Solution
Jaquith & all, thanks so far for your response, althought a bit heated! 
Question for J: you mentioned that you recommend going w/ N card for the intel CPU/Chipset combo. May I know on what basis do you recommend that? Any major know incompatibility issue between intel i5/i7/P67 combo and ATI video card?
Question for J: you mentioned that you recommend going w/ N card for the intel CPU/Chipset combo. May I know on what basis do you recommend that? Any major know incompatibility issue between intel i5/i7/P67 combo and ATI video card?
EDIT: @jaquith
You really don’t like it when you’re shown to be wrong, do you?
backyard science – you don’t seem to understand component power ratings
photos – your motherboard photo’s are irrelevant
tables – your build chart table is (still) incorrect
On a positive note your latest reply is more balanced. Maybe it’s what your reply “should have been from day 1”. But omg another table! I have seen it before and the good thing about you including it is that it provides evidence your table is incorrect regarding “Performance Over Clocking” and ‘Discrete Graphics Support” for the Z68.
So maybe now you will either remove your table or revise it regarding the Z68.
I’m glad to see you have also accepted that the number of motherboard vrm phases is not dependant on the PCH.
The major outstanding issues are –
1 – You claim your table is based on benchmarks. Please reveal your source(s).
2 – You imply a non-K is preferred for the Z68. This doesn’t make sense.
3 – You state that only the CPU can be overclocked on a Z68. Incorrect.
4 – You claim more phases provide an inherently more robust vrm. Incorrect.
5 – You claim the IGP will hinder gaming performance on a Z68. This will only be verifiable when benchmarks are available.
6 – You claim video resolution is limited by the onboard connectors on a Z68. Incorrect.
7 – You imply the SSD cache is ‘more aggravation than an asset’. Again only time will tell. (by the way – should I try to disable the cache on my CPU and my HDD?)
8 – You can’t decide if a source of information is ‘good’ or not. lol
For anyone who has been patient enough to read this far down the post I still stand by my statement – “PLEASE DO NOT GO BY THE BUILDING CHART”.
My advice is that if you want a system that can be overclocked AND use a discrete graphics card (or cards) AND use QuickSync (for accelerated video [and possibly audio] en/decoding) – get yourself a Z68 with an i5-2500K or an i7-2600K. For gaming there is no evidence so far that the Z68 will be any less able than the P67.
It makes no difference to me if you reply to this post or not. But your lack of reply to this, and my previous post, will hopefully help others understand that you are not willing to stand by your claims and statements.
For the record OCD (Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder) can be an extremely serious condition which in no way implies that a sufferer is ‘crazy’. Maybe a contribution to an OCD support group would help to mitigate your erroneous and insulting remark.
You really don’t like it when you’re shown to be wrong, do you?
backyard science – you don’t seem to understand component power ratings
photos – your motherboard photo’s are irrelevant
tables – your build chart table is (still) incorrect
On a positive note your latest reply is more balanced. Maybe it’s what your reply “should have been from day 1”. But omg another table! I have seen it before and the good thing about you including it is that it provides evidence your table is incorrect regarding “Performance Over Clocking” and ‘Discrete Graphics Support” for the Z68.
So maybe now you will either remove your table or revise it regarding the Z68.
I’m glad to see you have also accepted that the number of motherboard vrm phases is not dependant on the PCH.
The major outstanding issues are –
1 – You claim your table is based on benchmarks. Please reveal your source(s).
2 – You imply a non-K is preferred for the Z68. This doesn’t make sense.
3 – You state that only the CPU can be overclocked on a Z68. Incorrect.
4 – You claim more phases provide an inherently more robust vrm. Incorrect.
5 – You claim the IGP will hinder gaming performance on a Z68. This will only be verifiable when benchmarks are available.
6 – You claim video resolution is limited by the onboard connectors on a Z68. Incorrect.
7 – You imply the SSD cache is ‘more aggravation than an asset’. Again only time will tell. (by the way – should I try to disable the cache on my CPU and my HDD?)
8 – You can’t decide if a source of information is ‘good’ or not. lol
For anyone who has been patient enough to read this far down the post I still stand by my statement – “PLEASE DO NOT GO BY THE BUILDING CHART”.
My advice is that if you want a system that can be overclocked AND use a discrete graphics card (or cards) AND use QuickSync (for accelerated video [and possibly audio] en/decoding) – get yourself a Z68 with an i5-2500K or an i7-2600K. For gaming there is no evidence so far that the Z68 will be any less able than the P67.
