Jump to content

Shamrock

Members
  • Content Count

    47
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Shamrock

  • Rank
    Message Adept
  • Birthday 10/18/1965

Contact Methods

  • MSN
    shamrock_ca
  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0
  • Yahoo
    rebound59

Profile Information

  • Location
    Canada
  • Interests
    too much to list, most of it too dull to bother ;-)

Previous Fields

  • Main System Specs:
    AMD Sempron @ 2.1GHz 1GB RAM ATI Radeon 9600 Pro Western Digital 160GB hd
  1. Ok, fair enough. Let us assume, for a moment, that the issue lay somewhere in the sound system or front panel wiring, and that I will attempt to address it with the chokes described previously. Where would you suggest their placement?
  2. Thanks for the reply."I would check to see if unplugging the speakers results in less noise. If it is noticable, you may want to inves in a Sound Blaster Live or Audigy card, since those cards are VERY quiet."Alas, when unplugged from the computer, they are totally silent. I would draw your attention to something I thought I mentioned before but may not have. When I plug headphones into the rear connector there is no noise. When plugged into the front panel connector, the noise intrudes at any volume, and perists on the speakers no matter where they are plugged in. HTH.[EDIT] That was before, when the fan controller was connected. Now, I've switched them around, i.e. plugged the speakers in the back and the headphones in front. Nary a peep. Does this help? The fan controller is still being bypassed. If I get the chance to hook it up and report back, I will. But does this give you any ideas as to the cause?Thanks for your help folks.
  3. Thanks for the reply. Unfortunately, the problem persists even without the controller in the mix. I am starting to become really curious as to the cause of this noise.
  4. Sorry for taking so long to respond. Ok, so sometimes, I'm quite the bozo. After bypassing the fan speed controller, I found that the noise was all but eliminated. I really should have tried this sooner. However, upon closer inspection, I found the speakers were still generating the same noise, but at a much lower level. I.e. if you put the speaker to your ear you can still hear it but barely otherwise. In a previous post, I mentioned that lowering the volume on the speakers themselves produced a reduction in the effect. Now, increasing the volume resulted in a small increase but nothing like it was before. So, any ideas as to what I might do to correct this issue? This is tolerable but my original objective was to add additional cooling and use the fan speed controller to reduce noise when extra cooling is not required. I could rma the case but that would be almost more trouble than it is worth. It may seem petty, but I am a bit obsessive about things working the way they are supposed to rather than being just good enough to do the job. It seems to me, this should not be a normal occurrence for purchasers of this particular product. So, I am wondering what I might have done to cause it or if it is something about my other hardware.I'd appreciate any assistance. TIA
  5. I'm not too sure what these are, but I imagine that if I find the right store they will be able to help so I'll look into it. Thanks.
  6. Oh brother. I guess I talk too fast for you people. The original poster clearly stated the reason for his conundrum is that he cannot upgrade the processor in his current mb. Therefore, any new one will perforce include an entirely new bus, chipset, and cache. So whether, on the given system, the cpu, chipset, cache or other bottleneck presents itself, it's all a single unit and affected as a whole in any event, as you have so correctly pointed out. But so what?Are you saying because I have a lame system the original poster should blow hundreds of dollars on a video card?I mean, let's get back on topic here. All I ever intended to suggest is that even at a low price, the 9600pro was plenty for me and might suit the questioner, and also that paying a whole lot for one might not be so smart if one intends to replace the whole shebang on the next go-round. What does that have to do with deficiencies in my system specs ?
  7. But really, what does that have to do with anything? I was judging by the post above and the given system. Certainly, an upgrade would improve performance. But by how much when the entire system is presumably to be replaced at the next upgrade cycle. I would never presume to say I know what card will be the maximum that system can power effectively. I only suggest a card video card exists such that performance would not be increased by in turn purchasing a faster one, all other things being equal. In the given system I would not go any further than an a 9600, for example if only for the reason that next time around I will buy a whole new system so why blow a wad on a video card now? Better to save the rest of the cash toward the new computer imo while current high end cards fall in price.But what do I know. I only run a weenie cart. Incidentally, what is it with this? I would love it if you can point to anyplace within these forums wherein I have done any of the following:1. Asked what I can do to make my system run faster/better2. Bragged about my system's performance or degree of overclocking3. Denegrated anyone's choice in computer equipmentAny system/overclock info I have included has been for background/exemplar/informative purposes only.
