Question Intel needs AMD CPUs in order to test their future PCIe 4.0 SSDs....TT

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Not open for further replies.


Diamond Member
Jul 4, 2005
Intel needs AMD CPUs in order to test their future PCIe 4.0 SSDs

Oh, how the tables have turned -- Intel has no CPUs that are capable of supporting PCIe 4.0 technology, so they need to use AMD Ryzen 3000 series CPUs along with an X570 motherboard to test their latest storage products.


Glauber Costa
· Dec 19, 2019
@axboe Is there a minimal kernel version you recommend for using liburing ? I see a lot of tests failing when running make runtests, and one of them fails in a way similar to some weird behavior I was trying to chase down in the code I am writing. I'm on 5.3 (because lazy)

Frank Ober
@glcst would you like to test on gen2 pcie 4 capable optane ssd to see your code's potential? Then I can set that up for you. Send me a private email when you are ready... @axboe has his own...

Intel technical marketing performance engineer, Frank Ober, tweeted (above) that Intel can send PCIe 4.0-capable SSDs to developers, but they'll need PCIe 4.0-capable CPUs and motherboards to test them. The super-fast new Alder Stream SSDs (an updated version of their Optane drive tech, with second-gen 3D XPoint technology).

But in order to ramp up those speeds they will need more PCIe lanes, and since PCIe 3.0 is pretty much tapped out -- the doubling in bandwidth to PCIe 4.0 is a tasty offering. But, Intel has no PCIe 4.0 anything right now -- so they're stuck. Intel won't have PCIe 4.0-capable CPUs until 2021 which means they need to lean on their main competitor in AMD until then.


Platinum Member
Feb 10, 2017
I said as much. And you quoted it. My point is all this extra fluff talking about it in my humble opinion needs to stop. These forums are supposed to be technical. Not Polar Bears.

No you wouldn't agree with me "if". Because the link doesn't show that. And I said that it doesn't show that. This whole bit is uncalled for. Being technical forums the only thing I tried to do was correct the incorrect dismissal Mark did by saying that the M.2 link provided by TheELF had something to do with storage, but me calling that out didn't make my argument pro-TheELF. And you quoted me basically saying as much so I'm not sure why this has to drag on.

To everyone else: OFF TOPIC WARNING where I try to respond to condescending, passive aggressive rudeness towards me. My apologies.

Really? Thanks for clearing this up. Since you clearly wasn't ready to move on, carefully ignored my self-critical, acknowledging, jokingly reconciling tone that I used at the end of my post, and then thew it right back into my face, allow me to apologize for mistaking your first post as a very strange way to point out some irrelevant error - which you were still calling unfair anyway - for what it really was: the worst kind of off topic (not the funny or interesting kind), which is cutting an already escalated argument in half just for the sake of defending the wrongfully taken honor of a link. In my humble opinion, this has the same added value and effect on a topic, as continuously correcting spelling errors even after you see that the parties are already past the point where every reply seems reasonable and respectful. That is what I see as extra fluff, your first post.

Since I realize that I tried to interpret your post as not being extra fluff, which led to this whole misunderstanding (and 2 previous replies to you), as you see, even now my intention was to clear up what you wrote - and then to find out, why did you just repeat your original reply to me again, highlighting the only part that I actually found to be relevant and not just self-servingly making sure that you let someone know something they obviously never gave a flickering fudge about - I was ready to just give a like and say to myself: I must have misunderstood something.
Of course, the essence of your post and your whole attitude towards me was still coming: you had to be rude, God knows why, and sound as if you were all too weary from being so exalted when you said right after this: can we move on? To be as cheeky and cynical as what I can possibly get away with here: I'm so sorry that you had to endure my entire first reply, thus interrupting your quest of utmost importance, chasing down remorseless errors that embitter the life of so many unsuspecting expressions, codenames, links and other virtual entities, that just wanna be understood and accepted exactly for who they are, no matter what the respective points and topics are, that just carelessly and selflessly syphon these entities into themselves.

I promise you without any joke or any similarly valueless cynicism though: you don't have to go through that any more, I won't quote you anymore.

Saved the best for last: did you really just arbitrarily declare, that because of these forums are supposed to be technical, then it means that emphasizing the level of how far one technical thing is disconnected from another technical thing with the use of a non-technical thing - explicitly because its obviously vast distance from anything technical was exactly the point that helped me to demonstrate the discrepancy between those 2 technical things - somehow makes these forums not technical? How come I haven't found anything in the AT Forum Rules, that would even remotely resemble any limitation regarding what I use to emphasize my arguments and illustrations, aside from being rude, discriminating, offensive, profane or deliberately insulting? I wonder which of these limitations do I step over, when I dare to use a polar bear for the sake of a freaking comparison to be more plastic, for God's sake. I would have never thought that doing this would be out of place, or that it would just add extra fluff when I try to calmly and curiously resolve a misunderstanding between 2 people, even during multiple replies, even when it's not always about a specific technical issue in the argument, but about clarifying what and how somebody intended to say, in case it could be interpreted in different ways - all this in order to be able to resume the conversation without the feeling of just running in circles... So I would have never thought that by doing this I just add unneeded extra fluff (not this particular comment of course). If that's the case, I get out of here right now, because I was raised wrong. Or maybe I was just deliberately trained wrong, as a joke.

Anyway, congratulations for correcting the dismissal, may all the links rejoice.

Let's move on, shall we?
Last edited:
Not open for further replies.