It makes no difference to me if you reply to this post or not. But your lack of reply to this, and my previous post, will hopefully help others understand that you are not willing to stand by your claims and statements.
For the record OCD (Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder) can be an extremely serious condition which in no way implies that a sufferer is ‘crazy’. Maybe a contribution to an OCD support group would help to mitigate your erroneous and insulting remark.
jaquith
Glorious
- Feb 8, 2009
- 14,235
- 27
- 49,290
alecela :
...althought a bit heated!
Question for J: you mentioned that you recommend going w/ N card for the intel CPU/Chipset combo. May I know on what basis do you recommend that? Any major know incompatibility issue between intel i5/i7/P67 combo and ATI video card?
Question for J: you mentioned that you recommend going w/ N card for the intel CPU/Chipset combo. May I know on what basis do you recommend that? Any major know incompatibility issue between intel i5/i7/P67 combo and ATI video card?
'Heated' is the understatement of the day!
I have been around for a while, and I'm use to AMD {formally ATI} and nVidia leapfrogging one another. The closest thing now is the nVidia GTX 590 vs AMD HD 6990 and the AMD does outperform the nVidia GPU -- today. However, the HD 6990 has such high temps that few want it whereas the GTX 590 runs cooler; the GTX 470/480 were not efficient power consumers but didn't suffer from similar heating issues either. The high-end GPUs all run hotter than average/mainstream GPUs; after the 'heated issues' above I'm certain there are exceptions like EVGA 015-P3-1589-AR that don't run hot.
That said, the nVidia for quite sometime has been on top and offers better scaling in SLI. Further, my long experience with ATI at best is mixed, meaning I have blown a ton of ATI GPUs over the years but never an nVidia so there's a question of reliability. Drivers, I have had more problems with ATI drivers over the years including maintaining and stability than those of nVidia. Further, AMD MOBOs use AMD Chipsets and obviously CPUs with AMD biased performance, meaning the current AMD Chipsets like 890FX don't support SLI -- imagine that.
So performance, reliability and cost/FPS yields nVidia. Doesn't mean that that all cannot change. In either case, if you are only looking for a single GPU then do some research on your particular Application or Game, often AMD is better in one case but not another. Then you need to factor in your environment last year I replaced all of our work PC's and they all are running HD 5770. The decision was for use, the HD 5770 can support 3 monitors off one GPU. In this case ATI/AMD had the advantage, and some single ATI/AMD can support up to 6 monitors; ideal for work not for gaming off a single GPU. Also, AMD is offering their version of 3D that doesn't require 120 Hz monitors, but nVidia does require 120Hz which are very expensive compared to 60 Hz monitors.
If you want AMD/ATI then look at companies like XFX that support 'Lifetime Warranties.' Lastly, there's no issues with Intel and AMD/ATI GPUs so from the platform perspective there's no compatibility issues.
Good Luck!
jaquith
Glorious
- Feb 8, 2009
- 14,235
- 27
- 49,290
Your brain is going 1000 MPH. Unlike you, I hate long drawn posts that are a waste of energy.
Responses:
1. Look at early P67 launch benchmarks using: high resolutions, high AA 8 or 16, 3/4-WAY is where the 16 lanes becomes saturated. Intel deliberately crippled the LGA 1155 with PCIe 2.x and 16 lanes. The LGA 2011 is 32 lanes of PCIe 3.x effectively quadrupling the bandwidth over the P67.
2. I imply nothing, the title is Recommended and not Required, there are extremes to everything and I look to the majority as deciding factors. It's Building Chart Q1 2011. If 2-WAY Z68 is mainstream then I'll update to Building Chart Q2 2011, and incert 2-WAY under Z68 but also add {note 5} Shared bandwidth with IGPU. Make your own Chart
then post it the forum for ridicule and rebut - I did.3. OC Column is the 'form' of OC and has nothing to do with IGPU. When the chart was completed most folks didn't know you couldn't BCLK OC the Sandy Bridge, technically you can but your risking SATA corruption.
4. Wrong, unless the engineers have a bad implementation of the Phases and Channels on their MOBOs.
5. Every single IGPU + CF/SLI has suffered at least a 10%~30% hit off the primary discrete GPU because it shares bandwidth with the PCIe lanes -- so it's not a long-shot to assume the same on the Z68.
