Lots of usefull info.....

grim reaper · 01-31-2005, 01:41 PM

In short im bored so ive decided to make a ultimate hardware thread here. Hopefully it can be covered with an adhesive agent.

Please note, most of the stuff on hear is not original content i am not claming it to be my work i am simply collating it hear to help fellow BFN'ers. I have however put alot of work into the formatiing to make it acessable.

Links

Usefull programs

Drivers

Graphics Cards Explained

AMD CPU's explained

CPU speeds. Slot and Socket types

Windows Tweaks

Memory FAQ's

Hard Drives

grim reaper · 01-31-2005, 01:53 PM

CPU Manufacturers

Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) - HomePage

Intel - HomePage

VIA - HomePage

GPU manufacturers

Intel - HomePage

ATI - HomePage

Nvidia - HomePage

MotherBoard Manufacturers

Abit: HomePage

Acorp: HomePage

Aopen: HomePage

Asus: HomePage

Azza: HomePage

Biostar: HomePage

Chaintech:HomePage

Epox:HomePage

Elite/ECS: HomePage

FIC: HomePage

Foxconn: HomePage

Fujitsu (Siemens): [url=http://www.fujitsu-siemens.com/HomePage[/url]

Giga-Byte: HomePage

Intel: HomePage

Iwill: HomePage

Jetway: HomePage

Luckystar: HomePage

MSI: HomePage

PC-Chips: HomePage

QDI: HomePage

Shuttle: HomePage

SIS: HomePage

Soltek: HomePage

SOYO: HomePage

Super-Micro: HomePage

Tyan: HomePage

VIA: HomePage

grim reaper · 01-31-2005, 01:57 PM

Adware/Spyware Remover - Adaware - 2.51MB
http://www.download.com/Ad-Aware-SE-...bj=dl&tag=top5

Adware/Sp yware Remover - Spybot Search and Destory - 4.15MB
http://mirror3.internetsecurity.cc/

Adware/Spyware Remover - Microsoft AntiSpyware Beta 1 - 6.23MB
http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...areInstall.exe

Anti Virus - Grisoft AVG7 Free - 9.68MB
http://free.grisoft.com/softw/70free...ee_289a392.exe

Currency Converter - XE
http://www.xe.com/

Firewall - Zonealarm Free Edition - 6.34MB
http://download.zonelabs.com/bin/fre...etup_55_062_00 0.exe

Media Player - DivX Player - 7.38MB
http://www.divx.com/divx/download/index.php

Media Player - Real Player - 9.99MB
http://forms.real.com/netzip/intl/in...0-5GOLD.exe&p= RealPlayer&oem=rp10_en_uk&src=ZG.uk.idx,ZG.uk.rp.r p.hd.def,ZG.uk.rp10_p_ f.rp10_p_f.760.rp10_plus_free&tagtype=ie&type=rp10 _en_uk

M edia Player - Quicktime + iTunes - 20.7MB
http://wsidecar.apple.com/cgi-bin/qt/nph-regqtXHL

Media Player - Winamp - 735 KB/4.35 MB/7.87 MB
http://www.winamp.com/player/free.php

Media Player - Windows Media Player 10 - 11.64MB
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/win.../download.aspx

Media Player - VLC Player (.ogm files) - 6.7MB (OS Pending)
http://www.videolan.org/vlc/

Web Browser - Opera - 3.5MB/16.3MB with Ja\/a
http://www.opera.com/download/

Web Browser - Firefox - 4.7MB
http://download.mozilla.org/?product...ox&os=win&lang =en-GB

Web Browser - Slimbrowser - 1.46MB
http://download.com.com/3000-2356-10...e&tag=bu tton

Utility - Belarc Advisor - 650KB
http://www.belarc.com/free_download.html

Utility - Magic DVD Ripper - 1.4MB
http://www.magicdvdripper.com/downlo...DRipper22a.exe

Utility - Winzip - 2.3MB
http://www.download.com/3000-2250-10003164.html?tag=dir

Utility - Winrar - 1.1MB
http://www.rarlab.com/rar/wrar341.exe

grim reaper · 01-31-2005, 02:01 PM

Drivers

Important Windows XP updates
Windows XP SP1a: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/d...1/default.mspx

Windows XP SP2: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/default.mspx

Graphic Card Drivers
ATi Catalyst Drivers (For Radeon and Riva Series)

Windows XP/2K Version 5.1 Broadband:
http://www.ati.com/home/online/CatalystXPdriver.html

Catalyst Control Centre + Drivers 5.1(Microsoft .Net Framework 1.1 required)Broadband
http://www.ati.com/home/online/CatalystCCCdriver.html

Windows XP/2K Version 5.1 Dialup:
Part 1 Display Driver: http://www2.ati.com/drivers/wxp-w2k-...1m-020455c.exe
Part 2 Control Pannel: http://www2.ati.com/drivers/control-...1m-020455c.exe
Part 3 Catalyst Control Centre: http://www2.ati.com/drivers/wxp-cata...5c-english.exe
Part 4 WDM Capture Driver: http://www2.ati.com/drivers/tv-captu...-10-6246v3.exe

Windows 98/ME(No Longer updated) Version 4.7:
http://www2.ati.com/drivers/wme-7-99...2a-016504e.exe

Nvidia Forceware (For GeForce 3,4,FX and 6)
Windows XP Version 66.93:
ftp://download.nvidia.com/Windows/66...xp_english.exe

Windows 95/98/ME Version 61.76:
http://www.nvidia.com/object/win9x_61.76

Soundcards

Soundblaster Soundcard Latest Drivers/Utils
http://uk.europe.creative.com/support/drivers/

grim reaper · 01-31-2005, 02:08 PM

Best Cards on various budgets

After seeing all the which card for £X threads i thought id create a definitive guide which ill try to keep updated.

Note: this guide was written with the British market in mind, beucase of the exchange rate and the fact that the US get cheaper stuff some of the $ figures may be inaccurate.

Sub £50/$90 - A used Geforce 4 Ti4200 (pay upto £40 for a decent one) or 9500np/pro (£50 will get you an average example) or a 9550 if you want new (just within budget). In this budget try for a 128mb card, a 256 card will bring no advantages as the cards here are not powerful enough to use it, and a 64mb card (some ti4200's) have pretty much had it for any texture intensive game at 1024x768.

<£70/$130 - basically the same as the £50 class, a 128mb 9550 /128mb 9600 (not SE!) would be great (NEW), you may if the seller is desperate, get a used 9700np/pro for this price, in which case it kicks everything else here. Again 256mb is stupid for this price, for the reason above.

<£100/$190 - A used 9800pro or 9700pro (new) is lovely. TBH id just get the 9700 as the difference is negliable. If you need to go NV (for linux support or something) then hunt around for a used FX5900XT or 5900ultra. New it would have to be a 5700ultra.

<£150/$280 - 6600GT is the current king in this segment. That or the 6800LE (if you can find it for this price its probably better as it can be modded for more pipes). Ati have the X700 which cant really match the 6600GT but is a good card none the less (about 9800pro levels)

<£200/$375 - 6800nu, no competition. ATi have nothing in this sector which comes close. The 9800xt is not even able to keep up with this little bargain, and surprise, surprise 256mb doesnt give the 9800xt any advantages.

<£250/$470 - now for the strange price bracket, no cards really fall here, a used X800pro or 6800GT may be had, but thats quite optimisitic tbh, if you want a better card than the last bracket, your gonna have to dig deep, sorry.

*A WARNING* - The Asus Asus GeForce 6800 GT 128MB DDR TV-Out/DVI (AGP) - Retail may seem like a bit of a bargain for this price range, but in reality its not worth it, it will perform every so slightly better than the regular 6800nu.

<£300/$560 - 6800GT or X800pro (if you go for a X800 , try to get a VIVO so it can be flashed to a X800XT ) both cards here are stonking, personally id go 6800GT but ATi are slowly clawing it back with excellent AA & AF performance. There are also reports of the Gigabyte X800pro VIVO coming pre-equipped with 16 pipes, making it a bargain XT. Nice.

<£400/$940 - GIT! you can afford practically any card you fancy, a 6800 Ultra or X800XT are going to suit you perfectly. Enjoy.

and now a new section....... if i were in your shoes......

<£50, save up, or 9550 (128mb)
<£100, 9700pro
<£150, 6600GT
<£200, 6800
<£250, scrape and scrounge to afford a 6800GT
<£300, Gigabyte X800pro VIVO (16 pipes baby!)
<£400, X800XT (not PE, as i dont believe its worth it)

"erm, well i want to run game X at X detail, how much should i spend??"

