vanished

Take this with a big grain of salt, but from what I've heard, the reason why Minecraft works on non-RTX cards is because it's using an RT engine that's completely different from the one RTX cards are hardware-accelerating, and also that nvidia's way of doing RT is most likely going the way of HD DVD disks

It's a damn shame, as Ray Tracing, even just limited amounts like in Control, and others can really bring a game world to life. I'm a fan of stuff like Hairworks/TressFX/PureHair, PhysX ( I still have an OG Ageia PhysX card ), and more.

Cyberpunk with Ray Tracing is likely going to look absolutely fantastic. It's just a shame, just like with PhysX, NV are going to only optimise for their specific hardware, despite other version/compute options being available.

I have a feeling the games they target will fall somewhere between these two extremes.  As old and dated as GTA SA is and looks, it's probably far far more modern than what they are thinking.

I had the same thought.  If you can get modern game devs on board, there'd be no reason to go to this extent in order to sell your new tech.
 
Not saying the concept isn't a cool idea, but it makes one wonder about the reasons behind it.

Good to know.  It did cross my mind after that post that we could probably estimate how these will be by looking at the quake 2 performance so if that can't do it then I guess it's not happening for anyone

I've tried the Quake RTX game and I get a whopping 8 to 12 fps on my 1080Ti. Turn off the ray tracing, and I get 150+. Not sure if that says much of anything, I could just be a big dummy and didn't do anything right.

They won’t be. Even my Titan V can’t manage Quake 2 RTX with its sheer grunt and tensor cores. I only got playable FPS at 480p.

Cool idea. It will be interesting to see if these games are playable with their new look on older 10-series cards or even existing and upcoming AMD cards.  As much as they're obviously doing this to promote RTX, I would guess that in most cases you won't actually need the RTX hardware to be able to get playable frame rates (or at least, you shouldn't) since the games are geometrically so simple.  It's the same theory behind why ray tracing mods for Minecraft work on non-RTX cards.

Cool idea. It will be interesting to see if these games are playable with their new look on older 10-series cards or even existing and upcoming AMD cards.  As much as they're obviously doing this to promote RTX, I would guess that in most cases you won't actually need the RTX hardware to be able to get playable frame rates (or at least, you shouldn't) since the games are geometrically so simple.  It's the same theory behind why ray tracing mods for Minecraft work on non-RTX cards.

Cool idea. It will be interesting to see if these games are playable with their new look on older 10-series cards or even existing and upcoming AMD cards.  As much as they're obviously doing this to promote RTX, I would guess that in most cases you won't actually need the RTX hardware to be able to get playable frame rates (or at least, you shouldn't) since the games are geometrically so simple.  It's the same theory behind why ray tracing mods for Minecraft work on non-RTX cards.

Cool idea. It will be interesting to see if these games are playable with their new look on older 10-series cards or even existing and upcoming AMD cards.  As much as they're obviously doing this to promote RTX, I would guess that in most cases you won't actually need the RTX hardware to be able to get playable frame rates (or at least, you shouldn't) since the games are geometrically so simple.  It's the same theory behind why ray tracing mods for Minecraft work on non-RTX cards.

I have a feeling the games they target will fall somewhere between these two extremes.  As old and dated as GTA SA is and looks, it's probably far far more modern than what they are thinking.

Ah I see, that makes sense.  I have a thing about making sure people don't try to use RAID as/instead of a backup so good to hear that's not the issue
 
To be totally honest, I'm not a huge fan of RAID regardless though.  One of the many reasons is exactly what you're facing here.  You go with RAID because of the redundancy, but the risk of losing it all due to the array falling apart is as much or more than any of the risks it's protecting you against, so is it even helping?
 
That's where I get to another "validity question" - does this need to be 100% 24/7 high availability?  Personally I feel that's the only valid reason for using RAID (at least in the context of RAID for the purpose of redundancy).  You always have the option to just restore from a backup (or in the case here, make a new backup from the various source devices) anyway, so unless the time necessary to do so is unacceptable, RAID is just costing you extra drives and setup hassle for nothing.  That's my opinion at least.
 
