Tuesday, 3 March 2015

Need for Speed : series games list


Need for Speed   games list

 966x423_Filter_Heros_NFSTheRun.jpg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Need for Speed

Original release date(s):

EU March 20, 1996

JP April 19, 1996

NA May 27, 1997

Release years by system:
1994 - 3DO Interactive Multiplayer,
1995 - PC (DOS),
1996 - PlayStation, Sega Saturn

Notes: A special edition of the game was released later in North America in 1996 for PC.
The game was released in Japan as Over Drivin' DX.

Need for Speed II

Original release date(s):

NA March 31, 1997

EU May 1997

JP July 3, 1997

Release years by system:
1997 - PC (Windows), PlayStation

Notes: A special edition of the game was released on November 6, 1997 in North America for PC.
The game was produced in Japan as Over Drivin' II.

Need for Speed III: Hot Pursuit

Original release date(s):

NA March 25, 1998

EU April 1998

JP September 23, 1998

Release years by system:
1998 - PC (Windows), PlayStation

Notes: The game was released in Japan as Over Drivin' III: Hot Pursuit.

Need for Speed: High Stakes

Original release date(s):

NA March 1, 1999

JP June 17, 1999

EU March 30, 1999

Release years by system:
1999 - PC (Windows), PlayStation

Notes: The game was released in Japan as Over Drivin' IV.
The game was released in Europe and Brazil as Road Challenge.
First game to feature a damage model.

Need for Speed: Porsche Unleashed

Original release date(s):

NA February 29, 2000
EU June 29, 2000

Release years by system:
2000 - PC (Windows), PlayStation,
2004 - Game Boy Advance

Notes: Also known as Need for Speed: Porsche 2000 in Europe, and Need for Speed: Porsche in Germany and Latin America.
Last game in the saga to be released for a fifth-generation console.

Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit 2

Original release date(s):

NA October 2, 2002
EU October 25, 2002

Release years by system:
2002 - GameCube, PlayStation 2, PC (Windows), Xbox

Notes: First game in the series to be released for the major sixth generation consoles.

Need for Speed: Underground

Original release date(s):

NA November 17, 2003

EU November 21, 2003

JP December 25, 2003

Release years by system:
2003 - Game Boy Advance, GameCube, PC (Windows), PlayStation 2, Xbox 2005¡ÂȘArcade

Notes: First game to take place in a generic city.

Need for Speed: Underground 2

Original release date(s):

NA November 15, 2004

EU November 19, 2004

JP December 22, 2004

AUS July 27, 2005

Release years by system:
2004 - Game Boy Advance, GameCube, Mobile, Nintendo DS, PC (Windows), PlayStation 2, Xbox

Need for Speed: Underground Rivals

Original release date(s):

NA March 14, 2005

EU September 1, 2005

JP February 24, 2005

Release years by system:
2005 - PlayStation Portable

Notes: First Need for Speed released on PlayStation Portable, only available on PlayStation Portable.

Need for Speed: Most Wanted

Original release date(s):

NA November 15, 2005

EU November 24, 2005

AUS November 25, 2005

JP December 22, 2005

Release years by system:
2005 - Game Boy Advance, GameCube, Mobile Nintendo DS, PC (Windows), PlayStation 2, PlayStation Portable, Xbox, Xbox 360

Notes: First game in the series to be released for the Xbox 360.

Need for Speed: Carbon

Original release date(s):

NA October 31, 2006

EU November 3, 2006

JP December 21, 2006

AUS December 26, 2006

Release years by system:
2006 - GameCube, Mobile PC (Windows) / (Mac OS X), PlayStation 2, PlayStation 3, PlayStation Portable,[citation needed Wii, Xbox 360

Notes: Last game in the series to be released for the GameCube, Xbox, and Game Boy Advance; first game to be released for the Wii and PlayStation 3.
To date, the only one released for Mac OS X

Need for Speed: ProStreet

Original release date(s):

NA November 14, 2007

AUS November 22, 2007

EU November 23, 2007

JP January 31, 2008

Release years by system:
2007 - Mobile, PC (Windows), Nintendo DS, PlayStation 2, PlayStation 3, PlayStation Portable, Wii, Xbox 360

Need for Speed: Undercover

Original release date(s):

NA November 18, 2008

EU November 21, 2008

JP December 18, 2008

Release years by system:
2008 - Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, Wii, PlayStation 2, Nintendo DS, PlayStation Portable, PC and Mobile

Notes: Last game in the series to be released for a sixth generation console.
First to be released for iOS.

Need for Speed: Shift

Original release date(s):

NA September 15, 2009

AUS September 15, 2009

EU September 17, 2009

UK September 18, 2009

JP November 12, 2009

Release years by system:
2009 - Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, PlayStation Portable, PC and Mobile

Notes: Last game in the series to be released for the PlayStation Portable.

