bent240LV

i know that i could get something better for a little more money but i dont realy want to spend that much on a graphics card right now. The main reason i am buying a new one is for a DVI connection and while im at it maybe play a few games but nothing crazy. Later on when i have the time i will build a good system. But for now i jsut want something that i wont have to upgrade my psu. I am running on a P4 @2.0 and have 768mb ram. I figure any of these will be a good upgrade since i am running only a nvidia mx440 right now. thanks for the help, here are my choices unless someoen can show me something better for the same price.... http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814145076 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814150059 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814122216 edit: edited for spelling

yeah i figures that out just as i posted it and came back to edit but you already replied. Ok newegg is kind of confusing. Im looking up the 4x/8x cards because im assuming thats what i can get. But when i click on the picture of the card i want the box only shows 8x but newegg has it listed as 4x/8x and i called them but they have no tech support ot answer questions like that. so i have no idea on what card to get now.

hey peepnklown, how did you find out that i had agp 4x? thanks

ok ok ok .... last tiem i post on this topic i promise. i decided not to go with such a powerful card and also a less expensive one as well becuase i would prefer to build another system soon anyways and i dont feel like upgradin gmy power suppply. so i have come to a final 3 and here they are what one do you think would be best? thansk for all the help http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814122216#DetailSpecs http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814150059#DetailSpecs http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814145076#DetailSpecs

:::.. Upload Stats ..::: Connection is:: 522 Kbps about 0.5 Mbps (tested with 579 kB) Upload Speed is:: 64 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (server2) Test Time:: Tue May 31 02:12:09 PDT 2005 Bottom Line:: 9X faster than 56K 1MB upload in 16 sec Diagnosis: Awesome! 20% + : 37.37 % faster than the average for host (cox.net) Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-TUVJ2EQYZ i have the 4/256 package and did a ul test on 2 different sites and this is what i got

yeah i will check on that 4x/8x issue and thanks for all the help peepnklown pointed out a power supply that would work so maybe i will check into taht as well. thanks again guys

thanks for the advice i dont have a use for tv out though, cre8tor, what do you hink about these two cards? http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814130202 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814130220 i have seen a lot of people say that evga are good cards as well as bfg but they seem to be priced higher

im looking to get a nvidia 6600 or 6800 card one of these but i am open to other options if anyone can suggest. i dont think i would need a new power supply for these but i dont know that much about all of that so...... http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814130232 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814130220 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814164035

actualy no i dont it is a dell simension 4550 system with a pentium 4 @ 2.0GHz how owudl i find out what i have??

ok how d oi now what to get AGP 4x 8x 2x...??? i know i cant get pci-e but im not sure about the agp thing. i would liek to get a card with 256 mb but i notice some of the cards come with ddr3 so would a 128mb ddr3 be better than a 256mb ddr ? thanks

do these progrmas actualy do any good? i see them mentioned every now and then but have enver tried one. What exactly do they do and what is a good one to use? thanks

why does cox las vegas have the slowest upload speed and not to mention you have a hard enough time getting your advertised DL speed half the time we need more options now!

why does cox las vegas suck so bad? we have 4/256 and 5/378 whats up with that?

what are signs that fiber lines might be what workers are putting in the ground? i have been noticing some lines being run on m way to work just wishfull thinking but i was hopingit might be fios or atleast some other high speed option other than cox. oh yeah im in las vegas thanks

http://www.dslreports.com/quality/nil/1738429 thanks for all the help you do a great deal for these forums

