Ivy Bridge CPUs Feature PCI-Express 3.0

[btarunr]

Slides detailing Intel's upcoming "Panther Point" chipset reveal that the next generation of LGA1155 processors will feature PCI-Express 3.0 bus to connect with graphics cards. PCI-Express 3.0 doubles bandwidth over PCI-Express 2.0, and comes with a number of new features and electrical specifications. With Panther Point, Intel put an end to chipsets meant for discrete graphics (such as P67). Here on, all LGA1155 chipsets will support Intel Flexible Display Interface (FDI), although only the Z-series will support overclocking. Among the Z-series, Z77 is the top part supporting a wider range of PCI-Express configurations, Z75 supports discrete graphics with up to 2 graphics cards, while H77 only supports one graphics card, and lacks overclocking features.

Unlike the X79 LGA2011 chipset, Panther Point chipsets don't feature massive 10-port SATA 6 Gb/s storage controllers. Like Cougar Point, it features two SATA 6 Gb/s ports, and four SATA 3 Gb/s. The chipset embeds a USB 3.0 controller, but only 4 out of 14 USB ports are USB 3.0, rest are USB 2.0. Intel's Ivy Bridge will make for the company's 2012 Core Family portfolio, supplying entry-thru-performance segments with processor, while enthusiast segment is care of a different platform.



Source: XFastest

[antuk15]

I hate how Intel is blocking and reducing functionality on lesser priced parts.

If they keep this up I can see people moving to AMD so they can have parts that aren't purposely gimped.

Also makes me laugh how they still can't offer native x16 on atleast 2 lanes.

[devguy]

Originally Posted by antuk15

I hate how Intel is blocking and reducing functionality on lesser priced parts.

If they keep this up I can see people moving to AMD so they can have parts that aren't purposely gimped.

Also makes me laugh how they still can't offer native x16 on atleast 2 lanes.

Do you expect Intel to release equally functional parts for less than higher priced parts? You pay less, you often get less. AMD does the same, as the 890GX and 870 chipsets offer fewer features than the 890FX (but are cheaper).

And Intel offers at least dual PCIe 2.0 x16 slots on their x58 chipsets (I bet on their x79 chipsets too). Also, if these p77 chipsets really have PCIe3.0 slots, and PCIe3.0 doubles bandwidth, then two PCI3.0 8x slots should be similar to two PCIe2.0 x16 slots.

[Trackr]

Originally Posted by devguy

Do you expect Intel to release equally functional parts for less than higher priced parts? You pay less, you often get less. AMD does the same, as the 890GX and 870 chipsets offer fewer features than the 890FX (but are cheaper).

And Intel offers at least dual PCIe 2.0 x16 slots on their x58 chipsets (I bet on their x79 chipsets too). Also, if these p77 chipsets really have PCIe3.0 slots, and PCIe3.0 doubles bandwidth, then two PCI3.0 8x slots should be similar to two PCIe2.0 x16 slots.

Perfectly said.

I just don't know about this renaming scheme with the letter Z.

It seems so ominous to me. It doesn't seem like a letter that should be followed up with a number.. it feels like just a letter, an end.

It makes me like the product less.

Also, what does it mean? P-Performance. X-Extreme. Z? Might as well go with Y, as in, Why use Z?

[sy5tem]

Z stand for ZombakillamoutafoukaWeuseCrazyNameSheme

[OneCool]

What does the "Intel Flexible Display Interface" look like?

[wolf]

will be interesting to test pci-e 2.0 vs 3.0

when these new chipsets come out will be a great time to by sandy/ivy bridge IMO. I think it will be a new build for me late this year/early next year with sandy bridge. hopefully mini itx.

[mlee49]

I'd love to see performance reviews from PCIE2.0 vs 3.0. I wonder how it will handle the larger memory cards; like the latest 3GB 580's.

[cheesy999]

Originally Posted by mlee49

I'd love to see performance reviews from PCIE2.0 vs 3.0. I wonder how it will handle the larger memory cards; like the latest 3GB 580's.

i'd imagine ther'd be close too no difference seeing as its only a few % difference between 1.0 and 2.0

[Fourstaff]

Originally Posted by cheesy999

i'd imagine ther'd be close too no difference seeing as its only a few % difference between 1.0 and 2.0

Possibly in graphics card, but if its PCI-e based SSD I think we might see more performance benefit.

[TheGuruStud]

Originally Posted by Fourstaff

Possibly in graphics card, but if its PCI-e based SSD I think we might see more performance benefit.

Aren't SSD's only 1x cards? LOL

Graphics push massive amounts of data. A few hundred megs isn't much.

I guess the unaffordable internally raided SSD's can push 1GB/sec + but even that's not enough to max anything pci-e.

[Fourstaff]

Originally Posted by TheGuruStud

Aren't SSD's only 1x cards? LOL

Graphics push massive amounts of data. A few hundred megs isn't much.