Need for Speed: Nitro

Original release date(s):

NA November 3, 2009

EU November 6, 2009

Release years by system:
2009 - Wii, Nintendo DS

Notes: Nintendo platform exclusive.

Need for Speed: World

Original release date(s):

NA July 27, 2010

EU July 27, 2010

Release years by system:
2010 - PC

Need for Speed: Nitro-X

Original release date(s):

NA November 15, 2010

EU November 26, 2010
AUS November 26, 2010

Release years by system:
2010 - Nintendo DSi and DSi XL, via DSiWare service

Notes: First downloadable, portable Need for Speed title. Requires 800 Nintendo Points to download.
The game is also available for the Nintendo 3DS by extension, via Nintendo eShop.

Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit (2010)

Original release date(s):

NA November 16, 2010

EU November 19, 2010

Release years by system:
2010 - Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, PC, Wii

Notes: Unlike HD versions, which were ground-up developments, Wii version used recycled tracks from Need for Speed: Nitro.

Shift 2: Unleashed

Original release date(s):
March 2011 Release years by system:
2011 - Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, PC

Need for Speed: The Run

Original release date(s):
November 2011 Release years by system:
2011 - Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, PC, Wii, Nintendo 3DS

Notes: Last Need For Speed made by Black Box Studios

Need for Speed: Most Wanted (2012)

Original release date(s):

NA October 30, 2012

EU November 1, 2012

Release years by system:
2012 - Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, PC, PlayStation Vita
2013 - Wii U

Notes: First game in the series set to be released for an eighth generation console. First in the series on the PlayStation Vita and Wii U.

Need for Speed Rivals

Original release date(s):

NA November 15, 2013

EU November 21, 2013

Release years by system:
2013 -PC, PlayStation 3, PlayStation 4, Xbox 360, Xbox One

.
966x423_Filter_Heros_NFSTheRun.jpg


___________________________________________

Need More Detail ?   contact me !!

I sell a lot of stuff, program. knowledge, etc..  at a small cost.
I will guide you step by step, personally.
My Paypal Account is :   ksw.industries@gmail.com

Don't know how to send money ?   Click here for detail about Paypal account.
http://xyberpast.blogspot.com/2014/05/how-to-get-my-program.html

Don't have money? OK! Here is another way to get the program.
how to get my program - Free of charge

Monday, 2 March 2015

all HDMI cables are the same

All   HDMI  cables are the same

.


HDMI cable  
HDMI cable
 Why all HDMI cables are the same

Expensive HDMI cables are a rip-off and offer no difference in picture quality over cheap ones. So when a salesman tries to up-sell, politely tell him he's wrong and move on with the sale.

Salespeople, retailers, and especially cable manufacturers want you to believe that you'll get better picture and sound quality with a more expensive HDMI cable.

They're lying. You see, there's lots of money in cables. Your money.

Dozens of reputable and disreputable companies market HDMI cables, and many outright lie to consumers about the "advantages" of their product.

Worse, the profit potential of cables is so great, every retailer pushes high-end HDMI cables in the hopes of duping the buyer into spending tens, if not hundreds, of dollars more than necessary.

Here's the deal: expensive HDMI cables offer no difference in picture quality over cheap HDMI cables.

The signal
The first thing to understand is what's transmitted over the cable in the first place. HDMI uses Transition Minimized Differential Signaling, or TMDS.
TMDS has two basic aspects. The first is that the ones and zeros at the source (a Blu-ray player or HD cable/satellite box) are not exactly the ones and zeros your TV uses to create a picture -- at least, not in exactly the same order. Before sending the signal out via the HDMI output, the ones and zeros are rearranged to minimize how many transitions there are. So instead of 10101010, the transmission may look like 11110000. If you really like math, how it does this is cool, but it's not really important to understanding the concept as a whole.

HDMI plug end
HDMI
Even though this conversion is weird, it makes it much more likely that the data transmitted can be rebuilt on the other end (as in, at the display).
The second part of TMDS (the DS part) is the HDMI cable itself. Each HDMI cable is actually multiple small, copper wires. Two versions of the data are sent over different wires. One of these is out of phase with the "real" signal. The TV receives all the data, puts the out-of-phase signal back in phase, then compares it to the "real" signal. Any noise picked up along the way will now be out of phase, and as such it is effectively negated and ignored.
If you're an audio person, this is similar to how balanced (XLR) cables work.
TMDS works really well, allowing for short cables and fairly long cables to carry what is a pretty intense amount of data. It also means you can have inexpensive cables that work just as well as expensive ones.
More important to our discussion, it means that when something goes wrong, it goes really wrong. It's often said that with an HDMI signal, you either get everything and it's perfect, or it isn't perfect and you get nothing. In fact, I've said this. If you're getting an image that looks correct, and there are no dropouts in the audio or video, then you're getting everything that's being sent. If the cable is faulty, or it's a really long run with an under-built cable, most of the time you'll just get nothing. No picture at all.
The question I've often gotten is what if you're right on that digital precipice? That teetering space between "everything's good" and "I got nothin.'"
I'm glad you asked.
Video
As you've read, the ones and zeros of an HD image trot happily along, more or less, from your source to your TV. Over short runs, there really isn't anything other than a faulty cable (which itself isn't that likely) that would cause any issue. Over long runs, it's possible that interference of some kind, or a poorly made cable (more on this later), can reduce the "quality" of the signal to the point where the TV can't make heads or tails of it. Heads or tails -- that's a digital joke.
At this point, you're on the edge of the digital precipice. The most likely outcome is sparkles. Here's what they look like:


