Hiriyu Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 (edited) What are you looking for in your monitoring software? I'm basically trying to find a suitable replacement for the now-discontinued Motherboard Monitor software. MBM allowed me to monitor all of my voltages (CPU/RAM/VGA/MB etc), CPU and RAM frequencies, CPU and RAM usage, Fan speeds, and temperatures (CPU/VGA/HDD, etc) either through its applet, or in the system tray. It also offered the ability to send and receive sensor output to other software packages (for example; ATI Tray-Tools). All of the other software I've tried have various subsets of the above features, but none seem to be the all-in-one soultion that MBM was (though SpeedFan comes closest). I do overclock, and having all of my outputs readily available in one place really does help substantially. Mike, thanks for the suggestion on the drive-bay mounted monitor. I'm running a mid-atx case with 5x 5.25" bays, so installation wouldn't be an issue. I'm going down to Fry's today; I'll have a look around at what's on offer. Keep the suggestions coming, guys! Edited June 7, 2008 by Hiriyu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vermillion01 Posted June 8, 2008 Share Posted June 8, 2008 (edited) Hiriyu, Try everest from lavalys. It should take care of all your needs and more. I use it on all of my systems. Edited June 8, 2008 by vermillion01 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted July 6, 2008 Share Posted July 6, 2008 Any reason not to upgrade XP to SP3 now? I'd like to do so before I install Mass Effect. (Like everything, the first 48 hours after release caused issues----but are there any issues with a current version?) ::edit:: Well, running SP3 now, checking things out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azrael Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 Any reason not to upgrade XP to SP3 now? I'd like to do so before I install Mass Effect. (Like everything, the first 48 hours after release caused issues----but are there any issues with a current version?) ::edit:: Well, running SP3 now, checking things out. I've been running SP3 for about a month. No issues to speak of. I have seen a minor issue with Symantec AV but it's nothing that would cripple the system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeszekely Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 Any reason not to upgrade XP to SP3 now? I'd like to do so before I install Mass Effect. (Like everything, the first 48 hours after release caused issues----but are there any issues with a current version?) ::edit:: Well, running SP3 now, checking things out. Well, you know my aversion to service packs. I avoided SP2 until it turned out to be a requirement for the $400 iPod touch I'd bought. I put Vista on my new build, and Kubuntu Linux on my old XP computer, so XP SP3 isn't really a factor for me... but I have been avoiding Vista SP1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beltane70 Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 SP1 for Vista hasn't given me any trouble on my current PC. I don't know if the fact that SP1 came with my copy of 64-bit Vista Ultimate has anything to do with this or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azrael Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 Well, you know my aversion to service packs. I avoided SP2 until it turned out to be a requirement for the $400 iPod touch I'd bought. I put Vista on my new build, and Kubuntu Linux on my old XP computer, so XP SP3 isn't really a factor for me... but I have been avoiding Vista SP1. I've tried Vista SP1 myself. I haven't run into any problems there either. It has improved the loading time from POST to the logon screen but then again, I have a low opinion of Vista in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeszekely Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 I've tried Vista SP1 myself. I haven't run into any problems there either. It has improved the loading time from POST to the logon screen but then again, I have a low opinion of Vista in general. I'm the only one that uses my computer, so I disabled the login screen (for anyone else that wants to do so, open a Run command box, and type "netplwiz" to bring up advanced login options). With an E8400 and 3GB of RAM, it doesn't take long to go from POST to desktop anyway. I tried SP1 on my HTPC, and it occasionally hiccups with the video drivers now. That's why I won't do it on my desktop. Honestly, I beta tested Vista, and I think things have improved a lot since RC1. Vista still has its share of annoyances, but most of them can be disabled now. My biggest complaints are that it's a resource hog (but XP was too on the computers of six or years ago) and that it's really just minimal upgrades over XP. I still kinda like OS X better for day to day stuff, but until Apple lets me officially install it on desktops I build myself, it's Apple laptops and Windows/Linux desktops for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valkyrie addict Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 (edited) hmmm...didn't know Vista SP1 was being discussed... I got a question, if I uninstall Vista SP1, will my OS be affected somehow??? my pc runs fine, but mostly cause I spend about a full week tweaking the hell of the buggy Vista before SP1 was available, anyway, I have a game I want to reinstall, I had it in my pc but wanted to do a fresh reinstall and add some mods, so I deleted the game, but now it just won't load the installshield wizard, gives me an error, the only change between then (when I originally installed the game), and now is that I added SP1, the game was design to run under XP, and I've already try to reinstalled as an administrator and with XP compatibility with no avail; is it safe to uninstall SP1 and reinstall my game?''will everything function just the way it was before SP1 without any glitch cause of modified files? Edited July 9, 2008 by Valkyrie addict Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight26 Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 Ok, oddball question for you all. As many of you know I am an AUTOCAD modeler but still want to do some gaming on my machine. The AUTOCAD is the major thing I want to do though, so bearing that in mind I am thinking of getting the NVIDIA® Quadro® FX 1700 video card, or a whole new machine with that card on board. What I want to know though, is how well would that card play games, and if it would run games like pants, what would be a good replacement card? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ladic Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 The best bang for your buck card you can get right now is the Radeon HD4850, which after mail in rebates can be had for around $150. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight26 Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 The only reason I am really looking at the Quadro is that it is designed for use with AUTOCAD. I had a thought, though, I need to see if it is an SLI card, but if I went with a whole new system and did a dual card system with the 256MB FX570 and say a 8800GT, would that cause problems, or do you need to have two identical cards for SLI to work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azrael Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 hmmm...didn't know Vista SP1 was being discussed... I got a question, if I uninstall Vista SP1, will my OS be affected somehow??? my pc runs fine, but mostly cause I spend about a full week tweaking the hell of the buggy Vista before SP1 was available, anyway, I have a game I want to reinstall, I had it in my pc but wanted to do a fresh reinstall and add some mods, so I deleted the game, but now it just won't load the installshield wizard, gives me an error, the only change between then (when I originally installed the game), and now is that I added SP1, the game was design to run under XP, and I've already try to reinstalled as an administrator and with XP compatibility with no avail; is it safe to uninstall SP1 and reinstall my game?''will everything function just the way it was before SP1 without any glitch cause of modified files? Sure you can uninstall SP1. Unfortunately, I can't guarantee that your game will work with the mods once that is done. Ok, oddball question for you all. As many of you know I am an AUTOCAD modeler but still want to do some gaming on my machine. The AUTOCAD is the major thing I want to do though, so bearing that in mind I am thinking of getting the NVIDIA® Quadro® FX 1700 video card, or a whole new machine with that card on board. What I want to know though, is how well would that card play games, and if it would run games like pants, what would be a good replacement card? The Quadro line really isn't really for gaming, as you know. I would suggest a high-end GeForce 8, 9, or 200-series or high-end Radeon card as a replacement. But if you need the power of the Quadro and want to do gaming, I think you can have both a Quadro and a Geforce card in your system on separate displays. And no, I would not recommend SLIing a Quadro with a GeForce. The drivers for the 2 would cause you endless problems (considering you would need 2 drivers to run the cards). I won't recommend the Quadro for playing anything but Shockwave/Flash games or Minesweeper (and the like). do you need to have two identical cards for SLI to work? For Nvidia cards, you need a driver that supports both cards to work properly. Quadro drivers don't work for GeForce cards and vice versa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight26 Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 I wonder why that is though, it will render autocad-3d stuff in real time very nicely from what I have seen, why won't it run the games, is the shaders, or some other peice of software mysticism I don't understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azrael Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 I wonder why that is though, it will render autocad-3d stuff in real time very nicely from what I have seen, why won't it run the games, is