IBM_THINKPAD_R51

Okay sir! Thanks for helping me. I wil replace it using the warranty

samsung makes small but reall good displayes that they use on their phones, im pretty sure apple also uses samsung displays...so why could the valve add a display like that? On the samsung galaxy A series phones they even have lower res but still really good displays if they really wanted something lower res

If he/she 's gonna get a new mobo/cpu, probably gonna need new ram too

what motherboard do you have, i can give you the best cpu in that generation, but that doesnt mean the motherboard would support it.

unless you want a new motherboard and cpu

The only limiting factor would be the software, just make sure the files you are dealing with arent huge, cause then that would mean the the cache would be useless. caches are good for little files, and random files.

i will look into 850w psu.

if its not the fans, then the only other thing it could be is coil wine...if its not that, then it cant be the gpu tbh.

I have my servers (with HW RAID) set to do a volume check every month where it checks all the data. It takes anywhere from 10 to 20 hours. It has shown an error only a few times, which was always corrected. Been years since the last one. I scheduled them just for peace of mind really, the whole bitrot thing always felt like a myth to me to be honest. Good to know the volume check helps to prevent it though, more peace of mind hehe.
 
i did have to set up the checks myself, so you better check it i guess

Do you have the software in your os to manage the raid array? There should be software for most major oses, otherwise you can use the drac or the bios menu.
 
But my perc cards will do a full disk check every week by default it seems, just check that thats the case here.
 
But Id make sure your backups are good, Raid scrubs only do so much.

As long as it provides all of the wattage you need (without making any loud whining noises or whatnot) you are fine. For example I use an old Antec Tru-power 1000w in a dell poweredge server and its been going 14-7 for over 10 years

Intel Extreme TUning utitily is no more or less safe than just going to the bios and overclocking stuff that way, the only real difference is that you can do stuff like change the turbo boost time window which the bios cant do.

no? tuning is on the hardware itself, and oem usually tunes it worse. If i have an intel chip i would want intels tuning, not another companies tuning.

Yes totally worth it. Especially on the used market on ebay.
 
I have bought 2 400gb sas ssd that I have installed in raid 0.
 
On the 3gbps marvell onboard sas, They did around 400 mb/s in raid0 (maxed out by the 3gbps interface)
On a 6gbps adaptec ast-6805t 8 port sas controller with 512 mb cache ram, I get 800 mb/s on huge files.
The benchmark says that speed is 415-525 mb/s on small 10mib blocks, but on real files it's 800 mb/s steady.
The Write speed is about the same or a little faster than read speed.
 
So Yeah do it, buy sas ssd drives if they're cheap on ebay, it's totally worth the fun,
just make sure the controller is 6gbps or faster
and the drives are identical.
 
My kubuntu 20.04 boots in under 2 seconds on a dual cpu machine with 12 cores 24 threads (2 xeon x5670 @ 2.93 ghz)
Ram is 24 gb in triple channel ddr3 1333, registered and ecc parity check (12 gb per cpu)
Gpu is AMD R9 380, power supply is from Lenovo D20, 1060 watts
 
Notes:
1. My machine won't allow for a nvme to be the boot partition
2. SATA ssd can't boot on the onboard sas-sata marvell controller on my Lenovo D20
3. No hardware raid for SATA ssd on the onboard marvell controller on my Lenovo D20
4. SAS ssd have no issues on the onboard sas-sata marvell controller.
5. There is a boot partition size limit of 2 tb on the marvell controller on my motherboard.
6. Using an external 6gbps sas controller on a pcie 4x slot solves every issues reported here
and doubles the speed of the onboard 3gbps marvell chipset.

LOL all of mine are filled DX, GPU, special sound card, capture device, and more more i dont think im allowed to say

@IBM_THINKPAD_R51 PCI-X 2.0 533MHz is very rare.
 
Very many old workstation/server boards have PCI-X 66MHz (528MB/s), 100MHz (800MB/s) and 133MHz (1.06GB/s).

So I was cleaning a server the other day:

 
And I noticed the PCI-X slots on the board, i always thought this was interesting because back before PCI-E existed (this board was new enough to have both, but PCI-X came first)
the server space had PCI-X if u didnt want the slow 133mb/s regular pci slots
 
So PCI-X 2.0 has a WHOPPING 4.3GB/s and that was back in 1998!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCI-X#:~:text=PCI%2DX%202.0%20offers%20(at,disadvantages%20compared%20to%20PCI%20Express.
 
for comparison pci-e 1.1 had a max of 8GB/s in 2003
 
SO my question is that If we use PCI-E for both consumers and servers, how come back in the day when PCI-X was the fastest slot, we only had this awesome thing on servers and never was on the consumer motherboards???
 
dont tell me that its too long lol.
 
