No signal to monitor.

So I built my computer a few years ago and I may just rebuild one anyway. Recently though I've been having an issue. Sometimes when I boot the computer up it doesn't send a signal to my monitor. The monitor light will turn green when I turn it on - then go to orange because of no signal. Now before you start thinking of really simple stuff I should try let me go on. First it only does it sometimes, othertimes it works. So when it does it I turn it off in the back, and then turn it back on and repeat until it works. While it does this all the normal noises of my PC continue just like its running - when I reboot it from a hard turn off then it gives me the options to start in safe mode, or go normal etc - so in others words I interrupted the boot process even though nothing was on my monitor.

Further is that sometimes while its on screen will suddenly have colored dashes go all over and freeze up - the patterns are always different, some color of background and different colors of stripes all over the screen. A few times it has simply frozen period and there is no keyboard response. So everything seems to be video related, but that doesn't necessarily mean its the video card. I've reset everything, checked capacitors, I plugged in another monitor (HDTV) and same problem (HDTV was different cord as well). Oh and yes I got new drivers. So all the simple stuff I've done. It could still be my MB, Video Card, PSU or I guess even RAM.

I currently have like an Athlon 3200, 1gig of ram, 6800GT, and a small ass HD. I'm thinking about just building a new one and keeping this case. So if you don't want to bother with the problem, and just have current advice on whats great for the price point. I plan to build a strong computer that doesn't cost an arm and a leg - there is always a niche in the price on each component where saving a few extra dollars drops off performance, but adding a little performance costs a shitton. I'm going for that price point. So for example right now 9800GTX is about 150 bucks. I don't save much going with a lesser card, but a better card is 300 bucks. So I'll take advice there, but also if you can help with the problem or even tell me how to find out which of these is the problem - then I might consider just replacing that.

I do rather extensive GIS work on the computer using several gig sized files so I'm leaning towards the new one. Thanks in advance!

PS - I do not want a MAC

Vex 15 years ago
/throws out the 'get a mac' card.

If you have an older vid card lying around, i would pop it in and see if problems persist. It could be that simple.

If not, honestly by your specs, I would suggest an upgrade.

i dont know what GIS is, but if it has anything to do with photoshop, you will be able to utilize GPU power in CS4 ( so i've heard ) so I actually suggest skimping on all else that you can to get a beefy card.

You can get fairly cheap pentium core2 duo chips out there now, barebones systems from newegg and such. Ram was at an all time low a few months ago, and I doubt its gone up much since, so get 4GB if you can. I got 4gb for the bf for a little over $100. make sure the ram is all the same type/brand or you'll get compatibility issues.

you can get a Terabyte of space easy now. I've got 3 TB and i didn't even try. would not go for less than 7200 RPM drives though, and ideally you should get at least a 10k RPM drive that your programs run on so they run as efficient as possible.

Just be positive to check the power supply requirements on your video card if you get one. You do not want to fry it out. For safety's sake, I would get a 650+w supply.
Vulash 15 years ago
I knew you'd say mac.

Ok so earlier today I was considering fixing the issue, but as the went on I realized I could probably swing a new one, and should.

The problem is I'm really out of date since I built this one.

arcGIS is a powerful geography program used to create interactively layered maps - i think that is the best way to say it. Anyway I have several hundred gigs of aerial data on external drives that I have to plop onto my computer and manipulate - so lots of ram and HD space is nice. Though I'm currently doing ok with my computer.

A few important questions though - the new quad core cpus seem to be what everything talks about, but it seems to me I would rather have a duo core 3.0 ghz than a 2.4 quad for the same cost. I don't multitask THAT much. Am I wrong?

For HDs - I can either do a TB drive, or do two 640GB in the SATA format for performance ( I forget the number, the one where they mirror each other for faster loading, not for backup). I Don't know how much performance that adds - or I could just pay a little more and try to get a 300GB 10k Velociraptor. Which do you recommend?

