Old Graphics card died, much grief with the new one

[cornemuse]

On one of my computers, the MSI card died, (one w/o a fan, I mounted one myself on it, to the heat sink, those suckers get HOT!)

It happened when I connected to a new monitor, it wouldnt work, reconnecting old monitor & now nothing, with either monitor. No changes on computer, only un-plug & plug of cable (old = dvi to dvi, new = dvi with adapter to hdmi on new monitor)

Old monitor 21" Acer, (bought last December, too small for me, my eyes are 68 years old! "What a drag it is getting old" <- Mick Jagger), new = Samsung 27"

Got a new Radeon R7240 card 2 gigs ddr3 etc, much more than I need, was on sale + rebate at Frys.

System = XP Pro, sp3, Elitegroup nforce6n-a mobo, amd athlon cpu, 4 gig ddr3 ram, 500 g WD hdd, PaintddotNet, Graphics Workshop, & this new card. All I use it for is graphics, not even connected to the net. Once, a year or two ago, connected, to instal paintnet. I d/l (whatever) with the computer I'm using right now, virus-scan & copy to thumb drive to transfer,

The screen is slow, I mean SLOOOOW. just the screen, if I scroll a large image, how to describe it, it jumps across the screen like 1/2" inch at a time, if 2/3rds the image is on the screen, it takes 5 or 6 seconds for it to scroll the remaining 1/3rd to view. Clicking in the scroll bar is somewhat faster, till the 'last' click, then its the same 'jumping' again, all directions.

I removed the old drivers & installed new, I had to install "dotnet framework" as required by Radeon. <- this was when the trouble really started.

If I 'right click' to get a box, initally its like 'grayed out' for a second, then normal, say click 'copy' takes a second, click another folder, rt-clik, etc clik 'paste' same issue, but the actual pasting goes normal ie very large (1-2 gig, I experemented) files copy move normally, as before, its all just on the screen where the problem is.

I've searched the web to no avail, , , , Help!

-corne-

[usually_quiet]

Remember the 4GB limit on a 32-bit OS? Your new video card is reducing the amount of RAM available for the OS and programs by 2 GB. Some of the remaining 2GB is allocated to devices on the motherboard, which means you'll be lucky to have 1.5 GB of RAM available for the OS and programs. Get a VGA card that is more like your old one with about the same amount of memory. Windows XP can only support DirectX 9 so getting a fancy video card is a total waste of money unless you plan to upgrade to Windows 7 64-bit.

[Edit]There are XP 32-bit drivers available from AMD for the R7 240.

[newpball]

Did you verify this card supports XP?

[cornemuse]

I was thinking about returning it, now definitely it goes back. I just figured with that much ram on the card itself, (2 gigs) all would be good.

-c-

[newpball]

Remember the 4GB limit on a 32-bit OS? Your new video card is reducing the amount of RAM available for the OS and programs by 2 GB.

How so?

[usually_quiet]

Remember the 4GB limit on a 32-bit OS? Your new video card is reducing the amount of RAM available for the OS and programs by 2 GB.

How so?

Either correct me or go be a smartass somewhere else. I'm waiting...

[aedipuss]

LOL uq there are lots of non-tech/youngsters that haven't a clue about 32 bit operating systems.

for those without the knowledge.

The 4GB limit refers to total addressable memory space and not just the RAM installed. It's a total made up of system RAM, graphics RAM, PCI memory range, ACPI and a few other bits and pieces including all the roms on any add-in cards.

[Constant Gardener]

Video card memory has its own address space - and has no effect on available RAM. It's onboard graphics that share main memory. There was something called "memory aperture" with AGP and earlier interfaces but that's history now.

Weird symptoms, though. I'd try the card in another computer and see if the problem migrates.

[aedipuss]

Video card memory has its own address space - and has no effect on available RAM. It's onboard graphics that share main memory. There was something called "memory aperture" with AGP and earlier interfaces but that's history now.

Weird symptoms, though. I'd try the card in another computer and see if the problem migrates.

baloney. not applicable on 32 bit o.s.'s

[newpball]

Video card memory has its own address space - and has no effect on available RAM. It's onboard graphics that share main memory. There was something called "memory aperture" with AGP and earlier interfaces but that's history now.

Weird symptoms, though. I'd try the card in another computer and see if the problem migrates.

baloney. not applicable on 32 bit o.s.'s

You are wrong!

The video card mentioned is not an integrated video card instead the video card has its own memory, memory which is only accessible to the GPU.

I really don't understand what's up with all the hatefulness here!

