Tracing

Ray-Tracing was first introduced in 1986, and is basically defined as tracing the paths of light as they interact with objects. This is essentially what our eyes do, so it creates quite a vivid and realistic picture. Unfortunately it wasn’t practical to use in everyday graphics because it took up so much raw power to compute. It was used scarcely in the 90’s, but only for demonstrations and now in the 21st century with multi-core technology it is finally possible to make Ray-Tracing practical.

So what happened? Well the movie-industry took advantage of it right off the bat. Many special effects were ray-traced to give a more realistic look. The movie Beowulf was entirely ray-traced. It wasn’t perfect, but it was damn close, and a heck of a lot better than what people have now. To give you an example of how much power it takes to ray-trace though, a person created a video of real-time ray tracing of a convertible on YouTube, and it takes the combined effort of THREE PS3 consoles. You can check it out here, it’s pretty cool. Remember each PS3 has 8 processors (6 active), so we are looking at over 20 processors for one, non-moving object.

Hmm. This is starting to explain some things. Like Why Nvidia did not support DX10.1 on their 9-series cards, and not have any new technology on the cards other than smaller chip-sizes. They realized that the old ways of graphics are dying. What’s the point of Directx 10.1 anyway? Rasterisation, what Nvidia and ATI use, has reached its peak. They both have perfected the art of essentially faking graphics. Now it’s time for the real stuff. It’s an open field, and apparently Intel is planning on joining the competition. They recently have been experimenting with combining a processor with the graphics card with successful results. This could spell bad news for both ATI and Nvidia, but knowing the way Intel prices things I’m sure there will still be close competition.

An interesting thing about ray-tracing is that it is fairly scalable. With rasterisation, you notice less and less with each improvement. For example the new 8-core skull-trail beast from Intel hardly earns gamers a few FPS on rasterisation. For ray-tracing however, it will be exactly 8 times better than a single-core. So what will this do? Well there will probably be a new multi-core processor every couple months, possibly reaching over 100 before 2010. If each has implemented graphics with ray-tracing technology, you can see the benefit of that over getting a separate graphics card.

Benefits of Ray Tracing

By now you probably want to see what ray-tracing can do compared to rasterizing. Well take a look at this image on the right. As you can plainly see, the ray-tracing image has more realistic reflections and shadows. Nvidia has worked their butts with their 3D shader processors, but they could never get anything close to this. It’s very encouraging to see the difference, but remember we are a ways off from getting objects of that clarity interactive on our computers. Directx 11 is only going to support a few limited things, so that the transition to ray-tracing is gradual, and not all at once. I won’t be surprised if Ray-Tracing Processing Units (RPU’s) are implemented on the Nvidia 10 series cards. At first maybe only characters are ray-traced. Then as new hardware is introduced, textures and objects within certain draw distance are ray-traced, until eventually everything as far as the eye can see is ray-traced and rasterisation becomes a thing of the past.

And This Matters Because…

Is this a good thing? Maybe. Everything would be a lot more predictable and you would be able to confidently tell which brand of graphics card is better just by looking at the data sheet, unlike today, where the only real way of telling which of two cards are better is by rigorously testing them in 3D programs, measuring their temperatures, calculating wattage, etc. So there will be two consequences. Either we will finally end the number game by being able to really tell what is what without any background info, or, more likely, it will simply enter the next stage of confusing the common public in return for profit.

Post from: PCMech. Helping Normal People Get Their Geek On And Live The Digital Lifestyle.

Directx 11 to Reveal a New Era of Graphics

The 9 series of NVIDIA graphics was speculated since at least October of 2007, when it became evident that NVIDIA would not release a 8900 and 8950, as many insisted (the inquirer, for example). New rumors speculated a 30% increase from the top 9-series card, the 9800GTX, over the 8800 ultra. Also to have over one billion transistors, 1GB of graphics memory, over one teraflops of shader processing power, and other features like DirectX 10.1 and a built in audio chip. What does this mean? Quite simply, it’s a beast. Many of this was just crazy talk (built in audio chip?), but some of it proved true.

Many expected it to come out before the holidays, but December came and went. Only until January rolled around did some hard evidence of the chips in progress appear. However the 9800GTX was now realized as not bring the top 9 series card. Pictures of the new top 9 series card, the 9800GX2 (two cores in one), were released, and many became intrigued. In late February the 9 series was officially underway with the release of the 9600 GT. About a month later in March the 9800GX2 was released. Around the same time prices and release dates were revealed for the rest of the 9 series.

So where does this leave you? Will these new graphic cards render yours obsolete? Here’s a list of some of the new technology.