Test Loss Min Latency Avg Latency Max Latency Pass Fail Simple ping loss check target does not respond to ICMP ping ping tests cancelled low bandwidth stream was not performed medium bandwidth stream was not performed your first hop ping was not performed if you were pingable, cool graphs would appear here From East Coast - USA to YOU Hop Host LOSS Rcv Sent Best Avg Worst 0 100.ge-0-0-0.cr2.wdc1.speakeasy.net 0% 60 60 7.03 7.67 25.48 1 ASHBBBPC01GEX0200A001.R2.NV.COX.NET 0% 60 60 7.16 10.26 26.44 2 dllsdsrc01-pos0000.rd.dl.cox.net 0% 60 60 37.42 37.83 39.36 3 chndbbrc02-pos0300.rd.ph.cox.net 0% 60 60 84.33 84.86 87.40 4 nwstbbrc01-pos0203.rd.lv.cox.net 0% 60 60 84.26 84.76 85.39 5 nwstdsrj01-so000.rd.lv.cox.net 0% 60 60 84.42 85.54 111.64 6 24-234-6-5.ptp.lvcm.net 0% 60 60 84.49 85.24 96.77 7 24-234-6-30.ptp.lvcm.net 0% 60 60 84.62 84.97 85.98 8 24-234-6-54.ptp.lvcm.net 0% 60 60 84.54 85.08 86.75 9 ??? 100% 0 60 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pass: From West Coast - USA to YOU Hop Host LOSS Rcv Sent Best Avg Worst 0 200.ge-0-1-0.cr2.sfo1.speakeasy.net 0% 60 60 0.31 1.36 51.56 1 PALTBBRJ01GEX0201A001.R2.PT.COX.NET 0% 60 60 0.37 2.29 23.39 2 nwstbbrc01-pos0200.rd.lv.cox.net 0% 60 60 22.29 22.45 24.54 3 nwstdsrj02-so010.rd.lv.cox.net 0% 60 60 22.45 22.54 22.79 4 24-234-6-13.ptp.lvcm.net 0% 60 60 22.50 23.10 39.26 5 24-234-6-30.ptp.lvcm.net 0% 60 60 22.55 22.90 36.01 6 24-234-6-58.ptp.lvcm.net 0% 60 60 22.50 22.68 22.83 7 24-234-1-154.ptp.lvcm.net 99% 1 60 23.89 23.89 23.89 8 ??? 100% 0 60 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fail:

