Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

128MB graphics card doesn't do anything!

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
February 15, 2005 2:50:20 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

I've replaced a 4MB graphics card with a 128MB graphics card,
alledgedly with 3D etc.

BUT... I'm seeing NO difference at all!
My old card was just as good!

When I play a movie... the graphics are very slow.

Are there any tests I can run to make sure my new graphics card is
working?

ALL the uptodate drivers are installed for the graphics card - so there
shouldn't be any excuse.

I am running another graphics card with two monitors on, so I have a
total of 3 monitors. The main monitor with the graphics card is 17"
and the other two are 15". Does all of this have any relevance?

Thanks.


OM

More about : 128mb graphics card

Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
February 15, 2005 3:25:35 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Thanks for the replies. : )
The 4MB card was an old Matrox PCI card.

The new card is "HIS Excalibur 9200SE 128MB PCI".
See the following link:

http://www.hisdigital.com/html/product_ov.php?id=109&vi...

I hadn't realised that I have to turn off the onboard video in the
BIOS?
I'll certanly give that a go.

The applications I'm running are nothing special at all!
Just the odd video and the odd Flash animation.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
February 15, 2005 4:58:11 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Since you didn't say anything about make and models, type of
slot (AGP or PCI) or how you did the installation or what
applications you are running when you see no difference,
this is just a simple suggestion...Your 4 MB video was not
an add-on card but embedded in the mobo. Did you open the
BIOS to disable that on-board video? Did you connect your
monitor to the new card?


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.


"OM" <om.newsgroup@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1108497020.563899.151070@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
| I've replaced a 4MB graphics card with a 128MB graphics
card,
| alledgedly with 3D etc.
|
| BUT... I'm seeing NO difference at all!
| My old card was just as good!
|
| When I play a movie... the graphics are very slow.
|
| Are there any tests I can run to make sure my new graphics
card is
| working?
|
| ALL the uptodate drivers are installed for the graphics
card - so there
| shouldn't be any excuse.
|
| I am running another graphics card with two monitors on,
so I have a
| total of 3 monitors. The main monitor with the graphics
card is 17"
| and the other two are 15". Does all of this have any
relevance?
|
| Thanks.
|
|
| OM
|
Related resources
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
February 15, 2005 6:14:37 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

To get a better permformance with a 128MB video card, you need:

1) Update to the latest WHQL certified video card drivers that are for your
new video card drivers.

2) Install, or update, the motherboard chipset drivers, for your mothrboard.
This is to provide the correct access controls for the motherboard
PCI/AGP/PCIe(???) slot access.

3) Install the latest versio of DirectX. Should be 9.0c.

4) Install, or update, monitor drivers.

Once this is done, you video card should be using its resources correctly.


As for movies, you should be updating you "movie" player and re-adjusting
the settings.

"OM" <om.newsgroup@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1108497020.563899.151070@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> I've replaced a 4MB graphics card with a 128MB graphics card,
> alledgedly with 3D etc.
>
> BUT... I'm seeing NO difference at all!
> My old card was just as good!
>
> When I play a movie... the graphics are very slow.
>
> Are there any tests I can run to make sure my new graphics card is
> working?
>
> ALL the uptodate drivers are installed for the graphics card - so there
> shouldn't be any excuse.
>
> I am running another graphics card with two monitors on, so I have a
> total of 3 monitors. The main monitor with the graphics card is 17"
> and the other two are 15". Does all of this have any relevance?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> OM
>
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
February 15, 2005 7:45:33 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

But surely a 128MB card HAS to be much better than something that is
much less??
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
February 15, 2005 8:28:33 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

"OM" <om.newsgroup@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1108499135.362789.201230@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Thanks for the replies. : )
> The 4MB card was an old Matrox PCI card.
>
> The new card is "HIS Excalibur 9200SE 128MB PCI".
> See the following link:
>
> http://www.hisdigital.com/html/product_ov.php?id=109&vi...
>
> I hadn't realised that I have to turn off the onboard video in the
> BIOS?
> I'll certanly give that a go.
>
> The applications I'm running are nothing special at all!
> Just the odd video and the odd Flash animation.
>

Oops...you just bought another PCI card to replace
an older PCI card...no wonder you didn't see any difference.

There won't be any, or very little. PCI lacks bandwidth.

You need an AGP card, if your MB supports it.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
February 15, 2005 9:00:58 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Full motion video is 2D and uses CPU, not the 3D functions and massive
texture RAM capabilities of today's cards.. As long as the video card can
handle the vid stream (which almost any 4mb card can) its then a function of
the CPU and sometimes the media its streaming off (hard disk / dvd).
besides, in its day, the matrox was king of 2D image quality. And the other
posters are correct, PCI offers limited performance gains on today's PC's.

It will be tough to benchmark a comparison between your matrox and the
radeon since no modern 3d benchmark programs (www.futuremark.com) will
likely run on the matrox.


