Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > overclocking

Reply
Thread Tools

overclocking

 
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-28-2010
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Floyd L. Davidson
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >> Is there a significant advantage to a second display?
> >> I have been considering getting one, but, I have to
> >> justify the expenditure to my treasury department. She
> >> just got a washing machine and dryer and is unhappy
> >> with the speed of her WinXP machine. <G>
> >> A trade opportunity window, (no pun intended,) has
> >> opened. My alternative would be a new WA lens.

> >
> >For what I do, yes there is. I do some program development, so it's very
> >handy to have the program under test running on the left display, and the
> >compiler and debugging tools on the right-hand display.

>
> You don't need, or even get any benefit from, two
> monitors to do that. A proper windowing system is what
> it takes, and if your won't do that without the use of a
> second monitor I'd suggest that a different platform
> would be very productive. The X windowing system is an
> example.


you most certainly *do* get a benefit from two (or more) displays,
especially if you're using the full screen, among other things. having
a second display is without question, a huge increase in productivity.

three displays is also helpful in some circumstances but not as much as
a second display.

and then there's going a bit overboard with 13 displays
<http://the.taoofmac.com/media/blog/2003/06/22/Image1.jpg>

> >Displays today
> >would likely be far cheaper than a WA lens, unless you want something very
> >well calibrated. For photo use, you may have the photo on your well
> >calibrated main display, and the program menus etc. on the secondary. I
> >was really surprised how much of a difference it made for me. Perhaps you
> >have an old display somewhere you could try out?

>
> That's a valid point, though I've always used two
> identical monitors and found that to less expensive than
> a single monitor of equal quality and screen area. It
> used to be that the form factor was more suitable too
> but today there are monitors with wider screens.
> Whatever, it's a little bit of a pain if both monitors
> are not the same size.


it's not a pain at all. in fact, it's trivial. simply plug the display
in and use the control panel to arrange it spatially, as desired.

> Also, depending on the software used, some methods use
> just one large video buffer rather than display each
> monitor separately from its own buffer. The effect is
> that the look up table for color/gamma correction will
> be shared by both monitors, which means only one of them
> can be calibrated precisely (the other one will only be
> as close as can be adjusted with hardware).


macs definitely support separate colour profiles for multiple displays
and i'm pretty sure windows does too but i've never tried calibrating a
two display windows system.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-29-2010

"Neil Harrington" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
[]
> I don't use Intel CPUs anymore since I'm convinced AMD's wares provide
> more bang for the buck. (The exception is a little netbook I have with
> the Atom CPU, but that's the first Intel chip I've used in about 10
> years.) I always benchmark the onboard graphics processor (if the
> motherboard has that) before putting in a discrete graphics card, and it
> is just amazing how good the built-in ones are nowadays, at least the
> ATI graphics that come with most AMD-chipset motherboards. If I didn't
> play games I would never bother with a discrete card at all.
>
> The same goes for audio. Onboard audio used to be pretty bad, but now
> it's so good I haven't used a discrete sound card for years.


Agreed about graphics and audio - although some of the on-board graphics
uses part of the main memory - another reason you shouldn't skimp on
memory.

I never buy AMD - we've seen far too many incompatibilities with AMD and
their motherboards to make it worth the risk. One AMD motherboard I have
will blow power tracks if a certain satellite TV card is plugged in!

But CPU cost these days isn't really a major issue - do you really see a
lot of benefit from paying double the money and getting 10% more
performance? For most people, the answer is "no".

Cheers,
David

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-29-2010

"Floyd L. Davidson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> "David J Taylor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

[]
>>For what I do, yes there is. I do some program development, so it's
>>very
>>handy to have the program under test running on the left display, and
>>the
>>compiler and debugging tools on the right-hand display.

>
> You don't need, or even get any benefit from, two
> monitors to do that. A proper windowing system is what
> it takes, and if your won't do that without the use of a
> second monitor I'd suggest that a different platform
> would be very productive. The X windowing system is an
> example.

[]
> Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)


My experience differs - I want to see both source and working program at
the same time, and you need physical display area for that.

As I develop Windows software, using Windows tools, suggesting that I move
to a UNIX/X-windows platform makes little sense.

Cheers,
David

 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-29-2010

"Floyd L. Davidson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> "David J Taylor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

[]
>>My experience differs - I want to see both source and working program at
>>the same time, and you need physical display area for that.

>
> Exactly, and two monitors or one does not make any
> difference. Only the physical area. It has *nothing*
> to do with using two monitors!
>
>>As I develop Windows software, using Windows tools, suggesting that I
>>move
>>to a UNIX/X-windows platform makes little sense.

>
> I did not suggest you move to Unix. But using a better
> widowing system would help. X of course runs just fine
> under Windows.


I took your words: "I'd suggest that a different platform would be very
productive." that way. A different windowing system would get me nothing.

In my case, the second monitor has two inputs, and I can actually use it
to monitor a second PC. Like many others, I also prefer the arrangement
of two monitors side-by-side to one giant monitor. I get 2880 pixels
width, and 1200 pixels height on the left monitor. I haven't seen too
many monitors with that aspect ratio.

Of course, you may have completely different requirements - I can only
share the experience of what has worked well for me.

Cheers,
David

 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-29-2010
"Neil Harrington" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
[]
> Right. Of course that's something you just have to put up with with
> laptops, but with desktops it's often a reason to put in some sort of a
> discrete graphics card even if the onboard graphics are adequate.


Agreed.

> My sister in her Florida place has a fairly early Windows XP system --
> with just 256 MB of system RAM, I was shocked to see when I visited her
> there. And only onboard graphics. Needless to say, that is one sluggish
> computer. She doesn't use it for much besides e-mail, and is on dial-up,
> so a sluggish system doesn't make much difference.


Oh dear! She has my sympathy! I'd say put a GB in, but some of those
early systems had rather expensive memory. I still have one system with a
512MB limit (it runs Windows 2000) and one with a 1GB limit (that runs XP
with a 300MB RAMdisk for a specialist application. It's comfortable at
that level.

[]
> I agree. I never buy anywhere near "cutting edge" as far as CPUs go. I
> never considered buying dual-core Athlons when they were the newest
> thing -- I buy 'em now, when they are dirt cheap. These sorts of things
> get cheaper *and* more refined at the same time.


Yes, it's where those who "need" the latest and greatest pay for the
development costs for the rest of us. I feel I've paid my share of
development costs for digital cameras and hard disks, though!

Cheers,
David

 
Reply With Quote
 
GMAN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-29-2010
In article <4c793be3$0$5525$(E-Mail Removed)-secrets.com>, "Peter" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>"David J Taylor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:i5bdbq$8jv$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org...
>> "Neil Harrington" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
>> []
>>> I have computers all over the place, and at the moment not a single one
>>> of them is overclocked. I don't do it if I don't need it. But if tomorrow
>>> or next week I should need it, I will overclock with a high heart.

>>
>> Same here. But if anything, I now go for the lower-powered components -
>> "green" HDs, Intel Atom processors, the simplest graphics cards (or
>> built-in) etc - where at all possible, to keep down heat and noise, reduce
>> power consumption, and perhaps increase reliability.
>>
>> For what I do, today's processors are plenty powerful enough - I get more
>> gain in productivity from increasing RAM, perhaps using 64-bit Windows,
>> and have two displays.

>
>
>Is there a significant advantage to a second display? I have been
>considering getting one, but, I have to justify the expenditure to my
>treasury department. She just got a washing machine and dryer and is unhappy
>with the speed of her WinXP machine. <G>
>A trade opportunity window, (no pun intended,) has opened. My alternative
>would be a new WA lens.
>
>
>


Video editing is one great example of using multiple displays. I keep the main
app running in one monitor and the video playback in the other.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Ray Fischer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-29-2010
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On Aug 26, 6:37*pm, "lofi" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Overclocking is an utterly pointless exercise they may generate a few higher
>> numbers on a measurement scale but has absolutely no practical benefit to
>> the end user.

>
>Absolutely? So you say... :/ The frame rate, speed of loading
>textures, ect
>of my flight simulator tells me a different story than the one you
>offer.


Ooo! I bet it went from 45 frames/sec to 48 frames/sec!

No practical benefit at all.

--
Ray Fischer
(E-Mail Removed)

 
Reply With Quote
 
Peter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-29-2010
"Neil Harrington" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
>
> "David J Taylor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:i5crpr$29u$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org...
>>
>> "Neil Harrington" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> []
>>> I don't use Intel CPUs anymore since I'm convinced AMD's wares provide
>>> more bang for the buck. (The exception is a little netbook I have with
>>> the Atom CPU, but that's the first Intel chip I've used in about 10
>>> years.) I always benchmark the onboard graphics processor (if the
>>> motherboard has that) before putting in a discrete graphics card, and it
>>> is just amazing how good the built-in ones are nowadays, at least the
>>> ATI graphics that come with most AMD-chipset motherboards. If I didn't
>>> play games I would never bother with a discrete card at all.
>>>
>>> The same goes for audio. Onboard audio used to be pretty bad, but now
>>> it's so good I haven't used a discrete sound card for years.

>>
>> Agreed about graphics and audio - although some of the on-board graphics
>> uses part of the main memory - another reason you shouldn't skimp on
>> memory.

>
> Right. Of course that's something you just have to put up with with
> laptops, but with desktops it's often a reason to put in some sort of a
> discrete graphics card even if the onboard graphics are adequate.



NOt all lpatops. My Lenove has a discrete graphics card, as do many others.