ok did all of that, helped on one test hurt on the other :::.. Download Stats ..::: Connection is:: 1607 Kbps about 1.6 Mbps (tested with 748 kB) Download Speed is:: 196 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (main) Test Time:: Wed May 18 12:44:51 PDT 2005 Bottom Line:: 29X faster than 56K 1MB download in 5.22 sec Diagnosis: May need help : running at only 50.92 % of your hosts average (cox.net) Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-HZ30Y4NEI ink set to Full Duplex mode No network congestion discovered. Good network cable(s) found Alarm: Duplex mismatch condition found: Host set to Full and Switch set to Half duplexD Web100 reports the Round trip time = 123.29 msec; the Packet size = 1380 Bytes; and No packet loss - but packets arrived out-of-order 34.48% of the time This connection is receiver limited 76.83% of the time. This connection is network limited 22.98% of the time. Web100 reports TCP negotiated the optional Performance Settings to: RFC 2018 Selective Acknowledgment: ON RFC 896 Nagle Algorithm: ON RFC 3168 Explicit Congestion Notification: OFF RFC 1323 Time Stamping: OFF RFC 1323 Window Scaling: OFF Information: Network Middlebox is modifying MSS variable Server IP addresses are preserved End-to-End Information: Network Address Translation (NAT) box is modifying the Client's IP address Server says [68.108.43.129] but Client says [192.168.15.100] WEB100 Kernel Variables: Client: localhost/127.0.0.1 AckPktsIn: 641 AckPktsOut: 0 BytesRetrans: 0 CongAvoid: 0 CongestionOverCount: 0 CongestionSignals: 0 CountRTT: 420 CurCwnd: 66240 CurMSS: 1380 CurRTO: 350 CurRwinRcvd: 65535 CurRwinSent: 5840 CurSsthresh: 2147483647 DSACKDups: 0 DataBytesIn: 0 DataBytesOut: 4664400 DataPktsIn: 0 DataPktsOut: 3380 DupAcksIn: 221 ECNEnabled: 0 FastRetran: 0 MaxCwnd: 66240 MaxMSS: 1380 MaxRTO: 390 MaxRTT: 200 MaxRwinRcvd: 65535 MaxRwinSent: 5840 MaxSsthresh: 0 MinMSS: 1380 MinRTO: 280 MinRTT: 80 MinRwinRcvd: 65535 MinRwinSent: 5840 NagleEnabled: 1 OtherReductions: 0 PktsIn: 641 PktsOut: 3380 PktsRetrans: 0 X_Rcvbuf: 107520 RcvWinScale: 2147483647 SACKEnabled: 3 SACKsRcvd: 0 SendStall: 0 SlowStart: 46 SampleRTT: 140 SmoothedRTT: 120 X_Sndbuf: 107520 SndWinScale: 2147483647 SndLimTimeRwin: 7738485 SndLimTimeCwnd: 2314043 SndLimTimeSender: 19198 SndLimTransRwin: 1 SndLimTransCwnd: 1 SndLimTransSender: 1 SndLimBytesRwin: 4072380 SndLimBytesCwnd: 592020 SndLimBytesSender: 0 SubsequentTimeouts: 0 SumRTT: 51780 Timeouts: 0 TimestampsEnabled: 0 WinScaleRcvd: 2147483647 WinScaleSent: 2147483647 DupAcksOut: 0 StartTimeUsec: 651601 Duration: 10079137 c2sData: 2 c2sAck: 2 s2cData: 9 s2cAck: 3 half_duplex: 0 link: 100 congestion: 0 bad_cable: 0 mismatch: 1 spd: 0.00 bw: 85.40 loss: 0.000001000 avgrtt: 123.29 waitsec: 0.00 timesec: 10.00 order: 0.3448 rwintime: 0.7683 sendtime: 0.0019 cwndtime: 0.2298 rwin: 0.5000 swin: 0.8203 cwin: 0.5054 rttsec: 0.123286 Sndbuf: 107520 aspd: 17.19746 Checking for mismatch on uplink (speed > 50 [0>50], (xmitspeed < 5) [0.22<5] (rwintime > .9) [0.76>.9], (loss < .01) [1.0E<.01] Checking for excessive errors condition (loss/sec > .15) [1.0E>.15], (cwndtime > .6) [0.22>.6], (loss < .01) [1.0E<.01], (MaxSsthresh > 0) [0>0] Checking for 10 Mbps link (speed < 9.5) [0<9.5], (speed > 3.0) [0>3.0] (xmitspeed < 9.5) [0.22<9.5] (loss < .01) [1.0E<.01], (mylink > 0) [3.0>0] Checking for Wireless link (sendtime = 0) [0.00=0], (speed < 5) [0<5] (Estimate > 50 [85.4>50], (Rwintime > 90) [0.76>.90] (RwinTrans/CwndTrans = 1) [1/1=1], (mylink > 0) [3.0>0] Checking for DSL/Cable Modem link (speed < 2) [0<2], (SndLimTransSender = 0) [1=0] (SendTime = 0) [0.0019=0], (mylink > 0) [3.0>0] Checking for half-duplex condition (rwintime > .95) [0.76>.95], (RwinTrans/sec > 30) [0.1>30], (SenderTrans/sec > 30) [0.1>30], OR (mylink <= 10) [3.0<=10] Checking for congestion (cwndtime > .02) [0.22>.02], (mismatch = 0) [1=0] (MaxSsthresh > 0) [0>0] estimate = 85.4 based on packet size = 10Kbits, RTT = 123.29msec, and loss = 1.0E-6 The theoretical network limit is 85.4 Mbps The NDT server has a 105.0 KByte buffer which limits the throughput to 6.65 Mbps Your PC/Workstation has a 63.0 KByte buffer which limits the throughput to 4.05 Mbps The network based flow control limits the throughput to 4.09 Mbps Client Data reports link is 'T1', Client Acks report link is 'T1' Server Data reports link is '10 Gig', Server Acks report link is 'Ethernet'

