what graphics card should i upgrade to

[andreasaspenberg]

i have a pc that have intel core i7 but the graphics card is only gtx 650 ti boost. i want to upgrade to a better card but what card should i choose?

 

[Dr Super Good]

Most recent -> GeForce GTX 960
This is slightly more expensive and ~50% faster (and more energy efficient) with twice as much memory while being in similar price range as your current card.

Last generation lacked a card for that price category.

Previous generation -> GeForce GTX 760
Since it is a generation old you might be able to pick up the GeForce GTX 760 (which I use, I have no complaints with it at all) more cheaply and at a similar price as your card. This is also ~50% faster than your current card but not as energy efficient as the 960. It is likely slower in other aspects as well so read reviews comparing it with the 960 before making a decision.

If money is not a problem -> GeForce GTX Titan X (GeForce 900 series).
Pretty much the best consumer level card money can buy (it has bad double precision speed, cards which do that cost twice as much or more however only professional tools use double precision, no/few games do). 12GB of memory and 6 GFlops blows your current card out of the water in every way. Unfortunately the card is both massive and power hungry so check if your system can even support the monster (your case might be too small!).

If money is a problem but still want very high end -> GeForce GTX 980 Ti
Considerably cheaper than Titan but only slightly less powerful (it is much like a Titan from 700 series but with worse double precision). Again check if your case supports its massive bulk and your PSU can handle the power usage.

If you want AMD (not NVidia) as similar price -> Radeon R9 270
No Idea about AMD but the card is similar price and specs.

If you want AMD at top end -> Radeon R9 290X
Cheaper than both high end NVidia cards above and is only fractionally weaker. Main weakness is its low memory but unless you have UHD or want to run many displays then that should not be a problem. Like with both NVidia high end cards, this card is massive and power hungry so check you can support it. Do note that this card uses more power than NVidia's high end cards.

Unless you really need more GPU power, the gtx 650 ti boost is powerful enough you should not need to upgrade at the moment. It likely will support DirectX 12 core features and any card at a similar price point will be at most 50% more powerful (actual results likely less than 50% in practice).

 

[andreasaspenberg]

the card i have have 2 gigabytes of memory and the gtx 960 have the same according to all sources i checked but, according to websites i have checked it is only 15% better. the power supply is inly 450 watts. i apologise for forgetting to inform about that. (i tend to rush these topics and then i forget important information.) backwards compatibility is also important to me plus that most programs in my system is 32 bit except browsers which is 64 bit. i have a 760 card in another pc which works well but that have a 550 watts power supply but only intel core 2 duo 3 ghz processor.

 

[Dr Super Good]

backwards compatibility is also important to me plus that most programs in my system is 32 bit except browsers which is 64 bit.

All cards I mentioned will work perfectly as long as you are using Windows Vista or newer. Due to the abstraction from graphic APIs it does not matter if a program is 32 or 64 bits since the API still remains the same and you use what ever driver is native for your system (in this case, 64bit driver).

By the sounds of it you cannot really upgrade at the moment. The card is still too new that budget cards will only give you marginally better performance. Any card that is a major performance improvement costs a lot and will need a bigger PSU/case to use. I would recommend sticking with using it for a year or so or saving up for one of the high end cards (and all the requirements they have).

Another option would be to "overclock" your GPU which can give you 10%-20% more performance without buying a new GPU. You may need a new PSU (as the GPU uses more power) as well as better cooling for the GPU (stock cooling will not cope). It also voids warrantees on the card, most game developers will not help you with performance issues (until you revert clock to normal) and can cause some strange compatibility issues however many people swear by the extra performance you get. If you decide to go down the route then you should probably post on a hardware site specializing on overclocking since those will be frequented by professionals with experience in the area (who know how to do it correctly and safely) unlike a WC3 support forum. I will not take responsibility for any damage you do to yourself or the hardware if decide to overclock since you are then using the components outside of their designed specification.