HDMI sparklesAn HDMI cable "fail" leads to sparkles (the white pixels). Image taken on a 50-inch flat-panel TV attempting to show a 1080p Blu-ray concert video.

HDMI sparkles
A close-up view of the HDMI cable failure known as sparkles. Image taken from a projected image, 1080p source and display. Geoffrey Morrison/CNET

Less severe HDMI sparkles
Sparkles don't always have to look so extreme. Here is a less severe example. Note these are still artifacts, indicating that the cable is not able to pass the intended signal. Same Blu-ray disc as above, different Blu-ray player on the same projector. The different colors in the sparkles here are due to the camera. Geoffrey Morrison/CNET
It looks a lot like snow, or static. The data received by the TV wasn't enough to figure out what those failed pixels are supposed to be. Your TV likes you, though, and it really wants to show you an image. So it builds the rest of the video, minus the failed pixels.
It's important to note that this artifact is pretty unlikely, even over long runs. You are way more likely to just not get anything at all.
If it's so unlikely, why do I bring it up? Because it's important to understand that it is impossible for the pixel to be different. It's either exactly what it's supposed to be, or it fails and looks like one of the images above. In order for one HDMI cable to have "better picture quality" than another, it would imply that the final result between the source and display could somehow be different. It's not possible. It's either everything that was sent, or full of very visible errors (sparkles). The image cannot have more noise, or less resolution, worse color, or any other picture-quality difference. The pixels can't change. They can either be there (perfect, yay!) or not (nothing, errors, boo!).
All the claims about differences in picture quality are remnants of the analog days, which were barely valid then and not at all valid now. There is no way for different cables to create a different color temperature , change the contrast ratio , or anything else picture-quality-wise.
At this point some of you are saying "but sparkles are noise." No, I consider sparkles an example of a signal failure and as such requires a new HDMI cable. If you see sparkles, you need a different cable.
Another potential "fail" is a failure of the HDCP copy protection, which shows up as a total snowy image, a blinking image, or something else hard to miss. This is actually even less likely, as the TMDS is more likely to fail than the channel HDCP requires for its handshake. I have seen this in my testing, though, so it's worth mentioning.

Audio
Several companies claim that their HDMI cables sound better than other HDMI cables. One in particular claims this is because there is no error correction on the audio and its cables are more likely to transmit all the data.
First of all, this is untrue. Audio over HDMI actually has more error correction than the video signal. But even if this weren't the case, it's still utter nonsense. Dolby has extensive error correction built into its codecs. In other words, if you are sending the Dolby Digital Plus, TrueHD, or whatever bitstream over HDMI from your Blu-ray player, the data going into the DAC in your receiver is bit-for-bit the same as what's on the disc. DTS presumably works in the same way, though the company ignored my repeated requests for info. Cheap or expensive, the cable is irrelevant when it comes to transmitting Dolby or DTS.
If the cable is faulty or if there is some cataclysm causing data to be lost between the player and the receiver, the decoders are designed to mute instead of blasting out compromised data. There is no such thing as an audio version of "sparkles." Instead, you just get a total dropout of the audio. So if you're getting audio dropouts, it's possible it's the HDMI cable. But if you're not getting video issues as well, the problem is likely elsewhere. If the audio isn't muting, then as long as you're outputting an audio codec, you're getting exactly what's on the disc.
If you're playing a CD on a Blu-ray player, the output is PCM to the receiver. This data is packetized, just like the rest of the audio and video signal. As such, it is error-corrected. However, jitter is far more likely than with an optical or coax connection. In discussions with several audio equipment manufacturers since the original publication of this article, I've been told by all of them that the DAC in the receiver is going to have a far greater effect on the sound than the jitter in the transmission. Before you leap on that, keep in mind that the DAC has a smaller effect on the sound than the amp, the speakers, and definitely less than the room itself.
Oh, and in case that wasn't clear, the jitter is inherent in the HDMI transmission itself. The cable isn't going to have any effect.

