 |
|
|
|
Next: quad sli = how many video ports? matrox dual head..
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Oct 03, 2005
Posts: 295
|
(Msg. 16) Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 8:04 am
Post subject: Re: quad sli = how many video ports? matrox dual head2go x 2? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: alt>comp>periphs>videocards>nvidia (more info?)
|
|
|
* Mr.E Solved!:
> For the last time: Video memory sizes have nothing to do with how much
> memory your system sees.
Sorry, but no matter how often you deny it, it's a fact that the memory
size of a gfx card *does* affect available memory in 32bit systems.
> YES there are I/O mapping concerns, NO they do not matter due to
> remapping techniques.
As I already explained remapping/memory hoisting means to push the I/O
space above the physically installed memory, and this only works with
operating systems that a) support remapping and b) are able to adress
more than 4GB. That's the reason btw why remapping is only supported by
64bit PCs and not 32bit systems. Go figure.
BTW: and even when the useable system memory doesn't get reduced by I/O
space by using memory remapping, even there the size of the remapped I/O
space is also dependent on the amount of video memory on the gfx card.
Go figure.
> Do not bring shared memory into the equation, I'm talking about local
> memory.
We all talk about local memory here and not shared memory gfx.
> Here's a link that just happened to get writ today discussing this:
>
> http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/02/15/vista_workshop/index.html
>
> "Thanks to a technique called memory remapping, it is possible to move
> around parts of the system memory in such a way that the full 4 GB is
> still available for use. The trouble is that this feature had to be
> deactivated in Windows Vista due to compatibility issues"
The last sentence isn't correct. The feature they're talking about is
called PAE and it is supported and works in Vista 32bit. But Vista 32bit
like Windowsxp 32bit is limited to 4GB or memory. Even with PAE these
operating systems can't adress more than 4GB. And without being able to
adress more 4GB it becomes very difficult to address I/O space that has
been remapped on top of the installed memory.
Well, THG at least came to the correct conclusion:
"In order to be able to utilize the entire system memory, you will
therefore need to use a 64-bit version of Windows Vista."
<http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/02/15/vista_workshop/page3.html>
"Regardless of which version of Windows you are using, all 32-bit
systems are limited to a maximum of 4 GB of RAM."
and
"The upshot is that it doesn't make sense to install a 64-bit version of
Vista in order to better utilize 4 GB of memory simply because the 32
bit version would only recognize 3.5 GB. The problem is that while it is
true that you would "gain" the missing memory, you would also
immediately lose it to the system due to the 64-bit version's larger
memory footprint."
The reason why with 4GB RAM 32bit Windows only sees ~3.5GB and why you
can "gain" the missing memory back by using the 64bit version is simply
because you need the 64bit version to be able to use memory remapping as
the 32bit version simply can't use that for reasons I already pointed
out and is stuck with the conventionel mapping scheme.
Benjamin |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Dec 10, 2006
Posts: 354
|
(Msg. 17) Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 8:04 am
Post subject: Re: quad sli = how many video ports? matrox dual head2go x 2? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
DRS wrote:
> "Mr.E Solved!" wrote in message
>
>
> [...]
>
>> For the last time: Video memory sizes have nothing to do with how much
>> memory your system sees.
>>
>> YES there are I/O mapping concerns, NO they do not matter due to
>> remapping techniques.
>>
>> Do not bring shared memory into the equation, I'm talking about local
>> memory. Here's a link that just happened to get writ today discussing
>> this:
>> http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/02/15/vista_workshop/index.html
>>
>> "Thanks to a technique called memory remapping, it is possible to move
>> around parts of the system memory in such a way that the full 4 GB is
>> still available for use. The trouble is that this feature had to be
>> deactivated in Windows Vista due to compatibility issues"
>
> As has already been pointed out in this thread, remapping only works if both
> the motherboard and OS support it. XP, for example, does not, so the size
> of the video memory very much affects the amount of memory your system sees.