6. The Onboard Graphics Integrated Chipset is the limiting factor - to slice the hair in two.
7. The setup, SSD size limitation benefits are the 'aggravating factors.' There's plenty of Reviews on this subject. Many folks won't set it up correctly -- this should be as simple as you using/plugging-in a SSD on the Intel SATA ports, but it's not. Blame Intel.
8. Sources are good as long as there's not an agenda attached to them or hidden 'caveats' or unrealistic bias or a paid Sponsor. A couple of examples: SSD - OCZ Vertex 3 Read 530 MB/s & Write 450 MB/s have fun reaching those speeds with your onboard SATAIII; similarly reviews fail to mention their SSDs are tested off high-end LSI Controllers and most onboard SATA3's crap out ~ 360 MB/s. So if the onboard SATA3 or SATA3 Dedicated Card is used by the reviewer you get a variety of results. Next, I know Soderstrom from here and he recently did his version of P67 vs X58 SLI. Prior to the review we had a huge debate PCIe saturation and Realistic uses of 3/4-WAY. Most extreme uses who spend $4 or $5 thousand or more with 3/4-WAY do it on 5900± x 1080 or 2/3-WAY on 2560 x 1600 30" AND 8xAA or 16xAA; otherwise its silly to spend that money just to see blur. However, Soderstrom set out on his agenda to prove they were more less the same with 0xAA and 4xAA -- which otherwise would saturate the PCIe and would have shown the X58 with 32-lanes the clear victor. BTW - this contradicted a prior Tom's Forum Article -- with the caveat of blurry AA.
Unless you fully understand and/or know how to sift through things like this you're assuming things blindly. I ain't no sheep.
You and I look at things differently, you somehow think the Z68 is the superior to the P67 it's not; it's the superior to the H67. I look from the top down knowing things like LGA 2011 or LGA 1356, and you look from the bottom up. You're confusing consumer products with extreme products and platforms and seemingly locked in time and oblivious to 4~6 months down the road.
This ALL is based upon PURPOSE and NEED. If you need Extreme then wait, if your need is typical Gaming then the P67, if you need to encode Z68, etc. It's nice to know the Pros & Cons...
Finally I ‘Get it’! This is a late April Fools joke you’re playing on me by ignoring or deliberately misconstruing comments in my posts. HaHaHa. Good one! You got me lol.
I have been talking specifically about your comparison of the 1155 solutions.
If the allegations are true that Gigabyte have discontinued their P67 range I’m sure the reasons were not only technical. But similarities between it and the Z68 must have made the decision easy. Maybe, as I did, they assessed that the Z68 is a P67+.
And in light of that they have slowly started to release Z68 mobo’s into limited regions (before the Z68 chip is officially released)
http://www.xfastest.com/thread-59703-1-1.html
I’m sure you will find reasons to discredit this board technically but it looks like a nice high-end consumer mobo to me.
I wouldn’t consider putting a non-K on this board since I wouldn’t get “UNLOCKED PERFORMANCE”; it has plenty of phases (your requirement) with ‘nice’ components; it looks like it has good cooling; it does 3-way SLI or CFX (but SLI is used more in the marketing); and it even has “Hybrid EFI”. It doesn’t seem to include Virtu but allegedly AMD/ATI and NVIDIA are both developing their own equivalents.
The future is looking rosier for the Z68 than it is for the P67 right now so maybe you can stop splitting hairs and put the final nail in the coffin of your ‘recommended building chart’.
I don’t think everyone who bought a P67 mobo in the last couple of weeks will be entirely happy with their decision. If you “ain't no sheep” maybe you’re the sheepdog that sends the flock down a dead end path.
I have been talking specifically about your comparison of the 1155 solutions.
If the allegations are true that Gigabyte have discontinued their P67 range I’m sure the reasons were not only technical. But similarities between it and the Z68 must have made the decision easy. Maybe, as I did, they assessed that the Z68 is a P67+.
And in light of that they have slowly started to release Z68 mobo’s into limited regions (before the Z68 chip is officially released)
http://www.xfastest.com/thread-59703-1-1.html
I’m sure you will find reasons to discredit this board technically but it looks like a nice high-end consumer mobo to me.
I wouldn’t consider putting a non-K on this board since I wouldn’t get “UNLOCKED PERFORMANCE”; it has plenty of phases (your requirement) with ‘nice’ components; it looks like it has good cooling; it does 3-way SLI or CFX (but SLI is used more in the marketing); and it even has “Hybrid EFI”. It doesn’t seem to include Virtu but allegedly AMD/ATI and NVIDIA are both developing their own equivalents.