--
Peter

 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-29-2010
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Floyd L. Davidson
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >you most certainly *do* get a benefit from two (or more) displays,

>
> You do not *need* to have two monitors to get the
> described benefit, assuming that you do use a fully
> functional windowing system.


in some cases you definitely do, such as when an app runs in full
screen. games are the obvious case, but a lot of photo/video software
is also full screen.

> >especially if you're using the full screen, among other things. having
> >a second display is without question, a huge increase in productivity.
> >three displays is also helpful in some circumstances but not as much as
> >a second display.

>
> If your windowing system is adequate, the size of the
> display and the functionality have nothing to do with
> the number of monitors.


nope.

> >and then there's going a bit overboard with 13 displays
> ><http://the.taoofmac.com/media/blog/2003/06/22/Image1.jpg>

>
> An excellent example that disproves your point.


nope.

> The
> benefit gained in that example is not the area or the
> functionality.


the benefit is having displays in front and to either side. as i said,
13 is a bit overkill, all he really needs is one in front and two more,
one on either side, and maybe two more at 45 degrees.

> There is almost certainly a cost factor
> (multiple monitors are probably vastly less expensive
> than a custom made large screen monitor for that
> application), and most of all there is the desired
> illusional effect designed to make it appear to be a
> specific environment.
>
> But again, multiple monitors are *not* required to
> accomplish the functionality, only the cost benefit.


tell us how having a surround view can be done with one display.

> >> >Displays today
> >> >would likely be far cheaper than a WA lens, unless you want something very
> >> >well calibrated. For photo use, you may have the photo on your well
> >> >calibrated main display, and the program menus etc. on the secondary. I
> >> >was really surprised how much of a difference it made for me. Perhaps you
> >> >have an old display somewhere you could try out?
> >>
> >> That's a valid point, though I've always used two
> >> identical monitors and found that to less expensive than
> >> a single monitor of equal quality and screen area. It
> >> used to be that the form factor was more suitable too
> >> but today there are monitors with wider screens.
> >> Whatever, it's a little bit of a pain if both monitors
> >> are not the same size.

> >
> >it's not a pain at all. in fact, it's trivial. simply plug the display
> >in and use the control panel to arrange it spatially, as desired.

>
> It's a royal pain in the rear if you have monitors with
> two different resolutions, assuming you actually do
> something with them. If a window on one monitor is
> moved to the other it can be off screen entirely, for
> example. It can change sizes too, and it is generally
> not reasonable to have a window half on one monitor and
> half on another if the two have different resolutions.


big deal. part of it will not be visible on the smaller display. drag
it back to see all of it. why in the world would anyone do that? pick a
small window and drag it over and you can see all of it. it's entirely
up to the user.

usually displays of different sizes are used for different things, such
as putting the main photoshop image on the big display and the
photoshop tool palettes on the small one.

> In other words, if you do have a window system that
> allows maximum functionality benefits from the use of
> two monitors, it works far better if they are identical.
> Not that mismatched monitors are not useful, just that
> they are not as useful.


having different size displays can be *more* useful in some cases, such
as the one i described above with one large display for the image and
the smaller one for tools. on the other hand, someone doing video work
might want two 30" displays. there is no single answer for everyone.

> Incidentally, I have my system arranged so that the
> calibration of the left monitor can be changed
> (different brilliance, different color temperatures and
> different gamma) with two clicks of a mouse (with
> instant response time too and not waiting for a control
> panel or some such before a selection can be made). I
> use that to allow non color managed apps, such as web
> browsers and image previewers, to be usable when
> previewing images for different printing systems or for
> web publication.


if you're going to change colour profiles on a whim, just leave the
control panel open and then it's only one click. most people don't do
that, so the extra second or two to open a control panel is a
non-issue. it could probably be scripted too. non-colour managed
browser? really? time to upgrade.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-29-2010
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Floyd L. Davidson
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >My experience differs - I want to see both source and working program at
> >the same time, and you need physical display area for that.

>
> Exactly, and two monitors or one does not make any
> difference. Only the physical area. It has *nothing*
> to do with using two monitors!


it does when the app is running full screen or you don't want extra
update events.

> >As I develop Windows software, using Windows tools, suggesting that I move
> >to a UNIX/X-windows platform makes little sense.

>
> I did not suggest you move to Unix. But using a better
> widowing system would help. X of course runs just fine
> under Windows.


that's a step *backwards*.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
EXTREME Overclocking has just reviewed the Hiper Type-R 480W Power Supply. Silverstrand Front Page News 0 03-05-2006 05:35 PM
Overclocking and WindowsXP x64 Edition Silverstrand Front Page News 0 12-26-2005 04:41 PM
Overclocking and WindowsXP x64 Edition Silverstrand Front Page News 1 08-10-2005 07:00 PM
Athlon64 3700+ Overclocking Fun Silverstrand Front Page News 4 07-11-2005 08:05 AM
XTREME Overclocking has just posted a review on the Mushkin Silverstrand Front Page News 7 06-27-2005 06:50 AM



Advertisments