Depends what you want, quite simply for anything other than games onboard graphics will do but for games like farcry and doom3 your going to want any card here, yes even the base models ive recommended will do farcry/d3 on 800x600 @ medium/low detail. However for adequate performance in these games at 1024x768 your going to want a 9700 card or better. For 1280x1024 a 6800nu is perfect and 6800GT and above will do 1600x1200.

"so thanks, but im a bit confused about manufacturers and all these SE and LE models"

Manufacturers: Any that Major retailers stock are good really, the galaxy's and HIS's deserve a special mention for their luvverly coolers, but anything will do. Gainward still have a bit of a dodgy reputation for a bad bunch of Geforce 4's they made, but in reality they should be as reliable as anyone else now.

SE etc: Basically, avoid the SE and LE tagged cards if thou does not know what they are doing. These are heavily cut down cards which perform quite poorly in comparision to their cousins.

"Im a modder, any cards i should look out for?"

Well the X800pro VIVO can obviously be flashed to a XT quite easily, however reports are coming in of laser cut pipes, so now its not guarunteed. However the Gigabyte VIVO apparantly comes with 16 pipes already unlocked. WOOHOO!

The 6800 series is all based off the 6800Ultra GPU and so have the oppurtunity to be unlocked for the full 16 pipe "effect". Making the 6800LE and 6800non-ultra super value. However some pipes are often broken and dont unlock.

"will my CPU do these cards justice?"

A common question, hopefully this should help:
(when referring to Ghz, im also referring to the Athlon XP PR rating)

1.5ghz cpu and below : sorry, any of these cards will be bottlenecked, go out and buy the best components you can afford.

1.6-2.0ghz : anything from the ti4200 to the 9600/5700 series would be ideal, although obviously the 9600 is more suited to the 2.0ghz end.

2.0-2.4ghz : A 9600/9700/9800 and nvidia conterparts 5700/5800/5900 would be well suited.

2.4ghz-2.8ghz : 9800/6600GT/6800nu

3.0ghz+ any card really, although for the X800XT's and 6800ultras of the world your looking at A64's.

"ok, i have my card, what scores should i be getting on 3dmark 03?"

Common cards:

Ti4200 - 1300 (only poor because it cant run a certain test)
9550 - 3300
9600pro - 4000
5700ultra - 4000
9700np/pro - 5000
5900XT - 5600
9800pro - 5800
5900ultra - 6000
9800XT - 6300
6800nu - 9500
6800GT - 11,000
X800pro - 11,000
X800XTPE - 13000
6800Ultra - 13000

These are only a guide, most people on here will beat them with uber systems backing them up. Oh and dont be fooled by the 5900ultra's high bench, it aint as good as the 9800pro in the real world.

"So the X800/6800 guide you promised us, where is it? hmmm?"

Its here...... finally

The 6800 series, the card for most people, its not THAT keen on AA or AF (in comparison to the X800's). But in OpenGL (doom3 and other ID projects) expect it to blitz the X800 series, EASILY. Note these cards are stll very new, so expect future drivers to really yield large improvements.

6800LE - The same 6800 GPU but with 8 pipes (as opposed to 12 of the nu) which puts it in the same league as the 9800pro, however its equipped with the same (quite fast) memory as the non-ultra. It is a little more expensive than the 9800pro, and this is reflected in the performance (slightly better). A 9800pro killer.

6800nu -
the 6800 non ultra is probably the best value card on the market today, simply outstanding for the price, it can even compete with the X800pro which is designed to compete with its older brother the 6800GT. One word: Superb.

6800GT - The overclockers dream card, EXACTLY the same core as the 6800ultra, and quick memory too, meaning it should easily reach 6800ultra speeds, a super quick card, quite pricey but when you consider it can become a 6800ultra easily, quite a bargain.

6800Ultra - The most expensive card on the market (for gamers) so for that title you would expect super performance, and thats exactly what you get. 1600x1200 on farcry/doom 3? No problem, super badass n00b pwning framerates? you got em. Simply, if you can afford it, probably the most powerful card around. Ultra clock rates can vary between manufacturers, and as ive just been told by jamesj, this can make alot of difference. 425/1200 is vastly superior to 400/1000, in fact how does 1000 3dmarks difference sound?

The X800 series, a pretty basic upgrade on the R300 series (9700/9800) its basically the same core, but manufactured using a better process to allow for more pipes to be squeezed in and higher clocks to be achieved. Therefore it has the same strengths as the 9700/9800 such as unparalled AA/AF performance. Being an extension of the R300 series, expect it to gain minimal benefits from drivers compared to the 6800's.

X800SE - Not much is known about this card, basically its an 8 pipe version of the GPU, but with fairly decent clocks. I know what your thinking, 8 pipes? based on R300? so 9800 performance then? well, maybe, id expect it to be a bit higher, but i dont really know, its not available to my knowledge for a retail release yet, but someone (plz step forward) on these boards has one in a pre-built pc. Expect it to fall between the 6800LE and 9800pro.

X800pro - ATi's rival to the 6800GT, but with only 12 pipes, which is a severe hampering to it. However decent performance especially with AA and AF means it is a worthy rival in my book. Oh and of course VIVO models can be modded into the beast below:

X800XT/XTPE - ATi's flagship products with the PE having slightly higher clocks (an extra 20 on the core, and 120 on mem). These are the full fat 16 pipe versions, and by god they are fast. Put it this way with 1600x1200 pixels and AA/AF this is the BEST CARD bar NONE. the catch? it lacks PS3 (wow?!?!?!) and speed in openGL. You play with AA/AF? Save for this.

grim reaper · 01-31-2005, 02:12 PM

AMD XP ratings and their “real” clocking

64bit AMD64

Athlon64 3400 2.2Ghz 1024kb L2 cache
Athlon64 3200 2Ghz 1024kb L2 cache
Athlon64 3000 2Ghz 512kb L2 cache
Athlon64 2800 1.8Ghz 512kb L2 cache

Barton Core - 512kb L2 Cache.

Athlon XP 3200+ 2.20GHz 200MHz 11x Barton (L2 512KB)
Athlon XP 3000+ 2.10GHz 200MHz 10.5x Barton (L2 512KB)
Athlon XP 3000+ 2.16GHz 166MHz 13x Barton (L2 512KB)
Athlon XP 2800+ 2.08GHz 166MHz 12.5x Barton (L2 512KB)
Athlon XP 2600+ 1.91GHz 166MHz 11.5x Barton (L2 512KB)
Athlon XP 2500+ 1.83GHz 166MHz 11x Barton (L2 512KB)

Thoroughbred/Palamino Core - 256kb L2 Cache.

Athlon XP 2800+ 2.25GHz 333MHz 13.5x 0.13 Thoroughbred B
Athlon XP 2700+ 2.17GHz 333MHz 13x 0.13 Thoroughbred B
Athlon XP 2600+ 2.083GHz 166MHz 12.5x Thoroughbred B
Athlon XP 2600+ 2.133GHz 133MHz 16x Thoroughbred B
Athlon XP 2400+ 2.GHz 266MHz 15x 0.13 Thoroughbred B
Athlon XP 2200+ 1.8GHz 266MHz 13.5x 0.13 Thoroughbred A
Athlon XP 2100+ 1.73GHz 266MHz 13x 0.18 Palomino
Athlon XP 2000+ 1.67GHz 266MHz 0.18 Palomino
Athlon XP 1900+ 1.6GHz 266MHz 0.18 Palomino
Athlon XP 1800+ 1.53GHz 266MHz 0.18 Palomino
Athlon XP 1700+ 1.47GHz 266MHz 0.18 Palomino
Athlon XP 1600+ 1.4GHz 266MHz 0.18 Palomino
Athlon XP 1500+ 1.33GHz 266MHz 0.18 Palomino

Explanation of the XP rating

There is often confusion as to what these numbers mean, and why AMD do this. As I was briefed on this by AMD's UK Marketing Manager, I can give the correct and official explanation.

When AMD moved from the 'Thunderbird' class of Athlon to the XP, they included a number of technology enhancements in the core of the processor - this meant that a simple comparison between T'BIrd and XP processors on the basis on Megahertz alone would give very misleading results, and understate the actual performance of the XP.

If you compare an XP and a T'Bird running at the same clock speed, the XP will be significantly faster in actual performance.

So AMD did a huge series of benchmark tests using some 35 industry standard benchmarks on the XP's and T'Birds, and created a rating that compares relative performance of the XP with the speed a T'Bird would need to be to give that same performance.

