Mid-high range gaming PC.

[Clipper]

@_neptunno_ I haven't changed the configuration, by default it has to load the one I have in my profile.

As soon as I create another account for photos, since the old one is full, I'll upload screenshots of the stress tests.
Regards

[_Neptunno_]

@clipper it would have been good to have a reference game or test like 3DMark, in addition to DayZ to compare performance improvement.

And as for minimum FPS... any noticeable difference, right?.

Regards!

[Clipper]

@_neptunno_ the 60s are stable, before I used to have some lows (miserable, 45/55)
Regards

[_Neptunno_]

@clipper Is the 32" monitor FHD or 2K? 144Hz?

[Clipper]

I'm considering a new GPU, AMD or Nvidia....
My monitor is for AMD, although I've read that it can be "tuned"
In AMD this would be a possible candidate:
https://www.pccomponentes.com/xfx-speedster-swft309-amd-radeon-rx-6700xt-core-gaming-12gb-gddr6
In Nvidia this would be another possibility.
https://www.pccomponentes.com/gigabyte-geforce-rtx-3070-eagle-oc-8gb-gddr6-rev-20

The budget...
About 150 that I got from my GPU.
Plus 150 that I owe for overtime plus about 300 € more.
The purchase is without VAT that I would do for work (a favor I do to my boss) and to my
What do you think?
Any other options?
Regards

[Clipper]

@_neptunno_
This is my monitor:
https://eu.aoc.com/es/gaming/products/monitors/c32g2ze-bk
Best regards

[Clipper]

first tests

[cobito]

@clipper said in Mid-range gaming PC.:

first tests

@clipper

I changed a limit. What size was the file you were uploading?

[Clipper]

@cobito said in Mid-high range gaming PC.:

@clipper said in Mid-high range gaming PC.:

first tests

@clipper

I changed a limit. What size was the file you were uploading?

2.93 MB (3,082,607 bytes)
a screenshot, maybe because I have two monitors
regards

[cobito]

@clipper Ok, it should work smoothly from now on.

[defaultuser]

The image test3 is not visible.

[Sylver]

I can't see anything

[Clipper]

@sylver said in Mid-high range gaming PC.:

I can't see anything

[Clipper]

@clipper

[Clipper]

@clipper memories


and it's done

[defaultuser]

Alright alright.

hdtune? You show us that Raid0?

[Clipper]

@defaultuser said in Mid-range gaming PC.:

Alright, alright.

hdtune? Will you show us that Raid0?

I ran it this afternoon.
The raid 0 seems to be set up incorrectly, so to compare, I'll have to reinstall everything and try with a single mn2.
As a curiosity, it goes up 2 points if I only have Aida 64 open.
And I can't run the tests all at once because it crashes.
The most curious thing is the latency, number 1 is DDR2
Best regards

[Clipper]

@clipper
greetings

[defaultuser]

@clipper The first M2 slot is controlled by the cpu, the other two by the chipset.
The chipset communicates with the cpu through a pcie x4 channel, in theory it has plenty of bandwidth, but response times will always be worse than in slot 1.

A raid0 in the first two slots probably performs poorly, and I think that's what you've set up based on the results.

A raid0 in the chipset should increase the transfer, but we would have to see how much, and in any case with the speed that those disks already give....

In summary, setting up the raid0 in the chipset to have a secondary large disk without paying the prices of "large" disks maybe not, but increasing performance with a raid0 on this platform I don't see it, you will have to "settle" for the speeds of a single disk, which are already the best.

Now you are not really doing badly, but comparing prices, your two disks sold could even pay directly for the 1TB one, or you can have double disk and have system on one side and games on the other and things like that, that is, a disk in the first slot and in the chipset another or a raid.

[Clipper]

@defaultuser said in Mid-range gaming PC.:

@clipper The first M2 slot is controlled by the CPU, the other two by the chipset.
The chipset communicates with the CPU through a PCIe x4 channel, in theory it has plenty of bandwidth, but response times will always be worse than in slot 1.

A raid0 on the first two slots probably performs poorly, and I think that's what you've set up based on the results.

A raid0 on the chipset should increase transfer, but we'd have to see how much, and in any case with the speed that these disks already give...
In summary, setting up raid0 on the chipset to have a large secondary disk without paying the prices of "large" disks is maybe not the way to go, but I don't see an increase in performance with a raid0 on this platform. You'll have to "settle" for the speeds of a single disk, which are already top-notch.

Now you're not actually doing badly, but comparing prices, your two disks sold could even directly pay for the same 1TB model, or you could have double the disk space with the system on one side and games on the other and things like that, that is, a disk in the first slot and another in the chipset or a raid.

I already said that the raid 0 is set up incorrectly.
For several reasons, the first one, that of course... With age one thinks they know everything and the manual is just filler
And indeed it's set up in ports 1 and 2.
On the other hand, whenever I've set up a raid (this is my first raid on mn2) it has never added the two or three capacities, it has always indicated one drive, for example two 500gb disks in raid 0 with a size of 500gb.
And this one shows 1 Tera.
And on the other hand, although it's something that never happens, the startup reminds me of mechanical disks, not slow... but the next thing.
So on Saturday if I have some time I'll disassemble the raid and try leaving only one mn2 in port 1 and do the test.
And then the two in ports 2/3 and compare.
Best regards