 

[andreasaspenberg]

the graphics card comes with very good cooling and even software to overclock it included. 32 bit games can only access up to 4 gigabytes of ram which includes all of the ram on the graphics card. world of warcraft however can run in 64 bit and therefore have no problems but, the sims 3 does have problems with any graphics card with 2 gigabytes of ram once all of its expansions are installed but no problems with cards with 1 gigabyte of ram.(no lag until i switched from 550 ti to 650 ti boost after which the game lags.) i really hope that people come up with a 64 bit wrapper for games.(there is one for plug-ins so it should be possible.)

 

[Dr Super Good]

32 bit games can only access up to 4 gigabytes of ram which includes all of the ram on the graphics card.

No, they access 4 GB of virtual memory which has nothing to do with the GPU. The reason a 64 bit OS is needed is because it has to "memory map" both discrete RAM as well as the GPU RAM (they get assigned to address ranges for physical memory) which otherwise is limited at 4 GB in 32 bit OSes (well actually not, extended addressing mode for 32bit does exist but Windows only allows 4GB as it does not take advantage of it at an OS level and when you do you might as well use 64bit since that instruction mode gives speed advantages unlike extended address mode which just slows everything down due to larger memory pointers). Processes do not ever access physical memory for security reasons and instead access virtual memory pages. Virtual memory pages get allocated inside the virtual memory address space and correspond to memory resources. The memory resources can either be on disk (memory mapped file or paged out memory), in physical memory (working set of a process), or possibly on the GPU (special OpenGL or Direct3D buffer resources set to be synchronized with CPU).

In theory it should be possible for a 32bit process to fully use even a 12GB graphic card as long as all graphic buffers reside on the GPU and are not synchronized with the CPU. Once they are allocated the CPU just needs to track the resources allocated (in the form of a "handle") which is both small and compact and as such GBs of GPU memory can be maintained with only a few MB of process virtual memory. This might only be possible with Windows 10 and OpenGL 4.5 which have resource tables, I never looked into the deep mechanics of how GPU resources are allocated currently.

Even with 32bit processes it still has to run all I/O with the GPU through the 64bit driver which does have access to all memory. The API abstracts memory on the GPU such that you cannot tell if the system is 32 or 64bit since you deal with references to memory and not actual physical addresses. Again, the only reason 32bit has problems is because it runs out of physical address space to memory-map the GPU memory and CPU memory which has nothing to do with processes using the memory. The GPU memory needs to be memory mapped for the driver to access it, you never physically use the memory mappings due to all processes running on virtual memory spaces.

Virtual memory spaces are used to solve fragmentation and security which were big problems with plain physical address allocation schemes. Since each process has its own unique virtual memory address space it cannot interact with other processes. Since virtual memory is implemented by memory pages of a standard size fragmentation is not a problem since a page can be placed anywhere.

i really hope that people come up with a 64 bit wrapper for games.(there is one for plug-ins so it should be possible.)

Not possible. It needs a re-compile because the instruction set is physically different.

In any case all modern games should come with 64bit builds. Even SC2 will get one with the release of LotV and Heroes of the Storm already has one. Diablo III will likely get one towards the end of the year or with the next expansion. Since most games are being built for Xbox One or Playstation 4 their PC releases will be 64bit as those consoles are 64bit only.

Some poorly written 32bit games like Railroad Tycoon test the memory availability on GPU and CPU. Since these may be larger than 4GB it can cause them to break badly. This might be why Sims 4 performs so badly because it does stupid stuff trying to manage the memory rather than actually being out of memory (such as not caching data so having to constantly re-load it as it thinks there is no room to cache data). If it really ran out of memory it would plain old crash with a OOM error and not perform bad because there would be no page thrashing due to the abundance of memory in your system and an OOM error is thrown when a process runs out of address space to allocate.