Despite many pronouncements by people that should know better, including some magazines, it is NOT any form of a comparison to Intel processors, whether that be the P4 or anything else.

The logic behind this is that people want a yardstick to measure the performance they are actually paying for, and that clock speed (Megahertz) is no longer a good reflection of comparitive performance.

grim reaper · 01-31-2005, 02:14 PM

Socket
Socket 0, 168 pins - [486DX]
Socket 1, 169 pins - [486SX, 487SX, 486DX]
Socket 2, 238 pins - [486SX, 486DX, 486DX2]
Socket 3, 237 pins - [486SX, 486DX, 486DX2, 486DX4, AMD 5x86]
Socket 4, 273 pins - [Pentium (60/66MHz), Pentium OverDrive]
Socket 5, 320 pins - [Pentium, Pentium OverDrive, AMD K5]
Socket 6, 235 pins - [486DX4]
Socket 7/Super Socket 7, 321 pins - [Pentium, Pentium OverDrive, Pentium MMX, AMD K5, AMD K6, AMD K6-2, AMD K6-III, Cyrix 6x86, IDT Winchip, IDT Winchip-2]
Socket 8, 387 pins - [Pentium Pro, Pentium II OverDrive]
Socket 370 PPGA, 370 pins, Celeron (PPGA), Cyrix "Mojave", Cyrix "Samuel", Cyrix "Ezra"]
Socket 370 FC-PGA, 370 pins, Celeron (FC-PGA), Pentium III (FC-PGA), Cyrix III]
Socket 370 FC-PGA2, 370 pins, [Celeron "Tualatin", Celeron "Copermine"]
Socket A, 462 pins - [AMD Duron, AMD Athlon "Thunderbird", AMD Athlon XP "Palamino", AMD Athlon XP "Thoroughbred", AMD Athlon XP "Barton"]
Socket 423, 423 pins - [Pentium 4]
Socket 478, 478 pins - [Pentium 4]
Socket 479, 479 pins - [Pentium 5]
Socket 603, 603 pins - [Xeon MP, Xeon DP]
Socket 754, 754 pins - [AMD Opteron "ClawHammer", AMD Athlon 64]
Socket 939, 939 pins - [AMD Athlon 64 "Newcastle, Winchester"]
Socket 940, 940 pins - [AMD "SledgeHammer"]

SLOT
Slot 1, 242 pins - [Pentium II (SECC & SECC2), Celeron (SEPP), Pentium III]
Slot 2, 330 pins - [Pentium II Xeon, Pentium III Xeon]
Slot A, 242 pins - [AMD Athlon, AMD "Thunderbird", AMD "Mustang"]

grim reaper · 01-31-2005, 05:44 PM

Converted prices to dollars and added a link to xe.com.

Still loads more stuff to add.

Allso on the mobo links section can any one figure why the fujitsu and gigabyte ones are like that, the bbcode looks fine.

grim reaper · 01-31-2005, 10:19 PM

TFT FAQ's

Q. Should I be worried about ghosting?

A. Generally nowadays ghosting is just not an issue, choosing a TFT should really be based on looks, price and any extra features you might need. The fast response rates of the panels used now are perfectly adequate to cut out any ghosting and blurring, even in fast paced games.

Generally it is considered that a response time of 25ms or less should be fine for gaming in most cases. Panels with 16ms, 12ms and even 8ms are now fairly common and ghosting has become even less of a problem.

At the moment the majority of 17 inch panels used in TFT's are either the 16ms AU Optronics panel or the 12ms Samsung panel. A few use 20ms Hydis/Samsung panels and a few use the 12ms AU Optronics panel. Users of all these panels have said they are fine for fast paced games inc. Quake, UT2003, Half Life 2 and other popular FPS. Remember, different manufacturers have different ways to measure the response rates, so one company’s 16ms panel may not be the same as another company’s 16ms panel.

Ghosting may also depend on how susceptible you are to things like this, as one person may see no ghosting, another may see lots on the same panel. The best bet is to try and see a TFT in action in a shop and see for yourself, if that’s not possible you will have to settle for the opinions of other users on here and take the plunge!

Q. Does DVI make a difference?

A. This depends very much on the panel in question. Some users of some panels say that switching between VGA and DVI makes NO difference on their screens. Notably users of the Samsung range (171T, 181T, 172X) have said it makes little or no difference, and has even been tested by users with 2 side by side. Other users of different panels swear it DOES make a difference. For example, I have personally seen the LG1710B in action in both modes, and the DVI was noticeably better quality and much sharper than the VGA. However the DVI connection on the LG I would rate as comparable to the VGA on some TFT’s without DVI at all, including the AOC LM720a. It seems logical that perhaps some manufacturers who build their screens without DVI spend more time perfecting the VGA connection as that is all they offer. Whereas companies who supply both connections sensibly would expect their users to use the DVI connection, as it is there, and so sacrifice quality of the VGA as the DVI can show off the full potential of their panel. Therefore screens without DVI tend to have a better VGA than those with DVI and in some cases a good VGA connection can be comparable in quality to a DVI connection.

Quality of the VGA connection is also related to the GFX card used. Most modern GFX cards have a good VGA output and this is important in image quality of the TFT. NVidia cards have been said to have a slightly better VGA output than the ATI cards, but as said, most new cards will give u a good quality output. Good output combined with a good VGA input on the screen will give u a good quality picture.

fixes are available for this though (inc Powerstrip etc)One other thing to note is that when using DVI connection, most TFT's lose the option of some of the on screen settings like contrast and brightness, so if u use DVI and u cant change them, some people have found the screens too bright. Software

Q. What's the difference between DVI-D and DVI-I ?

A. DVI is the first digital standard and supports a dual link mode, which allows res up to 2048 x 1536 and beyond. The DVI specification supports hot plug and play display devices.

There are 3 main different configurations when it comes to DVI:
1. DVI-A is designed for analogue only connections
2. DVI-D is designed for digital signals only
3. DVI-I (Integrated) is a single connector which is designed for both digital and analog use, and is backward compatible with analog displays.
Most LCD monitors that support digital signal have DVD-D connectors.

The cables: DVI-I single link configuration provides bandwidth sufficient for res up to 1600 x 1200 and high speed transmission up to 4.95Gbps.
DVI-I dual link config can do 2048 x 1536 @ 9.9Gbps, this is the same for a DVI-D dual link configuration.

Cable suppliers recommend: "Most customers should use a DVI-D to DVI-D cable. We suggest that you do not order a DVI-I to DVI-I cable unless you are certain that it will work for your application."

Q. What resolution are TFT’s?

A. 15 inch TFT’s are run at a native resolution of 1024 x 768, and 17 inch TFT’s at 1280 x 1024. It is always important to run the TFT at it’s native resolution for max picture quality. Most ‘affordable’ 18 and 19 inch panels are also 1280 x1024 res, you are normallylooking at big money for a 1600 x 1200 screen!

Q. What refresh rate should I set my GFX card to using my TFT?

A. For most TFT’s it is a choice between 60hz and 75hz. The optimum setting will depend on the particular screen. It is always a good idea to check the manual / website of your screen to see which is best, and also try both and see which looks best to you.

Most manufacturers seem to suggest 60hz is “recommended” but 75hz is a “maximum” setting.

Q. I’ve Heard dark areas can be too dark, especially in games?

A. This is a problem with nearly all TFT’s. This is generally solved easily, by either turning up the gamma in individual games, or using a program such as Powerstrip, Rage3D or Riva Tuner to turn gamma/brightness up.

Q. What's the best way to clean a TFT screen?

A. The simplest and cheapest way to clean a TFT screen is with a slightly damp cloth, wipe off the left behind water with a towel or similar then smooth/dry completely with a yellow polishing/dusting cloth. Be careful not to use products such as toilet paper and kitchen roll as they contain lint and can leave scratches on your beloved screen! Cleaning solution from opticians and lint free clothes for lens cleaning are also very good.
For the perfectionist, there is "Lindy" brand TFT cleaner. It costs about £4 for a pump-dispenser. You can pick it up at office supply stores and computer fairs.

Q. What's the situation with Dead Pixels and can I bring them back to life?

A. Unfortunately dead pixels are common on TFT screens as they are often developed during the manufacturing stage. For retail costs to be kept low the companies cannot afford to make all screens defect-free and check for dead pixels all the time. Pixels can either be described as dead (permanently black) or lazy (stuck on a specific colour). They very rarely develop during use, unless you have a habit of poking the screen. If you are careful with the screen, hopefully you shouldn't develop any further pixel problems.

