help with the screen.

[kras]

Can someone help me with this....this is my screen...just download the video to see what is going on.
I have searched and installed all the updates...i have olso change the cable of the screen...but still i have this problem.
Download the video via the link i give you to see yourself.
https://rapidshare.com/files/3079146760/my_screen.mpg

Thanks!

[SD]

Why is this nearly 30MB?
Also, a lot of people will refuse to download stuff uploaded by members they don't know at all. Better is to describe the problem, then more people can help.

[dyn]

1.) try to test with different monitor then you will see if problem is with monitor or something else
2.) http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&q=monitor+white+flash&num=100
3.) send your monitor back, ask for a replacement, most shops will replace it if you send it back in 15-45 days

I extracted images so others don't have to download entire video:

my_screen.mpg_thumbs_[2011.06.06_19.09.45].jpg

[dyn]

You can use ffmpeg to recode it and reduce video size.
http://ffmpeg.zeranoe.com/builds/ < http://www.ffmpeg.org/download.html

Code: Select all

ffmpeg.exe -deinterlace -i my_screen.mpg flashing.mp4

(deint because it's mpeg2 "dvd" format)

Result: 30 mb >> 1.8 mb (1.6 mb when rar-ed) ... sure quality is not max, but for this purpose more than enough. FFmpeg offers tons of options and it is used by many video sites for processing. Basic transcoding quality is more optimized for size than quality.

Of course you can always upload it to YouTube and then delete it later.

[kras]

Sorry for the large file...i had no words to describe it since i dont knoiw the language so well....Thank you dyn for the screenshots.
The monitor is not new..its been 2 years...i had before the same problem many months before but it turn off-i don't know how.
Thank you for your help.

[dyn]

Then check google, i think there are some people with same problems. Also try it on different PC or with different cables (VGA vs DVI vs HDMI).

[Apocalypse]

their has been a high rate of computers with video problems lately. seems driver gets corrupt on certian ati chipsets with newer versions of windows. i have been booting them in safe mode and replacing driver with one from micorosoft, or if they have to have CCC rolling it back to older.

[1UnRaTeD1]

yuppers also good to hack backup monitor making sure its not the current monitor..i dont fool with ati really cause of its complications. i like it all in 1 "nvidia"

[dyn]

I doubt errors of that nature are caused by drivers. Of course he can always pause at boot and see if there are errors outside Windows, or boot into Linux just to see if graphic card works properly, any live distro would do.

I find ATi video cards to be very stable and reliable. On the other hand i observed problems with lower-end nVidia integrated on ION chipset for HTPC, mostly problems with GPU acceleration and picture tearing.

[1UnRaTeD1]

i do have a 9600 radeon in my backup machine. it does the job but i got problems with mouse lag. and only running it at 1024x768
i know theres a setting to adjust the "prerender" is set to 3. lower makes it worse and higher is better timing i think

[dyn]

Radeon is not to blame for that. Try with other OS and different mouse. When everything is setup properly it should work without any special settings.

[1UnRaTeD1]

each card has its flaws...this is ingame not desktop. i had my Nvidia 5500 same specs as the 9600 128mb and so on.. no lagg just slowdowns. and ati mouselag plus slowdowns. same resolutions

course i dont mind ati..just not my choice. but i do like the demos they make

[dyn]

I had ATi Radeon 9800Pro on PC with AMD 1800+, 768 MB ram and 200 GB HDD. Not only everything was responsive and fast, i was able to run DOOM 3 without problems. Of course i used XP.

Basically you are saying Radeon is to blame for mouse lag? How then could people run games with even lower spec Radeon cards, lower than 9600? Of course don't expect to run games from 2010 smoothly with a card from 2004. It appears something in your setup is to blame for this "lag", not the card. I hope you are not using w98, because in that case any debate around it is pointless. Using w98 on modern hardware is simply asking for problems, incompatibility issues, and lower performance. Imagine how smart is to try to optimize system which is not even capable of utilizing modern CPU architecture. In case of w98 than means Athlon and P4.

