Posts by wiredotter14

Yeah, the Intel Core i5-12600K fits the budget perfectly. It’s the obvious call—don't overthink it. Right now, the price is decent enough if you can snag it for under $833. Check Best Buy
.
Regarding the RAM, higher clock speeds will squeeze out more performance, but it really depends on what you're doing. Honestly, I don't think it's a dealbreaker here. The Intel Core i5-12600K is such a beast that your GPU is going to be the bottleneck in games anyway.

Look, when it's expensive, it sucks. When it's cheap, it also sucks. 😁

Yeah, there's zero point in capping RAM at one stick per person, but I guess it's typical for them to set limits like this. Maybe they put a "one per customer" rule on the whole sale and just didn't realize they were doing it for RAM...

And you're still stuck buying it twice or trying to use two different names to get around it.

nimblegull74 said:Let's say you don't go through $833.
This 4K doesn't have a pivot, so you'd just mount it on the wall in portrait mode.

That's plenty of cash. If it physically fits on your desk, I’d definitely pull the trigger on a 31/32".
https://www.amazon.com/monitors?searchterm=monitor

Some models have a pivot, some don't. 4K starts around $667, but honestly, at that distance, 1440p on a 32" is totally fine, and 1.5x scaling in Windows Display Settings works perfectly. Just make sure it's an IPS or at least a VA panel—buying a TN is a waste of money.

nimblegull74 said:My desk faces a corner. It’s pretty shallow, so if I set it up horizontally, it’ll be way too close. Right now, I’m rocking a 21" Full HD monitor plus my laptop screen. With a 28" 4K setup, I’d basically have double the HD resolution, and since it’s so close, I figure the image won't look tiny. My main worry is the uneven picture quality due to the viewing angle.
The monitor would be the LU28E590DSL/EN

Right now, I'm sitting about 21 inches from the screen. This 4K one would be around 25-27 inches away.
Laptop is a Lenovo ThinkPad X250, VGA + miniDP. Supports 4K.

That works, but don't fall into the trap of thinking of it as just "double HD." You're looking at a 28" screen, which has 1.77x more surface area than your 21" and 4x the pixels. The width is going to feel significantly narrower than what you're used to—which might be fine for stuff like Microsoft Office, but it isn't the same as having two separate monitors. 25-27 inches is probably fine for a 28" display; depends on your eyes and what you're used to. Personally, I'd find that a bit cramped and would probably aim for a 32" 1440p monitor instead. At that distance, you don't really need 4K. You can find them for similar prices, though I'm not sure about the pivot function—looks like that Samsung you're eyeing doesn't have it either.
Also, that monitor uses a TN panel. What's your budget? An IPS panel is much better.

nimblegull74 said:Right now I'm running a 13" laptop paired with an HD monitor. Does it make sense to grab a 4K monitor and mount it vertically just to get the equivalent of two HD screens stacked on top of each other?

Personally, I prefer smaller screens—smaller fonts mean more stuff fits on the display and everything stays organized.
What kind of image quality am I looking at here?

The monitor would be a cheap Samsung$667.

Sen fra my XQ-AU52 using Tapatalk

It’d be more logical to just pick up another 1080p monitor for half the price if your laptop can handle it. Sure, you can rotate a 4K monitor vertically, but that isn't the same thing as having two 1080p screens. A 4K monitor packs four times the pixels of a 1080p one, so you're going to run into scaling headaches when trying to use them together with a small screen (not sure which monitor you're eyeing, but it's probably not the size of two 1080p monitors combined. You'd need at least a 32" screen for that setup).

Is there some specific reason why it has to be vertical?
And what laptop are you rocking? It might support dual video outputs.

And they call themselves the Avengers 🎉🎉🎉

i9 11900 for $950 including shipping (use coupon POWERTECH21)

https://www.ebay.de/itm/114747910384...vDpYQ#shpCntId

I think it’s a mix of factors, and it plays out differently depending on the price bracket. If mining wasn't such a thing, an old card like the RX580 wouldn't be holding its value this high. So, if the miners finally stop buying, at least the low-to-mid range market might stabilize. Right now, though, if you're trying to build an entry-level PC, you're basically stuck. If there were an RX580 under $667, you could actually put something together while waiting for better options

Zachary Nguyen2 said:Bitcoin's price just tanked back down to where it was during its very first month. Meanwhile, Ethereum POS mining has been a thing for almost two years now.

I agree. Ethereum is right back where it was two months ago. This isn't some catastrophic crash for the crypto market, but the real question is whether people are actually going to keep grabbing GPUs for new rigs.
Ethereum announced they’re switching to PoS very soon. Nobody actually knows what that implies yet, but the supply of cards is there. If miners stop paying crazy prices for weak hardware, everything could fall apart. A little. Fix it.

Zachary Nguyen2 said:No way.

It’s possible. Demand from miners is definitely going to tank, plus Ethereum mining is basically becoming ancient history soon anyway. If I were a professional miner, I’d be dumping at least half my gear at current prices right now.