If you want to insure that you receive a pixel perfect screen (and who wouldn't at the kind of prices you are paying for the TFT!?!) then you can often pay for pixel checks from some online retailers. Beware though! Never buy a TFT from retailers who offer the pixel check without having the check done as you can be sure the screens they find to be non-perfect will be winging their way to the customers who don't have the check! The only other option to insure you get a pixel perfect screen is to check out the panel in a shop in person, then you can see for yourself.....

If you find you have a dead pixel there is not a lot you can do unfortunately. If you have a certain number of dead pixels (usually at least 3 or a certain number centrally on the panel) then the manufacturer will replace the TFT for you, but the number of dead pixels needed before this happens varies between each manufacturer, so check with them before you order if you're concerned.

Some lazy pixels can be bought back to life occasionally. Playing some fast paced games for a while, and massaging the pixel area with a lint free cloth can sometimes help revive the lazy pixel, but not in all cases.

If you still have a dead pixel problem, can't bring it back to life and can't RMA it under warranty then you can sometimes return it to the stockist if you purchased it online. If you bought online you can take advantage of the "Distance Selling Act" which entitles you to return any item within 7 days as you were not present at the time of purchase. If you are not happy with your TFT you can return it at your cost of postage and often claim a refund or exchange. However, be aware that a lot of places will charge you restocking fees (inc. OcUK) and they will almost certainly specify the goods must be packaged and in the same condition as when you received it, so be careful to package it back up nicely.

Q. So which is the best TFT to get?

A. This question pops up ALL the time! It really depends on what you want the TFT for, how much u want to pay etc. The LG1710B, Samsung 172X and LG1720B are all very popular at the moment, as is the Hyundai Q17+. The screens nowadays are all very good, and I doubt you will see a lot of difference in real use in terms of performance between any of them. In real use you are not going to be able to tell much, if any, difference between the 16ms, 20ms, and 12ms panels in my opinion. Nowadays, you need to base your decision on the looks of the TFT and the price. Performance is very good on all the top models really.

Tom’s Hardware comparisons, although fairly old now, may be useful:

November 2003 comparisons

June 2003 comparisons

Q. What's all this I read about the Hydis 20ms panel being better than the 16ms AU panel?

A. All this 20ms Hydis > 16ms AU is blown WAY out of proportion as I keep on having to say!!!! It’s only Toms Hardware guide which have said it is not as good, and if u can trust them 100% then that's your own choice, but many people on here know that THG tend to be a little unreliable

The 16ms AU is a brilliant panel, which is why it is used in so many top of the range TFT's nowadays. I doubt you could really tell any difference in performance between them in real use, and it's only in supposed "advanced tests" from THG that they reckon the Hydis out-performs the AU! Every other review of the 16ms panel rates it very highly and really the main problem with choosing a TFT nowadays is choosing one you think looks good, as the panel performance is very good all round (probably as most use the same one anyway at the moment!) Ignore all the rubbish about Hydis > AU, you're unlikely to find any TFT's with it anyway, and it's only THG anyway which seem to rate it higher......one review, and not even a reliable one at that!

Hyundai no longer use the 20ms Hydis panel in their Q17 and haven't since 2003. They use the 12ms Samsung panel now in the Q17+ (confirmed by Hyundai tech support).

The 19 inch, and larger TFT FAQ

Q. What’s good about 19 inch or larger TFT’s?

A. Well, obviously they are bigger, and are great for those who want a larger viewing area. They are great for multimedia work and office work. The larger panels which offer the higher resolutions (1600 x 1200) are even better as there is more you can fit on the screen. A lot use TFT technology (such as IPS and VN panels) which offers superior colour reproduction and viewing angles to TN film panels.
All the larger panels have DVI and many come with extra features like tilting, pivoting, height adjustment, USB hubs, S-Video etc.

Q. What is not so good about the larger TFT’s?

A. One point to remember when considering larger than 17inch TFT’s: the technology is not quite as advanced as the smaller models and so for gaming they are often not as good as 17inch models. Some now offer fast rated panels (20ms and 16ms for example) but performance wise they don’t match the top 17inch models. If you’re a gamer then perhaps consider a smaller size screen, and save some money while you’re at it! As a lot of the larger panels use IPS or VA technology, they aren’t as good for gaming and may show more ghosting than a TN panel used on the smaller TFT’s commonly.
The other issue is that some of them (19 inch TFT’s commonly) will only have 1280 x 1024 resolution, which is the same as you get on a 17inch model. Is it worth the extra money for the larger screen when the resolution is the same?

Q. What is all this about TN, VA and IPS panels? What’s the difference?

A. TN film (Twisted Nematic) panels where the first panels to be used and are still widely implemented in many TFT’s today, especially mid to low end screens. This is due to the low manufacturing costs of TN panels. However, they are not always very good at displaying blacks and also there is a problem with pixels dying and becoming a bright colour rather than just completely going out (black). They can have viewing angles of up to about 140 horizontal.
IPS (In Plane Switching) was introduced to try and improve on some of these drawbacks. It was developed by Hitachi and was dubbed “super TFT”. They improved on viewing angles up to about 170H. This was done by controlling liquid crystal alignment slightly differently, but unfortunately, can affect response rate of the pixels. As such they are not as good for gaming as TN panels. They didn’t make any improvements on black reproduction really either, but dead pixels only show as black, not bright colours.
The third type is VA (Vertical Alignment) panels. These offer superior colour reproduction and viewing angles. This is done by having all the colour elements of the panel split into cells or zones. These are formed by ridges on an internal surface of filters. The purpose of this design is to enable liquid crystals to move in opposite direction to their neighbors. It allows the observer to see the same shade of color irrespective of a viewing angle. It is also capable of lower response times as a whole, but it is not widely used at the moment, being the newest technology of the 3. Therefore, faster panels are not available as yet, but when they are, they will probably be some of the best around.

grim reaper · 01-31-2005, 10:35 PM

The reason its done as multiple posts is so i can link to the individual posts from the first indexing posts.

I allso hope it gets sticked. Once its finished it should cover quite alot.

grim reaper · 02-01-2005, 02:24 PM

A Fresh Install

Ok, you’ve F-disked your HD, set up your partitions and you’re installing Windows, here’s the most common install order people use (inc me) on the forums:
1. Install Windows
2. Any Service Pack from Windows
3. Motherboard / Chipset drivers
4. Direct X update
5. Graphics Card drivers
6. Other Hardware drivers inc. sound, modem, LAN (etc)
7. Critical Updates from Windows Update

8. Install all your other programs and update them / set them up as you go
8. Full Defrag

If you have Antivirus and/or firewall software it is worth installing them early on, perhaps before you go online to get MS Critical updates. Do a Antivirus update early on too, to make sure u are fully protected.

Perhaps throw in a defrag for good measures after stage 4 just to get things running nicely from the beginning, but it’s debatable whether it will make much difference, certainly doesn’t hurt though!

============================
Defragmenting

Windows built in Defragmenter is pretty bog standard. Some good and much faster alternatives include Vopt XP and Diskeeper, try those for a good quality defrag. Before defragging it is always a good idea to delete all temporary files, temp internet files, empty your recycle bin (all in system tools > disk cleanup). There’s no need for Windows to be moving these files around, get rid of them. Also empty your windows\prefetch folder every time you want to defrag,.........emptying it will speed up your performance, and defragging with it empty helps move all your system files around without moving unnecessary files like these

============================
Pagefile Size and Location

Ok, a very common one this…..generally it is considered that Windows is perfectly capable of organising you pagefile size so leave it to be ‘system managed’. If you really want to save on pagefile size, and have enough RAM (>512MB recommended) then u can decrease the size of your pagefile. It is generally not advised to totally disable the pagefile, but if you have 1GB of RAM some ppl say they can disable it with no adverse effects.
The location of the pagefile is also a common question. The only real performance advantage is if you move the pagefile to a separate partition on a separate physical HD.

To change your pagefile size and location with the default Category Control Panel:

1. Head to Start
2. Select Control Panel
3. Select Performance and Maintenance
4. Select System
5. Select Advanced Tab
6. Under Performance, select the Settings button
7. Select Advanced Tab
8. Under Virtual Memory, select the Change button
9. Adjust as needed, or select "No paging File," then select the Set button
10. Select the Ok button to apply the settings
11. You must reboot for the changes to take effect
--------------------------------------------------------------

From Fastest to Slowest, these are the configuration you can try:

* No swap file at all. Some software may fail. You also need "much" memory to do this. Greater than 512 MB.
* A static swap file on a separate hard drive (and preferably, controller) from Windows and frequently accessed data.
* A dynamic swap file on a separate hard drive (and preferably, controller) from Windows and frequently accessed data.
* A static swap file on a separate partition, but on the same physical hard drive as Windows.
* A dynamic swap file on a separate partition, but on the same physical hard drive as Windows.
* The Default: A dynamic swap file on the same partition and physical hard drive (usually C) as Windows.

