Q. I've been looking into this sort of thing on and off for a while now, and i just can't find a straight answer. I built my first PC a couple months ago and i'm trying to determine what parts are holding back performance for my particular build so i know the most efficient way to upgrade it in the future.
Here's a look at the parts in question...
Athlon II X2 250
Biostar TA880GB+ (has HD4250 integrated graphics, bumped up from standard 500MHz core clock to 700MHz and upped to 512MB shared DDR2 at 533MHz in BIOS).
ASUS LCD Monitor (60Hz, 5ms, 1366x768, VGA connection)
Kingston DDR3 1333 (@1066MHz) (2 x 1GB)
Which of these parts is holding back video quality? (there's some tearing etc. with movies and youtube, not bad but still there). Is it the integrated graphics? the VGA connection instead of DVI or HDMI? the monitor specs? I know these components are the basics for a computer, but that's what i wanted at the time cuz i was/am on a budget and also a noob at PC building. it's just so darn confusing, and i know it's a kind of intricate question, but any insight would be really appreciated. Thank you!
If it's only the integrated graphics card that is slowing things down, then why is DVI supposed to be better then VGA and why are do some monitors have 2ms versus 5ms? and may have the same screen size (18.5") but different resolution?
@Rhyled, i forgot to say i'm running Ubuntu 10.10, so 1.5GB is fine for it. I was even sharing only 256MB for a few weeks but i think upping it to 512MB helped. It's also connected via ethernet with comcast, so i don't think it's connection issues. DVD playback and youtube video quality is about the same (it's not awful by any means, it is what it is, but it's not even regular TV quality honestly, you know? i have an old 27inch stereo TV that i play movies on with my xbox 360 and it doesn't tear, but with my PC it does). I'm just trying to understand the whys about all this. The rest of a computer seems so much more straight forward, but i've never really understood graphics/monitors and how they fit together.
Firstly, thanks for all the detailed answers guys! I appreciate it!
@Black Paladin and @1984...when i first installed ubuntu it gave me a gigantic list of drivers and updates i needed to install (and still does every few days), so i figured it was fine. however, i did "update" it to the most recent catalyst driver from 1/28 i think, but i'm pretty sure i already had it (bare with me, i just don't have the time to research AND fiddle with my computer very well due to good ol college haha). Anyway, that "tearing" or "choppiness" is still the same. I don't know if i'm describing it right, but while the picture quality is definitely passable, it basically just has that computery look to it when things on the screen are moving around a lot. Voice syncing is fine, and it's not laggy motion, just kinda blocky. I know my monitor is super basic, so that's why i wondered if it was the monitor. But the consensus seems to be that the monitor has nothing to do with it? then why are HD monitors bet
A. The monitor has nothing to do with video performance. Yeah a bigger and more high resolution monitor will give you a better picture but it will not impact the actually running and quality of performance from the video its self.
Go to newegg and invest in a fairly good graphics card. There are tons of them there. Shoot for the 75 - 125 dollar category and you should be fine.
If that's not it then it definitely is confusing. It shouldn't be giving you poor quality. Could be the cheaply made Biostar board? What is you OS?
UPDATE. If you are running Ubuntu there is a proprietary graphics driver that you need in order for your graphics chip set to work properly. The integrated graphics chip you described is a pretty modern and should not be giving you difficulty with something as simple as youtube videos. Were you prompted after your installation of Ubuntu to download and install the driver as you should have been?
PS a monitor has nothing to do with your performance. It is just a display.
2nd UPDATE
From the hardware you have described and the OS to the drivers I can't off the top of my head think of what could be wrong. While I use Linux myself I also have Windows in a tri-boot setup. Linux can sometimes do some strange things once in a while. It may behave differently on one machine than another due to your particular hardware setup. I've play with Linux on a variety of machines and have seen it do stranger things. If you are really determined to get to the bottom of this without further screwing up your setup if you have a copy of Windows and a spare hard drive you could unhook your current drive, plug the second one in, install Windows or some other version of Linux Unrelated to Ubuntu such as Vector, Slackware, or Fedora and see if it exhibits the same behavior. From what your describing I am leaning towards thinking that it might be an eccentricity of Ubuntu and its drivers on you particular system. I once had something sort of similar happen to me. I installed OS/2 on a machine that I thought would support it but once the drivers were installed The performance was always terrible, nay unusable ever though I far exceeded system requirements. Probably a driver issue with my particular hardware. Computers sometimes do strange things.
I can't see it so I don't know exactly what the distortion looks like but if it was a defective monitor it would display the same behavior on another machine.
Personally I don't even use an flat screen monitor. I still use a 12 year old CRT because I like it and my eyes don't focus well on HD and it make me nauseous. HD monitors have smaller higher density pixels resulting in a sharper image. They do not increase system performance.
Hope this helps.
Should I get a 24" LCD monitor to replace my 32" Sony Bravia TV for gaming? I think the 32" is use more eye?
Q. I was think of getting a 24 inches LCD monitor instead of using my TV as my PC monitor.
Is it a good idea?
I can't aim with a 32" TV for some reason.(Probably cause my eye have to look farther away)
Also I think my 32" strains my eyes cause its too big.
So I think I should downsize.
Any comments on best screen size & best non eye hurting LCD?
A. I currently have a 23.6" Asus 1080p monitor, it's fantastic for gaming. I have my XBOX 360 hooked up through it. I agree, sometimes smaller is better, all depends on how close you are to the screen.
I found this site in my source that recommends several gaming monitors. It all depends on your budget, but also if you can, you should opt for the 3D model (but you'd also have to buy the NVIDIA 3D kit), but 3D in video games is pretty awesome.
Asus is easily one of the best brands for quality in computer hardware these days. Have fun and game on!
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