 

[andreasaspenberg]

a 64 bit wrapper is possible. dosbox for example enables 16 bit to run in 32 bit. it should be possible to use a 64 bit wrapper that runs a 32 bit wrapper. think of it as a translator that translates the games. some game does have bad memory management though. warcraft 3 for example crash when available memory exceeds 4 gigabytes so i run it in windows 2000 compatibility mode as windows 2000 was entirely 32 bit.(xp was the first 64 bit.) the sims 4 is 32 bit only.

 

[LordDz]

Can someone explain to me how my Warcraft III doesn't crash for me? I have 8 GB ram.
Is it magic?

 

[edo494]

a 64 bit wrapper is possible. dosbox for example enables 16 bit to run in 32 bit. it should be possible to use a 64 bit wrapper that runs a 32 bit wrapper. think of it as a translator that translates the games. some game does have bad memory management though. warcraft 3 for example crash when available memory exceeds 4 gigabytes so i run it in windows 2000 compatibility mode as windows 2000 was entirely 32 bit.(xp was the first 64 bit.) the sims 4 is 32 bit only.

you strongly miss the point.

Yes, you most likely already run your applications in legacy mode(32 bit applications on 64bit OS/processor), but the thing is, if program is 32 bit, you can shit yourself, but it will not be able to address more than 4,294,967,295 memory bytes, because thats the physical limit for the 32bit instruction set.

You are out of luck

 

[Dr Super Good]

a 64 bit wrapper is possible. dosbox for example enables 16 bit to run in 32 bit.

Except 32bit OS can natively run 16bit. As such it does nothing but provide API implementations that simulate a DOS OS. 64 bit OS cannot because you are forced to use virtual memory which is incompatible with 16bit instructions. As it is, 64bit OS already run 32bit processes natively since they do support 32bit virtual memory for compatibility. The difference is they execute the old instructions natively unlike what you proposed which needs re-compiling the instructions to work (the area of emulator programming).

think of it as a translator that translates the games

Not possible because of alignment problems. Pointers need to be expanded to be able to use more than 4GB of address space from 32bit to 64bit (well they are only 4X something bits but they still need a whole 32bits more of memory due to alignment). This is not possible to do from an assembly level because there is no clear boundary between what is a pointer and what is plain old data. For example many pointer operations translate to mathematical instructions such as addition so it cannot tell if it is adding to data or to a pointer.

warcraft 3 for example crash when available memory exceeds 4 gigabytes

It should crash when it exceeds 2-3GB because it was not built in "extended" mode. As such it should reserve 1-2GB for OS usage.

so i run it in windows 2000 compatibility mode as windows 2000 was entirely 32 bit

WC3 was not built for Windows 2000?! It was built targeting XP, any 2000 support was just for backwards compatibility. XP also was entirely 32bit.

(xp was the first 64 bit.)

No, Linux and other commercial OSes were 64bit long before then. Also its 64bit version was not supported at all and was only ever used for commercial applications (since unlike Vista and later, nothing supported it and there was no WoW64 to run 32bit processes).

WC3 should be run in XP SP3 compatibility if any. That is if you even want it in compatibility mode since it is 100% compatible with Windows Vista and 7 (both 32bit and 64bit versions).

the sims 4 is 32 bit only.

Yes it was built as a 32bit process. Complain to EA that they did not supply a 64bit build. Blizzard is supplying 64bit builds for all new games. Legacy of the Void will have a 64bit build and I suspect soon after it Diablo III will get one.

Can someone explain to me how my Warcraft III doesn't crash for me? I have 8 GB ram.
Is it magic?

It only uses 1GB odd of memory at most on a bad day of a 480*480 map. It crashes long before it hits the 2/3GB virtual memory limit because of the depletion of virtual finite resources (eg handle address spaces, or other internal structures). When it does crash due to OOM it will usually be an infinite loop gone bad (the process gains memory at >100 MB/sec).

address more than 4,294,967,295 memory bytes, because thats the physical limit for the 32bit instruction set.

Only if built in extended mode. Otherwise the process is reserved 1-2GB for OS purposes.

 

[edo494]

ah wait, if you support PAE, you can actually go to something like 53 bits for memory, and all OSses support PAE.

