I'm not a fan of Intel's socket strategy, it's not good for consumers having to buy CPU/Motherboard/RAM in order to upgrade because of differing sockets. The whole idea of a modular system is to enable simple and easy upgrade options and Intel restricts those. It's annoying.
I'll more than likely buy AMD for my next upgrade simply because I'll have more upgrade options in the future.
That's what I'm planning on doing. Although, first gen Bulldozer is on AM3+ (as I'm sure you're aware). Second gen is, however, on FM2. Which I think would last for a while, as AM3 did. But if you're planning on jumping on BD first gen, as I am, be wary of upgrades.
ExHail
I'm not a fan of Intel's socket strategy, it's not good for consumers having to buy CPU/Motherboard/RAM in order to upgrade because of differing sockets.
It's not that different from AMD. Intel's recent sockets last two generations of chips, and then you need to change not out of a whim, but because moving to something like quad channel really does need different motherboard wiring.
how much difference will quad channel make though?
kalniel
It's not that different from AMD. Intel's recent sockets last two generations of chips, and then you need to change not out of a whim, but because moving to something like quad channel really does need different motherboard wiring.
The difference, which is a problem, is that they have carved out 2 tiers with their sockets. What I did with my LGA775 socket was initially purchase a low/mid range CPU/RAM paired with a high range motherboard that worked well for a year and then upgraded to a high end CPU of another generation effectively saving me hundreds of pounds while giving me a considerable boost in performance. With the current setup they've created I can't do that; If I buy mid range equipment from Intel I'm stuck in that bracket for my next CPU purchase unless I purchase a new motherboard and RAM.
I hate the way they've forced a decision on me based on some business strategy they've devised.
ExHail
The difference, which is a problem, is that they have carved out 2 tiers with their sockets. What I did with my LGA775 socket was initially purchase a low/mid range CPU/RAM paired with a high range motherboard that worked well for a year and then upgraded to a high end CPU of another generation effectively saving me hundreds of pounds while giving me a considerable boost in performance. With the current setup they've created I can't do that; If I buy mid range equipment from Intel I'm stuck in that bracket for my next CPU purchase unless I purchase a new motherboard and RAM.
I hate the way they've forced a decision on me based on some business strategy they've devised.
AMD have done exactly the same with their server socket, G34 is the equivalent of Intel's 2011. AMD also have socket C32. Intel have rather fewer socket divisions and there's more overlap between them (enthusiasts can buy desktop parts for use with the server socket for example.)
Biscuit
how much difference will quad channel make though?
For the home user, none. This is a server part really, they're just letting enthusiasts get their hands on it too. We need more mem bandwidth for our compute centres at work, so these look ideal.
I thought the X68 chipset was replacing the X58?! I'm getting confused! Why can't we have one socket that can take all the CPU's (IE 2011, with the LGA1156/LGA1155 being able to be dropped in as well?)…
tickleonthetum
I thought the X68 chipset was replacing the X58?! I'm getting confused! Why can't we have one socket that can take all the CPU's (IE 2011, with the LGA1156/LGA1155 being able to be dropped in as well?)…
X79 is replacing X58. (server/enthusiast)
P67/Z68 replaced p55 etc. (mainstream)
One socket to rule them all would be ace, but you'd waste a lot of cost on the motherboards with triple/quad channel wiring for RAM etc. when the mainsteam chips only need dual. It's all about not-compromising - why would people want to pay for things they don't need?
kalniel
AMD have done exactly the same with their server socket, G34 is the equivalent of Intel's 2011. AMD also have socket C32. Intel have rather fewer socket divisions and there's more overlap between them (enthusiasts can buy desktop parts for use with the server socket for example.)
I apologise for not stipulating my frame of reference. I am only aware of home user/builder options for computer components and as such only Intel have divided the market into 2 tiers.