The future is looking rosier for the Z68 than it is for the P67 right now so maybe you can stop splitting hairs and put the final nail in the coffin of your ‘recommended building chart’.
I don’t think everyone who bought a P67 mobo in the last couple of weeks will be entirely happy with their decision. If you “ain't no sheep” maybe you’re the sheepdog that sends the flock down a dead end path.
jaquith
Glorious
- Feb 8, 2009
- 14,235
- 27
- 49,290
The link didn't work, assuming a 3/4-WAY Z68 it's going to need a NF200 chipset(s) since it lacks the required lanes of 32, the LGA 1155 native GPU lanes are 16. As I stated before, there are going to be 'Extreme' examples of ANY chipset MOBO. However, it's not the 'purpose' or 'norm' of the Z68. Worst, a comparison between the Z68 vs P67 in the same 3/4-WAY configuration(s) is going to yield inferior gaming performance for the Z68; shared bandwidth of the Z68's onbaord. It's just that way. I am aware of the Z68X which lacks, non-spec Z68, and will not have the shared bandwidth problem.
Next, keep in mind my dog is not in the LGA 1155 fight. I'm an LGA 1366 and LGA 2011 fan. In other words I'm a disinterested party -- I see the H67, P67, Z68 or any LGA 1155 chipset for what it is -- it's a consumer platform with NO preferences - I'd never buy one.
Therefore, I would assume that OEM builders like Acer, Gateway, Dell, eMachines, HP, etc are going to 'push' ANY platform that includes an onboard GPU to save money. So I'd expect to see H67, Z68, AMD's equivalent in Best Buy, Wal-Mart, etc all equipped with non-K i3 & i5 CPUs with a sprinkling of i7 also with non-K. Only a small percentage OC the CPU.
Where the 'Optional' comes into play -- the K will indeed yield performance in the P67 which is the de facto 'LGA 1155 Gaming' platform. Whereas, OC the CPU and onboard VGA yields very little benefits -- you still cannot game, most current popular games, using an onboard VGA of the Z68 the frame rates are too slow and thereby too choppy.
Again, with the exception of a couple benefits: encoding / {minimal} SSD acceleration / {poor for gaming} onboard VGA, I see no other advantages in P67 vs Z68. The standard Z68 IS aimed at mainstream.
There are oddball niche chipsets like Q67, H61, B65, C206, etc and likely to be similar versions of Z68. As of today the information is too lacking to construct an intelligent Q2 Building Chart.
The non-spec Z68X without onboard VGA are a different standard and in leagues with the spec P67 with the real world encoding advantage, the SSD is still more gimmick than advantage. However, the P67 $340 GA-P67A-UD7-B3 vs $500+ GA-Z68X-UD7-B3 is a crazy choice, and $160 for encoding is expensive to encode YouTube videos and simple DVD authoring. Duh, if you're blowing $500+ on a MOBO supporting unlocked SB CPUs get the K. That is the most extreme 'Z68' that I'm aware of and still doesn't represent the norm.
My Building Chart is/was based on available and published information in January 2011. As I said the 'Q2' will be updated as needed when information is clear -- it still DOES represent current released hardware with hints of upcoming tech. Somehow you feel it is static, it is not. There will be a Q2, Q3, Q4, etc Building Chart when updates are needed. It will always be correct for current chipsets.
Next, keep in mind my dog is not in the LGA 1155 fight. I'm an LGA 1366 and LGA 2011 fan. In other words I'm a disinterested party -- I see the H67, P67, Z68 or any LGA 1155 chipset for what it is -- it's a consumer platform with NO preferences - I'd never buy one.
Therefore, I would assume that OEM builders like Acer, Gateway, Dell, eMachines, HP, etc are going to 'push' ANY platform that includes an onboard GPU to save money. So I'd expect to see H67, Z68, AMD's equivalent in Best Buy, Wal-Mart, etc all equipped with non-K i3 & i5 CPUs with a sprinkling of i7 also with non-K. Only a small percentage OC the CPU.
Where the 'Optional' comes into play -- the K will indeed yield performance in the P67 which is the de facto 'LGA 1155 Gaming' platform. Whereas, OC the CPU and onboard VGA yields very little benefits -- you still cannot game, most current popular games, using an onboard VGA of the Z68 the frame rates are too slow and thereby too choppy.
Again, with the exception of a couple benefits: encoding / {minimal} SSD acceleration / {poor for gaming} onboard VGA, I see no other advantages in P67 vs Z68. The standard Z68 IS aimed at mainstream.