the shaders, or some other peice of software mysticism I don't understand? It's mostly driver optimization. There are some minor hardware differences, but the real difference is the drivers. CAD takes advantage of certain aspects on the card that gaming doesn't via the drivers and vice versa. So performance suffers as a result. If I used a Quadro to game, it would not perform as well as a GeForce and conversely, a GeForce would not perform as well as a Quadro doing CAD operations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight26 Posted July 11, 2008 Share Posted July 11, 2008 Ok how about this for a monkey wrench, I just checked wiki, (yeah I know, it's the wiki and can contain trash but hear me out), apparently the next level up Quadro, the 3700 uses the same chip as the GeForce8800GT. It further states that if the cards are "identical", and therefore I assume that Quadro3700 and the GeForce8800GT are basically twins, that the consumer card can be sofmodded to emulare the Quadro card. So, how could that be done, and if so, could it switched back and forth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
areaseven Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 The new iPhone 3G is out. It's supposedly much faster than last year's model, but ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante74 Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 I'd like your opinions on this set-up. I'm planning to use it for 3D Studio modelling and rendering. Power; Be Quiet Straight Power, 700 Watt, Retail Case; 3RSystem R202 Be Quiet Processor; Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600, Socket 775 Screen; Acer AL2416WB 24” Motherboard; EVGA nForce 790i Ultra SLI 775 A1, Retail HD 1; Hitachi Deskstar T7K500, 500 GB, 7200 RPM (storage drive and scratch disk for Photoshop) HD 2; Hitachi Deskstar T7K500, 320 GB, 7200 RPM (system drive) Videocard; 2x EVGA GeForce 9600GT SSC, 512MB, GDDR3 RAM; Corsair TW3X4G 1600C9DHX, DDR3, PCI12800 CD/DVD; Asus DRW-2014S1T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azrael Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 I'd like your opinions on this set-up. I'm planning to use it for 3D Studio modelling and rendering. Power; Be Quiet Straight Power, 700 Watt, Retail Case; 3RSystem R202 Be Quiet Processor; Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600, Socket 775 Screen; Acer AL2416WB 24” Motherboard; EVGA nForce 790i Ultra SLI 775 A1, Retail HD 1; Hitachi Deskstar T7K500, 500 GB, 7200 RPM (storage drive and scratch disk for Photoshop) HD 2; Hitachi Deskstar T7K500, 320 GB, 7200 RPM (system drive) Videocard; 2x EVGA GeForce 9600GT SSC, 512MB, GDDR3 RAM; Corsair TW3X4G 1600C9DHX, DDR3, PCI12800 CD/DVD; Asus DRW-2014S1T For modeling and rendering, which program were you planning on using? Video cards...x2 9600s might be offset by a single 200-series card. That's something to consider in case the SLI setup doesn't work out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeszekely Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 I'd like your opinions on this set-up. I'm planning to use it for 3D Studio modelling and rendering. Power; Be Quiet Straight Power, 700 Watt, Retail Case; 3RSystem R202 Be Quiet Processor; Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600, Socket 775 Screen; Acer AL2416WB 24” Motherboard; EVGA nForce 790i Ultra SLI 775 A1, Retail HD 1; Hitachi Deskstar T7K500, 500 GB, 7200 RPM (storage drive and scratch disk for Photoshop) HD 2; Hitachi Deskstar T7K500, 320 GB, 7200 RPM (system drive) Videocard; 2x EVGA GeForce 9600GT SSC, 512MB, GDDR3 RAM; Corsair TW3X4G 1600C9DHX, DDR3, PCI12800 CD/DVD; Asus DRW-2014S1T Not that there's anything wrong with that setup, but I there's a few changes I'd consider making. Check if the applications you plan on using for modeling and rendering can take advantage of of the extra processing threads provided by a quad-core CPU. If they can't, save money and stick with a dual-core. Intel's Wolfdale cores are a great balance of price and performance. As far as hard drives go, I've never had a good experience with Hitachi, and they tend to be more expensive to boot. My personal choice is Western Digital, but I've never had a problem with Seagate. Finally, for the video cards, the important thing about nVidia's numbering gig is that the bigger number isn't always better. And 8800 outperforms a 9600. The first number indicates the chipset series, and it's actually the second number that's the indicator of performance, 4 being junk, 6 being mid-range, and 8 being performance. I'm assuming that the videocards are going to do a lot of work in that setup, so spend the extra money and upgrade those 9600's to 9800 GTX+'s. You'll get a lot more out of them, and they only run about $60 more per card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante74 Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 For modeling and rendering, which program were you planning on using? Video cards...x2 9600s might be offset by a single 200-series card. That's something to consider