Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

mdanielm

Member
  • Content Count

    8
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Awards


This user doesn't have any awards

About mdanielm

  • Title
    Newbie
  1. That may be, but I'm using ubuntu 20.04 LTS, so if it works with this setup then that would be enough.
  2. Thanks. I see no mention of linux there, but at least it confirms that through software there is a way to use 4TB on old MBR BIOS. Maybe linux just has a way of "cheating" around the limitations as well. I'll wait a bit more to see if someone can confirm this, else I think I'm just going to copy more than 1.8TB files there and see if it works.
  3. This is the most current BIOS, it's and old mobo. I technically knew that, but up until now, everytime I run into this limitation, the OS would also see the limited drive in the same way as the BIOS. Since I'm now seeing the entire drive in ubuntu, I was wondering if maybe there was some in-between moment when a BIOS could, for example, not boot from larger than 2TB drives, but could use them in it's entirety.
  4. Hi, I'm currently building myself a server for bakcups with an old PC I had lying around. I have a brand new 4TB drive to use with it. I installed Ubuntu, urbackup and everything seems to be perfectly fine. Then I entered the BIOS for some reason and noticed that the disk appears as 1.8TB (normal in old BIOSes, right?). After seeing that, I'm wondering if I'm going to have issues when the disk tries to write past those 1.8TB that the BIOS sees. Ubuntu has no problem seeing the whole 4TB and allowed me to partition it without any problem, but I have doubts now that maybe it will behave like those fake 2TB HDD that are really microSD or something like that. Does anybody know how to test this, apart from filling the drive with more than 1.8TB (last resort), or can confirm that if linux sees the entire drive it doesn't matter what the BIOS is reporting? Thanks in advance!
  5. No no, this is not for gaming, this is for stock graphs and office use, just plain old windows desktop but in 4 1440p monitors, no gaming of any kind. Heck, this could be 1440@30hz and it wouldn't matter for this scenario.
  6. That's my biggest facepalm in a while. You are correct, that would be a 4x4 grid of 1080p monitors, not just 4 monitors. I'm guessing then that my question is mute, given that: 7680x4320 = 33 mpixels 2560x1440 = 3,6 mpixels x 4 = 14,75 mpixels which is way lower than those 33 max. Ok, I guess I should just buy the 1050 then?
  7. Wow, that was fast. I have DL-DVI (currently driving one of the monitors at 1440p so I'm guessing that shouldn't be an issue), HDMI and DP. Are you certain that the max digital resolution is per-output and not a global limit for the card? That would make me life so much easier. Thanks again!
  8. Hi everyone, this seems like something very basic, but I can't find an official answer anywhere. I'm trying to find out if I can output to 4 monitors at 1440p (for stock charts, not gaming) with a gtx 1050 3gb, this one to be exact: https://www.gigabyte.com/Graphics-Card/GV-N1050OC-3GL#sp What confuses me is the "maximal digital resolution", I can't find anywhere is that means the maximum framebuffer resolution the card can manage split across all outputs or if that is just the max resolution for one of them. Depending on this 1440p could be no problem, or I could be "capped" to 4 1080p monitors (7680x4320 / 4 = 1920x1080). I have 4 ASUS 1440p monitors, with VGA, DVI, HDMI and DP, so connections would not be an issue, but I don't want to buy the thing just to plug the monitors and get a 1080p output on each. Does anybody have any real-world experience or any official info? Every link I find says completely the opposite of the last one I check. Thanks!
×