Likely transmission
The big "if" that I've been repeating is "if the signal gets there." Over short runs -- a few meters, say -- it is incredibly unlikely that even the cheapest HDMI cable won't work perfectly. Over longer runs, the answer is less clear-cut. The variables of the transmitter and receiver combo in the source and display, plus any repeaters you have in the mix (like a receiver), mean that not every long HDMI cable can handle all the data. By long, I mean 50 feet or more.
If you need to run long HDMI cables, it's a safe bet you're going to run it through a wall. If so, it is vital you test the cable with all your equipment before you install it. Plus, as tempting as it is to get the cheapest cable that will work in this case, just because a cable works with all your current gear, doesn't necessarily mean it will work with your future gear.
If you need a long HDMI cable, check out the tests I did over at HDGuru.com. I tried out several brands of 50-foot-plus HDMI cables, including Monoprice, Monster, and Straight Wire, and got some interesting results.

The cable lies
In the home, there are only four basic types of HDMI cables:
  • High-speed (also called Category 2)
  • High-speed (also called Category 2) with Ethernet
  • Standard-speed (Category 1)
  • Standard-speed (Category 1) with Ethernet
That's it. Standard-speed cables are rated to carry up to 1080i. Many standard-speed cables can probably handle 1080p, they're just not rated for it.
High-speed cables can do well beyond 1080p (up to 4K , so you don't need " 4K HDMI cables "), including 3D. Check out my article on how 3D content works for more info on that.
Honestly, though, if you're buying the right kind of cables (i.e. as cheap as possible), there won't be enough of a price difference to justify not buying a High Speed cable. Any high-speed cable should work with 3D and Audio Return Channel (ARC).
When cable manufacturers claim their cables are "Made for 240 Hz" they are lying to you. The conversion to 120 or 240 Hz is done inside the TV. There is no such thing as a 120 Hz or 240 Hz signal. Blu-ray content is 1080p/24, though your player likely converts this to 1080p/60. This is the highest-bandwidth, non-computer source you can have, and even it is only 60 Hz (check out 1080i and 1080p are the same resolution and What is refresh rate? for more info).
More expensive cables can be more rugged, with thicker casings, a beefy connector, and higher potential durability. If and how much more this is worth is up to you. Personally I find the bulky plugs of many "high-end" HDMI cables to be a nuisance, either falling out, or pulling on the connector in such a way that could potentially pose problems in the long run.



Bottom line
OK, so not all HDMI cables are literally the same. Different manufacturing quality can have a slight affect on the ability to transmit the signal over long distances (50+ feet). Better made cables may even last longer. "Better made" doesn't have to mean more expensive.
No matter what, though, there is absolutely no picture or sound quality difference between a $3.50 cable and a $1,000 cable.
Most of you reading this only need a few feet of HDMI cabling to run from your Blu-ray player and cable/satellite box to your TV. Over these short distances, even the cheapest HDMI cables are going to work. And if they work, as you've read, it means you're getting perfect image and sound. Even over long runs, most cheap cables can do the job just fine. Don't let a salesman try to up-sell you on $300 HDMI cables as the "only way to make your new 240 Hz TV work." Politely tell him he is incorrect and to move on with the sale.
In the year and a half since we first published this article, the most common misunderstanding comes from those used to an analog cable mentality. They understand that over any cable, there is a high likelihood of signal degradation. As in, the signal received by the television isn't as strong or exactly the same as what leaves the source.
However, unlike analog cables, there is no linear correlation between signal degradation and picture degradation. The picture will be perfect up to the point where there's not enough signal to create the image. At that point, you'll have nothing. No picture at all. In the occasional situation where you get sparkles (as mentioned above), this is proof of that the system works (but the cable doesn't). You can't change what the pixel is. It can only be exactly the right pixel as sent by the source, or no pixel at all.



___________________________________________

Need More Detail ?   contact me !!

I sell a lot of stuff, program. knowledge, etc..  at a small cost.
I will guide you step by step, personally.
My Paypal Account is :   ksw.industries@gmail.com

Don't know how to send money ?   Click here for detail about Paypal account.
http://xyberpast.blogspot.com/2014/05/how-to-get-my-program.html

Don't have money? OK! Here is another way to get the program.
how to get my program - Free of charge

Thursday, 26 February 2015

PC Card Games List




PC Card Games List


Hearthstone: Heroes of Warcraft

GameSpot Score8Great
User Avg Score8.2


Hearthstone: Heroes of Warcraft

Hearthstone: Heroes of Warcraft

Hearthstone is a free-to-play digital strategy card game where you can choose one of nine epic Warcraft heroes to play as.

