News on Ivy Bridge-E? - Page 6

ShintaiDK · 02-20-2013, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crashtech

The trick for loons like me that are contemplating a move to 2011 is to divine which boards will be forward compatible.

LGA2011 and LGA1155 for that matter follows the same cycle.

Haswell-E/EP wont work on LGA2011.

There are only 3 reasons to buy LGA2011. Need more than 4 cores, need more than 32GB or need more than 16 PCIe lanes for graphics.

But LGA2011 adds a premium, plus its technological behind.

AdamK47 · 02-20-2013, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShintaiDK

LGA2011 and LGA1155 for that matter follows the same cycle.

Haswell-E/EP wont work on LGA2011.

There are only 3 reasons to buy LGA2011. Need more than 4 cores, need more than 32GB or need more than 16 PCIe lanes for graphics.

But LGA2011 adds a premium, plus its technological behind.

I sense some aversion to the platform.

IntelEnthusiast · 02-20-2013, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShintaiDK

LGA2011 and LGA1155 for that matter follows the same cycle.

Haswell-E/EP wont work on LGA2011.

There are only 3 reasons to buy LGA2011. Need more than 4 cores, need more than 32GB or need more than 16 PCIe lanes for graphics.

But LGA2011 adds a premium, plus its technological behind.

It is important to understand that that LGA2011 and the Intel® Core™ i7s processors that use it are treated as server products within business plan. That means that it will have at least a 2 year cycle over the 1 year cycle of normal desktop platforms. So while it may not be the cutting edge as far as the micro-architecture it is something that you can build into a business plan.

ShintaiDK · 02-20-2013, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IntelEnthusiast

It is important to understand that that LGA2011 and the Intel® Core™ i7s processors that use it are treated as server products within business plan. That means that it will have at least a 2 year cycle over the 1 year cycle of normal desktop platforms. So while it may not be the cutting edge as far as the micro-architecture it is something that you can build into a business plan.

I assume you think on something else like product avaliability. Because Intel is doing the exact same as on the desktop in terms of products. Its simple pushed timewise due to validation.

cantholdanymore · 02-20-2013, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamK47

I sense some aversion to the platform.

Absolutely dude

, I don't understand why is these forum a great number of members like to bash the 2011 platform. I don't need 6 (or 8 in the future) cores but I really really want it. The only reason I don't have it is $$$, it is not because "it doesn't fit my needs"

frozentundra123456 · 02-20-2013, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cantholdanymore

Absolutely dude

, I don't understand why is these forum a great number of members like to bash the 2011 platform. I don't need 6 (or 8 in the future) cores but I really really want it. The only reason I don't have it is $$$, it is not because "it doesn't fit my needs"

I think because what people really want is a cheaper true hex core on a mainstream platform. Basically you said that yourself.

Ajay · 02-20-2013, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IntelEnthusiast

It is important to understand that that LGA2011 and the Intel® Core™ i7s processors that use it are treated as server products within business plan. That means that it will have at least a 2 year cycle over the 1 year cycle of normal desktop platforms. So while it may not be the cutting edge as far as the micro-architecture it is something that you can build into a business plan.

That explains allot. Thanks.

crashtech · 02-20-2013, 02:16 PM

I think I'm more interesting in knowing about what products will be available in the future for 2011 and which boards will support them, with requisite updates, than I am about wasting bandwidth justifying my need or desire for such parts.

Ajay · 02-20-2013, 05:53 PM

One bummer about Socket R (at least the current one) is the X79 doesn't allow for dual E class processors, like Skulltrail etc. EVGA's SR-X is great if you really want a top end gaming/workstation, but shelling out for locked Xeon's isn't so fun. The market is small, yes, but if mobo vendors are willing to support it, why doesn't Intel let them take the risk?

Fox5 · 02-20-2013, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShintaiDK

LGA2011 and LGA1155 for that matter follows the same cycle.

Haswell-E/EP wont work on LGA2011.

There are only 3 reasons to buy LGA2011. Need more than 4 cores, need more than 32GB or need more than 16 PCIe lanes for graphics.

But LGA2011 adds a premium, plus its technological behind.

But compared to Xeon stuff, it looks pretty good. It loses out on ECC memory, but you get to have 64GB of ram, 6 cores, and a high clock speed. At the same cost, a Xeon is way slower and makes even AMD's Opterons competitive from a cost /performance perspective.

In my case, I wanted ECC and virtualization features more so, so I went AM3+ with 32GB of ram. It also helped that I already had a 6 core phenom II to reuse...sure it's nowhere as fast, but a decent amount of memory, ECC, and virtualization were more important to me. My friend however went with LGA2011 for his platform, because his needed the memory and speed more so.