Yesterday I flipped an RX580 on eBay for $451. My brother picked it up back in early 2018 for $323, and it’s been mining about half the time since then. 😁

Try testing with just a single RAM stick.

It’s not a direct comparison, but I had similar symptoms on my old junk rig after messing around with settings too much. Turns out the Windows installation was just corrupted. At least run an sfc /scannow

Peter Rodriguez10 said:the GPU is an Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050 Ti

Look, that card isn't exactly built for 1440p gaming—maybe some light stuff, but honestly? It’s already pushing its limits at 1080p.

I wouldn't bother with a massive 1080p monitor. Everything looks grainy regardless of whether you're gaming or just browsing. A 32" 1440p setup doesn't cost much more than a 1080p one, plus you won't be swapping monitors for years. Besides, 1440p is actually decent for watching 4K movies if you're sitting at your desk.
If you're watching from bed, it doesn't matter as much, but for me, 32" is the floor. 27" feels way too small for movies.

Peter Rodriguez10 said:It works fine for streaming services🙂 and gaming. btw, should I be worried about my GPU? PC is 2 years old. Don't want anything blowing up.🙂

Obviously you need to check. What are your specs?
You can always just dial back the settings.

Peter Rodriguez10 said:Interesting.🙂 Thanks.🙂

If we're talking movies, I’d definitely go with 32" and 1440p. As for gaming, 75Hz AMD FreeSync is plenty fine.

Peter Rodriguez10 said:Hey. 🙂 Looking for a 27-inch plus monitor... mostly for gaming and movies... budget is around $667...

Something like this

https://www.amazon.com/lenovo-monitor-gaming/dp/B0XXXXXX

Edward Stewart said:

wiredotter14 As wiredotter14 once noted:
I have been giving quite a bit of thought lately to the matter of setting up a dedicated file server, a project that seems to loom on the horizon of my technical ambitions like a distant mountain range. It is one of those fundamental tasks that sounds deceptively simple when you first contemplate it—just a box full of drives, right?—but once you begin to peel back the layers of complexity regarding redundancy, throughput, and long-term reliability, the sheer scale of the decision-making process becomes rather overwhelming. One finds oneself caught in a perpetual loop of comparing hardware specifications, weighing the merits of various drive architectures, and wondering if one should lean toward a more streamlined setup or go all-out with a heavy-duty enterprise rig. I find myself looking at the different options available on the market, perhaps considering a Western Digital setup or even exploring what a QNAP might offer in terms of out-of-the-box utility. There is an inherent tension between wanting the speed of high-end drives and the quiet, unassuming stability of something like a Seagate IronWolf series, which always seems to be the gold standard for these kinds of persistent storage tasks. Of course, there is the ever-present question of capacity versus cost. Should one invest in several Seagate Exos drives to ensure maximum longevity, or is it more prudent to stick with something more consumer-oriented, like a collection of WD Blue or even some Seagate Barracuda drives for less critical data? It’s a delicate balancing act, much like trying to navigate a complex legal statute or managing a large-scale logistics operation here in the States. Every choice feels like it carries a weight of future regret if not handled with sufficient deliberation. I am still in the deliberative phase, gathering my thoughts and perhaps waiting for a bit more clarity before I commit to a specific configuration.
I am well aware that RAID isn't a substitute for a true backup—especially when you’re keeping everything under the same roof in the same office—but since we aren't looking for more than 4TB of usable space, setting up two drives in a RAID configuration just to guard against a single drive failure doesn't seem like a massive financial undertaking. Of course, if we were aiming for maximum efficiency regarding redundancy, opting for four 4TB drives in a 3+1 setup would grant us 12TB of capacity, but frankly, we simply don't have a need for that much overhead.

Well, that’s certainly true, provided you go ahead and configure them in a RAID 5 or RAID 6 setup.
I was contemplating a more functional division of labor here—essentially splitting things up so that one portion serves as the primary file server, while the other is dedicated strictly to backups. My thought process is that the backup segment should be accessible only by the administrator or via internal NAS processes; this way, you create a much sturdier defense against any potential malware or viruses originating from Windows machines and general users. By isolating the data like that, you can also properly implement snapshots to ensure everything stays secure and recoverable.
If you have the physical room to spare, I suppose one could certainly apply that same principle using smaller drives—say, 2TB or 3TB models—though, if we are being practical, those 4TB units tend to be the sweet spot for value right now. It’s all about that price-per-gigabyte ratio, isn't it?

wiredotter14 As I was reflecting on our previous discussions, it occurs to me that we should perhaps revisit the core of the matter. It seems to me that there is a certain nuance being overlooked here, much like how one might miss the subtle complexities of a classic piece of literature if they were only skimming the surface. I find myself contemplating whether our current trajectory aligns with the broader objectives we initially set out to achieve. One cannot simply rush headlong into a decision without considering the long-term implications, much like an investor carefully weighing the risks before committing to a major position in the S&P 500. What do you all think? Is it possible that we are overcomplicating what should be a relatively straightforward process, or am I perhaps being too cautious in my assessment? I would be quite interested to hear your thoughts on this, provided you have the inclination to share them.
If we find ourselves in need of some clean, dedicated storage down the road, it would be quite simple enough to just pop a hard drive into one of our workstations; at the moment, though, we're strictly running on SSDs.
If we find ourselves needing more breathing room down the road, we could always pick up a 4-bay unit for the office, and then simply migrate this 2-bay setup back home. I suspect we could figure out a way to integrate some sort of remote backup system as well—it seems like something that should be quite manageable if we stick with Synology.

