Insane Computer Build!!!!!

[IIAscEndAncYII]

ok doing research and came up with this

 

intels 80 core processer

http://news.cnet.com/Intel-shows-off-80-co..._3-6158181.html

 

windows 7 with 192 gigs of ram

http://keznews.com/5605_Windows_7_-_Maximu...d_RAM_is_192_GB

 

quad PNY VCQFX5800-PCIE-PB Quadro FX5800 4GB in sli

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16814133253

[MrAlex]

intels 80 core processer

http://news.cnet.com/Intel-shows-off-80-co..._3-6158181.html

 

If you read the article:

The computing elements are very basic and do not use the x86 instruction set used by Intel and Advanced Micro Devices' chips, which means Windows Vista can't be run on the research chip.

Plus I no longer think it is development, and it isn't much use because it doesn't have the x86 instruction set, and there would need to be a completely revolutionary instruction set. Just because it has 80 cores, doesn't mean it'll be a monster of a chip.

 

windows 7 with SUPPORTS 192 gigs of ram

http://keznews.com/5605_Windows_7_-_Maximu...d_RAM_is_192_GB

 

Erm, yeah, that's how much the usable limit is, although there are a few servers with 256GB+ of RAM, and you'd be using Linux or Windows Server 2008 for a server, not Windows 7.

 

quad PNY VCQFX5800-PCIE-PB Quadro FX5800 4GB in sli

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16814133253

 

Although quite a beafy GPU two ATI FirePRO V8750s would be cheaper and just blow this out of the water.

[ARandomOWL]

My choice would be a bunch of POWER6+s with the aforementioned FirePROs and about 1TB RAM

[CheeseMan42]

Erm, yeah, that's how much the usable limit is, although there are a few servers with 256GB+ of RAM, and you'd be using Linux or Windows Server 2008 for a server, not Windows 7.

 

I don't know the limit for various OS, but the theoretical limit for a 64 bit OS is (2^64) bits = 2 147 483 648 gigabytes.

[Waco]

I don't know the limit for various OS, but the theoretical limit for a 64 bit OS is (2^64) bits = 2 147 483 648 gigabytes.

Memory is byte-addressable, not bit-addressable. The limit is 8 times that for 64 bit addressing (or ~16 exabytes)...but physical processors today only support ~40 bits (I haven't checked that in a year or so though) of actual hardware memory.

 

 

Eh, either way I wouldn't put professional cards or that 80 core test chip into anything for gaming.

Edited November 12, 2009 by Waco

[IVIYTH0S]

that 80 core processor should fold

[Waco]

that 80 core processor should fold

It's not x86...

[IVIYTH0S]

It's not x86...

I thought it's highly parallel style processing would be able to get adapted some how, it would suck for that to go to waste. Some kind of science lab should make use of it

[Waco]

You could, you'd just have to port the code to whatever instruction set they're using.

[CheeseMan42]

Memory is byte-addressable, not bit-addressable. The limit is 8 times that for 64 bit addressing (or ~16 exabytes)...but physical processors today only support ~40 bits (I haven't checked that in a year or so though) of actual hardware memory.

 

 

Eh, either way I wouldn't put professional cards or that 80 core test chip into anything for gaming.

 

Well thats a FAIL on my part. I was up all night the day before that lecture finishing my VLSI project so I suppose my memory is a bit hazy. I think 40 bits is the current physical limit, but I remember seeing 48 bits virtual somewhere.