There are oddball niche chipsets like Q67, H61, B65, C206, etc and likely to be similar versions of Z68. As of today the information is too lacking to construct an intelligent Q2 Building Chart.
The non-spec Z68X without onboard VGA are a different standard and in leagues with the spec P67 with the real world encoding advantage, the SSD is still more gimmick than advantage. However, the P67 $340 GA-P67A-UD7-B3 vs $500+ GA-Z68X-UD7-B3 is a crazy choice, and $160 for encoding is expensive to encode YouTube videos and simple DVD authoring. Duh, if you're blowing $500+ on a MOBO supporting unlocked SB CPUs get the K. That is the most extreme 'Z68' that I'm aware of and still doesn't represent the norm.
My Building Chart is/was based on available and published information in January 2011. As I said the 'Q2' will be updated as needed when information is clear -- it still DOES represent current released hardware with hints of upcoming tech. Somehow you feel it is static, it is not. There will be a Q2, Q3, Q4, etc Building Chart when updates are needed. It will always be correct for current chipsets.
If you’re a “disinterested party” why would you even click a link to “Is there a Z68 version withOUT on-board graphic”? And why would you make tables on including 1155 information? And recommend the P67?
The link is broken here now as well. Anyway it showed photos of a retail box for a Z68X-UD7-B3 for sale in Taiwan. You’ll be pleased to hear it has 24 phases!
There’s more info at Softpedia who price it at “the equivalent of 412 USD”
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Z68-Motherboard-from-Gigabyte-For-Sale-Before-Release-195508.shtml
The link is broken here now as well. Anyway it showed photos of a retail box for a Z68X-UD7-B3 for sale in Taiwan. You’ll be pleased to hear it has 24 phases!
There’s more info at Softpedia who price it at “the equivalent of 412 USD”
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Z68-Motherboard-from-Gigabyte-For-Sale-Before-Release-195508.shtml
asantesoul
Distinguished
- Nov 10, 2010
- 611
- 0
- 19,010
Z68 looks like it might appeal to some people but really, who cares? Grab a p77 board and build your damn machine and stop bickering about frivolous matters! Intel is damn foolish for releasing all these damn chipset, and revisions, and blah blah...it really upsets me... Jaquith actually knows what he's talking..now, while I remain neutral in most situations, I have to say I agree with J...build your machine with what's available now.OP your gonna end up buying a gtx 570/580 or 6950 or something of the sort..so who gives a flying fig about quicksync, and ssd caching, and all that other garbage..
Get a a p67 board for today, and just start building..you don't need features you won't utilize, ever, just to brag about it to forum buddies or include in your sig for people to look at..do what makes the most sense
Get a a p67 board for today, and just start building..you don't need features you won't utilize, ever, just to brag about it to forum buddies or include in your sig for people to look at..do what makes the most sense
jaquith
Glorious
- Feb 8, 2009
- 14,235
- 27
- 49,290
The price conversion I saw was $513. The larger question is 'where's the D-Sub, DVI-D, HDMI or DisplayPort'?; see below. I recall the EVGA P67 Classified -- never saw real production. So the question is if have if those pathways that are unused then what impact does it have on the PCIe lanes?!
Disinterested means as I said, I don't have any P67, Z68, etc preference or bias. It doesn't mean that I have no interest whatsoever.
I/O Comparisons
H67 - GA-H67A-UD3H
Z68X - GA-Z68X-UD7-B3
The Z68 Chipset 'does' include pathways for the 'Display' options.
Disinterested means as I said, I don't have any P67, Z68, etc preference or bias. It doesn't mean that I have no interest whatsoever.
I/O Comparisons
H67 - GA-H67A-UD3H
Z68X - GA-Z68X-UD7-B3
The Z68 Chipset 'does' include pathways for the 'Display' options.
@ jaquith
Are you just regurgitating what you have read elsewhere? Or did you forget what you had said in your previous post?
Then I said “…a retail box for a Z68X-UD7-B3…”.
And then you labelled the photo “Z68X - GA-Z68X-UD7-B3”.
Can you see where I’m going with this?? As I said I knew you would nit-pick but I thought you could do better than that.
@asantesoul
I thought you said…
Really?
Are you just regurgitating what you have read elsewhere? Or did you forget what you had said in your previous post?
Then I said “…a retail box for a Z68X-UD7-B3…”.
And then you labelled the photo “Z68X - GA-Z68X-UD7-B3”.
Can you see where I’m going with this?? As I said I knew you would nit-pick but I thought you could do better than that.