He meant XP was first to suppot 64bit for windows systems(may not be true, just claryfing)

Windows actually uses .dll to run 32 bit applications(to switch the processor from 64bit mode to 32bit mode)

 

[andreasaspenberg]

when i try to run warcraft 3 in windows xp compatibility mode with my faction war map it crash but when i use windows 2000 compatibility mode it does not crash. that is because the windows 2000 compatibility mode is 32 while the xp compatibility mode is 64 bit. the reason other people might be fine is because they likely play on a smaller map.(faction war is rather large.) the largest possible map size is 256 x 256 and that is what i am using.

 

[Dr Super Good]

that is because the windows 2000 compatibility mode is 32 while the xp compatibility mode is 64 bit.

That has nothing to do with it. The only difference is in the behaviour of the available APIs. Windows XP compatibility mode loads both 32bit and 64bit retro dlls as required. In the case of WC3 it will load 32bit ones since it does not use 64bit dlls. The main difference with compatibility mode is that the implementation of the Windows API mirrors that of the old version rather than the current behaviour. A process running in compatibility mode will think it is running on the old OS as opposed to without compatibility mode where it will know it is running on a newer OS.

the reason other people might be fine is because they likely play on a smaller map.(faction war is rather large.) the largest possible map size is 256 x 256 and that is what i am using.

Largest possible map size of a WC3 map is 480*480. My computer has no problem running such maps and I do not use any compatibility mode at all for WC3 (since WC3 does not need any as Blizzard patched it for native Windows 7 compatibility).

Please understand what compatibility mode does. You should only ever enable compatibility mode if you really have to. A well written or maintained process should not need compatibility mode at all. WC3 initial release versions require compatibility mode to work but the latest patch (which you should be using) does not.

Most well written programs should not need it. It is only required if the program abused/exploited behaviours of the old Windows API that no longer exist. For example DLL path will not search current directory anymore (due to security) where as it did in old OSes (which can cause a missing DLL error). Additionally getting the version of the Windows API will obviously return a newer version number than what the program was built for so it could break some badly written compatibility code (not defaulting to last API behaviour when seeing an unexpected API version).

 

[edo494]

largest map size is actually probably 512x512, but it is not accessable via JNGP(someone claimed this in chat before, its not my claim, just passing it)

 

[andreasaspenberg]

you are both wrong. map size can not be increased above 256 x 256. i just tried it in the editor. i am running version 1.26 of the frozen throne which is the latest and if i do not run it in windows 2000 compatibility mode or windows 98 compatibility mode it crash right away with a memory related message.(memory cannot be.) it only happens on battle.net i believe.

 

[Dr Super Good]

you are both wrong. map size can not be increased above 256 x 256.

Here, have a 480*480 WC3 map of randomly generated water height.

The limit for standard WE is 256*256 but the actual game limit is at least 480*480 (some claim even larger is possible).

i am running version 1.26 of the frozen throne which is the latest and if i do not run it in windows 2000 compatibility mode or windows 98 compatibility mode it crash right away with a memory related message.(memory cannot be.) it only happens on battle.net i believe.

This should not happen with Windows 7. If it does then your OS installation must be damaged (the APIs it loads are broken). My version of WC3 runs find for all purposes natively in Windows 7.

Try running the windows command "SFC /scannow" as an administrator. This can fix damaged or broken DLLs.

 

[edo494]

just because you cant != it cant happen.

Did you ever hear of JNGP?

 

[andreasaspenberg]

blizzard nearly banned me for asking permission to use it so i will not risk getting banned. i will only use software that blizzard allows.(i do play on battle.net unlike some other people.) it also contains a virus so it will not work on my pc as security essentials stops it.(windows 8 would delete it without warning.) i have had enough trouble with viruses.

 

[Dr Super Good]

blizzard nearly banned me for asking permission to use it so i will not risk getting banned. i will only use software that blizzard allows.(i do play on battle.net unlike some other people.) it also contains a virus so it will not work on my pc as security essentials stops it.(windows 8 would delete it without warning.) i have had enough trouble with viruses.