Quad-SLI: Okay, so it’s not really new since the 7950X2 versions had it, but it’s worth mentioning due to its absence in the 8 series. Only available to the 9800X2 design, it lets you place two 9800GX2 models in two pci-express slots, utilizing the power of 4 graphics cards.

Pure-Video 3rd Generation Update: An update to the previous version of Pure Video, allowing things like better contrast ratios in high def viewing and the ability to keep the aero feature on vista while watching a high def movie.

G90 Core: The new chip that Nvidia has based its new technology on. It allows for a smaller card, less heat consumption, less heat, and less noise. Though no significant performance gains like the jump to the G80 core, it will be a blessing to those fed up with the heat and noise of the 8 series cards.

So the list is kind of short, which raises some eyebrows on why NVIDIA chose to start a new series. Let’s move on to the meat and potatoes, the specs. Listed below are some quick stats known to date of 5 9 series cards.

The 9800 GT was also announced, but not enough information to put on this chart, and there is still some tweaking time for Nvidia since its release is not until April. A new 9500 GS and 9600 GS are also rumored to appear, but not confirmed. Everything else is semi-official, except for the 9600GT and 9800GX2 which are 100% accurate due to the fact that they have already been released.

So, what’s true and what is rumor?

Well none of the 9 series cards will have directx10.1, support, not that it matters too much considering its small improvement over the directx10. None have a built-in audio chip, and I doubt that will ever catch on in the future. As far as the other statistics, like the amount of transistors, memory, and processing power, it is only true for the 9800GX2. The GTX overall has slightly lower numbers than the GX2 as expected, but will be the best single core graphics card, and allows tri-SLI.

Where does this leave you?

Well that depends on what you have and what you do. If you have a series 7 setup or lower (with possible exception to dual 7950 X2), a leap to the 9 series is definitely beneficial, due to its new smaller chip design that allows for better power consumption, lower temperatures, and quieter card than the 8 series. If you have an 8800 series card, I wouldn’t even consider it. There is just not enough new technology to justify moving, except the physical aspects pertaining to the chip size. If you need the extra speed and performance and will pay $600 for it, that’s your decision, but keep in mind that it won’t have any expandability for future games over the 8 series, due to its lack of new features. If you have a 8600 card or lower, moving to a 9600 GT is up to 90% better of raw performance, so it would be a very good decision in the long run, but only until the new 10 series comes out. Hopefully NVIDIA has some revolutionary designs in store for the double digit series, and is just using the 9 series to milk up more money from the 8 series by changing a few things and slapping a “9” sticker on it. It may have been that NVIDIA just got sick of the 8 series cards. Either way, there isn’t much new technology here, just some spec increases on a more affordable graphics card. So until the next series comes out, we have to painfully keep track of the NVIDIA number game as they continue to reap the rewards from the 8-series technology on a new chip.

Bottom Line

The 9-series appears to be for the mid-range consumers, as Nvidia is lowering the price of their cards for better performance. No $750 high-end card like the 8800 Ultra, as the GX2 comes in at roughly $600. The high end 8-series card prices will drop, like the 8800 GT, GTS, and GTX, so if you want one of those the 9-series might make it available to you for a $150-300 range. It also makes the extreme-gamers look a bit silly. Those that bought three 8800 Ultra cards in Tri-SLI for over $2000 will be bested by 2 9800 GX2 cards in Quad-SLI at a little over $1000. If you’re worried about your card being obsolete, unless you have a 7 series card or lower like mentioned above you shouldn’t worry. If you have an 8400, 8500, or 8600, you might want to check them out. 8800 cards or above, just enjoy the performance that you have and wish for built-in audio chips in the next Nvidia series.

Post from: PCMech. Helping Normal People Get Their Geek On And Live The Digital Lifestyle.

NVIDIA 9 Series – Where Does This Leave You?

According to the story on Ars:

Microsoft’s data strongly indicates that the problems were real. Damon Poeter at CRN dug through the documentation to find that on page 47 of the PDF, NVIDIA drivers were identified as the cause of over 479,000 crashes, or just under 29 percent of all the crashes Microsoft logged. Microsoft’s own drivers follow, at 17.9 percent, and the “Unknown” category takes third place at 17 percent. ATI is in fourth place (9.3 percent) and Intel in fifth place (8.83 percent).

We have been hearing about problems with Nvidia under Vista from PCMech visitors. In fact, I personally had issues using Nvidia in 2007 under Vista. I had to actually go out and spring for an ATI card just to make my video system work under Windows Vista. Needless to say, I was pissed.

So, these emails pretty much confirm what we informally already knew: Nvidia was (and perhaps is still) problematic under Windows Vista.

Even Microsoft VPs got “personally burnt” by the Vista-capable stickers.

It really is hard to imagine how Microsoft could have so royally screwed up with Windows Vista.