>
>
Yes it does, by design in Win XP x64, and by combination of luck and
design in 32-bit Windows XP Pro. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 03, 2005
Posts: 295
|
(Msg. 18) Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 8:04 am
Post subject: Re: quad sli = how many video ports? matrox dual head2go x 2? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
* Mr.E Solved!:
>> As has already been pointed out in this thread, remapping only works
>> if both the motherboard and OS support it. XP, for example, does not,
>> so the size of the video memory very much affects the amount of memory
>> your system sees.
>>
>
> Yes it does, by design in Win XP x64,
Yes, because it's an *64bit* operating system which supports
remapping/hoisting of memory. That's why I wrote that this applies to
*32bit* desktop Windows versions only.
> and by combination of luck and
> design in 32-bit Windows XP Pro.
No, it doesn't work with Windowsxp Pro 32bit. Not with luck and not by
design.
Here is a very good explanation which might help you to understand
better how these things really work:
<http://www.dansdata.com/askdan00015.htm>
Benjamin >> Stay informed about: quad sli = how many video ports? matrox dual head2go x 2? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 03, 2005
Posts: 295
|
(Msg. 19) Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 12:04 pm
Post subject: Re: quad sli = how many video ports? matrox dual head2go x 2? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
* Mr.E Solved!:
> For the last time: Video memory sizes have nothing to do with how much
> memory your system sees.
Sorry, but no matter how often you deny it, it's a fact that the memory
size of a gfx card *does* affect available memory in 32bit systems.
> YES there are I/O mapping concerns, NO they do not matter due to
> remapping techniques.
As I already explained remapping/memory hoisting only works with
operating systems that a) support remapping and b) are able to adress
more than 4GB. That's the reason btw why remapping is only supported by
64bit PCs and not 32bit systems. Go figure.
BTW: and even when the useable system memory doesn't get reduced by I/O
space by using memory remapping, even there the size of the remapped I/O
space is also dependent on the amount of video memory on the gfx card.
Go figure.
> Do not bring shared memory into the equation, I'm talking about local
> memory.
We all talk about local memory here and not shared memory gfx.
> Here's a link that just happened to get writ today discussing this:
>
> http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/02/15/vista_workshop/index.html
>
> "Thanks to a technique called memory remapping, it is possible to move
> around parts of the system memory in such a way that the full 4 GB is
> still available for use. The trouble is that this feature had to be
> deactivated in Windows Vista due to compatibility issues"
Right, but PAE is not the reason. Vista 32bit like Windowsxp 32bit has a
fixed limit of 4GB of memory. And without being able to adress more 4GB
it becomes very difficult to address I/O space that has been remapped.
So, THG came to the correct conclusion:
"In order to be able to utilize the entire system memory, you will
therefore need to use a 64-bit version of Windows Vista."
And further down in the article:
<http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/02/15/vista_workshop/page3.html>
"..Regardless of which version of Windows you are using, all 32-bit
systems are limited to a maximum of 4 GB of RAM..."
and
"The upshot is that it doesn't make sense to install a 64-bit version of
Vista in order to better utilize 4 GB of memory simply because the 32
bit version would only recognize 3.5 GB. The problem is that while it is
true that you would "gain" the missing memory, you would also
immediately lose it to the system due to the 64-bit version's larger
memory footprint..."
The reason why with 4GB RAM 32bit Windows only sees ~3.5GB and why you
can "gain" the missing memory back by using the 64bit version is simply
because you need the 64bit version to be able to use memory
remapping/hoisting as the 32bit version simply can't use that for
reasons I already pointed out and is stuck with the conventionel mapping
scheme.
Benjamin >> Stay informed about: quad sli = how many video ports? matrox dual head2go x 2? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jun 22, 2006
Posts: 199
|
(Msg. 20) Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 12:04 pm
Post subject: Re: quad sli = how many video ports? matrox dual head2go x 2? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Benjamin Gawert" wrote in message
[...]