Microsofts own article about Pagefile

http://www.microsoft.com/WindowsXP/...es/03june16.asp

=======================================

Which Antivirus Program is the best?

A common question which can be answered with a quick search. This info might be helpful to ppl trying to find out. Thread about it all: here

This is a cut and paste from a different forum by a user called kobra.

Testbed consisted of 321 Viruses, Trojans and Worms, all for the Windows32 environment, and all reasonably new samples. I don't have any data on whether some of these are zoo, or ITW, but they are all real threats I feel someone is likely to encounter, since I got them off the internet (and i've verified they are real as each sample must be detected by at least 4 AV's for me to consider it). All scanners were installed on a clean system, without any traces of other anti-virus softwares - between each test the system and directories were cleaned, and the registry was sweeped. Each AV product was treated with a double-reboot, one before, and one after installation. Each scanner was set at its highest possible settings, and was triple checked for proper options and configuration. Most products were the full registered version when possible, others were fully functional unrestricted trials. All products were tested with the current version as of 6-14-04, and the latest definitions for that date. Each product was run through the test set a minimum of 3 times to establish proper settings and reliability, the only product to exhibit some variance on this was F-Secure, which had one scan come up less than the other two without any settings changes indicating a possible stability issue.

The final standings:

1) MKS-Vir
1a) eXtendia AVK
2) Kaspersky 5.0/4.5
2a) McAfee VirusScan 8.0
3) F-Secure
4) GData AVK
5) RAV + Norton (2 way tie)
6) Dr.Web
7) CommandAV + F-Prot + BitDefender (3 Way Tie)
8) ETrust
9) Trend
10) Panda
11) Avast! Pro
12) KingSoft
13) NOD32
14) AVG Pro
15) AntiVIR
16) ClamWIN
17) UNA
18) Norman
19) Solo
20) Proland
21) Sophos
22) Hauri
23) CAT Quickheal
24) Ikarus

Heuristics seemed to play some of a roll in this test, as no AV had every virus in my test in their definitions, and products with stronger heuristics were able to

01-31-2005, 01:41 PM	#1 (permalink)
grim reaper Forum Moderator Brigadier General Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: England Posts: 7,255	Lots of usefull info..... In short im bored so ive decided to make a ultimate hardware thread here. Hopefully it can be covered with an adhesive agent. Please note, most of the stuff on hear is not original content i am not claming it to be my work i am simply collating it hear to help fellow BFN'ers. I have however put alot of work into the formatiing to make it acessable. Links Usefull programs Drivers Graphics Cards Explained AMD CPU's explained CPU speeds. Slot and Socket types Windows Tweaks Memory FAQ's Hard Drives

01-31-2005, 01:53 PM	#2 (permalink)
grim reaper Forum Moderator Brigadier General Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: England Posts: 7,255	CPU Manufacturers Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) - HomePage Intel - HomePage VIA - HomePage GPU manufacturers Intel - HomePage ATI - HomePage Nvidia - HomePage MotherBoard Manufacturers Abit: HomePage Acorp: HomePage Aopen: HomePage Asus: HomePage Azza: HomePage Biostar: HomePage Chaintech:HomePage Epox:HomePage Elite/ECS: HomePage FIC: HomePage Foxconn: HomePage Fujitsu (Siemens): [url=http://www.fujitsu-siemens.com/HomePage[/url] Giga-Byte: HomePage Intel: HomePage Iwill: HomePage Jetway: HomePage Luckystar: HomePage MSI: HomePage PC-Chips: HomePage QDI: HomePage Shuttle: HomePage SIS: HomePage Soltek: HomePage SOYO: HomePage Super-Micro: HomePage Tyan: HomePage VIA: HomePage

01-31-2005, 01:57 PM	#3 (permalink)
grim reaper Forum Moderator Brigadier General Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: England Posts: 7,255	Adware/Spyware Remover - Adaware - 2.51MB http://www.download.com/Ad-Aware-SE-...bj=dl&tag=top5 Adware/Sp yware Remover - Spybot Search and Destory - 4.15MB http://mirror3.internetsecurity.cc/ Adware/Spyware Remover - Microsoft AntiSpyware Beta 1 - 6.23MB http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...areInstall.exe Anti Virus - Grisoft AVG7 Free - 9.68MB http://free.grisoft.com/softw/70free...ee_289a392.exe Currency Converter - XE http://www.xe.com/ Firewall - Zonealarm Free Edition - 6.34MB http://download.zonelabs.com/bin/fre...etup_55_062_00 0.exe Media Player - DivX Player - 7.38MB http://www.divx.com/divx/download/index.php Media Player - Real Player - 9.99MB http://forms.real.com/netzip/intl/in...0-5GOLD.exe&p= RealPlayer&oem=rp10_en_uk&src=ZG.uk.idx,ZG.uk.rp.r p.hd.def,ZG.uk.rp10_p_ f.rp10_p_f.760.rp10_plus_free&tagtype=ie&type=rp10 _en_uk M edia Player - Quicktime + iTunes - 20.7MB http://wsidecar.apple.com/cgi-bin/qt/nph-regqtXHL Media Player - Winamp - 735 KB/4.35 MB/7.87 MB http://www.winamp.com/player/free.php Media Player - Windows Media Player 10 - 11.64MB http://www.microsoft.com/windows/win.../download.aspx Media Player - VLC Player (.ogm files) - 6.7MB (OS Pending) http://www.videolan.org/vlc/ Web Browser - Opera - 3.5MB/16.3MB with Ja\/a http://www.opera.com/download/ Web Browser - Firefox - 4.7MB http://download.mozilla.org/?product...ox&os=win&lang =en-GB Web Browser - Slimbrowser - 1.46MB http://download.com.com/3000-2356-10...e&tag=bu tton Utility - Belarc Advisor - 650KB http://www.belarc.com/free_download.html Utility - Magic DVD Ripper - 1.4MB http://www.magicdvdripper.com/downlo...DRipper22a.exe Utility - Winzip - 2.3MB http://www.download.com/3000-2250-10003164.html?tag=dir Utility - Winrar - 1.1MB http://www.rarlab.com/rar/wrar341.exe

01-31-2005, 02:01 PM	#4 (permalink)
grim reaper Forum Moderator Brigadier General Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: England Posts: 7,255	Drivers Important Windows XP updates Windows XP SP1a: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/d...1/default.mspx Windows XP SP2: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/default.mspx Graphic Card Drivers ATi Catalyst Drivers (For Radeon and Riva Series) Windows XP/2K Version 5.1 Broadband: http://www.ati.com/home/online/CatalystXPdriver.html Catalyst Control Centre + Drivers 5.1(Microsoft .Net Framework 1.1 required)Broadband http://www.ati.com/home/online/CatalystCCCdriver.html Windows XP/2K Version 5.1 Dialup: Part 1 Display Driver: http://www2.ati.com/drivers/wxp-w2k-...1m-020455c.exe Part 2 Control Pannel: http://www2.ati.com/drivers/control-...1m-020455c.exe Part 3 Catalyst Control Centre: http://www2.ati.com/drivers/wxp-cata...5c-english.exe Part 4 WDM Capture Driver: http://www2.ati.com/drivers/tv-captu...-10-6246v3.exe Windows 98/ME(No Longer updated) Version 4.7: http://www2.ati.com/drivers/wme-7-99...2a-016504e.exe Nvidia Forceware (For GeForce 3,4,FX and 6) Windows XP Version 66.93: ftp://download.nvidia.com/Windows/66...xp_english.exe Windows 95/98/ME Version 61.76: http://www.nvidia.com/object/win9x_61.76 Soundcards Soundblaster Soundcard Latest Drivers/Utils http://uk.europe.creative.com/support/drivers/