Scrolls

GameSpot Score7Good
User Avg Score6


Scrolls

Scrolls

Magic: The Gathering - Duels of the Planeswalkers 2012

GameSpot Score7Good
User Avg Score7.2


Magic: The Gathering - Duels of the Planeswalkers 2012

Magic: The Gathering - Duels of the Planeswalkers 2012

Building on the success of the original Duels of the Planeswalkers, Duels of the Planeswalkers 2012 will introduce all-new game modes, Planeswalker opponents, decks, and puzzle challenges.

Magic: Duels of the Planeswalkers 2015

GameSpot Score6Fair
User Avg Score3


Magic: Duels of the Planeswalkers 2015

Magic: Duels of the Planeswalkers 2015

Magic 2015—Duels of the Planeswalkers will take the game to a whole new level, deeply engaging fans like never before. With new features including the ability to build customized decks, ...


___________________________________________

Need More Detail ?   contact me !!

I sell a lot of stuff, program. knowledge, etc..  at a small cost.
I will guide you step by step, personally.
My Paypal Account is :   ksw.industries@gmail.com

Don't know how to send money ?   Click here for detail about Paypal account.
http://xyberpast.blogspot.com/2014/05/how-to-get-my-program.html

Don't have money? OK! Here is another way to get the program.
how to get my program - Free of charge

Use TV as a computer monitor for gaming, videos, and more


How to use your TV as a computer monitor for gaming, videos, and more

From sharing photos with the whole family to epic gaming, using your TV as a computer monitor is awesome.



HDMI vs. DisplayPort vs. DVI vs. VGAClockwise from bottom left: HDMI, VGA, DVI.   Below: DisplayPort.







How to use your TV as a computer monitor for gaming, videos, and more

 

.

So you want to share photos, watch videos, or play computer games on the expansive screen of your HDTV? On one hand, this is a really simple how-to: use HDMI!

That, of course, isn't the whole story. Not all computers, and not all TVs, can output or input a signal via HDMI easily. There are also a few tricks to consider.

The easy
Many modern video cards have an HDMI output. This is the easiest way by far to connect a computer to a TV. I do this all the time, with my gaming home-theater PC running through my receiver to my projector. There are few things better in life than Battlefield 3 on a 102-inch screen in full surround sound . The newer video cards even output audio over HDMI, allowing single-cable hookup.
Slightly older video cards have DVI. This larger connector uses the same video transmission tech as HDMI, but lacks audio. So you'll need audio cables to run from your PC to your receiver or TV. Some older TVs had DVI connectivity, so you can use that, too, obviously.
Any HDMI cable will work , and most new video cards come with an adapter to go from their Micro-HDMI output to a normal HDMI connector. These adapters are cheap if your computer didn't come with one.

Still easy, less awesome
If your computer doesn't have HDMI or DVI, it will likely have VGA (RGB-PC) analog outputs. This is the old-school computer monitor connection, and honestly, you shouldn't use it. It will work, but rarely does it look as good as HDMI or DVI. Fine details like text (on icons, especially) can blur, making it hard to read. Still, if VGA is all you've got, go for it.
The trick, of course, is finding a TV with RGB-PC inputs. If your TV doesn't have them, you're out of luck. Despite the component input having red, green, and blue connectors, you can't easily convert RGB to component. There are a few converter boxes out there, but they're not cheap. A simple cable or adapter won't work, as the video itself is different.

Less easy
There are numerous products available that use the USB connector to send computer video to your TV. This certainly works, but if you're planning on using the PC for gaming, know that this method is sure to introduce lag. With first-person games, there will be a slight delay between your mouse input and what you see on screen. Personally, I find any lag unacceptable, but then I'm a pretty hard-core gamer.

It's possible that the lag won't be enough to distract if all you want to do is watch videos. And if you just want to show pictures, then any method will work.

Not all of these products work the same way. Read any user reviews carefully; in a quick scan of products available, I saw many users complaining of hard-to-read text, resolution problems, and other imperfections. Also make sure the product can handle a 1,920x1,080-pixel resolution.

Tips and tricks
If you're using HDMI, the computer and TV should communicate, automatically setting the computer's resolution to 1,920x1,080 pixels (or whatever the native resolution of your TV is). There's no point in outputting a higher resolution than your TV can handle. In fact, forcing your TV to down-convert a higher resolution will almost certainly result in unwanted artifacts.

If you're not sure what your TV's native resolution is, a simple Google search of the model number should tell you. If you bought the TV in the past few years, chances are it's 1,920x1,080 pixels.

If you're going analog with RGB-PC, dig out your TV's owner's manual (or find it online). Quite often, the RGB-PC input won't accept a full 1,920x1,080-pixel resolution. Your video card will usually detect this, but better safe than sorry.

One last tip for gamers. Running modern games at 1080p is quite taxing for the entire system. If you're suffering from choppy frame rates and stuttering, you should be able to reduce the resolution of the game. Again, check your owner's manual for what resolutions are supported. Dropping down to 1,280x720 pixels will probably result in an overly soft image, but it's always supported. Many TVs might support something in the middle, like 1,360x768 or 1,600x900 pixels. These lower resolutions may look fine, while allowing your video card some breathing room.