> As I already explained remapping/memory hoisting only works with
> operating systems that a) support remapping and b) are able to adress
> more than 4GB. That's the reason btw why remapping is only supported
> by 64bit PCs and not 32bit systems. Go figure.
32-bit Windows can address more than 4GB using PAE. See Windows 2003 Server
Enterprise Edition as an example. Unfortunately, XP seemed to have its PAE
implementation limited to hardware DEP support. >> Stay informed about: quad sli = how many video ports? matrox dual head2go x 2? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 03, 2005
Posts: 295
|
(Msg. 21) Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 12:04 pm
Post subject: Re: quad sli = how many video ports? matrox dual head2go x 2? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Dec 10, 2006
Posts: 354
|
(Msg. 22) Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 10:26 pm
Post subject: Re: quad sli = how many video ports? matrox dual head2go x 2? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Benjamin Gawert wrote:
> * Mr.E Solved!:
>
>> For the last time: Video memory sizes have nothing to do with how much
>> memory your system sees.
>
> Sorry, but no matter how often you deny it, it's a fact that the memory
> size of a gfx card *does* affect available memory in 32bit systems.
You love to be contrary! I know precisely what the impact is, how it is
bypassed today and three years ago, and how application memory space
does not suffer, nor does performance.
Is your assertion that a 4GB video card leaves zero available memory in
a 4GB 32-bit Windows XP OS since video memory must be mapped bit for
bit? Is that really what you're driving at?
Have you been into johns' fermented potato mash again? >> Stay informed about: quad sli = how many video ports? matrox dual head2go x 2? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 03, 2005
Posts: 295
|
(Msg. 23) Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 7:04 am
Post subject: Re: quad sli = how many video ports? matrox dual head2go x 2? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
* Mr.E Solved!:
> You love to be contrary!
Nope, I just tell what I think and know, and if possible provide
references to it to back my statements up. For me this is just a board
for technical discussions.
> I know precisely what the impact is, how it is
> bypassed today and three years ago, and how application memory space
> does not suffer, nor does performance.
Honestly, I really have the feeling that some of your knowledge in this
regard is just wrong.
> Is your assertion that a 4GB video card leaves zero available memory in
> a 4GB 32-bit Windows XP OS since video memory must be mapped bit for
> bit? Is that really what you're driving at?
A gfx card with 4GB memory isn't possible in a 4GB 32bit Windowsxp
system since together with all other devices it would result in an I/O
space bigger than the installed memory. And yes, the gfx card memory is
mapped into I/O space bit for bit, that's a fact. If you don't believe
it check the device manager.
A gfx card with 3GB for example would reduce available memory of a 4GB
32bit Windowsxp system by 3GB which with all the other I/O stuff would
leave the user probably around 500MB or so.
And a 1.5GB gfx card definitely reduces the available memory by 1.5GB. I
can say "definitely" because I tried it myself. With a Quadro FX 5600 a
32bit Windowsxp system has less than 2.5GB (in my tests ~2.1GB)
available of the installed 4GB RAM.
> Have you been into johns' fermented potato mash again?
This has nothing to do with johns' usual bullshit stuff. This simply is
real. Not only is it my own experience (I have a lot of hardware here
where I can try a lot of things with), lots of reputable sources say the
same, and if you are able to use memory addresses and hex numbers you
can see it in the Windows device manager. Simple as that.
I only again can recommend to read the explanation I found which I think
is very good:
<http://www.dansdata.com/askdan00015.htm>
Benjamin >> Stay informed about: quad sli = how many video ports? matrox dual head2go x 2? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jun 22, 2006
Posts: 199
|
(Msg. 24) Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 11:05 am
Post subject: Re: quad sli = how many video ports? matrox dual head2go x 2? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Benjamin Gawert" wrote in message
> * DRS:
>
>> 32-bit Windows can address more than 4GB using PAE. See Windows
>> 2003 Server Enterprise Edition as an example.