01-31-2005, 02:08 PM	#5 (permalink)
grim reaper Forum Moderator Brigadier General Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: England Posts: 7,255	Best Cards on various budgets After seeing all the which card for £X threads i thought id create a definitive guide which ill try to keep updated. Note: this guide was written with the British market in mind, beucase of the exchange rate and the fact that the US get cheaper stuff some of the $ figures may be inaccurate. Sub £50/$90 - A used Geforce 4 Ti4200 (pay upto £40 for a decent one) or 9500np/pro (£50 will get you an average example) or a 9550 if you want new (just within budget). In this budget try for a 128mb card, a 256 card will bring no advantages as the cards here are not powerful enough to use it, and a 64mb card (some ti4200's) have pretty much had it for any texture intensive game at 1024x768. <£70/$130 - basically the same as the £50 class, a 128mb 9550 /128mb 9600 (not SE!) would be great (NEW), you may if the seller is desperate, get a used 9700np/pro for this price, in which case it kicks everything else here. Again 256mb is stupid for this price, for the reason above. <£100/$190 - A used 9800pro or 9700pro (new) is lovely. TBH id just get the 9700 as the difference is negliable. If you need to go NV (for linux support or something) then hunt around for a used FX5900XT or 5900ultra. New it would have to be a 5700ultra. <£150/$280 - 6600GT is the current king in this segment. That or the 6800LE (if you can find it for this price its probably better as it can be modded for more pipes). Ati have the X700 which cant really match the 6600GT but is a good card none the less (about 9800pro levels) <£200/$375 - 6800nu, no competition. ATi have nothing in this sector which comes close. The 9800xt is not even able to keep up with this little bargain, and surprise, surprise 256mb doesnt give the 9800xt any advantages. <£250/$470 - now for the strange price bracket, no cards really fall here, a used X800pro or 6800GT may be had, but thats quite optimisitic tbh, if you want a better card than the last bracket, your gonna have to dig deep, sorry. *A WARNING* - The Asus Asus GeForce 6800 GT 128MB DDR TV-Out/DVI (AGP) - Retail may seem like a bit of a bargain for this price range, but in reality its not worth it, it will perform every so slightly better than the regular 6800nu. <£300/$560 - 6800GT or X800pro (if you go for a X800 , try to get a VIVO so it can be flashed to a X800XT ) both cards here are stonking, personally id go 6800GT but ATi are slowly clawing it back with excellent AA & AF performance. There are also reports of the Gigabyte X800pro VIVO coming pre-equipped with 16 pipes, making it a bargain XT. Nice. <£400/$940 - GIT! you can afford practically any card you fancy, a 6800 Ultra or X800XT are going to suit you perfectly. Enjoy. and now a new section....... if i were in your shoes...... <£50, save up, or 9550 (128mb) <£100, 9700pro <£150, 6600GT <£200, 6800 <£250, scrape and scrounge to afford a 6800GT <£300, Gigabyte X800pro VIVO (16 pipes baby!) <£400, X800XT (not PE, as i dont believe its worth it) "erm, well i want to run game X at X detail, how much should i spend??" Depends what you want, quite simply for anything other than games onboard graphics will do but for games like farcry and doom3 your going to want any card here, yes even the base models ive recommended will do farcry/d3 on 800x600 @ medium/low detail. However for adequate performance in these games at 1024x768 your going to want a 9700 card or better. For 1280x1024 a 6800nu is perfect and 6800GT and above will do 1600x1200. "so thanks, but im a bit confused about manufacturers and all these SE and LE models" Manufacturers: Any that Major retailers stock are good really, the galaxy's and HIS's deserve a special mention for their luvverly coolers, but anything will do. Gainward still have a bit of a dodgy reputation for a bad bunch of Geforce 4's they made, but in reality they should be as reliable as anyone else now. SE etc: Basically, avoid the SE and LE tagged cards if thou does not know what they are doing. These are heavily cut down cards which perform quite poorly in comparision to their cousins. "Im a modder, any cards i should look out for?" Well the X800pro VIVO can obviously be flashed to a XT quite easily, however reports are coming in of laser cut pipes, so now its not guarunteed. However the Gigabyte VIVO apparantly comes with 16 pipes already unlocked. WOOHOO! The 6800 series is all based off the 6800Ultra GPU and so have the oppurtunity to be unlocked for the full 16 pipe "effect". Making the 6800LE and 6800non-ultra super value. However some pipes are often broken and dont unlock. "will my CPU do these cards justice?" A common question, hopefully this should help: (when referring to Ghz, im also referring to the Athlon XP PR rating) 1.5ghz cpu and below : sorry, any of these cards will be bottlenecked, go out and buy the best components you can afford. 1.6-2.0ghz : anything from the ti4200 to the 9600/5700 series would be ideal, although obviously the 9600 is more suited to the 2.0ghz end. 2.0-2.4ghz : A 9600/9700/9800 and nvidia conterparts 5700/5800/5900 would be well suited. 2.4ghz-2.8ghz : 9800/6600GT/6800nu 3.0ghz+ any card really, although for the X800XT's and 6800ultras of the world your looking at A64's. "ok, i have my card, what scores should i be getting on 3dmark 03?" Common cards: Ti4200 - 1300 (only poor because it cant run a certain test) 9550 - 3300 9600pro - 4000 5700ultra - 4000 9700np/pro - 5000 5900XT - 5600 9800pro - 5800 5900ultra - 6000 9800XT - 6300 6800nu - 9500 6800GT - 11,000 X800pro - 11,000 X800XTPE - 13000 6800Ultra - 13000 These are only a guide, most people on here will beat them with uber systems backing them up. Oh and dont be fooled by the 5900ultra's high bench, it aint as good as the 9800pro in the real world. "So the X800/6800 guide you promised us, where is it? hmmm?" Its here...... finally The 6800 series, the card for most people, its not THAT keen on AA or AF (in comparison to the X800's). But in OpenGL (doom3 and other ID projects) expect it to blitz the X800 series, EASILY. Note these cards are stll very new, so expect future drivers to really yield large improvements. 6800LE - The same 6800 GPU but with 8 pipes (as opposed to 12 of the nu) which puts it in the same league as the 9800pro, however its equipped with the same (quite fast) memory as the non-ultra. It is a little more expensive than the 9800pro, and this is reflected in the performance (slightly better). A 9800pro killer. 6800nu - the 6800 non ultra is probably the best value card on the market today, simply outstanding for the price, it can even compete with the X800pro which is designed to compete with its older brother the 6800GT. One word: Superb. 6800GT - The overclockers dream card, EXACTLY the same core as the 6800ultra, and quick memory too, meaning it should easily reach 6800ultra speeds, a super quick card, quite pricey but when you consider it can become a 6800ultra easily, quite a bargain. 6800Ultra - The most expensive card on the market (for gamers) so for that title you would expect super performance, and thats exactly what you get. 1600x1200 on farcry/doom 3? No problem, super badass n00b pwning framerates? you got em. Simply, if you can afford it, probably the most powerful card around. Ultra clock rates can vary between manufacturers, and as ive just been told by jamesj, this can make alot of difference. 425/1200 is vastly superior to 400/1000, in fact how does 1000 3dmarks difference sound? The X800 series, a pretty basic upgrade on the R300 series (9700/9800) its basically the same core, but manufactured using a better process to allow for more pipes to be squeezed in and higher clocks to be achieved. Therefore it has the same strengths as the 9700/9800 such as unparalled AA/AF performance. Being an extension of the R300 series, expect it to gain minimal benefits from drivers compared to the 6800's. X800SE - Not much is known about this card, basically its an 8 pipe version of the GPU, but with fairly decent clocks. I know what your thinking, 8 pipes? based on R300? so 9800 performance then? well, maybe, id expect it to be a bit higher, but i dont really know, its not available to my knowledge for a retail release yet, but someone (plz step forward) on these boards has one in a pre-built pc. Expect it to fall between the 6800LE and 9800pro. X800pro - ATi's rival to the 6800GT, but with only 12 pipes, which is a severe hampering to it. However decent performance especially with AA and AF means it is a worthy rival in my book. Oh and of course VIVO models can be modded into the beast below: X800XT/XTPE - ATi's flagship products with the PE having slightly higher clocks (an extra 20 on the core, and 120 on mem). These are the full fat 16 pipe versions, and by god they are fast. Put it this way with 1600x1200 pixels and AA/AF this is the BEST CARD bar NONE. the catch? it lacks PS3 (wow?!?!?!) and speed in openGL. You play with AA/AF? Save for this.

