Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
You're correct. That was my pure assumption based on living on their forums 18 hours a day waiting for the "next shipment" statements that they are ready to order - and I'd miss it again and have to wait for the "next shipment" statement.I just read the thread you linked... not sure how you came to that conclusion (batches) with the information there, but, I digress. Oh well.....lets move on. Thanks again for pointing out the actual configuration of this motherboard vs Intel available lanes on the CPU.
Technically, they are PCIe 2.0 as of today, but is supposed to support 3.0 with "future updates". But no EVGA BIOS, nor video hardware, is available at this time to enable that speed. And if you want to get very technical, Intel did not finish their PCIe 3.0 specifications in time before they "released" the Sandy Bridge-E chipset to RTM. But, it didn't stop Intel from stating that "Future X79 chipsets will support PCIe 3.0 [post launch]" meaning it physically can support it, but something is missing (no one is clear why Intel didn't finish the 3.0 release in time, nor do they know what is 'missing' to enable PCIe 3.0 on these boards). They actually backed off the support for 3.0, as well as the 8 SATA 6Gbps port. (only 2 SATA 6Gbps are native to the X79 chipset, and the other 4 SATA 3Gbps. Any additional 6Gbps ports have to be enabled via additional controllers. This is a chipset limitation.@ Eduncan911 - I was just thinking. These are PCIe3 slots and have double the bandwidth of PCIe2 slots, right? So even if its 8x/8x/8x/8x, thats like 16x PCIe2.
Depends on the application. I'm using it to tinker for data mining performance, which is extremely intensive on the data packets I send to it and what I want back (read: bandwidth).Does CUDA use more bandwidth than in PCIe2 16x or something?
Now, this is where we start to venture into the "Let me throw $X at a new part, and see if I fix the lag in Y" guessing game. So, it's my assumption that the every so slight "jittery" or "lag" when spinning very quickly in a FPS, or when playing Batman Arkham City and trying to move the camera is enough to be extremely annoying. It does not exists in single or 3-way SLI on a single monitor - only in tri-monitor gaming mode.Does it really matter outside of not following Intel spec in your case since there is plenty of bandwidth for your setup in the first place?
Wait.. Im a bit confused... The 7970, 7950, etc have been out for a few weeks now that take advantage of PCIe3...X79 has PCIe3. This bios has options to switch PCIe2 or 3. It says PCIe3 in GPUz with my 7950 in it. Am I not in PCIe3?Technically, they are PCIe 2.0 as of today, but is supposed to support 3.0 with "future updates". But no EVGA BIOS, nor video hardware, is available at this time to enable that speed. And if you want to get very technical, Intel did not finish their PCIe 3.0 specifications in time before they "released" the Sandy Bridge-E chipset to RTM. But, it didn't stop Intel from stating that "Future X79 chipsets will support PCIe 3.0 [post launch]" meaning it physically can support it, but something is missing (no one is clear why Intel didn't finish the 3.0 release in time, nor do they know what is 'missing' to enable PCIe 3.0 on these boards). They actually backed off the support for 3.0, as well as the 8 SATA 6Gbps port. (only 2 SATA 6Gbps are native to the X79 chipset, and the other 4 SATA 3Gbps. Any additional 6Gbps ports have to be enabled via additional controllers. This is a chipset limitation.
You are also correct that the bandwidth doubles yet again moving from 2.0 to 3.0 (it doubles from 1.0 to 2.0). This would make everything mute, yep.
So I ask, again I guess, does this nomenclature matter at all when bandwidth is effectively doubled with the proper gpu in place?With that said, I wanted to increase the links of x16-x8-x8 to x16-x16-x8. This was the reason I bought the EVGA X79 FTW, and then later found out about the actual link assignments.
Wait.. Im a bit confused... The 7970, 7950, etc have been out for a few weeks now that take advantage of PCIe3...X79 has PCIe3. This bios has options to switch PCIe2 or 3. It says PCIe3 in GPUz with my 7950 in it. Am I not in PCIe3?
So I ask, again I guess, does this nomenclature matter at all when bandwidth is effectively doubled with the proper gpu in place?
It seems like from the post that you are not even sure if you are at the limit of anything to be honest. Is that a fair assesment? I would like to somehow capture that bandwidth number and see what it is... Just seems like a lot of your concern is based on assumption (in which those assumption are a logical few steps away).
@ Lv - It will be nice to check out other reviews on the board and thank you for your support.
Hope the board comes in and work out of the box, seems to have few people that had issue with this board.
Getting paid for writing a review clearly isnt the issue here, its getting paid to give the review a positive outcome which is what I(and Hokie) took exception to.Also, I don't see why its such a big deal when somebody like Horsehead suggest a reviewer might have been paid.
Is that what it is though? Is that the best way to get your point across the first time you post? Is stating the review sucks which COMPLETELY disregards my experience with the board? Would you think a 'hey, just an FYI, I saw this review and wanted to share my different experience. I had problems with the USB ports dropping, and...................just wanted to let the site know'. Dont you think that would have been received better and noted as opposed to what actually happened here? Let's look at his post in detail and see how his post was structured....and then look at the other guy's reply that had an issue. I have to imagine you can see a difference there, especially in the responses towards the bad experiences.Occasionally though, someone comes along who has actual bad experiences with the product and stumbles upon the article which he or she feels must be addressed to warn others or at the very least show dissent.
This is a blatant attack on the credibly of me as a reviewer and this site as a whole. I mean, his first line states this isn't an honest review. That means I lied about my findings...I lied in my review. Does it get any worse???????This review is not a real honest one.
The conclusion also tells me that the reviewer was trying to make the EVGA X79 MB look good, when in fact it is a poorly developed MB that has many problems and could never come close to competing with ASUS, Gigabyte, ASRock, and MSi.
Have reason to believe this review was setup by EVGA (Maybe EVGA through a little money at someone?). Why? EVGA is having serious issues when it comes to MB sales. Someone needs to tell EVGA if they want to increase sales, then they should make an MB that actually works right.
The EVGA X79 MBs are having all kind of weird reliability problems. Way too many! Just visit the EVGA forums and see all the problems the EVGA X79 line-up of MBs have. EVGA even shipped MBs with missing parts and QC tags still attached to them, some even came with bent pins.
It would be gratefully appreciated if Overclock.com removed the EVGA X79 review and replaced it with a more honest one. Because there is know way a good reviewer would recommend the EVGA X79 MBs in there current form/function-able state!