Check reviews, compare nV vs. ATi, and decide which one you need, before saying they are bad because of random incompatibility issues which are many times caused by something else. About Geforce 5500 i think that's slower than Radeon 9600, so if that worked for games, 9600 should be even better.

[kras]

Well..i have the NVIDIA 9600 GT 1GB RAM......should i download this?
http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads/

[1UnRaTeD1]

my backup machine is a p4 3.2ghz , 1gig ddr , 40gig hdd plus secondary 20 gig ide , ATI 9600 128mb windows xp sp2
if u talking about my old 98se machine its not worth mentioning any problems i may encounter on it

and no im not trying to run crysis on it. just basicly xp games on it. 98se is not my backup its for "old" gaming.
the 3.2ghz is my backup. anyway i ran GTA SA 1024x768 some places good and once it hits tons of activity it reduces response timing on mouse. and my 5200 did better. yes slowdowns but mouse didnt lagg since some games dont run on 7 i run on xp. hitman2 noone lives forever 1 and 2 ect.. games that rocked on xp.

"yo Kras get it from nvidia.com to be safer"

[1UnRaTeD1]

i see u love ati.. and the 5500 is a good card and not only 1 kind of em there are atleast 4 to 5 kinds of em with diffrent specs. just like the 9600.. ive seen over 3 to 4 kinds of em. ati was known for problems back then. glitches and freezes while nvidia was less and still running. but as i said. i respect ati

[dyn]

No, ATi was not known for problems back then. I never experienced any glitches or freezing, also nobody i know complained about that, nor i noticed anything about this when reading reviews -- and i usually check reviews before buying anything. Sure, you will always find people with different problems for any hardware, but this doesn't mean product is unstable. I don't know how many hours i spent on DOOM 3 and other games, and if it was unstable i would surely know about it. I am not defending any brand, i am just surprised how quickly people jump to conclusions.

You can't expect miracles from 2004 lower mid-end card, which 9600 is. If game makes mouse lag, that is coding problem not graphic card's fault. It is how game is designed, nothing to do with hardware. Perhaps that game is more optimized for GeForce, so you have better response times. I don't play GTA, but i think this is most probably connected to fps you get. And mouse in-game (not windows) will move as fast or as slow as rendering system can do. Sell it and buy 9800 or better. Also 40 GB HDD can be serious performance bottleneck, make sure it is set UDMA, or even better -- give it away for free and buy 200GB+ HDD at least.

So you see the problem yet? You are saying all ATi products have problems, just because you are getting sluggish performance from one game with value-level video card from 2004. So should i install GeForce 2 MX100 from 2000 and then try to run DOOM 3 with it and say all nVidia products have "problems"?

About general performance, check reviews and you will see for yourself. 9xxx series cards many times were faster than nV 5xxx, but it also depends on games and which range of cards you compare. OpenGL at that time was faster with nV, which includes DOOM 3. However later things changed and for long period ATi dominated the market.

[1UnRaTeD1]

back in 1997 days it was nvidia or 3dfx.. ati was hardly mentioned. it wasnt even brought up in chat with the peeps i hanged around with. of course i wondered about ati and asked...they told me nvidia or 3dfx..dont go ati.. ive always wanted a voodoo 5 64mb card but it was to much..and of course 3dfx couldnt touch nvidia on capabilities.. and at the time ati was only quality not performance...nvidia was performance and some quality and the ati 9600 can push doom 3 also some 2004 and not trying to push todays games.. even the Geforce 3 can do doom 3 low settings but still push...

performance still vary's on machines

nvidia was always best choice .. sorry but true not by articles or feedback but by Experience

[dyn]

Only quality and no performance? Go check some reviews, with real tests. That was usually 3dfx's argument against TNT2 (Ultra) nVidia cards more or less, not against ATi. Reason was, 3dfx was failing miserably with new games like Quake 3 and only way they could run them fast was with low details, especially Voodoo 2 class. Voodoo 3 was a bit better, but nowhere near TNT2 Ultra where i had 80+ fps with p3-450, Diamond Viper V770 Ultra (TNT2 Ultra / NVIDIA).