"OM" <om.newsgroup@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1108514733.959364.96970@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> But surely a 128MB card HAS to be much better than something that is
> much less??
>
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
February 15, 2005 11:50:42 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

If the type of programs being run don't use some of the properties that your
128mb card has over an 8mb card, you will see little difference in
performance.. PCI was not your best choice either, especially if you have
an AGP slot available..

--
Mike Hall
MVP - Windows Shell/user

http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm





"OM" <om.newsgroup@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1108514733.959364.96970@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> But surely a 128MB card HAS to be much better than something that is
> much less??
>
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
February 16, 2005 1:11:50 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

On 15 Feb 2005 16:45:33 -0800, "OM" <om.newsgroup@gmail.com> wrote:

>But surely a 128MB card HAS to be much better than something that is
>much less??

Imagine a tiny little water pipe connecting to a large pipe. Now
leave that little pipe the same and make the "big" pipe even larger.
You'll see little to no improvement in water flow at the end of the
new larger pipe.

Just because you have a bigger memory capability on the graphics card
doesn't change how fast the small PCI bus can move data to it. Now,
if you switch over to an AGP card, you WILL notice the difference.
AGP moves data quicker than the PCI bus.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
February 16, 2005 4:51:56 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

emptying your wallet


"OM" <om.newsgroup@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1108514733.959364.96970@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> But surely a 128MB card HAS to be much better than something that is
> much less??
>
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
February 16, 2005 2:44:12 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

One point to make, the mobo is so old it probably won't
support more than 66 MHz, maybe less.
You can get the EVEREST program from www.lavalys.com and see
the specs on the whole system.


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.


"Rube" <dont@spam.me> wrote in message
news:ulsMOt8EFHA.3376@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
| Full motion video is 2D and uses CPU, not the 3D functions
and massive
| texture RAM capabilities of today's cards.. As long as the
video card can
| handle the vid stream (which almost any 4mb card can) its
then a function of
| the CPU and sometimes the media its streaming off (hard
disk / dvd).
| besides, in its day, the matrox was king of 2D image
quality. And the other
| posters are correct, PCI offers limited performance gains
on today's PC's.
|
| It will be tough to benchmark a comparison between your
matrox and the
| radeon since no modern 3d benchmark programs
(www.futuremark.com) will
| likely run on the matrox.
|
|
| "OM" <om.newsgroup@gmail.com> wrote in message
|
news:1108514733.959364.96970@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| > But surely a 128MB card HAS to be much better than
something that is
| > much less??
| >
|
|
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
February 16, 2005 5:58:30 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

OM wrote:

>I've replaced a 4MB graphics card with a 128MB graphics card,
>alledgedly with 3D etc.
>
>BUT... I'm seeing NO difference at all!
>My old card was just as good!
>
>When I play a movie... the graphics are very slow.

You will need to install the drivers that came with the card (or maybe
ones on the XP CD at least) - best get latest ones on download from the
maker's site and follow instructions with them


--
Alex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies)
Bournemouth, U.K. Alexn@mvps.D8E8L.org (remove the D8 bit)
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
February 16, 2005 5:58:31 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

"Alex Nichol" wrote:

> OM wrote:
>
> >I've replaced a 4MB graphics card with a 128MB graphics card,
> >alledgedly with 3D etc.
> >
> >BUT... I'm seeing NO difference at all!
> >My old card was just as good!
> >
> >When I play a movie... the graphics are very slow.
>
> You will need to install the drivers that came with the card (or maybe
> ones on the XP CD at least) - best get latest ones on download from the
> maker's site and follow instructions with them
>
>
> --
> Alex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies)
> Bournemouth, U.K. Alexn@mvps.D8E8L.org (remove the D8 bit)
>
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
February 16, 2005 5:58:31 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

"Alex Nichol" wrote:

> OM wrote:
>
> >I've replaced a 4MB graphics card with a 128MB graphics card,
> >alledgedly with 3D etc.
> >
> >BUT... I'm seeing NO difference at all!
> >My old card was just as good!
> >
> >When I play a movie... the graphics are very slow.
>
> You will need to install the drivers that came with the card (or maybe
> ones on the XP CD at least) - best get latest ones on download from the
> maker's site and follow instructions with them
>
>
> --
> Alex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies)
> Bournemouth, U.K. Alexn@mvps.D8E8L.org (remove the D8 bit)
>
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
February 16, 2005 5:58:31 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

"Alex Nichol" wrote:

> OM wrote:
>
> >I've replaced a 4MB graphics card with a 128MB graphics card,
> >alledgedly with 3D etc.
> >
> >BUT... I'm seeing NO difference at all!
> >My old card was just as good!
> >
> >When I play a movie... the graphics are very slow.
>
> You will need to install the drivers that came with the card (or maybe
> ones on the XP CD at least) - best get latest ones on download from the
> maker's site and follow instructions with them
>
>
> --
> Alex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies)
> Bournemouth, U.K. Alexn@mvps.D8E8L.org (remove the D8 bit)


Sorry, I guess I put a couple of empty posts on before I got a clue how to
use it.