ok for a little while the internet connection was pretty good i should have just elft it alone but we all know you cant just leave it a lone. originaly i was just using VanBurens tweaks and tht worked good ( you should have seen the improvement on my sisters computer OMG) then i got vonage and am using the linksys RT31PT router and i notices that my test scores on ceartain forums especialy testmy.net declined. so i dont know what to do i tried most if not all the tweaks on speegguide as well. oh well here are some test results. oh i keep getting the duplex error on this test so im not sure what setting to use. thanks my connection is 4/256 and runnning on win xp everything updated and virus free adn all that good stuff. WEB100 Enabled Statistics: Checking for Middleboxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Done running 10s outbound test (client to server) . . . . . 292.60Kb/s running 10s inbound test (server to client) . . . . . . 2.86Mb/s ------ Client System Details ------ OS data: Name = Windows XP, Architecture = x86, Version = 5.1 Java data: Vendor = Sun Microsystems Inc., Version = 1.5.0_02 ------ Web100 Detailed Analysis ------ Cable modem/DSL/T1 link found. Link set to Full Duplex mode No network congestion discovered. Good network cable(s) found Alarm: Duplex mismatch condition found: Host set to Full and Switch set to Half duplexD Web100 reports the Round trip time = 195.76 msec; the Packet size = 1380 Bytes; and No packet loss - but packets arrived out-of-order 36.55% of the time This connection is receiver limited 58.86% of the time. This connection is network limited 41.11% of the time. Web100 reports TCP negotiated the optional Performance Settings to: RFC 2018 Selective Acknowledgment: ON RFC 896 Nagle Algorithm: ON RFC 3168 Explicit Congestion Notification: OFF RFC 1323 Time Stamping: OFF RFC 1323 Window Scaling: OFF Information: Network Middlebox is modifying MSS variable Server IP addresses are preserved End-to-End Information: Network Address Translation (NAT) box is modifying the Client's IP address Server says [68.108.43.129] but Client says [192.168.15.100] WEB100 Kernel Variables: Client: localhost/127.0.0.1 AckPktsIn: 197 AckPktsOut: 0 BytesRetrans: 0 CongAvoid: 0 CongestionOverCount: 0 CongestionSignals: 0 CountRTT: 125 CurCwnd: 64860 CurMSS: 1380 CurRTO: 530 CurRwinRcvd: 64240 CurRwinSent: 5840 CurSsthresh: 2147483647 DSACKDups: 0 DataBytesIn: 0 DataBytesOut: 3625260 DataPktsIn: 0 DataPktsOut: 2627 DupAcksIn: 72 ECNEnabled: 0 FastRetran: 0 MaxCwnd: 64860 MaxMSS: 1380 MaxRTO: 570 MaxRTT: 310 MaxRwinRcvd: 64240 MaxRwinSent: 5840 MaxSsthresh: 0 MinMSS: 1380 MinRTO: 300 MinRTT: 100 MinRwinRcvd: 64240 MinRwinSent: 5840 NagleEnabled: 1 OtherReductions: 0 PktsIn: 198 PktsOut: 2627 PktsRetrans: 0 X_Rcvbuf: 107520 RcvWinScale: 7 SACKEnabled: 3 SACKsRcvd: 0 SendStall: 0 SlowStart: 45 SampleRTT: 150 SmoothedRTT: 210 X_Sndbuf: 107520 SndWinScale: 0 SndLimTimeRwin: 5956464 SndLimTimeCwnd: 4160873 SndLimTimeSender: 2975 SndLimTransRwin: 1 SndLimTransCwnd: 1 SndLimTransSender: 1 SndLimBytesRwin: 2617860 SndLimBytesCwnd: 1007400 SndLimBytesSender: 0 SubsequentTimeouts: 0 SumRTT: 24470 Timeouts: 0 TimestampsEnabled: 0 WinScaleRcvd: 0 WinScaleSent: 7 DupAcksOut: 0 StartTimeUsec: 68335 Duration: 10123331 c2sData: 2 c2sAck: 2 s2cData: 9 s2cAck: 3 half_duplex: 0 link: 100 congestion: 0 bad_cable: 0 mismatch: 1 spd: 0.00 bw: 53.78 loss: 0.000001000 avgrtt: 195.76 waitsec: 0.00 timesec: 10.00 order: 0.3655 rwintime: 0.5886 sendtime: 0.0003 cwndtime: 0.4111 rwin: 0.4901 swin: 0.8203 cwin: 0.4948 rttsec: 0.195760 Sndbuf: 107520 aspd: 11.72675 Checking for mismatch on uplink (speed > 50 [0>50], (xmitspeed < 5) [0.29<5] (rwintime > .9) [0.58>.9], (loss < .01) [1.0E<.01] Checking for excessive errors condition (loss/sec > .15) [1.0E>.15], (cwndtime > .6) [0.41>.6], (loss < .01) [1.0E<.01], (MaxSsthresh > 0) [0>0] Checking for 10 Mbps link (speed < 9.5) [0<9.5], (speed > 3.0) [0>3.0] (xmitspeed < 9.5) [0.29<9.5] (loss < .01) [1.0E<.01], (mylink > 0) [3.0>0] Checking for Wireless link (sendtime = 0) [3.0E=0], (speed < 5) [0<5] (Estimate > 50 [53.78>50], (Rwintime > 90) [0.58>.90] (RwinTrans/CwndTrans = 1) [1/1=1], (mylink > 0) [3.0>0] Checking for DSL/Cable Modem link (speed < 2) [0<2], (SndLimTransSender = 0) [1=0] (SendTime = 0) [3.0E-4=0], (mylink > 0) [3.0>0] Checking for half-duplex condition (rwintime > .95) [0.58>.95], (RwinTrans/sec > 30) [0.1>30], (SenderTrans/sec > 30) [0.1>30], OR (mylink <= 10) [3.0<=10] Checking for congestion (cwndtime > .02) [0.41>.02], (mismatch = 0) [1=0] (MaxSsthresh > 0) [0>0] estimate = 53.78 based on packet size = 10Kbits, RTT = 195.76msec, and loss = 1.0E-6 The theoretical network limit is 53.78 Mbps The NDT server has a 105.0 KByte buffer which limits the throughput to 4.19 Mbps Your PC/Workstation has a 62.0 KByte buffer which limits the throughput to 2.50 Mbps The network based flow control limits the throughput to 2.52 Mbps Client Data reports link is 'T1', Client Acks report link is 'T1' Server Data reports link is '10 Gig', Server Acks report link is 'Ethernet' :::.. Download Stats ..::: Connection is:: 2555 Kbps about 2.6 Mbps (tested with 1496 kB) Download Speed is:: 312 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (main) Test Time:: Wed May 18 11:29:24 PDT 2005 Bottom Line:: 46X faster than 56K 1MB download in 3.28 sec Diagnosis: May need help : running at only 80.96 % of your hosts average (cox.net) Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-QCRG6H84O