I must say, I find myself agreeing that our modern NAS units are remarkably well-equipped these days from a software perspective; indeed, that seems to be where their true value lies, particularly when you consider the sheer utility of integrated features like VPN support, robust backup solutions, and all those other helpful little tools that make life so much easier.
If we look strictly at the hardware itself, I still maintain that one could potentially assemble a much more cost-effective setup by utilizing standard PC components rather than specialized gear.

It seems that manufacturers have gone to great lengths to segment their product lines, essentially carving them into two distinct camps. On one hand, you have what they label as the standard consumer drives—the everyday workhorses like the Seagate Barracuda, WD Blue, or even the Toshiba P300 / X300. Then, on the other side of the aisle, they position the more specialized NAS or server-grade options, such as the Seagate IronWolf, WD Red, or the Toshiba N300. It is quite a deliberate way of categorizing things, wouldn't you agree?
It is also worth noting that there are specific models engineered specifically for surveillance applications—the kind designed to handle constant, non-stop recording cycles—such as the Seagate SkyHawk, the WD Purple, or even the Toshiba S300 series.
None of that actually matters, provided you happen to have a bit of luck on your side. 🙂 At the end of the day, any of them will get the job done, because even those high-end drives from the "enterprise" lines—I'm talking about the Seagate Exos, Toshiba Enterprise, or WD Gold—can fail just as easily as the rest.

Now, one shouldn't be under the impression that RAID requires some sort of extra fee; it is truly their core functionality, after all. In fact, if you look at the offerings from Synology or QNAP, they actually include a bit of free cloud storage space to get you started.

We don't really need a split setup for now. This is just a file server for a few people in the office and remote. Someone’s going to set it up so we can access it from outside anyway.

As for building our own—theoretically, we could just cram drives into one of the PCs. We could probably mimic the functionality, but having a dedicated device is just more practical. If someone shuts down a PC, we aren't left stranded. These $500 costs for the unit aren't that bad since it covers our needs and means the PCs don't need their own internal drives.

So, IronWolf is a fine choice. I'll get everything ordered before the drives for Bitcoin mining grab them all up.

Edward Stewart said:It’s the same story... the bottleneck is going to be the network rather than the drives themselves (1 Gbps is theoretically 125 MB/s, though in practice you're looking at 110-115 MB/s on a solid network setup with decent NICs and cabling).
Seagate IronWolf drives are a perfectly fine choice. You might consider a Toshiba N300 (instead of an X series), and since Western Digital seems to struggle a bit with their Red line lately, I'd suggest sticking with the Red Plus—that's what should count as the "real" Red series.

What's the intended role for this NAS? Are we talking about a dedicated backup solution or just a general file server?
I ask because RAID isn't actually a backup; it's just redundancy to ensure you don't face downtime if a single drive fails. If you truly want a backup strategy, you might want to aim for a 4-bay Synology or QNAP unit, allowing you to add another drive (or a pair) to automatically back up your "primary" RAID1 set. If budget is a concern, a 3-bay QNAP TS-328 would work well for a 2+1 configuration.

File server.
I get that RAID isn't backup, especially if it's sitting in the same office, but we don't need more than 4TB. Dropping two drives into RAID just so we don't lose everything if one dies isn't a massive investment. Sure, 4x4TB in a 3+1 setup would be better for redundancy (giving us 12TB), but we don't need that much space.
If we end up needing raw storage later, we can just slap a hard drive into one of the PCs; right now, we're strictly SSD.
If we need more capacity down the road, we can grab a 4-bay unit for the office and move this 2-bay one home to set up some kind of remote backup. I think Synology can handle that.

The network is basic, nothing fancy, but everything is hardwired—no WiFi. Speed isn't a huge deal; we're talking about moving a few GBs at a time. Whether it takes five seconds or a minute doesn't matter to us.

What's the real difference between Toshiba N300, X300, and IronWolf?

P.S.

Just double-checking—does that Synology model support RAID 1 without any weird fine print?
Does anyone know if there are recurring subscription fees, or is it just a one-time purchase?
Basically, I just need standard RAID 1 where one disk mirrors the other.

Alexander Moore67 said:It's an 8GB RX580. What do you think would be a fair price for an RX580 Nitro 4GB?....

A brand new 1650 Super goes for around $300, so there's no way a used 4GB 580 should cost more than that.