@asantesoul
I thought you said…
Really?
asantesoul
Distinguished
- Nov 10, 2010
- 611
- 0
- 19,010
Are we really having this discussion? Still? It's laughable that people get a rise out of this sorta thing...errrm..i stand by what I said...you can...errmm..kick rocks 
It is laughable and I'm having a good chuckle right now! (“kick rocks” – hahaha)
If you’d been following the thread you would’ve seen that “i’m waiting to see how the Z68 boards evolve” so your comment “Grab a p77 board and build your damn machine and stop bickering about frivolous matters!” wasn’t only foolish, it was irrelevant.
And your assumptions for why I would prefer the Z68 don’t stand up to reasoning either. Since this is the first forum I have ever joined I don’t yet have a “sig”; and I don’t have any “forum buddies” to brag to; and I’m definitely not fortunate enough to have a ‘fanboy’ who will turn up and fight for my honour!
I think you have missed my point. You see I’m not FOR the Z68. And I’m not AGAINST the P67. I’m AGAINST ‘Experts’ spreading misinformation.
If you’d been following the thread you would’ve seen that “i’m waiting to see how the Z68 boards evolve” so your comment “Grab a p77 board and build your damn machine and stop bickering about frivolous matters!” wasn’t only foolish, it was irrelevant.
And your assumptions for why I would prefer the Z68 don’t stand up to reasoning either. Since this is the first forum I have ever joined I don’t yet have a “sig”; and I don’t have any “forum buddies” to brag to; and I’m definitely not fortunate enough to have a ‘fanboy’ who will turn up and fight for my honour!
I think you have missed my point. You see I’m not FOR the Z68. And I’m not AGAINST the P67. I’m AGAINST ‘Experts’ spreading misinformation.
asantesoul
Distinguished
- Nov 10, 2010
- 611
- 0
- 19,010
I agree...and yes, I pretty much missed the threads purpose almost entirely..I just wanted to belong ...It's intel's fault ...they are the ones making us fight! I hate you Intel..I wish I stayed with AMD and never heard of your ridiculously powerful sandy bridge chips.. it's made animals of us all..
...It's intel's fault ...they are the ones making us fight! I hate you Intel..I wish I stayed with AMD and never heard of your ridiculously powerful sandy bridge chips.. it's made animals of us all..
asantesoul :
I agree...and yes, I pretty much missed the threads purpose almost entirely..I just wanted to belong ...It's intel's fault ...they are the ones making us fight! I hate you Intel..I wish I stayed with AMD and never heard of your ridiculously powerful sandy bridge chips.. it's made animals of us all..
...It's intel's fault ...they are the ones making us fight! I hate you Intel..I wish I stayed with AMD and never heard of your ridiculously powerful sandy bridge chips.. it's made animals of us all..
*smile* I agree, it's Intel's fault!
imo - Intel probably should've just released the Z68 pch which could’ve been implemented as a Z68 or a Z68X mobo
My original point was that the 'building chart', and subsequent posts, imply that Z68 mobo’s will be technically / functionally inferior to equivalent P67 boards. I think they will be so similar that if the unit price is competitive there would be no reason to buy a P67 (unless you need a mobo immediately).
asantesoul
Distinguished
- Nov 10, 2010
- 611
- 0
- 19,010
okay..that much I can agree on...there's speculation that z68 boards will cost roughly the same as current p67's...either way...for intel to operate this way...it kind of deters me from wanting to remain a customer...but..I see what your saying..and apologize for not carefully reading the post before making my comment
asantesoul – no worries – and thanks for bringing some sense to this thread (myself included)
i’m looking to build a new high-end all-rounder in the near future and SB is the clear winner – i know bulldozer and 2011 are on their way but we all have to stick a stake in the ground somewhere
intels marketing and product launch for the 1155 have been a shambles but on technical ability alone i’m still willing to consider their products
i’m eager to see the how the cost and performance of Z68 and P67 boards compare – and to make an informed purchase when the 1155 dust has settled a little
happy computing!
i’m looking to build a new high-end all-rounder in the near future and SB is the clear winner – i know bulldozer and 2011 are on their way but we all have to stick a stake in the ground somewhere
intels marketing and product launch for the 1155 have been a shambles but on technical ability alone i’m still willing to consider their products
i’m eager to see the how the cost and performance of Z68 and P67 boards compare – and to make an informed purchase when the 1155 dust has settled a little
happy computing!
jaquith
Glorious
- Feb 8, 2009
- 14,235
- 27
- 49,290
Until recently Intel kept the X79 secret and at last word it probably Intel will skip the 'X68' chipset. Next the 'Panther Point' looks to render P67, H67, Z68 obsolete in matter of months; I've seen news that suggests Q1 12.