>
> Well, that's probably why I wrote "32bit desktop Windows versions" in
> my explanations 
Yes, but in the post to which I replied you said that "remapping is only
supported by 64bit PCs and not 32bit systems", which is incorrect. Physical
Address Expansion (PAE) is precisely to enable remapping above the 4GB limit
on 32-bit systems, hence my reference to Windows Server 2003 Enterprise
Edition as an example. That this functionality has been disabled in XP is
down to a design decision by Microsoft, not an invalidation of the
principle. >> Stay informed about: quad sli = how many video ports? matrox dual head2go x 2? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Dec 10, 2006
Posts: 354
|
(Msg. 25) Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 12:37 pm
Post subject: Re: quad sli = how many video ports? matrox dual head2go x 2? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Benjamin Gawert wrote:
>
> And a 1.5GB gfx card definitely reduces the available memory by 1.5GB. I
> can say "definitely" because I tried it myself. With a Quadro FX 5600 a
> 32bit Windowsxp system has less than 2.5GB (in my tests ~2.1GB)
> available of the installed 4GB RAM.
Memory Remapping makes that 'missing' memory available for applications,
that's my point and you know it. A 4G video card does not leave a 4G PC
with zero available memory, that's another point and you know that too.
Don't be confused with what Windows reports as available, and what is
actually available, that's where remapping comes in. But if you wish to
think that memory is lost forever to applications because of the video
card in the system by all means, think that! >> Stay informed about: quad sli = how many video ports? matrox dual head2go x 2? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 03, 2005
Posts: 295
|
(Msg. 26) Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 3:05 pm
Post subject: Re: quad sli = how many video ports? matrox dual head2go x 2? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
* DRS:
> Yes, but in the post to which I replied you said that "remapping is only
> supported by 64bit PCs and not 32bit systems", which is incorrect.
No, it's correct. The remapping of I/O adress space (memory
remapping/memory hoisting) is only available on 64bit PCs.
> Physical
> Address Expansion (PAE) is precisely to enable remapping above the 4GB limit
> on 32-bit systems, hence my reference to Windows Server 2003 Enterprise
> Edition as an example.
PAE is *not* remapping. PAE is a paging system that basically divides
memory in smaller blocks. On 32bit machines that do support PAE and that
can have up to 64GB memory and that are running Windows Server 2003
Enterprise 32bit (or any other PAE-aware 32bit OS like Linux) the I/O
space below 4GB exists and is still there (and lost as available
memory). There is no memory remapping/memory hoisting on these machines.
Benjamin >> Stay informed about: quad sli = how many video ports? matrox dual head2go x 2? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 03, 2005
Posts: 295
|
(Msg. 27) Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 7:04 pm
Post subject: Re: quad sli = how many video ports? matrox dual head2go x 2? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
* Mr.E Solved!:
>> And a 1.5GB gfx card definitely reduces the available memory by 1.5GB.
>> I can say "definitely" because I tried it myself. With a Quadro FX
>> 5600 a 32bit Windowsxp system has less than 2.5GB (in my tests ~2.1GB)
>> available of the installed 4GB RAM.
>
>
> Memory Remapping makes that 'missing' memory available for applications
Right, on 64bit PCs running either a 64bit OS or a 32bit OS with PAE
support (*not* Windowsxp, Vista or any other 32bit desktop version of
Windows).
> that's my point and you know it.
And my point was that this is only correct for 64bit PCs running either
a 64bit OS or a 32bit OS with PAE support (*not* Windowsxp, Vista or any
other 32bit desktop version of Windows). It is *not* correct for a 32bit
PC or a 64bit PC running a 32bit desktop Version of Windows.
> A 4G video card does not leave a 4G PC
> with zero available memory, that's another point and you know that too.
I know that like all your other statements it is only correct for 64bit
PCs running either a 64bit OS or a 32bit OS with PAE support (*not*
Windowsxp, Vista or any other 32bit desktop version of Windows). In case
of a 32bit PC or a 64bit PC running a 32bit desktop version of Windows
you're just plain wrong and you should know that.