Ram I'll either get 4gb, or just get 8gb and go ahead and get VISTA 64 bit - again I'm behind and I don't know how good vista 64 bit is, but being able to utilize 8gb of ram would be rather nice - especially since it is so damn cheap right now. 4gb is about 70 bucks for corsair as long as I don't go for low latency stuff.

Oh! If I get a 9800GTX and I want to hook it up to my HDTV with HDMI - do I need to get one that says "HDMI - 1 (with adaptor)" or can I just get one period, and then get an adaptor - the backs in the picture both show 2 dvi and 1 s-video regardless. So much shit is just ploy and I don't have a week to do hardcore research because right now my job is on this computer when I'm not in class.

Finally. I don't understand this line at all, and I mean - at all. "you will be able to utilize GPU power in CS4 ( so i've heard ) so I actually suggest skimping on all else that you can to get a beefy card." What is CS4? So are you saying the 9800GTX isn't beefy enough and to pay double for the new line? I just can't stand the thought of 300-500 for a GPU that will be 180 in 4 months
Vex 15 years ago
Vulash;101411
I knew you'd say mac.


They're magic machines, really.

A few important questions though - the new quad core cpus seem to be what everything talks about, but it seems to me I would rather have a duo core 3.0 ghz than a 2.4 quad for the same cost. I don't multitask THAT much. Am I wrong?


well a 2core 3.0 = 6.0 ghz
a quad 2.4 = 9.6 ghz

Depends on what your software you use goes for. for instance, EQ2 is HEAVILY reliant on CPUs, but it doesn't yet support multi core systems, so a 3.0ghz single core performs better than a 2.4 dual core.


For HDs - I can either do a TB drive, or do two 640GB in the SATA format for performance ( I forget the number, the one where they mirror each other for faster loading, not for backup). I Don't know how much performance that adds - or I could just pay a little more and try to get a 300GB 10k Velociraptor. Which do you recommend?

I'm not a HD expert, but you're referring to a RAID setup for the performance boost locking 2+ drives together. I honestly don't know how much performance increase it is either, as my RAID setup under vista 32bit was running like shit and I didn't bother resetting it up when i had to reformat and separate my RAID. I do know that 10k RPM drive would manage your files a lot faster than 7200. There's even 15k rpm drives out there but you don't want to look at the price lol


Ram I'll either get 4gb, or just get 8gb and go ahead and get VISTA 64 bit - again I'm behind and I don't know how good vista 64 bit is, but being able to utilize 8gb of ram would be rather nice - especially since it is so damn cheap right now. 4gb is about 70 bucks for corsair as long as I don't go for low latency stuff.

I'm not a 64bit user so I really don't know. I know ROz has already had some program compatibility issues with her 64bit laptop. I would say, check your software manufacturer that you use all the time, and make sure its getting steady updates and is compatible.

Oh! If I get a 9800GTX and I want to hook it up to my HDTV with HDMI - do I need to get one that says "HDMI - 1 (with adaptor)" or can I just get one period, and then get an adaptor - the backs in the picture both show 2 dvi and 1 s-video regardless. So much shit is just ploy and I don't have a week to do hardcore research because right now my job is on this computer when I'm not in class.

as long as your TV and your card have HDMI ports you should be good to go, adapter optional.

Finally. I don't understand this line at all, and I mean - at all. "you will be able to utilize GPU power in CS4 ( so i've heard ) so I actually suggest skimping on all else that you can to get a beefy card." What is CS4? So are you saying the 9800GTX isn't beefy enough and to pay double for the new line? I just can't stand the thought of 300-500 for a GPU that will be 180 in 4 months


CS4 is "Creative Suite 4", for adobe, that was if you used photoshop for your work. Basically right now photoshop uses RAM and CPU. the GPU is an untapped powerhouse that can enable you to open and easily edit images numbering in the gigabytes in filesizes. Right now this is completely impossible on a regular 32bit system, and I'm not even sure it is possible on a remotely affordable 64bit system. I read that the new CS4 is going to be able to tap into the juice of your video card ( the monster 768mb+ cards! ) to enhance performance to mind-boggling proportions.

here's a full article on it if you want to check it out more http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/37611/140/
Darsa 15 years ago
*pictures Vex in a spandex outfit and cape, with a big "TG" on the chest...*

"Super Techno-Geek to the rescue!!!"