Given how much content most of us have on our computers, being forced to watch it all on a tiny screen seems needlessly constricting. Using a large TV screen as a monitor is easy, and--especially with gaming--truly awesome.

___________________________________________
Need More Detail ?   contact me !!

I sell a lot of stuff, program. knowledge, etc..  at a small cost.
I will guide you step by step, personally.
My Paypal Account is :   ksw.industries@gmail.com

Don't know how to send money ?   Click here for detail about Paypal account.
http://xyberpast.blogspot.com/2014/05/how-to-get-my-program.html

Don't have money? OK! Here is another way to get the program.
how to get my program - Free of charge



VGA, DVI, HDMI, DisplayPort. Which connection to choose?


HDMI vs. DisplayPort vs. DVI vs. VGA

Which connection to choose?





HDMI vs. DisplayPort vs. DVI vs. VGA

Clockwise from bottom left: HDMI, VGA, DVI.

Below :  DisplayPort 





With televisions, HDMI is the most common connector. But if you want to connect a computer to your TV (or you've got a new computer monitor), the options tend to be HDMI, DisplayPort, DVI, and sometimes old-school VGA.

Each connection has its pros and cons, and perhaps the best cable to use with your display is more than just "what it came with."

Here are the differences.

Before we start, it's important to note that with the exception of VGA, all the other connections here are digital. So while the pixel resolution potentials vary with each connection, the quality otherwise does not. As in, 1,920x1,080/60 over HDMI is going to look the same as 1,920x1,080/60 over DVI and DisplayPort (assuming all other settings are the same). The logical extension of this is that the cables themselves also don't make a difference, in terms of picture "quality." Any cable capable of a specific resolution is either going to work over a certain distance, or not work.

HDMI
All TVs and most computer monitors have HDMI. It's easy to use, the cables are cheap , and best of all, it carries audio. If you're plugging your computer into a TV , your first choice should be HDMI. It will save you lots of hassle.

HDMI has limitations, though, and isn't always the perfect choice. For example, your TV likely has HDMI 1.4 connections, which max out at 3,820x2,160-pixel resolution at 30 frames per second. If you've gotten a new 4K monitor, you're limited to 30fps. Not until HDMI 2.0 will you be able to do 4K over HDMI at 60fps. You'll also need new hardware ( and probably a new TV ).

So in most cases HDMI is fine, but for really high resolutions and frame rates, one of these other options might be better.
Wikimedia Commons

DisplayPort
DisplayPort is a computer connection format. There is only one television with DisplayPort , and don't expect it to see much further adoption on the TV side. It's capable of 3,840x2,160-pixel resolution at 60fps, if you have at least DisplayPort 1.2 and the Multi-Stream Transport feature. If you're looking to connect a computer to a monitor, there's no reason not to use DisplayPort. The cables are roughly the same price as HDMI.

DisplayPort can also carry audio.

DVI
The video signal over DVI is basically the same as HDMI. The maximum resolution potential depends on the equipment, though. Some cables and hardware (called single-link) can only do 1,920x1,200, while others (dual-link) can do more.

DVI generally doesn't do audio (it varies). So if you're using a TV, use HDMI. Since computer monitors don't usually have speakers, this isn't an issue.

VGA (aka PC-RGB, D-sub 15)
The old-school VGA connector is a cable of last resort. It's not too common anymore, and hardly ever found on TVs.

Don't use VGA, not if you can help it. While it is capable of fairly high resolutions and frame rates, it's an analog signal. You're not likely to get a pixel-perfect image with today's LCD monitors (hence why you'd use DVI).

What about Thunderbolt?
The Intel/Apple love child of Thunderbolt is technically only available on one monitor ( Apple Thunderbolt Display ). There are likely to be more, but don't expect some sort of Thunderbolt revolution. The connection is compatible with Mini DisplayPort.

Converting
You can convert some of these cables into others. For example, DVI and HDMI are generally convertible using a simple adapter. Some DisplayPort connections will also work with DVI and HDMI with an adapter, but not all.

Native resolution
All modern televisions will convert the incoming signal to whatever their "native resolution" is. For most TVs, this is 1,920x1,080 pixels. So if you send a TV 1,280x720-pixel-resolution material, it will upconvert that to 1,920x1,080. TVs tend to be pretty good with this (though they won't accept every resolution; check your owner's manual for which ones). However, you're better off setting your computer's resolution to be the same as the TV's (presuming it doesn't set itself automatically, as it should). Matching resolutions mean pixel-for-pixel accuracy and no upconversion blurring or artifacts. This is especially true for computer monitors, which rarely have the quality converting processing that their TV cousins do. Send a computer monitor a non-native resolution, and it will work...but it's not going to look as good as it should.