 
For crying out loud even a 2.5 Gbit lan adapter wouldn't saturate the slot. Let alone any video card back then.

Apparently Intel had some issues with it + it was for the high bandwidth servers/workstations need, not normal user PCs, so it never really caught on: 
 
"Intel gave only a qualified welcome to PCI-X, stressing that the next generation bus would have to be a "fundamentally new architecture".[5] Without Intel's support, PCI-X failed to be adopted in PCs. According to Rick Merritt of the EE Times, "A falling-out between the PCI SIG and a key Intel interconnect designer who spearheaded development on the Accelerated Graphics Port caused Intel to pull out of the initial PCI-X effort".[6] The PCI-X interface was however briefly adopted by Apple, for the first few generations of the Power Macintosh G5."
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCI-X

With remote working, I got to bring my work computer home (3950x, 64gb of ram and a 2060 super (it might seem unbalance, but for what I do it's perfect)), and my personnal computer was sitting in a corner (ryzen 2600, 16gb of ram and a 2060) for 6 monts. So I decided to make a mini-itx HTPC/Vr gaming rig for my living room with parts from my personnal computer.
 
My old Thermaltake Armor being HUGE, I choose to shrink down a lot. I just needed to buy a new motherboard (I chose the Asus A320i-k, just because it was the cheapest one and I didn't need more) and a new PSU (I chose the Corsair SF450).
 
I wanted to use wood, make the computer less "computery" in the room. I chose red oak and maple (sentimental thing).
 
 

 
I decided to make the internal out of sheet metal (and by cutting the pannel of an old Lenovo). But first I made a prototype out of cardboard..
 
Afterward, it was "only" a question of glueing the wood, cutting, sanding, and putting a coat of Teak oil. It took me waayyy more time to do all of this than I anticipated (and I'm way over budget). The end result is far from perfect, it isn't perfectly even, the cutting isnt perfectly straight, the mounting holes for the fans aren't perfectly aligned... But. I love how it looks.
 


 
My internal AC cable being too shot, I had to flip it and cut a hole in the middle metal sheet so the PSU could breathe.
 

 
Last thing was to put something to seal the panels (so I wouldn't get cat hair everywhere on the computer). And do some cable management.
 

 
And here are pictures from the final product
 

 
 

U built a gaming PC, not a stream PC

U built a gaming PC, not a stream PC

Not sure if I am right but for audio I am sure vlc uses its own codecs so I must wonder are they using their own codecs as well . Plus I have a fhd+ display and I am able to view downloaded 4k content (I think it'd h265  though)

Yeah, it doesn't depend on the screen, more on the cpu+gpu combo. The one OP had didn't seem to support 4k hardware decoding. 
If you have a FHD+ display, it sounds like an higher end phone, with a better chipset.

Not sure if a msm636 is a high end one (lol)but it did seem to play 4k content fine 

The SoC in the A10e only supports hardware accelerated decoding up to 1080p.
You could try software decoding but there is a risk that your CPU might not be able to handle it. It will also eat your battery right up and make your phone really hot.
 
It's (typically) not the CPU cores decoding video. There is specialized hardware in the chip that only deals with decoding video, and those can be rather picky with what formats, resolutions and framerates they support.
Also, it's worth noting that your CPU is a 2+6 big.LITTLE configuration. It has 8 physical cores, but only 2 of those cores are high performance. The other 6 are small and slow, but energy efficient.
 
 
 
I don't get this comment or why you are linking to the Android supported media formats page.
The settings used are valid (like you said, 5.2). It's just that the particular SoC in OP's phone doesn't support it. Plenty of chips on the market do support it and would play it (in hardware) just fine. It has nothing to do with Android limitations or some invalid profile settings. It's purely a hardware limitation in this particular SoC, like you said later in the post:
 
I am worried that making comments like that, where you start bringing up profiles as a reason for why it isn't working and linking to Android's supported formats page will give people the wrong ideas like "Android doesn't support the 4.2 AVC profile", which it does.