I guess the unaffordable internally raided SSD's can push 1GB/sec + but even that's not enough to max anything pci-e.

Yup, that's why they will benefit from the speed bump. PCI-E 2.0 x1 can only take 500MBps, and the fastest drives are already hitting that. If you are running Crossfire/SLi in 1155 and you want a PCI-E SSD, then this will be a boon for you.

[TheGuruStud]

Originally Posted by Fourstaff

Yup, that's why they will benefit from the speed bump. PCI-E 2.0 x1 can only take 500MBps, and the fastest drives are already hitting that. If you are running Crossfire/SLi in 1155 and you want a PCI-E SSD, then this will be a boon for you.

Then you just need a better MB and use a 4x or full size slot like a man

[Fourstaff]

Originally Posted by TheGuruStud

Then you just need a better MB and use a 4x or full size slot like a man

Not everyone can afford (or would want a) mobo with NF200.

[xenocide]

This is really unnecessary but it's always nice to see new Technology implemented.

[npp]

There is one very nice side to this piece of news, if some vendor comes up with the idea of splitting those lanes in 4x4 you get quad SLI/CrossFireX for the masses I'd say 3 midrange cards would do a nice job blowing everything else away, plus there are still 4 lanes (~8 2.0 lanes) for whatever fancy SSD you wish. In a nutshell, pretty fancy setup for an entry-to-mid-level system, isn't it Sounds a bit odd, 4 lanes for video, but I guess this should be perfectly fine, given that today's top-end models don't mind not saturating a 8x link.

[Undead46]

So does that mean we'll be getting new MoBo's and GPU's now? :/

[npp]

Sandy and Ivy should be pin compatible, so if you've got a 1155 board, you should be fine.

[thunderising]

Originally Posted by antuk15

I hate how Intel is blocking and reducing functionality on lesser priced parts.

If they keep this up I can see people moving to AMD so they can have parts that aren't purposely gimped.

Also makes me laugh how they still can't offer native x16 on atleast 2 lanes.

Actually I hate how INTEL killed the concept of overclocking.

The thrill, of making a 249$ quad perform as good as the 999$ (remember Core 2 Quad era) quad has all gone. Now you just buy ready-made OC chips for 299$ and get high because you upped the Multiplier and "overclocked"(a joke) it.

[Cpt.Derrek]

would be nice to see a performance boost from 3.0 but we won't be able to see anything different until PCIe 3.0 cards come out. Can't run a PCIe 2.0 video card at 3.0 speeds.

[Mussels]

Originally Posted by OneCool

What does the "Intel Flexible Display Interface" look like?

display port.

[Mussels]

Originally Posted by thunderising

Actually I hate how INTEL killed the concept of overclocking.

The thrill, of making a 249$ quad perform as good as the 999$ (remember Core 2 Quad era) quad has all gone. Now you just buy ready-made OC chips for 299$ and get high because you upped the Multiplier and "overclocked"(a joke) it.

OCing started off with unlocked multipliers. it was only because of hardware pirates who got say, a pentium 90 and wrote over it saying it was a pentium 120 (you had to manually set multipliers via DIP switches back then) that made them lock it in the first place.



your argument is utterly crazy, what, you dont like it now that OCing is easier again?

[thunderising]

your argument is utterly crazy, what, you dont like it now that OCing is easier again?

no, I'm not against easy OC9but wheres the fun in easy OC).

I'm sad because of what I told you, read it again will you

of making a 249$ quad perform as good as the 999$ (remember Core 2 Quad era) quad has all gone.

[Mussels]

Originally Posted by thunderising

no, I'm not against easy OC9but wheres the fun in easy OC).

I'm sad because of what I told you, read it again will you

your two points are contradictory. you want people to OC a cheaper CPU to match a more expensive, but only if its hard to do?

I can read what you're writing many times, but you're still contradicting yourself. all i can come up with is that you've maintaned an illusion about OCing and how much skill it requires (near zero, its just trial and error), and you feel like your hard earned skill is going to waste. Hence 'all the fun is gone'. Try playing some games with your hardware instead of OCing that last Mhz.



as for buying cheap CPU's and OCing them... did you forget about AMD? duals that turn into quads, and then OC ridiculous amounts?

[fullinfusion]

iVOY IS BREACKAVLE COMPAINDED TO TJHE AMD'S INTEL killer CPU********
Gimme a hand bro===



Just gini a hand bro!!!!!!!!!!!! SET IT AND RUN IT, IF YOU GET A HIT THERE ITS A BONUS..... HOMO'S.... i FOLLOW YA AND SEE YOU GOING TO HIT THE SIDE OF THE ROARS....

Kinda like the exa chain saw massacre b4 the shit hit the fan lol

Real in boyz!!!!! TRUST ME!!!