So constructing a static Building Chart is nearly impossible. If Gigabyte screws with chipsets like 'Z68' or there's a subset of the 'Z68x' who knows?!
Similarly, the LGA 2011 has been projected to have PCIe 3.x yet others project PCIe 2.x; HUGE difference!
Again, the Building Chart will be updated WHEN the LGA 2011 and Z68 and {X68}/X79 is CONFIRMED. Intel, as I and asantesoul and other have been saying Intel is out of their minds changing specs, names, etc like the direction of the wind.
So constructing a static Building Chart is nearly impossible. If Gigabyte screws with chipsets like 'Z68' or there's a subset of the 'Z68x' who knows?!
Similarly, the LGA 2011 has been projected to have PCIe 3.x yet others project PCIe 2.x; HUGE difference!
Again, the Building Chart will be updated WHEN the LGA 2011 and Z68 and {X68}/X79 is CONFIRMED. Intel, as I and asantesoul and other have been saying Intel is out of their minds changing specs, names, etc like the direction of the wind.
jaquith
Glorious
- Feb 8, 2009
- 14,235
- 27
- 49,290
We agree on one MAJOR point, Intel is a real problem.
That said, back when the 'Building Chart' was put together the Z68 was purpose to replace the H67; that WAS the plan. In other words as we 'seem' to agree -- what the H67 should have been from day 1.
THINGS CHANGE - Thanks to Intel!
asantesoul
Distinguished
- Nov 10, 2010
- 611
- 0
- 19,010
Intel is insane...I mean, the products they make are quality, yet they only support it for a short time..why do that? P55 owners got screwed..now, it looks like p67 owners will get screwed as well..some may not think it's a big deal..but seriously..no one feels good about buying or owning something that will be yesterday's news in a matter of months.. AMD's approach is what I really like...it's just unfortunate that, from what I've heard, their products are not as fast...but...they have the best approach
jaquith
Glorious
- Feb 8, 2009
- 14,235
- 27
- 49,290
AMD 'really' needs a new socket with more pins for more functionality.
What would be cool, considering, is to make CPU socket with some forethought. Make a e.g. '2500' pin CPU socket and allow user replaceable Chipset. Offload a lot of the 'architecture' to the chipset and CPU paths.
MOBO Mfg's love to add-on crap {chipsets} that prevents/interferes/shares with spec design. For once it would be nice to have SATA3 600 MB/s 'real' port speed instead of ~375 MB/s SATA3. Now that SSDs are 550/500 -- MAYBE -- JUST MAYBE time for a 'SATA4' standard with 1.2GB/s. The problem even there is that Z-Drives are 1.2+GB/s, so skip SATA4 and go with 'SATA5' or just double port speed via PCIe 3.0. edit: BTW - I 'get' PCIe 2.x x1 is 500MB/s -- hence the Marvell 9182 {no typo} it's x2 and accommodated the full SATA3 assumed bandwidth.
Over the next 5-10 years it's going to be interesting...
What would be cool, considering, is to make CPU socket with some forethought. Make a e.g. '2500' pin CPU socket and allow user replaceable Chipset. Offload a lot of the 'architecture' to the chipset and CPU paths.
MOBO Mfg's love to add-on crap {chipsets} that prevents/interferes/shares with spec design. For once it would be nice to have SATA3 600 MB/s 'real' port speed instead of ~375 MB/s SATA3. Now that SSDs are 550/500 -- MAYBE -- JUST MAYBE time for a 'SATA4' standard with 1.2GB/s. The problem even there is that Z-Drives are 1.2+GB/s, so skip SATA4 and go with 'SATA5' or just double port speed via PCIe 3.0. edit: BTW - I 'get' PCIe 2.x x1 is 500MB/s -- hence the Marvell 9182 {no typo} it's x2 and accommodated the full SATA3 assumed bandwidth.
Over the next 5-10 years it's going to be interesting...
markmywords
Distinguished
- Apr 3, 2011
- 27
- 0
- 18,540
Jaquith, a CPU socket pin standard would be nice, like the die-hard ATX and the like. (Also, a smooth way to upgrade an OS without a recommended "clean" install, though there are custom OS installation tools out there. Also, a good OS cleaning utility that actually gets rid of crap and keeps the good stuff on, but that's asking for a lot.)