That was before ATi introduced their own 3D products. They always had quality cards, no matter what "experts" said to you. However i doubt Radeon 9600 class is able to run DOOM 3 smoothly, that game was the reason i bought 9800Pro which is much faster than 9600 cards. This is why i said to replace it, i mean it is 2011 after all.

Your experience or opinions from others won't change benchmark scores. It was similar with 3dfx fans back then, they would defend that 16-bit product no matter what you said to them. Seems more like a religion, not science. I went from Voodoo 1 straight to TNT2 Ultra (NVIDIA). I liked V1, it was really cool, but when i saw people getting barely 30 fps with Voodoo 3 in quake 3 compared to 80 fps with TNT2 Ultra, well debate was over. Later i upgraded to ATi for the exactly same reasons -- picture quality AND performance was better. And all the hours i spent playing 3D games with it was also the ultimate test of reliability.

[1UnRaTeD1]

the voodoo 1 and 2 had some good performance 16bit wise quake 3 did run good on voodoo 2...and yes the tnt2 32mb version was awesome it lasted me 2 years without fail. but ofcourse it did cost a bit dam "staples" never again buy stuff from bestbuy , staples or any other high priced store..i know i could of gotten a better deal on inet. shame half the guys dont know what they are talking about..when i asked them i want full specs of cards they do this "flip box around and show pictures of the ingame titles" and explain to me what it can do.. lol dyn if u were there u would look at him like hes full of sheet!!!. but anway i remember the vanta's and the rage from 4mb to 8mb.? 16mb highest. i was into games awhole lot back then and spent over 500 bucks on games. no iso's that time. lol or i think..no wait they were rar's files

dont put down the 9600 your meanie!!! doom 3 would run fine without shadows lol

i wasnt able to get 80fps on quake 3 with tnt2 m64 32mb pci with high settings on. i got around hmmm 30fps and lower with a p3 celeron 600mhz 64mb ram. i guess it was the cpu low end and memory that caused the problem

[1UnRaTeD1]

ati and nvidia will always have a war..to bad 3dfx was bought out from nvidia otherwise it would be nice to see 3 of em i wonder what 3dfx would of been now

[dyn]

Yes, it's always best to check with people who own that hardware or on web sites.

Well 9600 can run it, but it's not that smooth, and DOOM 3 was optimized for nV, it runs smooth with GeForce 6 series, but this is not that important anymore today, new cards from both ATi and nV can run it smooth, not only because of speed but also ATi renders OpenGL in more optimized way since then. Wonder how much Carmack got in his pocket to make it more nV friendly, from what i gather it was a deal between him and nV, but of course, there are no official sources to confirm this. You could see later "Bundle: GeForce 6800GT FREE Doom 3!" etc. Clearly they had some agreement.

80 fps when running around q3dm7 i got with TNT2 Ultra. It was faster than other models, also rather expensive. With action it was 50-80 fps, i am not sure what settings exactly, i think it was 1024x768 on max quality, picmip 0. I posted benchmarks, but i am not sure if those are still online.

[dyn]

This is from 2 years ago, 745.7 FPS in Quake 2! (OpenGL)

quake2-Phenom9850-Radeon4670-1024x768-745.7fps.png

[1UnRaTeD1]

ahh over 700 frames... geeze poor quake 2. i bet it doesnt have a chance to say "loading map" boom done!!!

[1UnRaTeD1]

yea i had my Geforce 6600 agp.. poor thing has been though alot...my dumbazz put it through beta drivers over 5 times...and one day out of the blue.. it gave out while using beta drivers playing tomb raider legend not to mention they were modified inf files to support GF6 series. so i know i was pushing it..and those drivers at that time were made for GF7 and up