in case the SLI setup doesn't work out. I'm planning on working with 3D Studio on 64 bit Vista so the quad core should be put to good use. During the last couple of months, I've been running into some performance problems at my job with my 32 bit XP system running PS CS3 (HP XW8400 workstation). That's why I'm opting for the 64 bit system. Not that there's anything wrong with that setup, but I there's a few changes I'd consider making. Check if the applications you plan on using for modeling and rendering can take advantage of of the extra processing threads provided by a quad-core CPU. If they can't, save money and stick with a dual-core. Intel's Wolfdale cores are a great balance of price and performance. As far as hard drives go, I've never had a good experience with Hitachi, and they tend to be more expensive to boot. My personal choice is Western Digital, but I've never had a problem with Seagate. Finally, for the video cards, the important thing about nVidia's numbering gig is that the bigger number isn't always better. And 8800 outperforms a 9600. The first number indicates the chipset series, and it's actually the second number that's the indicator of performance, 4 being junk, 6 being mid-range, and 8 being performance. I'm assuming that the videocards are going to do a lot of work in that setup, so spend the extra money and upgrade those 9600's to 9800 GTX+'s. You'll get a lot more out of them, and they only run about $60 more per card. I have two mirrored Hitachi Deskstar T7K500, 500 GB's in my NAS and they work like a charm, which is why I picked them for this set-up I was told by a co-worker that the 9600 GT's can very easily be over clocked to work just as fast as the 9800's. They's also pretty cheap. €320 for 2x EVGA 9600's vs €470 for 1x 9800GX. What would you guys think works better? One processor in a 1024 Mb 200 series card (ca. €450), or two processors in two 512Mb lower end cards (like the 9600's, €320) IMO it's two processor's vs one meaning the double 9600 set-up would work faster. I'm a noob when it comes to this kind of stuff so I'm probably wrong but still, 2 vs 1 seems only logical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeszekely Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 I'm planning on working with 3D Studio on 64 bit Vista so the quad core should be put to good use. During the last couple of months, I've been running into some performance problems at my job with my 32 bit XP system running PS CS3 (HP XW8400 workstation). That's why I'm opting for the 64 bit system. I have two mirrored Hitachi Deskstar T7K500, 500 GB's in my NAS and they work like a charm, which is why I picked them for this set-up I was told by a co-worker that the 9600 GT's can very easily be over clocked to work just as fast as the 9800's. They's also pretty cheap. €320 for 2x EVGA 9600's vs €470 for 1x 9800GX. What would you guys think works better? One processor in a 1024 Mb 200 series card (ca. €450), or two processors in two 512Mb lower end cards (like the 9600's, €320) IMO it's two processor's vs one meaning the double 9600 set-up would work faster. I'm a noob when it comes to this kind of stuff so I'm probably wrong but still, 2 vs 1 seems only logical. I don't mean the 9800GTX, I mean the 9800GTX+. They shrunk the chipset, then overclocked it back to the same default temperature, and dropped the price. I don't know what they're going for in Euros, but in the States it's about $140 for the 9600 you were looking at, vs. $200 for the GTX+. Since I don't have the cash for a GTX 280, and SLI isn't an option for me, I'm definitely going with the 9800 GTX+ myself. Oh, and one of the magazines I read (PC Mag, PC World, or CPU) just did a feature on video cards. Their conclusion is that two middling cards is almost always cheaper than one top-of-the-line, and while the single top-of-the-line does usually win in the end, the differences are negligible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hingtgen Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 IMHO, ignore the 9600 period. Either get a 8800, or 9800. Or two of them. PS--if I were buying a new card today, it'd be a 9800GTX+. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante74 Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 Thanks guys, I'll look around and see what prices they go for over here. If the difference in price is only $60 then two 9800 GTX's should be do-able (is that english? ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante74 Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 After looking up some benchmarks, I think I'll go with a GTX 280 by EVGA. At €410 it could be considered a reasonable price (still a lot of money though ) and it's fast, real fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lechuck Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 (edited) Dante before you splurge that money, have you had a look at ATI's latest round of video cards? Apparently the Radeon 4850 can match/beat Nvidias 8800GTS and 9800GTX chips. ATI's Radeon 4870 is very similar in performance to Nvidia's GTX 280 but it's roughly half the price. And if your still going for that dual video card setup thing, then you will have to change your choice of mainboard when using ATI cards. Edited July 25, 2008 by lechuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante74 Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 (edited) Dante before you splurge that money, have you had a look at ATI's latest round of video cards? Apparently the Radeon 4850 can match/beat Nvidias 8800GTS and 9800GTX chips. ATI's Radeon 4870 is very similar in performance to Nvidia's GTX 280 but it's roughly have the price. And if your still going for that dual video card setup thing, then you will have to change your choice of mainboard when using ATI cards. I've been focusing on Nvidia cards, but a dual 4850 set-up might work too. Now I need to go look for a suitable mainboard to go with them. ::EDIT:: Just found out that I'd need to get an AMD processor to go with the ATI card. No thanks, I've had some very bad experiences with an AMD processor once and I'll think twice before going that way again. Edited July 25, 2008 by Dante74 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kensei Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 Wow, i just developed this new prblem with my tablet in the space of a couple of hours. Fired up everything as usual, played videos and music, all fine. Went to a birthday party, and then when I came home, everything started to really struggle. Windows were taking longer to switch, restart and shutdown was abysmally slow, mouse pointer lagging like crazy, and most of all speakers have fits and bouts of the snap crackle and pop. WHen I play videos now, even on Youtube or from the HDD, sound and video go out of whack, you hear static, and the computer really really struggles. I ran AVG Antivirus scan, Ad-aware scan and it all came up clean. Reinstalled new K-Lite codec pack too. STill the same result. Any ideas what this could be? CPU usuage is at 48% av, and also around 500 MB/2000 MB RAM used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeszekely Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 IMHO, ignore the 9600 period. Either get a 8800, or 9800. Or two of them. PS--if I were buying a new card today, it'd be a 9800GTX+. I was going to order one myself today, but Newegg sold out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azrael Posted July 25, 2008 Share Posted July 25, 2008 ::EDIT:: Just found out that I'd need to get an AMD processor to go with the ATI card. No thanks, I've had some very bad experiences with an AMD processor once and I'll think twice before going that way again. No you don't. Many reviews for the 4800-series used Intel-based systems. Wow, i just developed this new prblem with my tablet in the space of a couple of hours. Fired up everything as usual, played videos and music, all fine. Went to a birthday party, and then when I came home, everything started to really struggle. Windows were taking longer to switch, restart and shutdown was abysmally slow, mouse pointer lagging like crazy, and most of all speakers have fits and bouts of the snap crackle and pop. WHen I play videos now, even on Youtube or from the HDD, sound and video go out of whack, you hear static, and the computer really really struggles. I ran AVG Antivirus scan, Ad-aware scan and it all came up clean. Reinstalled new K-Lite codec pack too. STill the same result. Any ideas what this could be? Which process had the highest CPU number? (Task Manager->Process tab-> sort columns by CPU) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kensei Posted July 26, 2008 Share Posted July 26, 2008 No you don't. Many reviews for the 4800-series used Intel-based systems. Which process had the highest CPU number? (Task Manager->Process tab-> sort columns by CPU) At the moment,. system idle process is running between values of 80 to 94. Very weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azrael Posted July 27, 2008 Share Posted July 27, 2008 At the moment,. system idle process is running between values of 80 to 94. Very weird. What's the second highest process then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kensei Posted July 27, 2008 Share Posted July 27, 2008 What's the second highest process then? While idle, explorer, task manager and firefox. Values range between 2-4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Posted July 27, 2008 Share Posted July 27, 2008 At the moment,. system idle process is running between values of 80 to 94. Very weird. system idle process represents the resources not be use at the moment, high percentage mean your system is not busy nothing wrong with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Posted July 27, 2008 Share Posted July 27, 2008 While idle, explorer, task manager and firefox. Values range between 2-4. explorer is basically the window if I remember right, each firefox starts it own jvm. what is using the most memory I wonder? you running xp or vista? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts