JR to turn it on you pull the black cord out of the back then look for a red switch and move to where it says 220 then insert the black cord again and turn on.please don't do that.
Computer Tech Needed
- Thread starter Cobrachs
- Start date
mystic04 said:
Now that's just mean. :-D
Cobrachs said:
out of the three computers ive built ive used Asus boards in em, and havnt had one problem.
whats your spending limit? are you reusing anything from your old pc? right now I would definatly go the amd athlon 64 s939 route if your into gaming, or the X2(amd dual core).
Andrew
What mean i pointed out not to do thatBlk03SVTCobra said:
I appreciate everyone help and JR please dont blow up your computer, ok I have another few questions Here are three processors all similiar but different.
What does process type either 90nm or 65nm mean
and why does the one with less l2 cache cost 26 bucks more, maybe because its older and not as big a seller, I dont know
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...2E16819116196,N82E16819116220,N82E16819116005
What does process type either 90nm or 65nm mean
and why does the one with less l2 cache cost 26 bucks more, maybe because its older and not as big a seller, I dont know
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...2E16819116196,N82E16819116220,N82E16819116005
Last edited:
Cobrachs said:
links to these procs?
andrew
SVTcobra04 said:
Sorry I edited the post and added the link , I had to pic up my daughter and forgot the link
Cobrachs said:
First of all, this link has the most information I've ever seen compiled in one place with regards to semiconductor technology and nanotechnology and such.
Here's a brief summary (and others are obligated to correct me where applicable) of processes and the difference between 90nm and 65nm:
First of all, 90 nanometer (nm) process refers to the average feature size of a chip. In otherwords, a feature for that chip is, on average, 90nm. (NOTE: Minimum feature size on a 90nm process chip can be as low as ~45nm) The standard before the 90nm process was the 0.13 micrometer (130nm) process. The current, most-advanced, widely available process is the 65nm process (which has feature sizes as small as 35nm, but average is 65nm). For reference, the HIV virus is approximately 120nm in diameter, a human red blood cell is around 7000nm, and a human hair is typically around 80000nm.
The smaller the process, the more circuit 'real estate' (transistors per a given area) and increased speed (achieved due to smaller processor gates) there is. The more transistors per a given area, the more processing can occur in one time period. The smaller a processor gate, the quicker it can change between "ON" and "OFF", thus resulting in increased processing speed.
There are, of course, issues with continuing to make processes smaller. The largest of these is a problem called leakage. Leakage occurs when, due to the extremely small size of the walls between wires, electrons actually jump between wires on a chip. Leakage results in higher power consumption and heat output. To overcome leakage in 65nm process chips, a very thin layer of oxide is applied to the silicon wafer, which acts as insulating material to keep electrons inside of the chip's structures.
Check out those links or do a google search to learn more. It's pretty cool stuff if you take a couple of minutes to try to understand it. :beer:
Oh, and given the choices of chips you provided, I would choose the 651 Cedar Mill 2MB L2 Cache ($278.00). :thumbsup:
Last edited:
Thanks again, I think that is what I am going to get , it seems to be my best choice the 3.6 are another 125 bucks or so, and I guess that is the best 3.4 available
Cobrachs said:
Another 200 MHz for $125 more does not make sense from a price/performance perspective.
I think the 651 is a good choice :beer:
Users who are viewing this thread