Two words: Save XP.

Source: Ars Technica via Engadget

Post from: PCMech. Helping Normal People Get Their Geek On And Live The Digital Lifestyle.

Nvidia The Cause of 30% of Vista Crashes

X2, Only Prettier

The HD 3870 X2 is exactly what its name sounds like. Following the same principle behind the GeForce 7950 GX2, AMD has placed 2 of its RV670 chips on one board, and linked them via a CrossFire bridge. I am not here to give a review, as there are a few out there already. I am here to tell you what AMD did here that was so smart, and what they’ll need to be careful of in the near future.

Smooth Moves

Price: The card itself isn’t really what you’d call an innovation. There was no new tech involved here, as is illustrated by the usage of the RV670 chip. What we see here is a company who played the game well and worked with what they had. There has been some talk of the fact that nVidia could do the same thing and stick a pair of G92 chips on a board and call it done. To directly contest the idea that this circumstance matters a whole lot, I’ll point out that nVidia wouldn’t likely accomplish the same feat at the price that AMD has done it. This card’s price is set at $450, which really turns the tide in arguably the most important segment in the market. While the enthusiast cares not about money, they make up a very small portion of computer users, let alone gamers. The bang-for-buck folk out there will be thrilled by this price, especially when comparable cards can only be bought for $700 and above. I doubt that nVidia can pull off the same thing without shifting their entire pricing lineup.

Compatibility: I said before that the two chips are linked by an onboard CrossFire solution. For those of you with alternate chipsets that don’t support CrossFire, you’ll be delighted to know that you’ll be able to run this monster without a problem. This is really smart, because in a world of proprietary systems and interfaces, we can’t always get what we want.

Timing: AMD is still strapped for cash in many areas, but by releasing a product like this, they can obtain the upper hand, even if for a short while, and produce some much needed revenue. This will also buy them some time to work out the next big issues. They need to fix Phenom, be ready to produce the next lineup of CPUs, and they also need to get the ball rolling on their next GPU. This industry is all about momentum, and no victories are won overnight. One great product has the potential to lead to many other great products, and that is what all of us should be hoping for.

Tradition: It used to be that the words ‘enthusiast product’ were synonymous with AMD. The FX line of processors, as an example, were the champion gaming CPUs of the day, and the company garnered for itself a very valuable fan base. I did say that the enthusiast market is a small one, and that still stands, but the fact that AMD placed a component in that segment again after a long hiatus is a sign that they are getting back on track.

Don’t Get Comfortable

Even though it is doubtful that nVidia will try to drop prices to compete with the new card, photos are already out depicting the new GeForce 9800 GX2. This victory is already being viewed as short-lived, even though it is not over yet. The fact remains that nVidia has more money, and thus more muscle in this fight. If AMD doesn’t use this victory to produce more of the same, it will find itself in trouble again. They key here is follow-through. Intel made a big mistake by trying to stretch a thing like the NetBurst architecture too far in a volatile market. The same thing could happen here if AMD pushes their current graphics chips into the next generation of products. If their next chip isn’t either a highly modified RV670 or a brand new architecture, they’ll find it difficult to market it to the masses.

Playing catchup is an expensive business to be in, because you end up putting a lot of time and effort into a product lineup that may or may not be successful. However, conservative business tactics are not the route to be taken, and it appears that AMD agrees with me. They need to do something different in order to stand out and be profitable. Fusion is a great example of this, and all of the steps they are taking quite clearly point to this goal. Intel, having caught wind of the plan, has also invested heavily in the graphics department. AMD having a strong graphics department in ATi should afford them the time (again, that timing issue) to pull off the project, but they need to get a working product out there before the higher-end Nehalem chips hits the shelves. One of the most important rules of marketing is to get there first. If you are there first, it will be very tough for competitors to topple you or loosen your grasp in the sector. The message here is simple: If AMD slacks off now, they’ll have an even tougher time recovering from the Core 2 Duo fallout than they did before.

This Is Good for Everybody

For those that need extra convincing, or those that are major fans of AMD’s competition, this is an extremely good thing for you as the consumer. Imagine if you held the championship title for a long time, and you finally got knocked out by a guy with less muscle. Would you be angry enough to get off your butt and do something about it? Exactly. This blow wasn’t a huge one, but I’ll bet it stung. AMD is doing a great job at keeping things under wraps until the last second, and I think it has helped them recently. Investors may disagree, but this tactic has been a smart one for the last while because they can’t afford to be predictable. If Intel and nVidia can anticipate their every move, then we’ll really be hooped.

Well done, AMD. Just don’t stop there.

Post from: PCMech. Helping Normal People Get Their Geek On And Live The Digital Lifestyle.

From AMD, With Love

Why? Because I can.