As for the extra risk faced momentarily while you are rebuilding the backup (in the event you need to), this is one of the reasons I generally recommend that people have 2 backups, so while one is being remade, you still have 2 copies on hand.  Of course, there are other benefits to having 2 backups too and while any one of them may not justify it I think when taken together they do.  To list just a few of these:
Ransomware protection if you adhere to the rule of never having more than one backup connected at a time and ensuring files are clean before moving on Accidental file deletion protection if you run your backups in a "leapfrog" or staggered manner (and notice in time) More redundancy of course You can move 1 or more to different locations They can use different philosophies - perhaps one that's always connected and syncing, and one that you do occasionally as a long term archive.

i'm waiting for tetris rtx now
 
 
yes i'm a tetris fan

Cool idea. It will be interesting to see if these games are playable with their new look on older 10-series cards or even existing and upcoming AMD cards.  As much as they're obviously doing this to promote RTX, I would guess that in most cases you won't actually need the RTX hardware to be able to get playable frame rates (or at least, you shouldn't) since the games are geometrically so simple.  It's the same theory behind why ray tracing mods for Minecraft work on non-RTX cards.

This is my backup server where I dump all of my backups of other computers, archived projects and everything else really, hence my want for redundancy so that it doesn't all go wrong.
Thanks again,
Marton

They'll work, but the output power will be fairly low.
As they're powered from USB, you're looking at 5v and 0.9A or ~ 4.5 watts.
Assuming a 90% efficiency, you're looking at 2w per speaker.
 
If you want more power, you'll need speakers powered from a separate power supply or one with internal switching power supply.
If the speakers have barrel jack input for power, what you can do is get some cable sleeve and wrap the DC cable and the audi cable or USB cable in sleeve so that it looks like a single cable. A bit of black heatshrink can lock the sleeve at both ends
Here's some examples of sleeve: https://www.digikey.com/short/pnqrtb
 
If the speakers have AC input going in them, that's a bit more dangerous to mess with. You could open the speakers to figure out what DC voltage is the internal power supply generating and you can buy a separate power adapter to produce that voltage (for example 18..24v) and connect this dc voltage directly to the output of the original power supply inside the speakers. 
The cable that brings DC voltage in the speakers can be thinner and it's safe to hide inside sleeve with the audio cable.

Cool idea. It will be interesting to see if these games are playable with their new look on older 10-series cards or even existing and upcoming AMD cards.  As much as they're obviously doing this to promote RTX, I would guess that in most cases you won't actually need the RTX hardware to be able to get playable frame rates (or at least, you shouldn't) since the games are geometrically so simple.  It's the same theory behind why ray tracing mods for Minecraft work on non-RTX cards.

Cool idea. It will be interesting to see if these games are playable with their new look on older 10-series cards or even existing and upcoming AMD cards.  As much as they're obviously doing this to promote RTX, I would guess that in most cases you won't actually need the RTX hardware to be able to get playable frame rates (or at least, you shouldn't) since the games are geometrically so simple.  It's the same theory behind why ray tracing mods for Minecraft work on non-RTX cards.

Cool idea. It will be interesting to see if these games are playable with their new look on older 10-series cards or even existing and upcoming AMD cards.  As much as they're obviously doing this to promote RTX, I would guess that in most cases you won't actually need the RTX hardware to be able to get playable frame rates (or at least, you shouldn't) since the games are geometrically so simple.  It's the same theory behind why ray tracing mods for Minecraft work on non-RTX cards.

The irony is they were not just offering, but forcing SSDs on people in laptops long before anyone else was seriously considering them, and it provided the users with a better experience as a result that they wouldn't have otherwise had the knowledge to acquire for themselves.  And yet, they are doing this.  It really is very confusing.

I guess I should go into more specifics on my reasoning.  It is multi-faceted.
 
1. It's done wrong.
This is perhaps the biggest reason because everything else hangs off of this.  I actually wouldn't be opposed if it was done correctly, but I have not yet seen proof that any phone has managed it.
 
I'm thankful that the word "notch" has caught on to describe it because that is indeed what it is, a notch out of the screen.  This is, for what I would hope are obvious reasons, very stupid.  In case they are not obvious, hopefully my other points will explain that, but I digress.  This is the opposite of what it should be.  You are not taking away from the screen, you are adding to it.  Screens with a "notch" should be programmed and used such that all content is displayed on and has access to only the "core rectangle", and the two extra little bumps beside it are reserved for the clock and system icons.  This lifts those things out of the main area, allowing you to get a bit more screenspace for everything else.  Functionally, it would be not different to having a traditional normal display, and two tiny secondary screens - maybe they could even be a different tech like e-ink so your notifs and time are always visible with no drain on battery and no risk of burn in.  This is something I could get behind.
 