Most maps on BattleNet are made using it. Since it is not modifying how WC3 works it is perfectly fine to play maps made with it. Although it is technically an illegal modification of the editor Blizzard never has to know since the editor never uses the internet so does not tell Blizzard anything about what you do with it.

JNGP does not contain a virus. It operates like a virus but that is what you expect it to do (to inject and modify WE).

 

[edo494]

it hooks into the world editor's memory and performs its things in there, thats why it is flagged as virus, because thats what viruses tend to do(as Dr Super Good noted).

Get your shit straight before you talk crap next time please, aa

 

[andreasaspenberg]

i told blizzard exactly what it did and they said that they will never condone it. they do not allow any programs that hack maps they said. i never got the hacked editor working anyway so i can not use it. certain games was programmed without memory limitations in mind and warcraft 3 is one of them.(another is star wars empire at war) because of that warcraft 3 tries to exceed 4 gigabytes of memory which causes it to crash. star wars empire at war however was patched to fix the issue.

 

[edo494]

but still, just because you failed utterly does not mean largest map warcraft 3 can handle is 256x256, but indeed 480x480 or 512x512(if the person wasnt lying).

They have no real way to tell if you used injected world editor either, because you could jus as much generate the terrain, map size and everything yourself via hex editor no problem.

And once again, as DSG said, a lot, lot, lot maps currently hosted on battle net use this tool and never has anyone been banned for this.

Heck, they dont ban hackers on ladder, why would they give a shit, not like the map can contain virus(surprise: it cant)

 

[andreasaspenberg]

any file can contain a virus and that includes maps. most maps these days is hosted by bots and therefore difficult to track to their source. i host without bots and blizzard is already watching my activity.(they banned me once already but they have since locked their email contact.) i have a question that is slightly off topic: where can i find a 64 bit version of opera.(the official website only provides 32 bit versions.)

 

[edo494]

if they dont supply one, you have to go find a nightly build for it, or build it yourself(both assume the code is open-source).

If the code is not open source, and they dont provide 64bit version of their program, you simply cant.

I am not going to comment on the virus, because apparently the part of your brain where logical thinking should be residing is either missing or nonfunctional

 

[andreasaspenberg]

you really have the nerve to insult my logic. then you do not know what logic is most likely. i found my 64 bit version of opera on a different website than the official so then it is logical to assume that it is possible to find an updated version on a unofficial website as well. i am using version 12.17 which is more than a year old.

 

[Dr Super Good]

warcraft 3 tries to exceed 4 gigabytes of memory which causes it to crash.

It should crash around 2-3GB? I doubt something as old as it was built to use the 4 GB address range. Mainly because such builds were poorly compatible with XP and earlier OSes.

 

[edo494]

you really have the nerve to insult my logic. then you do not know what logic is most likely. i found my 64 bit version of opera on a different website than the official so then it is logical to assume that it is possible to find an updated version on a unofficial website as well. i am using version 12.17 which is more than a year old.

Go and read once again what I said in my last reply.

If you found unofficial one, why dont you download that anyways? or you are in the group of paranoids(aka stalmanist)?

 

[andreasaspenberg]

i am unable to find a newer version on that unofficial website than what i am using. it does not really matter what amount of memory warcraft 3 is using when it exceeds its limit. when a game exceeds its memory limit it will crash but, it never exceeds its memory limit in windows 2000 compatibility mode and therefore it never crashes.

 

[Dr Super Good]

when a game exceeds its memory limit it will crash but, it never exceeds its memory limit in windows 2000 compatibility mode and therefore it never crashes.

Does it crash with an out of memory error? Other crashes can happen when it is not out of memory.

In anycase a 480*480 map only uses only a few MB more memory to play so map size has nothing to do with it. If you run out of memory playing a map it must mean it is a "leaky" pile of "****" since even a normal leaky map never gets past 2GB memory used (since it will crash then on 2000 or XP32 as out of memory).

am unable to find a newer version on that unofficial website than what i am using.