01-31-2005, 02:12 PM	#6 (permalink)
grim reaper Forum Moderator Brigadier General Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: England Posts: 7,255	AMD XP ratings and their “real” clocking 64bit AMD64 Athlon64 3400 2.2Ghz 1024kb L2 cache Athlon64 3200 2Ghz 1024kb L2 cache Athlon64 3000 2Ghz 512kb L2 cache Athlon64 2800 1.8Ghz 512kb L2 cache Barton Core - 512kb L2 Cache. Athlon XP 3200+ 2.20GHz 200MHz 11x Barton (L2 512KB) Athlon XP 3000+ 2.10GHz 200MHz 10.5x Barton (L2 512KB) Athlon XP 3000+ 2.16GHz 166MHz 13x Barton (L2 512KB) Athlon XP 2800+ 2.08GHz 166MHz 12.5x Barton (L2 512KB) Athlon XP 2600+ 1.91GHz 166MHz 11.5x Barton (L2 512KB) Athlon XP 2500+ 1.83GHz 166MHz 11x Barton (L2 512KB) Thoroughbred/Palamino Core - 256kb L2 Cache. Athlon XP 2800+ 2.25GHz 333MHz 13.5x 0.13 Thoroughbred B Athlon XP 2700+ 2.17GHz 333MHz 13x 0.13 Thoroughbred B Athlon XP 2600+ 2.083GHz 166MHz 12.5x Thoroughbred B Athlon XP 2600+ 2.133GHz 133MHz 16x Thoroughbred B Athlon XP 2400+ 2.GHz 266MHz 15x 0.13 Thoroughbred B Athlon XP 2200+ 1.8GHz 266MHz 13.5x 0.13 Thoroughbred A Athlon XP 2100+ 1.73GHz 266MHz 13x 0.18 Palomino Athlon XP 2000+ 1.67GHz 266MHz 0.18 Palomino Athlon XP 1900+ 1.6GHz 266MHz 0.18 Palomino Athlon XP 1800+ 1.53GHz 266MHz 0.18 Palomino Athlon XP 1700+ 1.47GHz 266MHz 0.18 Palomino Athlon XP 1600+ 1.4GHz 266MHz 0.18 Palomino Athlon XP 1500+ 1.33GHz 266MHz 0.18 Palomino Explanation of the XP rating There is often confusion as to what these numbers mean, and why AMD do this. As I was briefed on this by AMD's UK Marketing Manager, I can give the correct and official explanation. When AMD moved from the 'Thunderbird' class of Athlon to the XP, they included a number of technology enhancements in the core of the processor - this meant that a simple comparison between T'BIrd and XP processors on the basis on Megahertz alone would give very misleading results, and understate the actual performance of the XP. If you compare an XP and a T'Bird running at the same clock speed, the XP will be significantly faster in actual performance. So AMD did a huge series of benchmark tests using some 35 industry standard benchmarks on the XP's and T'Birds, and created a rating that compares relative performance of the XP with the speed a T'Bird would need to be to give that same performance. Despite many pronouncements by people that should know better, including some magazines, it is NOT any form of a comparison to Intel processors, whether that be the P4 or anything else. The logic behind this is that people want a yardstick to measure the performance they are actually paying for, and that clock speed (Megahertz) is no longer a good reflection of comparitive performance.

01-31-2005, 02:14 PM	#7 (permalink)
grim reaper Forum Moderator Brigadier General Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: England Posts: 7,255	Socket Socket 0, 168 pins - [486DX] Socket 1, 169 pins - [486SX, 487SX, 486DX] Socket 2, 238 pins - [486SX, 486DX, 486DX2] Socket 3, 237 pins - [486SX, 486DX, 486DX2, 486DX4, AMD 5x86] Socket 4, 273 pins - [Pentium (60/66MHz), Pentium OverDrive] Socket 5, 320 pins - [Pentium, Pentium OverDrive, AMD K5] Socket 6, 235 pins - [486DX4] Socket 7/Super Socket 7, 321 pins - [Pentium, Pentium OverDrive, Pentium MMX, AMD K5, AMD K6, AMD K6-2, AMD K6-III, Cyrix 6x86, IDT Winchip, IDT Winchip-2] Socket 8, 387 pins - [Pentium Pro, Pentium II OverDrive] Socket 370 PPGA, 370 pins, Celeron (PPGA), Cyrix "Mojave", Cyrix "Samuel", Cyrix "Ezra"] Socket 370 FC-PGA, 370 pins, Celeron (FC-PGA), Pentium III (FC-PGA), Cyrix III] Socket 370 FC-PGA2, 370 pins, [Celeron "Tualatin", Celeron "Copermine"] Socket A, 462 pins - [AMD Duron, AMD Athlon "Thunderbird", AMD Athlon XP "Palamino", AMD Athlon XP "Thoroughbred", AMD Athlon XP "Barton"] Socket 423, 423 pins - [Pentium 4] Socket 478, 478 pins - [Pentium 4] Socket 479, 479 pins - [Pentium 5] Socket 603, 603 pins - [Xeon MP, Xeon DP] Socket 754, 754 pins - [AMD Opteron "ClawHammer", AMD Athlon 64] Socket 939, 939 pins - [AMD Athlon 64 "Newcastle, Winchester"] Socket 940, 940 pins - [AMD "SledgeHammer"] SLOT Slot 1, 242 pins - [Pentium II (SECC & SECC2), Celeron (SEPP), Pentium III] Slot 2, 330 pins - [Pentium II Xeon, Pentium III Xeon] Slot A, 242 pins - [AMD Athlon, AMD "Thunderbird", AMD "Mustang"]

01-31-2005, 05:44 PM	#8 (permalink)
grim reaper Forum Moderator Brigadier General Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: England Posts: 7,255	Converted prices to dollars and added a link to xe.com. Still loads more stuff to add. Allso on the mobo links section can any one figure why the fujitsu and gigabyte ones are like that, the bbcode looks fine.

