Newsgroup: it.comp.hardware.cpu
Titolo: nVidia 6800 GT PCI-E x2... CPU that wont bottleneck and PSU?

Im looking to buy 2 BFG 6800 GT PCI-E's and SLI them on a ASUS A8N-SLI 
Deluxe. I want to find a CPU that wont bottleneck on this high end graphics 
setup. I'm looking at Clawhammer 4000+ or a Clawhammer FX-55 (Obviously this 
won't b-neck) but $600-$800 is a little pricey.
I'm also having a hard time finding a PSU that has two 6-pin connectors 
(PCI-e), good quality company, wont die on me, high enough wattage, and isnt 
extremely loud. Havent had much luck... this is all i found.
http://www2.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=0-N82E16817153024
Probably too low in wattage?
Any suggestions?
Thank you.
Falcon 1209 

 Probably too low in wattage?
for a single CPU system that should be fine.

 wrote in message 
news:IOfbe.34764$PA4....@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...


 Falcon 1209
bye
PS: set the follow-up, next time you crosspost...
-- 
Dont         |            _             _ 
understimate |   __ _ _ _| |_ __ _ _ _ (_)
the power    |  / _` | ' \  _/ _` | ' \| |
of...        |  \__,_|_||_\__\__,_|_||_|_|

 wrote in message 
news:IOfbe.34764$PA4....@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...

You're spending all that money on two 6800GTs, a mobo (and ram probably) and 
a powerhouse PSU... but you think $600 for a CPU is a little pricey? :D
RF


Ok im goin with the 4000+ Clawhammer... $650 on newegg. Sound good? Or
is $200 more worth the boost to a fx55?
so what about ram? I was gonna get (2) 2x512= 2gb 3200 DDR Ram from
Corsair but i dont know if this is too much ram going to slow? Or
should i go with 2X 512 XMS 3200 DDR? Or anyother options?
Im stuck.
Im so close to buyin this thing.
Oh yeah i went with the enermax, SLI approved PSU. (EG701AX-VE)
Good point RF btw.

have a price/availability marker for the 4000+, Rev E.........
I used to be a die-hard NewEgg fan, but after dealing with Monarch for
a couple of orders, I'm starting to change my mind.  NewEgg has gotten
too big.  Monarch is hungry and is still willing to work with people.
I've been very pleased with all my dealings with Monarch so far.
YMMV.

Im so close to buyin this thing.
Never let money or emotion burn a hole in your pocket. You timing is
wrong.
I shall also be building a top-performance SLI-AMD system, but am 
waiting for dual-core and SLI/driver motherboard maturity, besides
lower prices of 6800GT PCI-e graphics cards.  I have been in
'observation mode' for the past 6 months. Things look as if they will
converge for me around this September to maximize quality-choices,
performance, future-proofing and minimize cost.  A cycle last repeated
by me ~ 2.5 years ago, with some very successful long-term choices.
BTW, I may not initially buy a dual-core processor, but I shall make
absolutely certain that my MB choice will be 100% plug-compatible.
And the price of the single-core 4000+ Rev E is likely to be a lot
less than $540 by September too...
John Lewis



I guess I dont understand whats so special about that processor. Oh
well.
So I wait a month or two.
What is the deal with memory then.
How much is too much and how fast is too fast?
And I dont understand the problem with these Gen-1 SLI Mobo's are they
that bad or will the next ones be worth it? and why>


wrote:

90nm instead of 130nm. Lower power. ( unlike Intel's shift from 
130nm to 90 nm ). SSE3 instruction set; enhanced performance
with multi-media software. Overclock prospect better due to the
lower power.........however, as usual with overclocking... YMMV.
John Lewis


 130nm to 90 nm ).
There's many myths surrounding going to a denser format, and yes, some of
them originate with the Intel marketing department.  By reducing the die
size, you do get a smaller *overall* power consumption per resistor count
due to shorter paths and thus changed resistance.   But - and this is a big
but - the heat gets concentrated in a smaller area, causing more thermal
problems than are solved.
This is the same no matter whether it's Intel, AMD, nVidia, SPARC, MIPS, ATI
or any other manufacturer.  Add to this that some of the extra space freed
by going to a smaller die is usually taken up by adding transistors, and the
overall effect is that the heat *problem* increases.
For the consumer, there's no real benefits to a 90 nm process over a 130 nm
one or even a 180 nm one.  Sure, the 180 nm one would need a much larger die
for the same chip, and would produce slightly more *overall* heat, but it
would not have the same problems with localized heat and super-hot-spots of
a 90 nm processor.  Then again, the benefit here isn't meant to be for the
consumer, but for the manufacturer.  More wafers per disc means cheaper
CPUs - it's really that simple.
-- 
*Art