Bottom line

OK, so, generally, HDMI is fine. If you're using a really high-resolution monitor, go DisplayPort. Otherwise the options all start having serious drawbacks. If you're connecting a PC to a TV,check out this post on how to use your TV as a computer monitor for gaming, videos, and more .

Lastly, the one tricky factor in all this is that not all your equipment might support the native resolution you want to send. With TVs this isn't likely a problem as nearly all are 1,920x1,080, but with monitors and their more varied native resolutions, it's a little trickier. Check your owner's manual to verify what your monitor's native resolution is (always send the native res, when possible), and to make sure it's capable of accepting that resolution with the cable you want to use.


___________________________________________

Need More Detail ?   contact me !!

I sell a lot of stuff, program. knowledge, etc..  at a small cost.
I will guide you step by step, personally.
My Paypal Account is :   ksw.industries@gmail.com

Don't know how to send money ?   Click here for detail about Paypal account.
http://xyberpast.blogspot.com/2014/05/how-to-get-my-program.html

Don't have money? OK! Here is another way to get the program.
how to get my program - Free of charge

Wednesday, 25 February 2015

Graphics Card: Nvidia GeForce GT730M vs GTX 640M



Graphics Card performance

Nvidia GeForce GT 730M   vs.  Nvidia  GeForce GTX 640M 



Nvidia GeForce GT 730M  vs  Nvidia GeForce GT 640M

GPU Core Details



Core Speed725 MHzvs
625 MHz
ArchitectureKepler GK107


Kepler GK107
Notebook GPUyes


yes
SLI/Crossfireno
vs
no
Dedicatedyesvsyes
Release Date20 Jan 2013


22 Mar 2012
GPU LinkGD Link


GD Link
Approved


Comparison




Resolution Performance



1366x768 - green tick vs green tick -
1600x900
6
green tick vs
5.8
1920x1080
4.3
green tick vs
4
2560x1440
3.2
green tick vs
3
3840x2160
2.1
green tick vs green tick
2.1

GPU Memory



Memory2048 MBvs2048 MB
Memory Speed900 MHzvs900 MHz
Memory Bus128 Bitvs128 Bit
Memory TypeDDR3vsDDR3
Memory Bandwidth28.8GB/secvs28.8GB/sec
L2 Cache 256 KB green tick vs green tick 256 KB
Comparison




GPU Display



Shader Processing Units384vs384
Actual Shader Performance278vs
240
Technology28nmvs28nm
Texture Mapping Units32vs32
Texture Rate23.2 GTexel/svs
20 GTexel/s
Render Output Units16vs16
Pixel Rate11.6 GPixel/svs
10 GPixel/s
Comparison




GPU Display Tech



DirectX11.1vs
11
Shader Model5.0vs5.0
Open GL4.1vs4.1
Max Resolution (WxH)4096x2160vs4096x2160
VGA Connections0
vs1
DVI Connections0
vs1
HDMI Connections0
vs1
Comparison




GPU Power Requirements



Max Power33 Watts
vs32 Watts

GPU Supporting Hardware



Recommended RAM4 GBvs
6 GB
Recommended Screen Size1366x768


1366x768
Recommended PSU-


-

Gaming Performance Value



Grid Racedriver 2vs
Tomb Raidervs

.
* GeForce GT 730M  Overview
GeForce GT 730M is a Middle-Class Mobile Graphics Card based on the first revision of the Kepler Architecture.

Architecture
The Kepler Architecture was NVIDIA's big step to power efficiency. Each Stream Multiprocessor (SMX) now hosts 192 Shader Processing Units - against the 48 of older Fermi Architecture, and has been redesigned being now clocked at the same speed of the Central Unit. This means they are more energy efficient and will consequently lead to cooler operating temperatures. However, it also means they are weaker. It can be said that one Fermi SMX is as fast as 2 Kepler SMXs.
Additionally, and not available in all GPUs, Kepler also introduced the Boost Clock Feature. The Boost Clock is an even higher Clock Speed activated when in gaming mode and becomes the effective speed of the GPU.

GPU
It equips a GPU Codenamed GK107 which has 2 Stream Multiprocessors activated and thus offers 384 Shader Processing Units, 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs. The Central Unit is clocked at 725MHz.

Memory
The GPU accesses a 2GB frame buffer of DDR3, through a 128-bit memory interface. The size of the frame buffer is exaggerated and in no way benefits the GPU. The Memory Clock Operates at 900MHz.

Features
DirectX 11.0 Support (11.0 Hardware Default) and support for Optimus, CUDA, OpenCL, DirectCompute, 3D Vision Surround, PhysX, Realtime Raytracing and other technologies

Power Consumption
With a rated board TDP of 33W, it is suited for small laptops.