Unfortunately, this is not how it's done from what I can tell.  The manufacturers and OS devs and whoever else is to blame treat the outer rectangle - the bounding box - as the normal display, and fill it with video, games, etc. so you end up with a notch cut out of your content.  I cannot fathom to whom this would ever be acceptable, but it would seem by sales figures that no one seems to care.  Perhaps they should just move the "hole punch" into the middle of the screen so you always are looking into the camera in selfies without having to take your eyes off the display.  People would love that.
 
As for why having a chunk out of your screen is bad, as if that needs explaining, see my previous post.
 
2. It's a hack / cheap workaround / admission of failure and lack of courage.
Forever now we've had phones with a bezel that holds the important components which couldn't be shrunk further or put behind the display.  Over time, they've been getting smaller and smaller to the point where on some well designed phones, they're hardly even there anymore and I highly doubt most people would find them bothersome.  But, innovation never stops, so the next step is to get rid of them completely.  There are two ways to do this:
Put them under the display Move them somewhere else We're seeing progress with #1 already - Xiaomi is working on a phone with an under screen camera, and while it is not yet known how well that will work, it's certainly very "next gen".  The more immediately practical solution though is to go with option #2.  Make the phone and/or cameras slide, or pop up, or flip up, etc.  There are even advantages to this over a traditional setup:
You can use the superior main cam as a selfie cam, thus increasing quality and reducing cost since you're not including additional cameras You don't have a camera pointed at you at all times.  People often tape their laptop webcams but for some reason always seem to forget about their phones.  Strange. The main knock against this approach is simply that it uses moving parts, and while I agree that they are something to be avoided at all costs, based on what I have seen from JerryRigEverything's tests on numerous motorized popup cameras, they are very durable and should not pose any issue to lifespan (this of course with a caveat that every device is different ant just because most are good doesn't mean they all are.  I know of at least one that is indeed garbage).  Some people may raise the question of water resistance but depending on the design that should be a non-issue.  People forget the kinds of devices that have had high grade IP ratings in the past.  Manufacturers have bet on a combination of people having short memories and people being susceptible to believing what ever BS they're told in order to make you think that an unrepairable featureless glass slab is the only way to get water resistance.  Reminder: the S5 from 2014 had a removable battery and a headphone jack and still managed an IP67 rating.
 
The notch is a cop-out - a way to pretend like you're ready to move on from bezels without actually being able to do so yet, either because you lack the technology, or simply the will and courage to innovate.  These other options exist, which brings me to my next point...
 
3. It's unnecessary.
There are other ways to build a phone that avoid this atrocity.  Either stick with bezels until you can get rid of them properly, or take on one of these other more modern solutions and actually get that full screen display you're after.  Thin bezels made thick bezels obsolete.  No bezels made the notch obsolete.  It's time to move on.  If random Chinese brands selling devices for half as much can figure out how to do it, then big names like Google and Apple should be able to as well. It's just embarrassing at this point.
 
4. It's ugly.
Obviously this is subjective, but this whole list is why I personally hate it, so it's just as valid as anything to include imo.  I hated it from the moment I saw it and it's only gotten worse since then because at least when it was new, it was ugly but new.  Now it's ugly and obsolete.  When I see a phone with a notch it conjures up the same mental feeling you might get now seeing a dedicated stand-alone PhysX card from before nvidia bought it, or a 3D TV, or one of those 4 subpixel TVs with the dedicated yellow, or a Juicero.  Things that seemed like they were gonna be huge at the time but very quickly died off and make you just go "oh no, you poor bastard, you fell for that?"

I wonder if it's truly any high core count CPU or if they're just using that as a euphemism for modern AMD chips, and what they're doing is giving the scheduler more topology awareness.

I think the standard these days is to just use GPT.  I don't think one is more susceptible to data corruption vs the other, so not sure where that idea came from.  In any case, it sounds like you would get some good value out of a UPS.

I think the standard these days is to just use GPT.  I don't think one is more susceptible to data corruption vs the other, so not sure where that idea came from.  In any case, it sounds like you would get some good value out of a UPS.