~ZOOOOM~

Vulash 15 years ago
Thanks Vex - I'm pricing it which means i probably won't turn back now. I'm leaning towards the quad after reading some articles, but one part does worry me. It seems like the quad really blows the duo away in overclocking - and that is the best way to take full advantage of it while most software isn't (in the future I"m guessing a nonoverclocked 2.4 will beat teh duo 3.0 in most things, but now thats only the case for a few apps and overclocked). The problem is I don't overclock. Also one article said to render HD movies at full resolution (I was toying with the idea of a blueray player and then I can play it on my TV or computer) you would want a quad 2.66 or higher, but the 2.4 quad is the best price point at the moment.

Does anyone here overclock? I don't want to ever have to sit and monitor voltages and heat and burn my shit up - but can you just overclock a little and not have to mess with it again? I know the pros were pushing this 2.4ghz up to like 3.7 ghz, but I don't want that. Could I push it to 2.8 or 3.0 and just leave it with good cooling?
Temprah 15 years ago
*cough* As of the patch released this week EQ2 is now supporting multi core processors... *cough*
Vex 15 years ago
Temp, I knew it was coming, just wasn't sure when

Vulash ~ About overclocking. I've not done cpu myself either, and for that I'd suggest hitting up like tomshardware forums and asking there. Different brands/types take OCing better than others, i know that.

From what i've done a little with my video card, I didn't have enough cooling last time I tried it ( a few years back ) and it was unstable.

If you are planning on keeping your machine for another 3+ years, I'd definitely go ahead and get the quad though, support can only increase from today They already are toying with dual quad systems ( www.falcon-nw.com )
Vex 15 years ago
One more thing vulash, about video cards.

From what i've had personal experience with anything x600 is not good for gaming. I don't know if you still game, or ever plan to, but they have always had poor performance in both mine and my BF's computers. I'm not sure this holds true for the 9600 cause i'm still on the 8800GTS, but when I do upgrade I can promise it won't be to the 9600
Vulash 15 years ago
School work is getting in the way of my online shopping, but i'll post the results once I'm done - might be a few days - thanks for the advice. I won't be getting thex600 line it will either be an 8800GTS or a 9800GTX.
Mylec 15 years ago
A lot of good advice has already been given, so no need to be redundant. I would just add that if you don't want to be concerned about heat issues, then I wouldn't recommend overclocking, even a little bit. Although slightly overclocking should not effect temperature too much, it is still something you will want to monitor, or at the very least account for by adding a really good heat sink/cooling system. I personally don't both with overclocking but have friends that do so.
Vulash 15 years ago
I usually don't bother with - in fact I never have. I did order a good heatsink/fan and my case has excellent cooling so I might play with it this time. Also I ordered the Q6600 which supposedly overclocks very well. I'm reading that on the newer quad cores intel is sandbagging and underclocking theirs so it adds almost no heat to overclock it some - the 2.4 I ordered is hitting upwards of 3.8 for extremists, but I might just push it to 3.0 or so and keep it stable. I don't like to burn my shit up.
Temprah 15 years ago
MOST excellent choices there!!! That is like my case except I have the mid tower 900 and I swapped out the blue fans for red ones, same chip and the same power supply I have. I'm running xp pro 64bit with a 500gb hd and a 300gb one. That case along with the cpu fan I have (different one but comparable) and I have never had anything close to a heat issue even leaving it running fopr weeks at a time, even screaming away doing a render while I run multiple apps. I have two fans in the bottom slot and one in the slot above (great for hitting the board) as well as the one in the rear (and then side and top of course)

I love my machine. Your vid card kicks mine's ass (I have a 8500 512k.. was a freebie since I ran out of cash building mine) Please let me know how that card works for you, it's an upgrade I have been wanting to make.
Vulash 15 years ago
The video card is pretty cheap right now too - I don't know how long before the 230x or whatever it is drops to under 200