[HumanSmoke]

Originally Posted by Xzibit

Wow, you are grasping at straws. I didnt specify power output but if it makes you feel good go right ahead.

Hey, you're the one that thinks a 225W card can draw all its power from the PCIe slot

Originally Posted by Xzibit

Wow again. You might aswell have said look a PCIe 2.0 card can fit in PCIe 3.0 slot.

I'm pretty sure GK110 will be validated for PCI-E3.0 just as every other Kepler GPU before it. The validation process is (like X79) an Intel issue. Pity you can't get PCI-E 3.0 validation on an AMD chipset it would make life simpler. - Heise have already clarified the validation process for K20/K20X

Both computational cards Nvidia precaution specified only for PCIe 2.0, because with Xeon E5 with some boards were still problems. Nvidia underlined told heise online that the hardware support PCIe 3.0, the graphics card BIOS, the card sets but on PCIe 2.0. It stands OEMs however, if for OEM systems K20-cards with "disconnection from the" use PCIe 3.0. via Google translate

Originally Posted by Xzibit

-Still waiting on that 225w server specification link.

And I've already explained to you what was previously written by myself

Originally Posted by HumanSmoke

or in the case of servers/HPC, staying within the rack specification (more often than not*) of 225W per board....What I mean, and Anand for that matter, is that server racks are more often than not optimized for 225W per PCIE unit, both for cooling, power usage, and cabling. What's so hard to understand?

Originally Posted by Ryan Smith-Anandtech

K20X will be NVIDIA’s leading Tesla K20 product, offering the best performance at the highest power consumption (235W). K20 meanwhile will be cheaper, a bit slower, and perhaps most importantly lower power at 225W. On that note, despite the fact that the difference is all of 10W, 225W is a very important cutoff in the HPC space – many servers and chasses are designed around that being their maximum TDP for PCIe cards

Now. If you still plan on baiting I'll see what I can do about reporting your posting. You've already been told exactly the posting meant, and you still persevere in posting juvenile rejoinders based on faulty semantics (* "How can "more often than not" be construed as a descriptor for an absolute specification for the industry ??? ) and an inability to parse a simple compound sentence.

Now if you don't think that server racks largely cater for a 225W TDP specced board I suggest you furnish some proof to the contrary (Hey, you could find all the vendors who spec their blades for 375W TDP boards for extra credit)...c'mon make a name for yourself, prove Ryan Smith at Anandtech wrong. While your at it try to find where I made any reference about 225W being a server specification for add in boards. The only mention I made was regarding boards with a 225W specification being generally standardized for server racks.

Y'know nevermind. You made my ignore list