Ron30

Hi. I've got a Synology NAS drive that I've been running for a few years. On Windows 10 I had no issue, but I've been on Windows 11 now for about a year, and have found that it constantly locks up Windows explorer for 2- 60 seconds whenever I try to click on a video file, copy data in/out, etc. If, for example, I'm copying data in, then highlight (not open, only highlight) another video file that I haven't recently opened, the transfer will slow to 0 bytes and the file explorer windows will be unresponsive. After the lag time, the transfer continues. I've found that trying to watch a video file that I've recently opened doesn't cause any lag; it's only when I try to highlight or open a file that I haven't viewed recently. I've got the NAS mapped to a drive letter and access it via File Explorer. I run a plex server on my C: drive, which streams videos from the NAS. I haven't had any issues with streaming videos. I can also access the Synology Web UI without any issue or lag. It seems the issue only occurs within Windows / File Explorer. I'm not really sure where to start with troubleshooting this. All my google results point to issues with slowness in Windows Explorer in Win11, but local files and files on my other NVME drive don't have any issues. It's specific to my NAS files. If I copy these files over to my local drives, there's no issues. Thanks in advance.

UPDATE: Just to provide a follow up on this topic, I tested encoding with several different apps to see if I could find a better solution. I tried my best to match the settings between each. For each, I tried to use the mid-lower quality setting, or when given a quality number to be set, I selected 36. The default was 24 and the lowest was 51. I've no idea what this number means, but using 36 in each application that offered this setting, I would assume meant that I was comparing apples to apples. 36 also looked to be about the same place on the quality slider, as the setting I would use for the apps that had a slider with no number. Original file: 6.75GB VideoProc File size: 2.35GB Time to encode: 22m 34s GPU utilization: 1-4% with very rare spikes up to 12% WinXDVD (same developer as VideoProc) File size: 2.41GB Time to encode: 18m 07s GPU utilization: 1-4% with very rare spikes up to 12% AVIDemux File size: N/A. Aborted after a couple of mins as ETA was nearly an hour Time to encode: N/A. Aborted after a couple of mins as ETA was nearly an hour GPU utilization: 1-3% Freemake Video Converter: N/A - did not have a HEVC / x265 option Handbrake (H.265 (x265) encoder) File size: N/A. Aborted after a couple of mins as ETA was over 35 mins Time to encode: N/A. Aborted after a couple of mins as ETA was over 35 mins GPU utilization: 1-4% Handbrake (H.265 (NVEnc) encoder) File size: 1.20GB Time to encode: 9m 44s GPU utilization: 11-14% Quality: I think it's visually lower than the usuall VideoProc encodes I do, but I was pausing and zooming and trying REALLY hard to see the difference. If I wasn't looking for it, I wouldn't notice it, and I'm not even certain there is a visual difference. Update2: The lower the number, the higher the quality. I found that 29 is the sweet spot for me, for quality vs file size.

Yes, I did reach out to their support. They took some screenshots of settings and some log files and said they've "passed it onto the engineering team and will let me know if/when they find anything". To be honest, it sounded like they were just placating me, which is why I came here. I hadn't noticed that the site states GT630 up to RTX 3080. Nor did I know that the 40 series dropped some encoding features. I assumed that "newer must be faster", but this could certainly account for it. Thanks for the info.

I use a software called VideoProc Converter (their website looks scammy as hell, but it's actually proven to be useful over the last few years) to convert a large number of personal old video files into x265/HEVC files. This saves me a ton of storage space and as the videos are fairly old and not the highest quality to begin with, I don't notice any drop in picture quality. I recently upgraded from a GTX 1080 to an RTX 4070 Ti and decided to compare the conversion speed between them. I converted a video to HEVC mp4 using my 1080 and timed how long it took. I then swapped in the new 4070Ti and attempted to convert the same file, with the exact same settings and found that it took about 25-30% longer. I repeated the test several times and made sure I had the latest NVIDIA drivers installed. The software has detected both GPU's correctly and does have hardware acceleration enabled. I'm trying to understand why a more powerful card, is performing the workload slower. Per https://developer.nvidia.com/video-encode-and-decode-gpu-support-matrix-new, there's fewer NVENC chips on the 4070 Ti, As I understand it, this just means I can't encode more than 1 stream simultaneously, which is fine as I'm only converting 1 file at a time. Can anyone shed some light on what's happening? My specs are: AMD 5900X Gigabyte X570 Aorus Pro Wifi 64GB 3200MHz RAM 800W PSU Samsung 970 Nvme running at PCIe 4x

Unfortunately this didn't work. It only shows my monitor as an option. Ran DDU twice in normal mode. Installed drivers from scratch. At first, same issue, but once I enabled the receiver in the 'Set up multiple displays' option in Nvidia Control Panel, it showed up as an Audio device. Thank you!

So I run an ultrawide monitor (no built in speakers) via DisplayPort, and a HDMI Receiver via HDMI. The receiver is seen as a second monitor and is setup only for audio. About a year ago, I had to swap to a HDMI to DisplayPort cable for my receiver, but this worked without any issue. Today, I swapped out my GTX 1080 for an RTX 4070 Ti, but the Nvidia Control Panel says my monitor is the only audio capable device that's plugged in (it's got no speaker). In the Sound control panel, when I play any audio, I can see the green sound bars lighting up beside my monitor. I can also see 3 other NVIDIA High Definition Audio devices that show 'Not plugged in' (though the card has 2 HDMI and 3 DP, so should be 5 in total, not 4). I'm running Windows 11 64 bit, with an AMD 5900X, 32GB RAM and 800W PSU. I'm running the latest Nvidia drivers and all Windows updates. I tried a clean install of the drivers. I've tried both the HDMI cable and the HDMI to DP cable. I've swapped the port that the cables are plugged into, and even swapped the monitor and receiver's ports around. I've confirmed the HD Audio is enabled in BIOS as well. I'm unable to rollback driver since doing the clean install, however the Audio driver was already up to date and working fine with the GTX 1080. I updated the VBIOS and it restarted as part of the update. Afterwards, I could see my receiver in the sound control panel but not my monitor, but the NVIDIA control panel still showed the monitor and not the receiver. I was still unable to get sound. After rebooting again, the receiver is no longer showing again and the monitor is showing as a sound device again. Is there anything else I can try? Thanks

The 1.5" screw worked perfectly.