OK, I have almost the same situation. I installed 128MB NVIDIA GeForce FX
5600 AGP card (had before the 32 MB on-board card). I do not see any
noticeable difference, but maybe it is because I run simple applications.
But, what bothers me -TV-out does not work. I installed needed drivers, my XP
Pro SP 2 recognizes new hardware, etc. I looked through BIOS and did not find
what I need to change.
Would somebody help me?
Thanks in advance!
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
February 16, 2005 7:18:03 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Hard to say, TV out may need to be set up, correct resolution etc. The
SETUP.txt or readme.txt or helpfiles for the video card will be
invaluable to you in correcting this dilemma. Please use that info to
set up your video card as there is a correct way to make it work. This
is not a Windows issue but a hardware setup issue.

plumbum wrote:

>
> "Alex Nichol" wrote:
>
>
>>OM wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I've replaced a 4MB graphics card with a 128MB graphics card,
>>>alledgedly with 3D etc.
>>>
>>>BUT... I'm seeing NO difference at all!
>>>My old card was just as good!
>>>
>>>When I play a movie... the graphics are very slow.
>>>
>>You will need to install the drivers that came with the card (or maybe
>>ones on the XP CD at least) - best get latest ones on download from the
>>maker's site and follow instructions with them
>>
>>
>>--
>>Alex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies)
>>Bournemouth, U.K. Alexn@mvps.D8E8L.org (remove the D8 bit)
>>
>
>
> Sorry, I guess I put a couple of empty posts on before I got a clue how to
> use it.
>
> OK, I have almost the same situation. I installed 128MB NVIDIA GeForce FX
> 5600 AGP card (had before the 32 MB on-board card). I do not see any
> noticeable difference, but maybe it is because I run simple applications.
> But, what bothers me -TV-out does not work. I installed needed drivers, my XP
> Pro SP 2 recognizes new hardware, etc. I looked through BIOS and did not find
> what I need to change.
> Would somebody help me?
> Thanks in advance!
>
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
February 17, 2005 3:38:10 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

OM wrote:
> But surely a 128MB card HAS to be much better than something that is
> much less??


Erm, no. I bet if you had a choice between a Radeon 9600SE with 256MB and a
9800XT with 128MB, I know which one you'd go for...

Here's another clue.

The 9600 costs £50
The 9800 costs £150

Why would that be, do you think? The manufacturer trying to rip you off by
selling an inferior card for three times more? The difference in price
should be clue enough that VRAM isn't the be-all-and-end-all and there must
be *FAR* more to it than that.

--
Facon - the artificial bacon bits you get in Pizza Hut for sprinkling
on salads.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
February 17, 2005 3:45:35 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

NobodyMan wrote:
> On 15 Feb 2005 16:45:33 -0800, "OM" <om.newsgroup@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> But surely a 128MB card HAS to be much better than something that is
>> much less??
>
> Imagine a tiny little water pipe connecting to a large pipe. Now
> leave that little pipe the same and make the "big" pipe even larger.
> You'll see little to no improvement in water flow at the end of the
> new larger pipe.
>
> Just because you have a bigger memory capability on the graphics card
> doesn't change how fast the small PCI bus can move data to it. Now,
> if you switch over to an AGP card, you WILL notice the difference.
> AGP moves data quicker than the PCI bus.


That may be true but, if you have a P2 350 with a 1x AGP slot, sticking an
X800XT Pro Platinum Edition in isn't going to turn the trickle into a flood.

The speed of the AGP bus isn't the sole determining factor - you have to
take the rest of the system into consideration. Putting a high end graphics
card into a low end system is just going to slow everything down - a system
is only as fast as its slowest component.

--
Facon - the artificial bacon bits you get in Pizza Hut for sprinkling
on salads.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
a b C Monitor
February 17, 2005 3:45:36 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 00:45:35 -0000, "Miss Perspicacia Tick"
<noone@here.com> wrote:

>NobodyMan wrote:
>> On 15 Feb 2005 16:45:33 -0800, "OM" <om.newsgroup@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> But surely a 128MB card HAS to be much better than something that is
>>> much less??
>>
>> Imagine a tiny little water pipe connecting to a large pipe. Now
>> leave that little pipe the same and make the "big" pipe even larger.
>> You'll see little to no improvement in water flow at the end of the
>> new larger pipe.
>>
>> Just because you have a bigger memory capability on the graphics card
>> doesn't change how fast the small PCI bus can move data to it. Now,
>> if you switch over to an AGP card, you WILL notice the difference.
>> AGP moves data quicker than the PCI bus.
>
>
>That may be true but, if you have a P2 350 with a 1x AGP slot, sticking an
>X800XT Pro Platinum Edition in isn't going to turn the trickle into a flood.
>
>The speed of the AGP bus isn't the sole determining factor - you have to
>take the rest of the system into consideration. Putting a high end graphics
>card into a low end system is just going to slow everything down - a system
>is only as fast as its slowest component.

Yes, yes, agreed. I was merely trying to point out the huge
difference between the AGP and PCI bus, and why they noticed very
little if any improvement.
!