Opera no longer supports separate 64bit builds from what I can tell. If it does they will be automatically installed with the same installer since they only provide you with a single installer.

As for your memory rubbish, here.
WC3 is probably limited to 2GB of memory (nowhere near the 4GB nonsense you claim) because it was probably not built with "IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE" for compatibility purposes at the time. If it was built with "IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE" then it would be limited to 4 GB memory on your 64bit OS no matter the compatibility mode used. If it was built with "IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE and 4GT" then it would be limited to 3 GB on 32bit OSes anyway, otherwise it would still be limited to 2GB on them (Windows 2000 / XP32).

I would also like to remind people that 32bit OSes can support more than 4GB of memory, just only Windows Server 32bit used that feature. The reason is likely because it only impacts performance negatively unlike running in 64bit mode where you get some performance advantages (extra registers, more instructions etc).

 

[edo494]

anyone heard of PAE? yes, windows comes with PAE too...

Andreas, if you have all this godly(but completly wrong) knowledge, why the fuck you ask shitty questions in here? with that amount of knowledge you would be able to fix it within few mins.

I proclaim you as a troll that makes himself look like idiot, so not really troll, just idiot(pretending to be idiot does not make you troll)

 

[Dr Super Good]

anyone heard of PAE? yes, windows comes with PAE too...

Microsoft Windows supports PAE if booted with the appropriate option, but according to Geoff Chappell, Microsoft may limit 32-bit versions of Windows to 4 GB as a matter of its licensing policy.

The original releases of Windows XP and Windows XP SP1 used PAE mode to allow RAM to extend beyond the 4 GB address limit. However, it led to compatibility problems with 3rd party drivers which led Microsoft to remove this capability in Windows XP Service Pack 2. Windows XP SP2 and later, by default, on processors with the no-execute (NX) or execute-disable (XD) feature, runs in PAE mode in order to allow NX.[15] The no execute (NX, or XD for execution disable) bit resides in bit 63 of the page table entry and, without PAE, page table entries on 32-bit systems have only 32 bits; therefore PAE mode is required in order to exploit the NX feature. However, "client" versions of 32-bit Windows (Windows XP SP2 and later, Windows Vista, Windows 7) limit physical address space to the first 4 GB for driver compatibility [11] via the licensing limitation mechanism,[10] even though these versions do run in PAE mode if NX support is enabled.

As such to avoid creating a buggy mess they use PAE on 32bit systems but still limit to 4GB so developers do not need to worry about >32 bit pointers.

The process limit of 2GB is because of the OS reserving part of the address space. You need to build a 32bit process as both IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE and 4GT to allow it to use more than 2GB of memory even if the OS maximum is 4GB. 64 bit builds still need IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE to access more than 2GB of memory however that is enabled by default (and likely required). A 32bit build using IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE running on a 64bit system will be able to use all 4GB of 32bit address space.

This is all beside the point however. WC3 is likely not built with IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE because of its age. As such it likely is limited to only 2GB of memory before it crashes with an OOM error even if the OS is limited to 4GB or more.

 

[GhostWolf]

I don't know, seems to me like he is pretty successful. He made you write the same exact things that he did in his previous threads, and you just keep doing it.

 

[edo494]

well, he is making idiot of himself, not me, so Im happy with that outcome

 

[Deleted member 212788]

well, he is making idiot of himself, not me, so Im happy with that outcome

Just tell him to downgrade to a 32-bit processor and DDR1 while he's at it. At least it won't require him to run compatibility mode

Ugh, these threads are both fun to read and make me cringe and cry.
Not entirely sure why his WC3 crashes unless the triggers in his map were leaky as fuck. I've only had several map crashes and those were usually on the same maps so I've come to expect it of some.

 

[andreasaspenberg]

the map never crashes when i run it in windows 2000 compatibility mode(works with windows 98 mode as well) but, when i do not, it crash every time with a memory access problem. as long as i can run the game perfectly i do not mind a little compatibility mode usage. i was however planning to let this topic slide down but you bumped it.