But, now that I am doing it, is it all roses? No. So, which operating system is better in this department? Windows XP or Mac OS X?

Fitts’s Law

One of the things that constantly strikes me about this issue is how both camps have such rock solid opinions. Well, truth be told, it seems it is the OS X users who get the most defensive about it. Apple is, of course, thought to be the king of interface design. In most areas, I would agree. When it comes to multi-screen support, I disagree.

Fitts’s Law is often quoted. Wikipedia defines it as:

Fitts’s law (often cited as Fitts’ law) is a model of human movement which predicts the time required to rapidly move to a target area, as a function of the distance to the target and the size of the target.

It has an equation and everything. More simply stated, the idea is that the larger the target, the easier it is to use. So, the idea with the top menu bar in OS X is that it covers the entire top of the screen. The mouse cursor cannot move beyond it. This means that any flick of the mouse upward will hit the menu. Very large target.

Beyond Fitts’s Law

OK, Fitts’s law is a workable model. But, how does this translate into real-world use? That’s where I fail to see the point of it in the design of OS X. Let’s look at REAL WORLD use of multiple screens in both operating systems.

In Windows XP, multiple screens is easy. You install the video cards, install the drivers, and then all the screens will appear in your Display Properties. You can move them around in relation to one another, etc. When you operate an application on a particular screen, the menu bar goes with the program. So, no matter where the application is, the menu bar is within a short distance of your workspace.

Now, let’s take OS X. Driver installation is a non-issue because Apple so tightly controls the hardware. It does properly detect all screens. It doesn’t always detect the proper native resolution for the monitor, but that is an easy thing to correct. Changing arrangement and settings of multiple screens is really easy with OS X. You can give each screen it’s own background (harder to do that in Windows). Visually, the interface for managing multiple monitors in OS X is solid.

Practically, though, it is a nightmare. And that is due to the simple fact that the top menu bar is tied to one screen. Sure, you can easily choose which of your screens is primary (and hence which displays the menu and the Dock), but it does not move. That top menu bar is used for every application. All of Apple’s GUI design genius looks really stupid when they can’t think of something better than this.

So, I have four screens attached to the Mac Pro. If I am working with an application on the far screen, I have to scroll over TWO SCREENS to get to the menu bar for the program I am working with. I cannot barely put into words just how frickin’ idiotic that is. Here is a picture from my office to demonstrate:

The Verdict

OS X multiple monitor support is strong. I actually like the way it handles it better than in Windows XP. But, practically, it loses BIG TIME to Windows XP. Windows is so much better than OS X when it comes to ease of use in a multiple monitor environment.

To get around this, Apple needs to do one of the following:

1. Make the menu bar follow the active application.
2. Give an option to the user to embed the application menus inside the program menus.

#2 might be harder to implement because it could involve the cooperation of the developers of all applications for OS X. The top menu bar has been a staple of OS X for awhile now and it is hard to change. I understand that. But, #1 should be easier to implement. Until Apple does something to make this easier, I guess they’ll just have to continue to condition Mac lovers why this idiocy actually makes sense (some think so).

Until Apple grows a brain on this issue, leave it to a third party utility to help make things a little easier. The utility is called DejaMenu. It will allow you to set up a key combination that will duplicate the top menu bar in contextual style. So, if I am working with that application in that far left monitor, I can hit that key combination and I get the entire contents of my top menu bar (which is TWO SCREENS away, mind you) right at my current cursor position. Not as easy as Windows XP, but this makes it much easier.

So, in this match of Windows versus OS X, Windows wipes the floor with OS X and then spits on it. OS X is just plain harder to use when you have more than one monitor. And it is disappointing that users like myself have to outsmart the stupid design by using third-party add-ons, becoming kings of keyboard shortcuts, or speeding the mouse cursor up to light speed to flip across several screens.

This should be easier, Apple. There is so much smart design in OS X. Why not this?

Post from: PCMech. Helping Normal People Get Their Geek On And Live The Digital Lifestyle.

Multiple Monitors: Windows XP Versus OS X

Rich takes us step by step through hardware and software methods of sharing your screen with two monitors. This is video 1 of 2.

Post from: PCMech. Helping Normal People Get Their Geek On And Live The Digital Lifestyle.

Setting Up Dual Screens 1 of 2

A quick video guide to setting up dual screens on your PC. We talk about two screens on a laptop (which is pretty easy), multiple desktops using a cool PowerToy from Microsoft (called Virtual Desktop Manager), and setting up dual screens on your Windows XP desktop machine. And at the end you get a little look at David’s three-screen setup.

Post from: PCMech. Helping Normal People Get Their Geek On And Live The Digital Lifestyle.

Setting up Dual Screens 2 of 2