  8. I believe the principal is the same regardless of the system. I grant that there also are likely systems available no current video card can keep up to but given the relative life cycles of the two products I think the former occurs more frequently. Further, it is obviously less likely to occur, the faster one's processor.Nevertheless, a responder above implied the original computer for which this new video card is intended is not near the top of the line either. That is why I specified this depends a lot on what one intends to do in the future. Were I to upgrade at this point, for example, I would go with PCI Express on a 64 bit platform. Therefore, I have already essentially ended up with more video card than I need in my current system. I only wished to help avoid that in this case. Mind you, I'm quite happy with this card and it was for that reason I mentioned it in the first place.Please note I made it clear I have no familiarity with the given hardware or it's potential limitations. I was essentially echoing this from the original post: If I found a deal on a vid card that was a lot beefier that my current Ti4200, would the fact that my board/CPU combo (without OC'ing) is maxed out squelch any attempt to upgrade video?I fail to see how the point is rendered invalid if the L2 cache is increased; it may take more throughput to accomplish the same thing. However I concede it may be that no AGP card exists which would do that in the case of this cpu/motherboard combo. In any case, it seems to me that the question could be rephrased, "does the increase in performance justify the price of upgrading only one's video card," with the answer being, "It depends on cpu/motherboard you have." I agree the smaller L2 cache in my feeble system limits it more than one less fettered but of equal frequency. Sorry if I implied otherwise.
  9. Er. No.I asked two questions. 1. Why would the spd readings obtained by the bios differ from the rating provided by the manufacturer? 2. Why would cpu usage increase by such a large factor when overclocking the video card? It is true that question 2 is prompted by the fact that the video card is, in fact, overclocked. But I requested no assistance with furthering this goal nor that of overclocking in general. I only make an issue of this because I am fully aware this is not an overlcock-specific forum and had my question been intended for one, I would have posted elsewhere in the first place. Now, I am interested in knowing in what way I was unclear in my original post since apparently I was.
  10. Thank you, Marsden, and lewmur, for your resposes. I may finally be getting somewhere. Unfortunately there are still those insisting on filling the bit bucket with irrelevancies. I appreciate your good intentions but again, advice on how to overclock is off topic imo.At any rate, I do have the most recent bios version. (Get it? Rate? Har har.) A detection error seems obvious to me now but somehow it seems to me there's the remote possibility there's more to it than that.I will certainlly review the info on that site, lewmur. Thanks for the referral. It was nevertheless apparent to me I chose poorly in posting my question here at the time I posted my last reply.Peace.
  11. Hey. Mebbe I have a future in punditry lol. I love this new deal Harper cut with the americans for softwood. He's managed to cut the free trade agreement off at the knees in absolutely no time flat. Good job me boyo.
  12. I know it's been a while since the last post here. Sorry about that. I wish to report that I have replaced the power supply with a better aftermarket model and the noise persists, unfortunately.I've managed to get the amount of noise down to an almost acceptable level by adjusting downward the volume control on the speakers themselves but it's still there. I could really use some advice.
  13. Thank you. That's good to know. I'm always thinking I've caught verbal diarrhea but for some reason, sometimes my posts just don't seem complete to me without including my entire train of thought.Again, as on another thread, I apologize for the long delay in replying. Unfortunately, I've just been really tied up.
  14. Sorry for the delay in replying. Been tied up. I mean no disprespect to those of you who took the time to reply in terms of your computing knowledge nor the fact that you took the time to reply in the first place, however, I did not expect this thread to uncover so much anti-overclocking bias. I wasn't really inquiring for opinions as to whether it is a good idea. I am aware of the risks and accept them as necessary at this time. As I explained above, my system is about 3 or 4 generations, depending on how you count them, removed from the current top of the line. Until my finances improve I need to get all the performance out of it I can. The reason for this is irrelevant. And yes, I did my homework, hence the questions in my original post for which I thought there might be a couple of easy answers, and not a request for help as to how to further obtain performance. That is, I was wondering if any of you might happen to know or be able to suggest why cpu overhead be so high for something that it seems to me is essentially a function of the video card, and I was wondering why it is that SPD is telling the bios different timings for RAM than they are rated for by the manufacturer? (I've been curious about this because I believed that, in principal, spd was intended to establish just that, the default, rated speed.) Changing to the rated timings (no lower) has produced such a rediculously noticeable increase in performance I was disappointed I didn't think to try it sooner. For the record, current idle temp is approx 40C and under maximum load (including the vid card) is approx 45C.I have optimized windows to the point where it is highly unlikely I would obtain anything more than a fraction of a percent in increased performance from further change there. But again, this is irrelevant to the post imo. I really thought they were rather straight forward questions given this is the hardware section. I guess I will take my inquiry elsewhere. Thanks again for your time.
  15. In an effort to squeeze every last bit of horsepower out of my behind-the-times system, I finally got some decent cooling installed and have lately been testing various performance tweaks. Here's the reason I am posting this in Hardware:Obviously, increasing the fsb speed increases performance all across the board. However, when I overclock my video card, it lowers cpu performance by a margin large enough to drastically limit any increase in video performance. Another odd finding: by leaving SPD to determine the timings for memory in the BIOS, it was choosing slower timings than the RAM is rated for. When I changed the timings all at once the computer would not boot. Changing and testing them one at a time allowed me to lower them all around. Here's the strange part: even though the bios now indicates 2-4-4-8, Everest shows 2-5-4-9. Beats me how/why. So, if anyone could enlighten me I would appreciate it. Incidentally, I realize that the software regulating overclocking of the video card must eat some cpu cycles, but I am surprised at how much.
×
×
  • Create New...