Recent content by big_cliche

There's one other thing I've been wondering about. With the new 460 installed, Deferred Procedure Calls (in Process Explorer) use 1-2% of the CPU. Just wondering if this is normal GTX 460 behavior. With the 8800GTS (and every other card I've owned), my CPU idled at 0%.

Open the nvidia control panel, select "adjust desktop color settings", scroll down and select "YCbCr444" from the digital color format drop down menu.

You were right all along. I finally switched the color format to YCbCr444. All of the deep blacks and beautiful, artificial colors are back! :D I always thought RGB was for monitors and that YCbCr could only be used with TVs. Thanks for the help.

You could probably overclock the 9800GT to match the speed of the slightly faster 8800GTX. Then, you'd have a fast, efficient card with full H.264 decoding to boot!

Well, no difference at all using the Mini-HDMI, but that's not surprising since the HDMI and DVI probably use the same signal. "did you update to the gtx 400 series drivers yet?" Yes. "Are you using RGB color or YCBr?" RGB. I don't think my monitor supports YCbCr. It's just a plain PC...

Yeah, I also played around with digital vibrance. I know digital is digital, but I wonder if the mini-HDMI would look better than the DVI output. I was using HDMI with my old 8800GTS. I'm gonna give that a try.

I just installed a GTX 460 video card. The first thing I noticed was that the display didn't look as "bold" and "colorful" as it did with my 8800GTS. Blacks look grey, and the other colors are too...accurate. I don't want my LCD to look like a plasma! I played with the color, gamma, and...

Thanks! Man it's nice to see those ultra-low CPU utilization numbers in the task manager again. I know it's not very secure, but I'm a pretty safe surfer. Might even save a few $$ on the power bill since 10.0 doesn't stress my 125w 6000+ nearly as much as 10.1. :)

I'm running Win7--Macs suck. ^_^ I was never able to use my GPU for Flash acceleration, but with Flash 10.0 I could play 1080p video using only ~25% of the CPU. I don't know why they had to make CPU-only decoding 3+ times slower with 10.1. Maybe this newfangled HTML5 is a good idea after all.

Sh!t. How the hell did they manage to make 10.1 so much slower? I think fullscreen 1080p is completely maxing out the CPU. Video is perfectly smooth, but the fan kicks up a notch--something it never did with 10.0.

Thanks Rich, but that site (as well as the many other sites I've tried) link to 10.1

No difference after disabling hardware acceleration.

I updated to Flash 10.1 about a week ago. What a disappointment. It's MUCH slower than Flash 10.0. Yes, I've enabled hardware acceleration (not that it matters; I have the old G80 version of the 8800GTX which does not accelerate Flash/H264). Flash 10.0 YouTube performance: 360/480p: 0-4% CPU...

I'm using the Swan M10s ($120 from AudioInsider), which is a more of a 2.05 setup than a 2.1 (it has two satellites and a "midwoofer"). For the price, it produces incredible mids and highs--far better than any Logitech. Connected to an X-Fi, the bass is also surprisingly good. The only catch...

The TV is less than a month old, so I'm still paranoid. :hmm: I caught Poltergeist a few nights ago and somehow watched the whole thing. There are quite a few "strobe light" sequences in this movie, as you probably all know. Here's a silly question: are rapid bursts of blinding light bad for...