 

[Deleted member 212788]

the map never crashes when i run it in windows 2000 compatibility mode(works with windows 98 mode as well) but, when i do not, it crash every time with a memory access problem. as long as i can run the game perfectly i do not mind a little compatibility mode usage. i was however planning to let this topic slide down but you bumped it.

Do yourself a favor and do a fresh install of Windows 8.1 AS WELL AS a good AV program. Trust me, it will work fine. Unless you somehow manage to do something wrong when clicking next in the installation Wizard ._.

EDIT: BEFORE you say it's too expensive, go to reddit and get one for like 15$.

 

[LordDz]

the map never crashes when i run it in windows 2000 compatibility mode(works with windows 98 mode as well) but, when i do not, it crash every time with a memory access problem. as long as i can run the game perfectly i do not mind a little compatibility mode usage. i was however planning to let this topic slide down but you bumped it.

How do you plan on releasing your map if it only works in windows 2000 compatibility mode?

 

[andreasaspenberg]

i will release it with a warning. back on topic: i tried to install a gtx 960 in my pc but, i got an error consisting of 4 bips. what does that mean?

 

[edo494]

sound code, that depends on the motherboard. Try searching the interwebs for your motherboard, preferably for sound codes. They should have some kind of table representing each beep combination to words, because 4 beeps are as helpful as hammer in this case

 

[Deleted member 212788]

i will release it with a warning. back on topic: i tried to install a gtx 960 in my pc but, i got an error consisting of 4 bips. what does that mean?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-on_self-test

 

[andreasaspenberg]

ok. any solutions to how i can fix the graphics card problem.

 

[Dr Super Good]

ok. any solutions to how i can fix the graphics card problem.

There is no solution, since we do not know what the error is as we have no idea what your motherboard is.

It could be one of the motherboard power connectors is not properly inserted. In which case push it in.

It could be your PSU is not able to output enough power for the system with the graphics card. In which case buy a more powerful PSU. I would have hoped you took this into consideration before buying the graphic card.

 

[andreasaspenberg]

i made sure that the card would fit the power supply and that is one of the things i asked about in advance. power connectors being disconnected generates an error message. i notice that the card was very hot when i removed it. it have a special cooling system where the fans will only start when it reaches a certain temperature and as such the fans was inactive. hope this helps you provide a solution.

 

[Dr Super Good]

hope this helps you provide a solution.

Still need your motherboard make/model to know what the error meant exactly. With out that there is no way to even consider recommending a solution.

 

[Deleted member 212788]

Out of curiosity, what wattage and what exact model is your PSU?

 

[andreasaspenberg]

it is 450 wats. the pc is a HP desktop model h8-1140sc. the bios is locked and as such i can not configure it myself at all.
what does Motherboard timer not operational (check all PSU to MB connectors seated) mean.

 

[Dr Super Good]

what does Motherboard timer not operational (check all PSU to MB connectors seated) mean.

The motherboard is not getting enough power. One or more of the PSU connectors on it that should be connected is disconnected, not connected properly or is not supplying enough power to be registered as properly connected. As such the motherboard is not able to function.

Check the motherboard user manual for information on which PSU connectors are required, their voltages and their specific purposes. Specifics depend on the motherboard you are using, hence why you need to consult its manual. The manual should also state the error codes, or at least the BIOS type which is producing them.

 

[andreasaspenberg]

i have no manual. the pc came without instructions at all. it works perfectly with the 650 ti boost card and only generates the error message when the 960 card is inserted. bip errors are based on what generation the main board is from according to wikipedia and there is 2 of them. the error is posted was according to wikipedia.

 

[Dr Super Good]

The motherboard might be incompatible with the card. OEM boards can be designed to accept a limited range of hardware.

 

[andreasaspenberg]

could it help to upgrade the bios?(i downloaded a bios upgrade some days ago but did not run it.)