[EarthDog]

What if we used SSD caching with HDD though and had another SSD? Better hope its not a new SSD in that case...

[MattNo5ss]

I'd hope someone wouldn't spend a ton on a current gen SSD just for caching a HDD...

[Surfrider77]

By that logic, I am willing to bet there are a lot more people looking for the additional SATA3 ports vs 4-Way SLI/CF. Lets not forget, they also omitted ANY native USB 3.0 support.

I think the bottom line is, X79 is a huge letdown and there is no justification in the pricing.

On the other hand, the CPUs are amazing. (Especially the 3930K and its pricepoint)

[EarthDog]

I meant that the other way around... You need to put your SSD+HDD on the 2 Sata3 Intel ports... leaving none available for another SATA3 SSD. That method is a bit backwards though so not sure how realistic that setup is.

[LancerVI]

Originally Posted by MattNo5ss

From Intel's point of view, why does there need to be a crap ton of SATA ports on a desktop platform? Two SATAIII ports means you would need at least three current gen SSDs and need them in RAID before a complaint was warranted on the amount of SATAIII ports on X79. Now, it also has 4 SATAII ports, plenty of speed for HDDs.

Now you have to think about how many people in the desktop market actually need more than 2 SATAIII ports and 4 SATAII ports. I would think 1% or less need either 3 SATAIII SSDs in RAID or more than 6 total internal storage devices.

Because it's an enthusiast board. Enthusiast's like options don't we? I certainly use all of my ports and have discrete controllers for more. But I'm an 'enthusiast'. Architecturally, sure X79 has the goods, but if you're not going to use the lanes, then what's the point? Who want's third party Marvell controllers? They're crap.

As I've posted before, the Sandy Bridge-E/X79 combination was originally planned to include on-processor PCI Express 3.0 support. It was supposed to enable 14 SATA ports, 10 of which were 6 Gb/s-capable and ready to accommodate SAS drives. There was even an additional four-lane link between the CPU and PCH dedicated to augmenting storage performance and USB 3.0.

...and then to further the loss, from the mainstream, you lose QuickSync.

PCI E 3.0 is all we got and it's not even official support at this point. What justifies the price jump of the chipset? Nothing.

Anand, Tom's and HardOCP have all come to the same conclusion. It falls way short as a platform in the enthusiast class. I don't see how anyone could come to a different conclusion. It IS P67 with more lanes at a huge price premium. That's not exactlly compelling.

It's too bad. The proc IS compelling, but tied to this platform??? I'll pass.

....

[Theocnoob]

Originally Posted by bmwbaxter

i didn't think bclk went above 100mhz all FSB strap did was add a multi so it was like 125mhz, 150mhz, 200mhz and 250mhz. but blck stayed at 100mhz. thats how I understood it working. Clarification?

EDIT: my 2600k and M4E can do 108.3 thats over 107

That's actually pretty darn impressive and yes it is over 107

[SteveLord]

Looks like we have a fancy hispeed motor......strapped onto a canoe.

[EarthDog]

Originally Posted by SteveLord

Looks like we have a fancy hispeed motor......strapped onto a luxury yacht but missing the helipad, shore boat, and conference room.

Fixed.

Im sure people will get by.

[Surfrider77]

Kinda sounds like a "Taco Supreme" without the sour cream or tomatoes! LOL

(Guess what I had for dinner!?)

[MattNo5ss]

I agree, no USB3.0 is disappointing. I also agree that we always want more features. I just don't think that not having 14 SATA ports (10 SATAIII) is a deal breaker...

I would think if someone is going to use that many hard drives, then a discrete third party controller would be better anyways. I was under the impression that discrete cards were faster than onboard, for RAID anyways.

As for the multiple GPU part, it's not only 4-way SLI/CFX. All multiple GPU setups will be better on SB-E than SB. Only 3 or 4 way SLI/CFX would be better on SB-E than X58. This is just considering bandwidth for the GPUs.

[Super Nade]

I agree with HardOCP's take on this:

http://hardocp.com/article/2011/11/1...essor_review/9

I am not sure who is supposed to buy a 3960X. I really do not see it benefiting gamers. I do not see it being a boon too overclocking enthusiasts due to price, power usage, and subsequently heat output. I guess if I sat around all day ripping Blu-ray disks and encoding those for torrent sites, it would be awesome. Maybe that could be Intel's new 3960X motto, "Sandy Bridge E, maximizing BitTorrent ratios, one desktop at a time." Meh. Let's see what the K series brings before we totally turn our noses up at this beast of a processor...that none of us really need, or I think even want. I think we have enough cores for now. Get your noses back on the grindstone and give us stellar IPC gains or even better, 5GHz stock clocks.

A lot of tongue in cheek, but it does ring true. This seems like a gimmick rather than anything useful (Quadfather anyone?).

[hokiealumnus]

dejo & IMOG: comments on SNB-E sub-zero - 4Way SLI with Asus X79 Rampage IV Extreme and 1650 core 3D11 single card !

Originally Posted by nickshih

Average cpu clock is around 5.2xG ~ 5.4xG Mhz.

Memory controller has lots difference under air cooling.

If u want to do Extreme benching under Ln2 , also have to check the ability of memory controller under cold.

Chip will have CB and CBB issue with higher memory clock or timing . Some chips dont boot under cold even it can do 2500 memory on air cooing.

The chips binning of SB-E becomes a combination game.

[EarthDog]

What I took from that... 100pcs, average 5.2-5.5Ghz... Yikes. Not a clockspeed queen!

[I.M.O.G.]

Thanks Hokie, good to know.

[hokiealumnus]

Originally Posted by EarthDog

What I took from that... 100pcs, average 5.2-5.5Ghz... Yikes. Not a clockspeed queen!

No, it would appear not. But, fwiw, massman says...

Originally Posted by massman

In Vantage, a 5300MHz Sandy Bridge-E will deliver similar performance like a 6000MHz Gulftown; if you're lucky and find a 5500+ chip, you're safe.

Also, assuming your chip can get there in the first place, it's a heck of a lot easier to run a 3960X at 5.3GHz than it is to run a Gulftown at 6GHz+.

Heh, so it looks like you trade binning for difficulty. I'm not 100% on it, but pretty sure you have to bin to get a 6GHz+ Gulftown too, so there's binning involved either way.

[David]

£480 for the CPU in the UK, plus £190 for a board equals the end of my relationship if I even *dare* think about it

[bmwbaxter]

hmm, well if 5.2 seems to be the low end of average I am okay with it. It will allow 90% of the current scores set by gulftowns to go down

Not sure if others feel the same but I like how the new intel chips are making it easier for the non-sponsored benchers to somewhat compete with the sponsored guys.

[EarthDog]

Read that too. I was hoping for 5.3-5.6Ghz (SB averages or so)... Not too far off. Come ooonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn 5.5Ghz please!

[Janus67]

Originally Posted by hokiealumnus

No, it would appear not. But, fwiw, massman says...



Also, assuming your chip can get there in the first place, it's a heck of a lot easier to run a 3960X at 5.3GHz than it is to run a Gulftown at 6GHz+.

Heh, so it looks like you trade binning for difficulty. I'm not 100% on it, but pretty sure you have to bin to get a 6GHz+ Gulftown too, so there's binning involved either way.

Isn't it pretty much always been about binning? I mean not every celeron will do 8+ ghz, etc. So different batches/steppings (if it comes down to batches mattering again instead of just random luck) will be better clockers than others as usual?

[Archer0915]

Good job and that processor is impressive. When the IB gets here I am going to see how the QuickSync compares to the 6+6 threads because encoding is the only use I would have for that processor.