I admire your knowledge of server technology but it is of little to no consequence for a gamer. I also feel that the impact of creating tiers in the consumer market is far more profound than the server market because of the constraints on budget and the lack of money generated by the equipment. So to me you make a completely pointless argument…
kalniel
X79 is replacing X58. (server/enthusiast)
P67/Z68 replaced p55 etc. (mainstream)
One socket to rule them all would be ace, but you'd waste a lot of cost on the motherboards with triple/quad channel wiring for RAM etc. when the mainsteam chips only need dual. It's all about not-compromising - why would people want to pay for things they don't need?
I'm sure if they really worked at it they could solve the issues, but they won't because they make more money out of us by doing it the way they do now…
Pci-e2 lanes are listed as 8, which is lowest pci-e lane count ever seen, especially for 2011 pins. there is fly in pudding.
game card, NO sli/crossfire, just 1/2 of average pci-e2 card. people are going to rave about loss of ALL high end performance if number be 8. although 8 is my favorite number.
if sells, must be some fast two stepping to ge controlers up to expected high end 48 lanes. just most simple mai8n should be 20 lanes. why 2011 without pci-e3.0. finally some real cruzin'.
drashek md:stupid:
ExHail
I admire your knowledge of server technology but it is of little to no consequence for a gamer.
I completely disagree. Intel could just restrict gamers to using mainstream technology, and in fact they expect the major of them will use mainstream stuff, given it's also mind blowingly quick, however, for the tiny percentage of enthusiasts that want to use server technology, Intel lets them with the skt 2011/X79 and Sandy Bridge-E. If you have no interest in server level technology then don't worry about reading news articles like this about it - stick to mainstream Sandy (and soon to come Ivy) bridge.
I also feel that the impact of creating tiers in the consumer market is far more profound than the server market
So AMD's FM1 vs AM3+ socket is relevant here as well you're saying?
thomasxstewart
Pci-e2 lanes are listed as 8, which is lowest pci-e lane count ever seen, especially for 2011 pins. there is fly in pudding.
game card, NO sli/crossfire, just 1/2 of average pci-e2 card. people are going to rave about loss of ALL high end performance if number be 8. although 8 is my favorite number.
if sells, must be some fast two stepping to ge controlers up to expected high end 48 lanes. just most simple mai8n should be 20 lanes. why 2011 without pci-e3.0. finally some real cruzin'.
drashek md:stupid:
That's solely for storage/peripherals. There's 32 lanes directly off the CPU for graphics, and they don't state which PCI-E version they are, I would expect v3.
kalniel
I completely disagree. Intel could just restrict gamers to using mainstream technology, and in fact they expect the major of them will use mainstream stuff, given it's also mind blowingly quick, however, for the tiny percentage of enthusiasts that want to use server technology, Intel lets them with the skt 2011/X79 and Sandy Bridge-E. If you have no interest in server level technology then don't worry about reading news articles like this about it - stick to mainstream Sandy (and soon to come Ivy) bridge.
Clearly you interpret "
little to no consequence" differently to me… What you've said doesn't diverge from the quote you put before it.
The reason I've read and made myself aware of this information is because it will be in the consumer market place. Anything in the consumer market place I would like the learn about to make my next purchasing decision as informed as possible. The distinction I make between technology is not it's intended use but where it is available and unavailable.
kalniel
So AMD's FM1 vs AM3+ socket is relevant here as well you're saying?
Good point. I forgot about that. I haven't had that socket interfere with any decisions I've made so it's impact, to me, is far less.
I am hoping that the FM2 socket becomes the single socket all processors from AMD are released on in the future, I could be wrong but I feel that is far more likely than Intel having only 1 consumer socket for all it's processors.
That's a good pic. Where can I see details of the PCIe lanes, and the spacing of the slots ? Looking for a double spaced MoBo.
The 8 lanes from the chipset will be in addition to the lanes coming from the cpu (part of the reason for all the pins is the on die pci-e controller)