[usually_quiet]

Video card memory has its own address space - and has no effect on available RAM. It's onboard graphics that share main memory. There was something called "memory aperture" with AGP and earlier interfaces but that's history now.

Weird symptoms, though. I'd try the card in another computer and see if the problem migrates.

That is not what we are talking about.A 32-bit OS only has 4GB of address space total, and any addresses for memory beyond that become invisible to the OS. The OS still has to be able to access the addresses making up the video card's memory to be able to use it to display anything, so it counts towards the 4GB total. The excess RAM installed on a motherboard could be used for a RAM drive, but not for running programs and OS services.

[Constant Gardener]

Anyone care to plug a 4GB PCI-e card into a 32-bit system with 4GB RAM and see what happens?

[newpball]

Video card memory has its own address space - and has no effect on available RAM. It's onboard graphics that share main memory. There was something called "memory aperture" with AGP and earlier interfaces but that's history now.

Weird symptoms, though. I'd try the card in another computer and see if the problem migrates.

That is not what we are talking about.A 32-bit OS only has 4GB of address space total, and any addresses for memory beyond that become invisible to the OS. The OS still has to be able to access the addresses making up the video card's memory to be able to use it to display anything, so it counts towards the 4GB total. The excess RAM installed on a motherboard could be used for a RAM drive, but not for running programs and OS services.

You are completely wrong!

Video memory on board a video card is not managed, if fact it is not even directly accessible, by Windows, it is completely managed by the GPU and the interface is controlled by the video driver.

[usually_quiet]

You are completely wrong!

Video memory on board a video card is not managed, if fact it is not even directly accessible, by Windows, it is completely managed by the GPU and the interface is controlled by the video driver.

...and you didn't say that early on because it is too much fun to start pointless arguments, stir up anger, and feel like you have control over others.

I really don't understand what's up with all the hatefulness here!

Yes you do. You appear to have a serious personality disorder of some kind. I'd tell you to seek professional help, but people with serious personality disorders usually like who they are and feel no need to change.

[aedipuss]

wow i'm lost??? i thought everyone that knows low level programming agreed that a 32bit os can only access ~4gb of total memory, ram addresses or rom addresses it didn't matter as they all load into ram on boot.

[usually_quiet]

wow i'm lost??? i thought everyone that knows low level programming agreed that a 32bit os can only access ~4gb of total memory, ram addresses or rom addresses it didn't matter as they all load into ram on boot.

I know I could read from and write to video memory long ago when I was doing that kind of programming, but it doesn't look like it is true anymore.

Even if the RAM on the video cards doesn't count towards the 4GB total, video cards do have to interact with the OS and are still assigned address space that counts against the 4GB total. I haven't been able to find out if that amount varies or if the amount of video card RAM affects it.

[Bjs]

DirectX 9.0C and prior, video card ram must be duplicated into system ram ... This is not the case with later directx versions

[usually_quiet]

DirectX 9.0C and prior, video card ram must be duplicated into system ram ... This is not the case with later directx versions

So for the OP's system, a video card more like his old one with a smaller amount of VRAM will indeed work better than one with 2GB.

[Bjs]

So for the OP's system, a video card more like his old one with a smaller amount of VRAM will indeed work better than one with 2GB.

This would be true but the card would need to be fully compliant (not just compatible) with chosen os as I mention further on.

if I scroll a large image

Yes ... and ... this is a common experience as image editors consume more ram which can reach a point where system performance degrades ... jerkiness, etc.

Change desktop settings to default (no custom) and disable all 3d options (popup menu's)... now try again.

Old card died ... assuming slot is fine, ie no yellow exclamation mark in hardware.

If you had a win 7 install disk and another hard drive it be worth creating a test install environment in which to confirm the issue.

While drivers are available for xp, higher functions designed for later operating systems are not, meaning card performance issues ... The test environment would show where the problem is.

[cornemuse]

I was thinking about returning it, now definitely it goes back. I just figured with that much ram on the card itself, (2 gigs) all would be good.

-c-

I returned it about 3 hours after above post & got an 'asus hd5450', which was labeled in sys requirements as being compatible with XP, problem solved.
The radeon never stated either on or in the box that it was incompatible, but it was for me anyway.

-c-

[usually_quiet]

I was thinking about returning it, now definitely it goes back. I just figured with that much ram on the card itself, (2 gigs) all would be good.

-c-

I returned it about 3 hours after above post & got an 'asus hd5450', which was labeled in sys requirements as being compatible with XP, problem solved.
The radeon never stated either on or in the box that it was incompatible, but it was for me anyway.

-c-

I'm glad you could find something that worked well.