Intel LGA2011 Socket, X68 Express Chipset Pictured

[bear jesus]

Interesting setup but i assume it will cause even more clearance problems with big coolers when used with tall ram.

I really look forward to seeing how the LGA2011 chips perform.

Originally Posted by Cuzza

Being released in the year 2011. Does Intel have that much time on there hands that they can engineer a socket to have a desirable number of pins, rather than a number that is convenient and works for the technology? Or is it simple coincidence?

I would assume it's just a coincidence kind of like the Nvidia 480 having 480 cuda cores.

[wolf]

schmeezus christ quad channel ddr3 with 6-8 or 12 core CPU's... talk about beasty.

if the 2600K is anything to go by... an 8 or 12 core will be rape on a stick.

[bear jesus]

Originally Posted by wolf

schmeezus christ quad channel ddr3 with 6-8 or 12 core CPU's... talk about beasty.

if the 2600K is anything to go by... an 8 or 12 core will be rape on a stick.

More like bank account rape

A K or extreme edition LGA2011 12 core chip and board with 4 channels worth of 2ghz+ DDR3 i assume will not come cheap.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by bear jesus

More like bank account rape

A K or extreme edition LGA2011 12 core chip and board with 4 channels worth of 2ghz+ DDR3 i assume will not come cheap.

no doubt about that, but I've got a feeling it will be the fastest combination you can buy. record setters then holders.

[bear jesus]

Originally Posted by wolf

no doubt about that, but I've got a feeling it will be the fastest combination you can buy. record setters then holders.

Definitely, I would assume Intel is not stupid enough to limit the extreme editions when it comes to temperature so a 2011 sandy bridge under a liquid nitrogen pot is probably going to set some impressive records later this year.

Although I'm unsure on the core count, i can't find much on it but on the sandy bridge wiki there is 6 and 8 core CPU's listed (although no reference thus why I'm still unsure) but with HT that would be 12 or 16 cores, either way there will be some insane benchmark world records set later this year with the right cooling.

[chodaboy19]

Originally Posted by Completely Bonkers

Just to add a bit more here. This isn't really "quad-channel" but rather it is a dual dual-channel. There are two independent sets of dual-channel memory feeding different cores. There is an internal ring-bus for forwarding memory data in the CPU to the relevant core.

Quad-channel would be better (simpler design) in a single core system.

Dual dual-channel is better (faster) in a multi-core situation where multiple cores are working independently.

[The theoretic bandwidth of the memory is the same, but dual dual-channels can be accessing different memory locations and forwarding the data directly to different processor cores simultaneously and independently. Whereas with quad channel, latency increases when the second memory request from the second core waits for the first to be completed then forwarded by the ring bus.] *

* I put that in brackets because I'm not 100% sure of the implementation in Sandy Bridge. It might use a mixed methodology, ie. using both approaches, depending on demand. We need to know more about how those cache controllers are memory controllers have been designed.

How sure are you about this? This is the first time I have heard this about LGA2011.

[meran]

well starting from now i think motherboard makers asked intel to change socket every 2 years
we have 1155 instead of 1166 now 2011 and after 2 years 2013

where is greeen in these products they want us to dump the cool 1166 for 1155?? why is that just money money money

[Yellow&Nerdy?]

Quad-channel just means that I have to spend extra money on RAM... Most users don't need more than 4GB. But then people with a budget will probably get LGA1155 or Bulldozer.

A 8-core or a 12-core will definitely completely trash everything from AMD, but then will cost 2-5 times more. Just like this generation... This platform is going to be cutting edge, but costs a load, so it'll be a perfect successor for LGA1366. TBH, a 8-core or a 12-core will be an overkill for the vast majority of users: the extra cores are really only useful in servers.

[meran]

Originally Posted by Yellow&Nerdy?

Quad-channel just means that I have to spend extra money on RAM... Most users don't need more than 4GB. But then people with a budget will probably get LGA1155 or Bulldozer.

A 8-core or a 12-core will definitely completely trash everything from AMD, but then will cost 2-5 times more. Just like this generation... This platform is going to be cutting edge, but costs a load, so it'll be a perfect successor for LGA1366. TBH, a 8-core or a 12-core will be an overkill for the vast majority of users: the extra cores are really only useful in servers.

+1

[avatar_raq]

Originally Posted by TAViX

Just curious, how much better is this X68 over P67 chipset. Need a comparison....

x68 will be convenient for uber quad-SLI/CF machines. There is a good chance that LGA 2011 CPUs will perform better than 1155 ones clock for clock.

[meirb111]

another socket for intel this amount of sockets numbers sucks

[ensabrenoir]

Originally Posted by Yellow&Nerdy?

Quad-channel just means that I have to spend extra money on RAM... Most users don't need more than 4GB. But then people with a budget will probably get LGA1155 or Bulldozer.

A 8-core or a 12-core will definitely completely trash everything from AMD, but then will cost 2-5 times more. Just like this generation... This platform is going to be cutting edge, but costs a load, so it'll be a perfect successor for LGA1366. TBH, a 8-core or a 12-core will be an overkill for the vast majority of users: the extra cores are really only useful in servers.

Totally true! Yet ...Already started saving for 1 Just like no one really needs a 200+mph car or a tablet pc(still don't get it). Something primal within us cry's out for the biggest and baddest of everything. If we lived like the flinestones and Intel and Amd were club makers..... well you get the pictures,

[mlee49]

Nice to finally start hearing about this. Will definitely be interested to see if Intel executes well on processors.