> Don't be confused with what Windows reports as available, and what is
> actually available, that's where remapping comes in. But if you wish to
> think that memory is lost forever to applications because of the video
> card in the system by all means, think that!
Well, I know what I know, and all references agree with me. I also
explained you now for several times where memory remapping works and
where not, and I also provided references that confirm what I say. Heck,
a short search with google whould have shown you that in this case your
knowledge differs from reality. If that's too much asked you can take a
PC running a 32bit desktop Windows and check how much memory is consumed
with say a 256MB gfx card and a 512MB gfx card and you would see the
difference. Still, you don't even consider the fact that not only I but
also other sources don't agree with you could very likely mean that
you're wrong. If one person doesn't agree with me he can be wrong, if
two persons don't agree with me they both can be wrong. But if several
persons don't agree with me and also provide references that support
them then at least I think about that *I* might be wrong. Of course I
don't expect others to do the same and question their own opinion when
there seems a chance that it might be wrong.
So if you don't believe me or anyone else who tells you the same, please
explain your theory how memory remapping on a PC with 4GB of RAM running
a 32bit desktop Windows version which can't adress more than 4GB should
prevent the I/O space from eating up useable memory. If you're at it
please explain your theory how video memory should be adressed if it
doesn't get mapped into I/O space.
Benjamin >> Stay informed about: quad sli = how many video ports? matrox dual head2go x 2? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 03, 2005
Posts: 295
|
(Msg. 28) Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 7:04 pm
Post subject: Re: quad sli = how many video ports? matrox dual head2go x 2? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
* Mr.E Solved!:
>> And a 1.5GB gfx card definitely reduces the available memory by
>> 1.5GB. I can say "definitely" because I tried it myself. With a
>> Quadro FX 5600 a 32bit Windowsxp system has less than 2.5GB (in my
>> tests ~2.1GB) available of the installed 4GB RAM.
>
>
> Memory Remapping makes that 'missing' memory available for
> applications
Right, on 64bit PCs running a 64bit OS. Not on a 64bit PC running a
32bit OS.
> that's my point and you know it.
And my point was that this is only correct for 64bit PCs running
a 64bit OS. It is *not* correct for a 32bit PC or a 64bit PC running a
32bit Version of Windows.
> A 4G video card does not leave a 4G PC with zero available memory,
> that's another point and you know that too.
I know that like all your other statements it is only correct for 64bit
PCs running a 64bit OS. In case of a 32bit PC or a 64bit PC running a
32bit version of Windows you're just plain wrong and you should know that.
> Don't be confused with what Windows reports as available, and what is
> actually available, that's where remapping comes in. But if you wish
> to think that memory is lost forever to applications because of the
> video card in the system by all means, think that!
Well, I know what I know, and all references agree with me. I also
explained you now for several times where memory remapping works and
where not, and I also provided references that confirm what I say. Heck,
a short search with google whould have shown you that in this case your
knowledge differs from reality. If that's too much asked you can take a
PC running a 32bit desktop Windows and check how much memory is consumed
with say a 256MB gfx card and a 512MB gfx card and you would see the
difference. Still, you don't even consider the fact that not only I but
also other sources don't agree with you could very likely mean that it's
you who is wrong. If one person doesn't agree with me he can be wrong,
if two persons don't agree with me they both can be wrong. But if
several persons don't agree with me and also provide references that
support them then at least I think about that *I* might be wrong. Of
course I don't expect others to do the same and question their own
opinion when there seems a chance that it might be wrong.
So if you still don't believe me or anyone else who tells you the same,
please explain your theory how memory remapping on a PC with 4GB of RAM
running a 32bit desktop Windows version (Windowsxp, Vista 32bit, W2k
etc) which can't adress more than 4GB (and there is no way to change
that!) should prevent the I/O space from eating up useable memory and
makes all 4GB available. If you're at it please also explain your theory
how video memory should be adressed if it doesn't get mapped into I/O space.
