Jump to content

SlyWolf

Member
  • Posts

    5
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Awards

This user doesn't have any awards

System

  • CPU
    Ryzen 1800X
  • Motherboard
    ROG CROSSHAIR VI HERO
  • RAM
    G.SKILL Flare X Series (2 x 8GB)
  • GPU
    Asus STRIX GAMING GTX 1080 Ti
  • Case
    NZXT S340 Elite
  • Storage
    Samsung 960 EVO 250Gb + 1 Tb HDD
  • PSU
    PSU 650W
  • Display(s)
    ASUS ROG Swift PG279Q
  • Cooling
    Cryorig H7 Quad Lumi
  • Keyboard
    Logitech G413
  • Mouse
    Razer DeathAdder 2013
  • Operating System
    Win 10

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

SlyWolf's Achievements

  1. Well, just like I mentioned in the title, I have a question about the actual version of a game one gets through XGP. Are the games there just native Xbox versions running with the help of UWP or stand-alone PC versions that can be bought elsewhere? I got curios since Metro Exodus is running at around 100-120 fps on my machine, but according to third party benchmarks I should be seeing around 70-80 fps with 1080ti@1440p. Quality settings are on ultra of course, motion blur - medium, no hairworks.
  2. UPD: I played until the game crashed with MSI Afterburner monitoring tools on. Looks like it crashes when pagefile grows over 19Gb. WTF Why is it using pagefile when half of the ram is supposedly free? Why does pagefile go over 19Gb when I manually set it to the 2Gb max? I have so many questions... gamecrash.bmp
  3. Alright, so where do I begin. I've noticed that one of my games, which I have not touched for a while, has huge performance issues(framerate drops and stutters mainly). In the past, it was running smoothly at 154 fps locked(I have144hz panel); however, today it was constantly dropping to 110-90 with frame times that are all over the place. I decided to figure out what's up. The first look at the task manager revealed the problem. Even though I have 16 Gb of ram and chrome+steam+os doesn't need more than ~4.5Gb, I only had ~3Gb of free ram available. About 8Gb of it was used as standby memory preloaded with some stuff I was not currently using. After that, I checked my pagefile, which by default was set to 8Gb. After some googling, I assumed that windows was using "virtual ram" instead of clearing up the junk in the standby portion, so I decreased the size of pagefile to min/max 1Gb/2Gb and rebooted the system. After the restart, the overall usage of ram dropped. On idle it was around 2.5Gb and the reserved portion was only 1.8Gb. A quick test of the game showed that everything went back to normal, no performance issues. Despite this, I kept monitoring memory usage. After I exited the game, standby was about 5-6Gb, which is about what that game needs to run. When I opened another application, the standby portion was growing until it reached the max(~8Gb was used, ~9Gb standby) and the program crashed with not enough memory error. I believe that a portion of that standby memory was used by the game data and the rest by other stuff windows preloaded in case I might use it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but does this mean that standby memory is not freed when an active application requires it? Why is windows not removing closed program's data from RAM? I've downloaded RamMap and manually cleared standby, but this is not a solution. After I've released standby portion, I tried to play Apex. Background stuff+the game are actively using ~8Gb, and when you're playing standby steadily grows until it fills all available ram, which causes the game to crash. P.s: I also disabled Superfetch, but it still preloads stuff during the first boot. I've attached a screenshot of the task manager. With just chrome open - 3.6Gb used\9GB!!!! reserved. If I try to launch a program, it'd better be happy with those 3gb left over, cause standby portion is not counted as free memory. ram.bmp Added 2 screenshots: Just apex running after releasing standby memory And after I closed it apexclosed.bmp runningapex.bmp
  4. @TheGlenlivet I think, even the smallest boost is worth it if it can be done for cheap. As far as I know, RAID0 kinda turns HDDs into an almost viable SSD(read/write speeds double), so why not. I haven't thought about it yet. I have to do some extra research, but in theory, I just work on the SSD first. I'll set up the dual-boot system and configure raid from one of the two OS. @Electronics Wizardy I'll have to look into it, but I wasn't greedy while buying the motherboard. I have Crosshair Hero VI, which should support raid configs. That is an option, but I wanted to squeeze some performance out of the HDDs.
  5. Hi everyone. It might sound stupid, but I'd like to clear some things before I buy a second hard drive for the RAID setup. I was wondering if it is possible to create a RAID0 from 2 HDD's and then share it between 2 separate OS. If it is possible, will I still get the benefits of RAID0(better performance) on both OS? I really like Linux for its low system footprint and security, but I also game a lot, so I need Win10. I used to have a dual boot config, which gives the best from both worlds, but that was a long time ago. The current system has one 250Gb SSD and 1Tb HDD. I want to install 2 OS to the SSD to get the best performance out of it and create RAID0 with two 1Tb HDDs for media, games and general storage. I want to split the virtual RAID drive into 2 partitions(NTFS and ext4) so that both systems can benefit from the RAID. Will this monstrosity actually work? Is it worth it? Thanks for the advice in advance.
×