[Wile E]

Originally Posted by Yellow&Nerdy?

Quad-channel just means that I have to spend extra money on RAM... Most users don't need more than 4GB. But then people with a budget will probably get LGA1155 or Bulldozer.

A 8-core or a 12-core will definitely completely trash everything from AMD, but then will cost 2-5 times more. Just like this generation... This platform is going to be cutting edge, but costs a load, so it'll be a perfect successor for LGA1366. TBH, a 8-core or a 12-core will be an overkill for the vast majority of users: the extra cores are really only useful in servers.

Also useful for encoding.

[sneekypeet]

wow options for stock or water cooling with 2011, I'm impressed..../sarcasm

[CDdude55]

Awesome, can't wait to see some benchmarks and games being ran on a LGA 2011 setup.

Though of course i can tell i won't be able to afford it, and my wallet starts crying just thinking about it how much the platform will be. lol

[[H]@RD5TUFF]

Sexy I hope it's real, and not a troll.

I am quite glad I skipped out on P55 and X58 mass adoption, as ram prices have come down so much quad channel makes sense, monetary wise anyway.

[sneekypeet]

On topic, fair warning!

[AddSub]

Two years ago LINK

I'm glad I jumped onto LGA1366 early on. It was obvious they had a monster platform that would last for a variety of reasons (global economic slowdown, lack of competition in high-end, etc). This looks like what I will upgrade to come December 2011 or January 2012, if there are proper performance gains to be seen. None of this "many times faster in select applications" PR nonsense.

I mean, I would drop my i7/X58 setup in an instant for a single core rig running at say, 10GHz? Considering most apps (95%+???) are single threaded even today, a platform supporting a 10GHz CPU would pretty much burn and pillage through most benchmarks, apps, and games out there. Well, any game that is CPU dependent. Because, let's remember, multi-core CPU's come into existence only because of the "power wall". /sigh

[Robert-The-Rambler]

But we don't even NEED triple channel memory. Overkill...... Tax return is coming soon..... Must resist.......

[Neuromancer]

Originally Posted by AddSub

I mean, I would drop my i7/X58 setup in an instant for a single core rig running at say, 10GHz? Considering most apps (95%+???) are single threaded even today, a platform supporting a 10GHz CPU would pretty much burn and pillage through most benchmarks, apps, and games out there. Well, any game that is CPU dependent. Because, let's remember, multi-core CPU's come into existence only because of the "power wall". /sigh

JOOC, how many times to fire up your PC and only have one app running?

Even when I am gaming I have 8-10 applications running not to mention a serious number of windows background services.

Try running an old P$, single core, run an app that uses 60% CPU power and then try opening something else.. you will see it chug for a while. That is gone thanks to multicore Not saying a 10GHz chip would not be nice though

[de Vlieg]

Ya'all are thilly. Been out in the woods too long. There is one and only one reason to completely change a socket from an established standard. The message is coming in ... "make no mistake, this technology is in no way compatible with any other". Whatever Intel says the holes are, thats where the pins have to be. Mobo makers know why. They're the ones who have to disperse all that brain. Bet they would like to use a yellow, cyan, & magenta RCA male to male to plug into ...chassis mount, yadda yadda, but it is not what is needed.1156 was not needed. Pins had new jobs. Some were out of a job maybe (lots of these jobs were in ...). So you gotta redesign and make it incompatible anyway... you call the tune.
Things change. Once upon a time it was an article of faith in electronics engineering that if you needed to provide secondary cooling to components something was seriously wrong with your design.

[Scavitza]

Hello folks, i'm new here, but i thing i can come with a little idea to the comunity . I saw here about 8 core CPU's and the symetry of RAM slots with the CPU cores. Well, i will came here with a foto, where you can see also the orientation of each memory kit around a fictive 8 core CPU LGA 2011. That it's how i would like to look my future Motherboard



OMG forgot somthing verry important: 20 nm litografy tehnique on the CPU. This combination should eliminate any geometric problem with high freqency's ... i thing ...

[CyberAngel]

Originally Posted by Completely Bonkers

That actually not true at all.

The only reason we saw o |||| is because it was actually like this:

o - N - |||| where N is the northbridge (the memory controller).

Now that N is incorporated onto the CPU die, we can do o - |||| or || - o - ||

Now which one of the above has the shortest distance to the CPU and which one has the most consistent trace lengths? Remember that at high speeds you get all kinds of signalling problems if one memory is twice the distance from the CPU as the other. Inconsistent resistance, capacitance and crosstalk.

The second point is the internal structure of the new multi-core CPU and the internal QPI. You need to think of the memory layout as || - X - || where X is the multicore CPU, and one bank of memory is "closer" to one core and the other bank memory is closer to the other core. And the QPI deals with passing memory data from one side of the CPU to the other if necessary.

I'd rather have ||| - o - ||| wityh 6+6-core Ivy Bridge and 3011 scoket

[CyberAngel]

Originally Posted by entropy13

LOL So you want the RAM to surround your socket, CPU and therefore the heatsink as well?

marvellous idea!
Intel CPU+GPU+RAM module!
4-core 4GB 2-channel, or 8GB unlocked
6-core 6GB 3-channel, or 12GB unlocked
4+4-core 8GB 2+2 channel. or 16GB bigger modules unlocked

8+8-core 48GB 3+3 channel Ivy Bridge on 3011 socket (96GB big modules)