Benjamin >> Stay informed about: quad sli = how many video ports? matrox dual head2go x 2? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 03, 2005
Posts: 295
|
(Msg. 29) Posted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 7:04 pm
Post subject: Re: quad sli = how many video ports? matrox dual head2go x 2? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
* Mr.E Solved!:
>> And a 1.5GB gfx card definitely reduces the available memory by
>> 1.5GB. I can say "definitely" because I tried it myself. With a
>> Quadro FX 5600 a 32bit Windowsxp system has less than 2.5GB (in my
>> tests ~2.1GB) available of the installed 4GB RAM.
>
>
> Memory Remapping makes that 'missing' memory available for
> applications
Right, on 64bit PCs running a 64bit OS. Not on a 32bit PC or 64bit PC
running a 32bit OS.
> that's my point and you know it.
And my point was that this is only correct for 64bit PCs running
a 64bit OS. It is *not* correct for a 32bit PC or a 64bit PC running a
32bit Version of Windows.
> A 4G video card does not leave a 4G PC with zero available memory,
> that's another point and you know that too.
I know that like all your other statements it is only correct for 64bit
PCs running a 64bit OS. In case of a 32bit PC or a 64bit PC running a
32bit version of Windows you're just plain wrong and you should know that.
> Don't be confused with what Windows reports as available, and what is
> actually available, that's where remapping comes in. But if you wish
> to think that memory is lost forever to applications because of the
> video card in the system by all means, think that!
Well, I know what I know, and all references agree with me. I also
explained you now for several times where memory remapping works and
where not, and I also provided references that confirm what I say. Heck,
a short search with google whould have shown you that in this case your
knowledge differs from reality. If that's too much asked you can take a
PC running a 32bit desktop Windows and check how much memory is consumed
with say a 256MB gfx card and a 512MB gfx card and you would see the
difference. Still, you don't even consider the fact that not only I but
also other sources don't agree with you could very likely mean that it's
you who is wrong. If one person doesn't agree with me he can be wrong,
if two persons don't agree with me they both can be wrong. But if
several persons don't agree with me and also provide references that
support them then at least I think about that *I* might be wrong. Of
course I don't expect others to do the same and question their own
opinion when there seems a chance that it might be wrong.
So if you still don't believe me or anyone else who tells you the same,
please explain your theory how memory remapping on a PC with 4GB of RAM
running a 32bit desktop Windows version (Windowsxp, Vista 32bit, W2k
etc) which can't adress more than 4GB (and there is no way to change
that!) should prevent the I/O space from eating up useable memory and
makes all 4GB available. If you're at it please also explain your theory
how video memory should be adressed if it doesn't get mapped into I/O space.
Benjamin >> Stay informed about: quad sli = how many video ports? matrox dual head2go x 2? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
| Related Topics: | Requesting Quad video card recommendations. - I wish to use 4 12" bloomberg lcd display on my older desktop. A Tyan 1863 dual processor board. Is there an older model quad vga output video card? I do not game, just lots of text display with some video. Any suggestions welcome! Thanks, Frank. -...
Dual Monitors and S-video output...help! - Hi , I have a PNY FX5600 Ultra 128MB card softquadro'd to a Quadro FX 2000. It has dual monitor support and an s-video output. I an get only two of my outputs going at a time, two monitors, or a monitor and a tv set. I want to use my two monitor desktop...
Dual Monitor & Gaming Video Card - I am looking for a new video card. There are two features which are important to me, dual monitor support and gaming. The dual monitor display is more important to me. I would like to run one monitor at a resolution of 2048x1536 and the other one at a...
Dual Video with full screen movie - i have a geforce4 mx 440 with the TV out! i'd like see the movies (i use media player) full screen on TV, and use pc with video at same time. but if i choose nView as clone, i can see full screen movie in TV but i can use PC for other things; if i choose...
PCI dual view video card? - |
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