Performance
GeForce GT 730M is essentially a fast GeForce GT 645M.
Gaming benchmarks indicate its performance stands somewhere between GeForce GT 645M & GeForce GT 650M.

System Suggestions
We recommend a decent processor (Intel Core i5 Mobile) and 4GB of RAM for a system with GeForce GT 730M.


*  GeForce GT 640M  Overview
GeForce GT 640M is a Middle-Class Mobile Graphics Card based on the first revision of the Kepler Architecture.

Architecture
The Kepler Architecture was NVIDIA's big step to power efficiency. Each Stream Multiprocessor (SMX) now hosts 192 Shader Processing Units - against the 48 of older Fermi Architecture, and has been redesigned being now clocked at the same speed of the Central Unit. This means they are more energy efficient and will consequently lead to cooler operating temperatures. However, it also means they are weaker. It can be said that one Fermi SMX is as fast as 2 Kepler SMXs.
Additionally, and not available in all GPUs, Kepler also introduced the Boost Clock Feature. The Boost Clock is an even higher Clock Speed activated when in gaming mode and becomes the effective speed of the GPU.

GPU
It equips a GPU Codenamed GK107 which has 2 Stream Multiprocessors activated and thus offers 384 Shader Processing Units, 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs. The Central Unit is clocked at 625MHz.

Memory
The GPU accesses a 2GB frame buffer of DDR3, through a 128-bit memory interface. The size of the frame buffer is exaggerated and in no way benefits the GPU. The Memory Clock Operates at 900MHz.

Features
DirectX 11.0 Support (11.0 Hardware Default) and support for Optimus, CUDA, OpenCL, DirectCompute, 3D Vision Surround, PhysX, Realtime Raytracing and other technologies

Power Consumption
With a rated board TDP of 33W, it is suited for small laptops.

Performance
Gaming benchmarks indicate its performance is on average with the older GeForce GTX 465M.

System Suggestions
We recommend a modest processor (Intel Core i3 Mobile) and 4GB of RAM for a system with GeForce GT 640M.

_________________________________________________________

Nvidia GeForce GT 730M are very slightly better than the Nvidia GeForce GT 640M

In terms of overall gaming performance, the graphical capabilities of the Nvidia GeForce GT 730M are very slightly better than the Nvidia GeForce GT 640M.
The GeForce GT 730M has a 100 MHz higher core clock speed and the same number of Texture Mapping Units as the GeForce GT 640M. This results in the GeForce GT 730M providing 3.2 GTexel/s better texturing performance. This still holds weight but shader performance is generally more relevant, particularly since both of these GPUs support at least DirectX 10.
The GeForce GT 730M has a 100 MHz higher core clock speed than the GeForce GT 640M and the same number of Render Output Units. This results in the GeForce GT 730M providing 1.6 GPixel/s better pixeling performance. However, both GPUs support DirectX 9 or above, and pixeling performance is only really relevant when comparing older cards.
The GeForce GT 730M was released less than a year after the GeForce GT 640M, and so they are likely to have similar driver support for optimizing performance when running the latest games.
The GeForce GT 730M and the GeForce GT 640M have the same amount of video memory, but are likely to provide slightly different experiences when displaying game textures at high resolutions.
The memory bandwidth of the GeForce GT 730M and the GeForce GT 640M are the same, which means the GeForce GT 730M and the GeForce GT 640M have equal limitations when it comes to graphical data transfer.
Both the GeForce GT 730M and the GeForce GT 640M have 384 Shader Processing Units. Having the same number of SPUs and using the same architecture means that the performance they offer can be compared by looking at the memory bandwidth, Texture and Pixel Rates. In this case, the GeForce GT 730M has 3.2 GTexel/s better Texture Fill Rate and 1.6 GPixel/s better Pixel Fill Rate, but the has GB/sec greater memory bandwidth. Although the GPUs are very similar in performance, the GeForce GT 730M takes the edge.
The GeForce GT 730M requires 33 Watts to run and the GeForce GT 640M requires 32 Watts. The GeForce GT 730M requires 1 Watts more than the GeForce GT 640M to run. The difference is not significant enough for the GeForce GT 730M to have a noticeably larger impact on your yearly electricity bills than the GeForce GT 640M.

 

But, Nvidia GeForce GT 650M are better than Nvidia GeForce GT 730M.


.

.

___________________________________________

Need More Detail ?   contact me !!

I sell a lot of stuff, program. knowledge, etc..  at a small cost.
I will guide you step by step, personally.
My Paypal Account is :   ksw.industries@gmail.com

Don't know how to send money ?   Click here for detail about Paypal account.
http://xyberpast.blogspot.com/2014/05/how-to-get-my-program.html

Don't have money? OK! Here is another way to get the program.
how to get my program - Free of charge