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

JohnSmith2

Member
  • Content Count

    5
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Awards


This user doesn't have any awards

About JohnSmith2

  • Title
    Newbie
  1. Thanks. Do you have any particular components you'd recommend instead of the ones I chose?
  2. Budget (including currency): $1500 at most Country: United States Games, programs or workloads that it will be used for: Minecraft, Unreal Engine 4 Other details (existing parts lists, whether any peripherals are needed, what you're upgrading from, when you're going to buy, what resolution and refresh rate you want to play at, etc): 1080p @ 60fps My brother makes games in Unreal Engine 4 as a hobby and his existing laptop (a Dell XPS X15 with a GTX 960m) really struggles with it. It typically gets too hot after a while and starts to thermal throttle causing performance to suffer. He also plays games occasionally but nothing too demanding. He wants a fairly small tower computer (NOT a laptop) that would be relatively easy to transport around a few times a year (between college and home). He already has two 1080p monitors and has no interest in anything above 60fps. It's not uncommon for Unreal Engine to utilize both the CPU and GPU fairly heavily at the same time. He also needs an NVIDIA GPU because there are some other applications he runs that require CUDA and simply will not function at all without an NVIDIA card. He made it clear that he doesn't want a full-sized tower case. Taking all of this into consideration, these are the parts that I think would be good for him, but I'm not completely sure if they are all compatible (I don't even know if they would all fit in that case or not). https://pcpartpicker.com/list/ZYyJrV Please scrutinize every last detail, or if there's anything I've forgotten. I'd love to hear all your suggestions. Thanks.
  3. At home, we have an Apple Airport router and a Netgear GS605 switch. I have two Windows laptops set to share drives over the network. I plugged both laptops into the switch using ethernet cables and transferred a 10GB file between the two. I was getting 11MBps (megabytes per second). When I plugged both directly into the Airport router instead (using the same ethernet cables for each laptop), the same file transferred ten times faster (111 MBps). I do not understand this speed difference at all. I expected the performance to be the same. What could cause this disparity? Is it: The switch is bad? The ethernet cable connecting the switch to the router is bad (I don't even know if this is relevant)? This is normal and all switches reduce performance like this? I know very little about computer networking, so I have no idea why the performance was so bad. Any ideas?
  4. @Jarsky, thank you, this was very helpful. I just tested it by plugging two laptops into the router directly with ethernet cables and I was able to transfer a 10GB file at 111 megabytes per second (theoretically only 14MBps less than gigabit, I think). I still have yet to test with all machines doing renders/encoding/etc, but hopefully I won't encounter any problems.
  5. I have a Seagate Exos X16 14tb hard drive that I'm using in my main machine to do (many) 4K 3D renders. I typically need to do lots of rendering, video compressing, transcoding, denoising, and all kinds of other processing, which typically takes too long using only my primary machine. I have other laptops that some of this processing can be offloaded to so that the overall time is reduced a lot, but the problem is that they don't have direct access to the files they need since the drive is in my primary computer. It's extremely inconvenient to copy many gigabytes spread across thousands of png files between machines all the time. I am wanting a way to share this single drive between multiple machines, but I've never touched a NAS before and there's a lot that I don't know. If I were to set up a NAS so that each machine could access this single drive (each of which would be processing separate files on the drive simultaneously) using standard gigabit ethernet connections, I'm not sure if performance would suffer significantly or not (compared to just having the files on a local drive). Most time is spent processing while less time is spent reading and even less time spent writing, so I'm really not sure if this is a viable solution. To be specific, I'm doing renders with C4D, finishing the final composite in After Effects, and I'm transcoding and compressing using ffmpeg. Each of these programs take all the resources they can get, so the ability to have separate machines working away on these files would be extremely valuable. I just don't know if this is a realistic to attempt with only a single hard drive. Please let me know your thoughts and if you have any better recommendations.
×