i have a SB5100 and it seems ok but i have never had any other kind of modem so i dont know how to judge it.

i recently used a friends nero ultra edition disk and for the life of me i cant figure out where the hell the thing went. so i was loking on ebay for a replacement and there are 2 power sellers who are selling them. They say they dont coem with a box though but that they are brand new and are real copies and i will even be able to obtain phone tech support from ahead sotware comp. the program is $100 at the stor but only $25 on ebay. has anyone ever bought this kind of thing from ebay is it for real? the seller both have near perfect scores

thanks for the help guys it actualy worked by just turning everything off. thanksagain

i realy like avast. My sisiters compute had Mcafee and i scanned and showed no viruses then i DL avast and as soon as it was active alerts came up saying there were viruses. Avast was good at finding viruses in the memory and start up files as well that mcafee did not find. IT is easy to use and i dont even notice it is running in the background.

cool thanks i am pretty sure i am going to get that monitor. I know you usualy pay more for sony but that monitor is nice!!!

thanks for the resonses. I do plan on getting a video card with DVI and the monitor also comes with a DVI cable and HD15 as well. They dont have that monitor on newegg.com thogh. It is a very nice monitor you should go down to best buy or something and take a

yeah space is a factor. mostly i just want to play a few games. The monitor looked realy nice when it was on the colors were excelent. I know CRT is the better choice but our desk is kinda small so we want an lcd.