01-31-2005, 10:19 PM	#9 (permalink)
grim reaper Forum Moderator Brigadier General Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: England Posts: 7,255	TFT FAQ's Q. Should I be worried about ghosting? A. Generally nowadays ghosting is just not an issue, choosing a TFT should really be based on looks, price and any extra features you might need. The fast response rates of the panels used now are perfectly adequate to cut out any ghosting and blurring, even in fast paced games. Generally it is considered that a response time of 25ms or less should be fine for gaming in most cases. Panels with 16ms, 12ms and even 8ms are now fairly common and ghosting has become even less of a problem. At the moment the majority of 17 inch panels used in TFT's are either the 16ms AU Optronics panel or the 12ms Samsung panel. A few use 20ms Hydis/Samsung panels and a few use the 12ms AU Optronics panel. Users of all these panels have said they are fine for fast paced games inc. Quake, UT2003, Half Life 2 and other popular FPS. Remember, different manufacturers have different ways to measure the response rates, so one company’s 16ms panel may not be the same as another company’s 16ms panel. Ghosting may also depend on how susceptible you are to things like this, as one person may see no ghosting, another may see lots on the same panel. The best bet is to try and see a TFT in action in a shop and see for yourself, if that’s not possible you will have to settle for the opinions of other users on here and take the plunge! Q. Does DVI make a difference? A. This depends very much on the panel in question. Some users of some panels say that switching between VGA and DVI makes NO difference on their screens. Notably users of the Samsung range (171T, 181T, 172X) have said it makes little or no difference, and has even been tested by users with 2 side by side. Other users of different panels swear it DOES make a difference. For example, I have personally seen the LG1710B in action in both modes, and the DVI was noticeably better quality and much sharper than the VGA. However the DVI connection on the LG I would rate as comparable to the VGA on some TFT’s without DVI at all, including the AOC LM720a. It seems logical that perhaps some manufacturers who build their screens without DVI spend more time perfecting the VGA connection as that is all they offer. Whereas companies who supply both connections sensibly would expect their users to use the DVI connection, as it is there, and so sacrifice quality of the VGA as the DVI can show off the full potential of their panel. Therefore screens without DVI tend to have a better VGA than those with DVI and in some cases a good VGA connection can be comparable in quality to a DVI connection. Quality of the VGA connection is also related to the GFX card used. Most modern GFX cards have a good VGA output and this is important in image quality of the TFT. NVidia cards have been said to have a slightly better VGA output than the ATI cards, but as said, most new cards will give u a good quality output. Good output combined with a good VGA input on the screen will give u a good quality picture. fixes are available for this though (inc Powerstrip etc)One other thing to note is that when using DVI connection, most TFT's lose the option of some of the on screen settings like contrast and brightness, so if u use DVI and u cant change them, some people have found the screens too bright. Software Q. What's the difference between DVI-D and DVI-I ? A. DVI is the first digital standard and supports a dual link mode, which allows res up to 2048 x 1536 and beyond. The DVI specification supports hot plug and play display devices. There are 3 main different configurations when it comes to DVI: 1. DVI-A is designed for analogue only connections 2. DVI-D is designed for digital signals only 3. DVI-I (Integrated) is a single connector which is designed for both digital and analog use, and is backward compatible with analog displays. Most LCD monitors that support digital signal have DVD-D connectors. The cables: DVI-I single link configuration provides bandwidth sufficient for res up to 1600 x 1200 and high speed transmission up to 4.95Gbps. DVI-I dual link config can do 2048 x 1536 @ 9.9Gbps, this is the same for a DVI-D dual link configuration. Cable suppliers recommend: "Most customers should use a DVI-D to DVI-D cable. We suggest that you do not order a DVI-I to DVI-I cable unless you are certain that it will work for your application." Q. What resolution are TFT’s? A. 15 inch TFT’s are run at a native resolution of 1024 x 768, and 17 inch TFT’s at 1280 x 1024. It is always important to run the TFT at it’s native resolution for max picture quality. Most ‘affordable’ 18 and 19 inch panels are also 1280 x1024 res, you are normallylooking at big money for a 1600 x 1200 screen! Q. What refresh rate should I set my GFX card to using my TFT? A. For most TFT’s it is a choice between 60hz and 75hz. The optimum setting will depend on the particular screen. It is always a good idea to check the manual / website of your screen to see which is best, and also try both and see which looks best to you. Most manufacturers seem to suggest 60hz is “recommended” but 75hz is a “maximum” setting. Q. I’ve Heard dark areas can be too dark, especially in games? A. This is a problem with nearly all TFT’s. This is generally solved easily, by either turning up the gamma in individual games, or using a program such as Powerstrip, Rage3D or Riva Tuner to turn gamma/brightness up. Q. What's the best way to clean a TFT screen? A. The simplest and cheapest way to clean a TFT screen is with a slightly damp cloth, wipe off the left behind water with a towel or similar then smooth/dry completely with a yellow polishing/dusting cloth. Be careful not to use products such as toilet paper and kitchen roll as they contain lint and can leave scratches on your beloved screen! Cleaning solution from opticians and lint free clothes for lens cleaning are also very good. For the perfectionist, there is "Lindy" brand TFT cleaner. It costs about £4 for a pump-dispenser. You can pick it up at office supply stores and computer fairs. Q. What's the situation with Dead Pixels and can I bring them back to life? A. Unfortunately dead pixels are common on TFT screens as they are often developed during the manufacturing stage. For retail costs to be kept low the companies cannot afford to make all screens defect-free and check for dead pixels all the time. Pixels can either be described as dead (permanently black) or lazy (stuck on a specific colour). They very rarely develop during use, unless you have a habit of poking the screen. If you are careful with the screen, hopefully you shouldn't develop any further pixel problems. If you want to insure that you receive a pixel perfect screen (and who wouldn't at the kind of prices you are paying for the TFT!?!) then you can often pay for pixel checks from some online retailers. Beware though! Never buy a TFT from retailers who offer the pixel check without having the check done as you can be sure the screens they find to be non-perfect will be winging their way to the customers who don't have the check! The only other option to insure you get a pixel perfect screen is to check out the panel in a shop in person, then you can see for yourself..... If you find you have a dead pixel there is not a lot you can do unfortunately. If you have a certain number of dead pixels (usually at least 3 or a certain number centrally on the panel) then the manufacturer will replace the TFT for you, but the number of dead pixels needed before this happens varies between each manufacturer, so check with them before you order if you're concerned. Some lazy pixels can be bought back to life occasionally. Playing some fast paced games for a while, and massaging the pixel area with a lint free cloth can sometimes help revive the lazy pixel, but not in all cases. If you still have a dead pixel problem, can't bring it back to life and can't RMA it under warranty then you can sometimes return it to the stockist if you purchased it online. If you bought online you can take advantage of the "Distance Selling Act" which entitles you to return any item within 7 days as you were not present at the time of purchase. If you are not happy with your TFT you can return it at your cost of postage and often claim a refund or exchange. However, be aware that a lot of places will charge you restocking fees (inc. OcUK) and they will almost certainly specify the goods must be packaged and in the same condition as when you received it, so be careful to package it back up nicely. Q. So which is the best TFT to get? A. This question pops up ALL the time! It really depends on what you want the TFT for, how much u want to pay etc. The LG1710B, Samsung 172X and LG1720B are all very popular at the moment, as is the Hyundai Q17+. The screens nowadays are all very good, and I doubt you will see a lot of difference in real use in terms of performance between any of them. In real use you are not going to be able to tell much, if any, difference between the 16ms, 20ms, and 12ms panels in my opinion. Nowadays, you need to base your decision on the looks of the TFT and the price. Performance is very good on all the top models really. Tom’s Hardware comparisons, although fairly old now, may be useful: November 2003 comparisons June 2003 comparisons Q. What's all this I read about the Hydis 20ms panel being better than the 16ms AU panel? A. All this 20ms Hydis > 16ms AU is blown WAY out of proportion as I keep on having to say!!!! It’s only Toms Hardware guide which have said it is not as good, and if u can trust them 100% then that's your own choice, but many people on here know that THG tend to be a little unreliable The 16ms AU is a brilliant panel, which is why it is used in so many top of the range TFT's nowadays. I doubt you could really tell any difference in performance between them in real use, and it's only in supposed "advanced tests" from THG that they reckon the Hydis out-performs the AU! Every other review of the 16ms panel rates it very highly and really the main problem with choosing a TFT nowadays is choosing one you think looks good, as the panel performance is very good all round (probably as most use the same one anyway at the moment!) Ignore all the rubbish about Hydis > AU, you're unlikely to find any TFT's with it anyway, and it's only THG anyway which seem to rate it higher......one review, and not even a reliable one at that! Hyundai no longer use the 20ms Hydis panel in their Q17 and haven't since 2003. They use the 12ms Samsung panel now in the Q17+ (confirmed by Hyundai tech support). The 19 inch, and larger TFT FAQ Q. What’s good about 19 inch or larger TFT’s? A. Well, obviously they are bigger, and are great for those who want a larger viewing area. They are great for multimedia work and office work. The larger panels which offer the higher resolutions (1600 x 1200) are even better as there is more you can fit on the screen. A lot use TFT technology (such as IPS and VN panels) which offers superior colour reproduction and viewing angles to TN film panels. All the larger panels have DVI and many come with extra features like tilting, pivoting, height adjustment, USB hubs, S-Video etc. Q. What is not so good about the larger TFT’s? A. One point to remember when considering larger than 17inch TFT’s: the technology is not quite as advanced as the smaller models and so for gaming they are often not as good as 17inch models. Some now offer fast rated panels (20ms and 16ms for example) but performance wise they don’t match the top 17inch models. If you’re a gamer then perhaps consider a smaller size screen, and save some money while you’re at it! As a lot of the larger panels use IPS or VA technology, they aren’t as good for gaming and may show more ghosting than a TN panel used on the smaller TFT’s commonly. The other issue is that some of them (19 inch TFT’s commonly) will only have 1280 x 1024 resolution, which is the same as you get on a 17inch model. Is it worth the extra money for the larger screen when the resolution is the same? Q. What is all this about TN, VA and IPS panels? What’s the difference? A. TN film (Twisted Nematic) panels where the first panels to be used and are still widely implemented in many TFT’s today, especially mid to low end screens. This is due to the low manufacturing costs of TN panels. However, they are not always very good at displaying blacks and also there is a problem with pixels dying and becoming a bright colour rather than just completely going out (black). They can have viewing angles of up to about 140 horizontal. IPS (In Plane Switching) was introduced to try and improve on some of these drawbacks. It was developed by Hitachi and was dubbed “super TFT”. They improved on viewing angles up to about 170H. This was done by controlling liquid crystal alignment slightly differently, but unfortunately, can affect response rate of the pixels. As such they are not as good for gaming as TN panels. They didn’t make any improvements on black reproduction really either, but dead pixels only show as black, not bright colours. The third type is VA (Vertical Alignment) panels. These offer superior colour reproduction and viewing angles. This is done by having all the colour elements of the panel split into cells or zones. These are formed by ridges on an internal surface of filters. The purpose of this design is to enable liquid crystals to move in opposite direction to their neighbors. It allows the observer to see the same shade of color irrespective of a viewing angle. It is also capable of lower response times as a whole, but it is not widely used at the moment, being the newest technology of the 3. Therefore, faster panels are not available as yet, but when they are, they will probably be some of the best around.

01-31-2005, 10:35 PM	#10 (permalink)
grim reaper Forum Moderator Brigadier General Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: England Posts: 7,255	The reason its done as multiple posts is so i can link to the individual posts from the first indexing posts. I allso hope it gets sticked. Once its finished it should cover quite alot.