Looking for NVIDIA CUDA PCI-e x16 Graphics Card, < 6.5" long

I just have to add this - while I am all for "maxing out" boxes...

If you can put 2 GTX 590's in two "un blocked" slots, then just put your money there. Can't do more than 4 GPUs on a Windows OS anyway (at least not without a lot of tricks), and a single 590 counts as 2 GPUs. So 2 GTX 590's and there's your limit.

So, any money spent on "other" cards, no matter how big or small, is in the end, money somewhat "wasted" perhaps.
I hope that view point helps a little...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maxwell

Someone else weigh in here - I'm at the limit of my (and I use this term loosely) "knowledge." :p

---

We both are... I feel like this guy right now
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-z03Gi-6cJB...1237051702.jpg

are those backwards PCI-E slots on the bottom of that motherboard?

Yes the 430 and 440 use the same GPU chip, 430's may have flaws that 440's do not. Other then that they are 100% made the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dandasarge

are those backwards PCI-E slots on the bottom of that motherboard?

Yes the 430 and 440 use the same GPU chip, 430's may have flaws that 440's do not. Other then that they are 100% made the same.

---

#1 That is a PIKE slot used to activate the SAS ports on the ASUS KGPE-D16 motherboard.

#2 Ok, makes sense, 440 sounds like like the better option for stability & speed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DrPop

I just have to add this - while I am all for "maxing out" boxes...

If you can put 2 GTX 590's in two "un blocked" slots, then just put your money there. Can't do more than 4 GPUs on a Windows OS anyway (at least not without a lot of tricks), and a single 590 counts as 2 GPUs. So 2 GTX 590's and there's your limit.

So, any money spent on "other" cards, no matter how big or small, is in the end, money somewhat "wasted" perhaps.
I hope that view point helps a little...

---

Window's 7 64 will run 8 Nvidia GPU's and that is only limited by the driver itself and not by Window's. Sadly they have released they have no intent on changing that :(.

I know the computer these are going into is 2003 and have no idea how it will work in the end.

The amount of credit per 440 will only be around 50k unless you can find an "OEM" which you can't because if they were for sale someplace I would already own a couple. That would be why I would call it not worth it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dandasarge

The amount of credit per 440 will only be around 50k unless you can find an "OEM" ...That would be why I would call it not worth it.

---

Just had to repost this... a fellow SETI.USA credit hog saying that 50K is not worth it! #:-s

I will likely get the card and move it around machines as I upgrade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rgathright

Just had to repost this... a fellow SETI.USA credit hog saying that 50K is not worth it! #:-s

I will likely get the card and move it around machines as I upgrade.

---

Yes I would and this is why :) the cheepist 440 is going to run you 70 bucks. that's more way outside my Credit to Dollar scale. an 8800 will perform the same for 30 bucks. It just wont fit :(. So yes never think I don't want you to crunch as much as you can in your computer.

Just build a new computer with another 3 PCI-e x16 slots in it! :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joker

Just build a new computer with another 3 PCI-e x16 slots in it! :cool:

---

It has them, just want to see them all work and not spend $$$ to find out. :cool:

Yall know I'm the first too try this on this mobo. Hope these efforts all pay off in Q4 2011 with the arrival of new Bulldozer AMD's that will yield 32 cores in this single motherboard!