Yeah the 1.5" should be fine or need a washer or 2. I have plenty of washers. I've spent nearly 2 weeks with my PC parts on the floor, looking for this, so to be safe, I grabbed the 2" also. I don't mind using a bunch of washers (it'll look bad) just to get up and running now. I need to drain the loop when I can get my hands on an RTX 3080 anyway, so I can look for a better solution by then, if needed. Alternatively, they come 5 to a pack, so I can use one of the spares and see if I can cut it down to size. Again, only if the 38mm / 1.5" doesn't work, but it should. Frozencpu is US, so it'll cost a lot to ship out my way, but I'll do it as a last resort, if needed.

I feel stupid. The above post made me re-check everything. I've been looking for an M3 x 35mm with a thread pitch of 6-32, but it looks like 6-32 is the only important value (other than length). I found a site that sells it in 1.5" and 2" variants so I've just put in an order for that.

The EK site says they are UNC 6-32. The mount instructions say M3. If I understand correctly, M3 is the width/diameter and 6-32 is the thread density. I picked up some M3's that are the wrong thread (can't find UNC 6-32), but they slide in and out without actually "catching" the thread, so they remain loose. By the way, I'm in Australia and all the US screws have some insane $60+ shipping charges, but I may end up paying that as a last resort. Rad specs are here: https://www.ekwb.com/shop/ek-coolstream-classic-se-360

I'm trying to install a new radiator in the front of my case, with the fans on the inside in a pull configuration. I was able to install it without issue, but my new layout requires that I mount my pump/res combo to the fan. I picked up an EK Uni Pump 120mm fan mount (https://www.ekwb.com/shop/ek-uni-pump-bracket-120mm-fan-vertical) but the rad screw seems just slightly too short now. It comes with 30mm screws which is sufficient to go through the fan, the case mount and the rad, but the added 1mm of the pump mount, plus the 1-2mm increase because the screw is no longer countersunk means that it's too short. I've spent 2 weeks with my PC in parts, looking for a 35-40mm long screw, but I can't find one with the same threading. I'm wondering if I can use the 30mm screw to go through the front of the rad to the back, and then into the fan, and secure it with a nut. Then use a small (5mm) nut and bolt on the other side of the fan to secure the pump. I did test by screwing one of the 30mm screws through the rad, but a family member says that I bent the fins when I did that. I can't see any bent fins, but also, does it matter? As long as it's not cracked and water continues to flow through, bent fins shouldn't really be an issue right? Does anyone know if it's safe to send the screw through the rad? As you can see in the images, I can fit a nut on both sides of the fan...won't be easy doing the back end, but I haven't found another solution.

So did that fix it?

Just reading through https://www.reddit.com/r/gigabyte/comments/fb7tmx/biospc_wont_boot_with_xmp_on/, looks like there is a setting on Gigabyte boards called "Extreme Memory Profile Support" that needs tweaking. Maybe take a look at whether there's an equivalent setting for MSI. Could also be a bad stick causing issues. Try one stick at a time and check whether it detects it correctly. Additionally, (and while trying each stick individually), maybe set your FCLK Frequency and your timings manually, to what the XMP profile should be setting it to, rather than leaving it on default. If you're not familiar with this, I recommend reading the manual and looking up some guides on your specific bios.

Update: So I looked at benchmarks posted online of Hitman 2 at 3440x1440 with a GTX 1080 and noticed that many were done with i7-6700 CPU's and all had much higher fps than me, at ultra settings; about 50-ish fps. Not sure when it happened, but it looks like most of my settings had turned themselves down from ultra to high or medium, except Super Sampling which had set itself to 2.00. I set everything back to the highest setting, with the exception of the following. - Motion Blur: Off - Dynamic Sharpening: Moderate - Super Sampling: 1.00 When I re-ran the benchmark, I was getting an average of 50fps with a few little stutters here and there at the start of the benchmark - clearly Super Sampling was the detrimental setting. I also now had more consistent measurements; CPU ran at or near 100% the entire time, but GPU ran at about 66%. This leads me to think that a CPU upgrade will have a greater benefit than originally anticipated, but due to resolution, I expect this benefit to still be fairly small overall. Online benchmarks of this game with ultra settings and a GTX 1080, using an i7-8700k have an average fps of 57. From the bottleneck calculator I'm using, it looks like an 8700k is about the sweet spot for CPU pairing with a 1080, so upgrading to a 5900X or 5950X will only bring me up to that 57-ish average FPS. At this point, the performance seems fine (or I could overclock slightly) until I'm able to upgrade both CPU and GPU, but neither individually will make much of a difference, if any at all.

The 9800x is better than the 6700k. The higher the number, the newer, and hence, better the cpu (generally speaking). Whether you need an upgrade depends on the rest of your parts, what you're using it for, and if it's not performing as well as you'd like.