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.