But sadly I don't see that we're moving in that direction.
Ultimately, a user has to ask oneself, does this computer meet my needs in terms of what it can do for me? A 5-year-old computer is still usable for most things, a 10-year-old computer is perfectly good at internet browsing and music... and often 25-year-old computers run industrial machines. It's when it's time to upgrade when a failure occurs that you have to worry. Will the old operating system run newer hardware? Will old programs work with new operating systems? Most people don't need a new version of PDF reader and Office software, or an OS even. The 'upgrades' will essentially do the same thing as the previous version, display and edit documents, organize files... . If it works, people keep it and use it, though there are advantages (and disadvantages) to upgrading, of course.
You're also right about the "up to" speeds. Knowing actual speeds is more useful.
By the way, I just looked up z drives and, woaw!
But sadly I don't see that we're moving in that direction.
Ultimately, a user has to ask oneself, does this computer meet my needs in terms of what it can do for me? A 5-year-old computer is still usable for most things, a 10-year-old computer is perfectly good at internet browsing and music... and often 25-year-old computers run industrial machines. It's when it's time to upgrade when a failure occurs that you have to worry. Will the old operating system run newer hardware? Will old programs work with new operating systems? Most people don't need a new version of PDF reader and Office software, or an OS even. The 'upgrades' will essentially do the same thing as the previous version, display and edit documents, organize files... . If it works, people keep it and use it, though there are advantages (and disadvantages) to upgrading, of course.
You're also right about the "up to" speeds. Knowing actual speeds is more useful.
By the way, I just looked up z drives and, woaw!
Jaquith, you really are a fool.
I didn’t even imply “what the H67 should have been from day 1”. (In the unlikely event that anyone is interested in what i actually said just read the thread.)
Can you see where this conversation is going (hypothetically):
you – ‘things change’
me – ‘so change the build chart’
you – ‘it’s not Q2 yet!’ [it is Q2 actually]
You're arguing against yourself.
You’re happy to tell people “Go by the Building Chart and Enjoy” even though you know the chart is incorrect…and all because...umm…it’s not time to update your chart yet. And right on the cusp of the Z68 release you say “either get a P67 now or wait for the LGA 2011/X68 SB” when you know nothing of how the Z68 motherboards will be implemented. To quote myself “i would not pay you for your opinion”.
And I love the way you dodged the bullet about “The larger question is 'where's the D-Sub, DVI-D, HDMI or DisplayPort'?”. We got 3 more photos (one even repeated from a previous post) because you didn’t notice the big, prominent, X on the photo of the Z68X box. Well done ‘Expert’
You’re more like a politician resorting to “slice[ing] the hair in two” and answering the question you wanted to hear, rather than the one that was asked.
And now you’re off on some other tangent. Have fun with that one.
Finally jaquith, I really am a fool too – for wasting my time conversing with you.
Bye.
I didn’t even imply “what the H67 should have been from day 1”. (In the unlikely event that anyone is interested in what i actually said just read the thread.)
Can you see where this conversation is going (hypothetically):
you – ‘things change’
me – ‘so change the build chart’
you – ‘it’s not Q2 yet!’ [it is Q2 actually]
You're arguing against yourself.
You’re happy to tell people “Go by the Building Chart and Enjoy” even though you know the chart is incorrect…and all because...umm…it’s not time to update your chart yet. And right on the cusp of the Z68 release you say “either get a P67 now or wait for the LGA 2011/X68 SB” when you know nothing of how the Z68 motherboards will be implemented. To quote myself “i would not pay you for your opinion”.
And I love the way you dodged the bullet about “The larger question is 'where's the D-Sub, DVI-D, HDMI or DisplayPort'?”. We got 3 more photos (one even repeated from a previous post) because you didn’t notice the big, prominent, X on the photo of the Z68X box. Well done ‘Expert’
You’re more like a politician resorting to “slice[ing] the hair in two” and answering the question you wanted to hear, rather than the one that was asked.
And now you’re off on some other tangent. Have fun with that one.
Finally jaquith, I really am a fool too – for wasting my time conversing with you.
Bye.
dotScience
Distinguished
- Dec 15, 2010
- 9
- 1
- 18,510
@jacquith,
Really enjoy your obviously diligent research, charts, and discussions !
Hope you will ignore the obvious manic obsession of M., and his digressions, and keep updating your well-thought out posts.
best, Bill Woodruff
Really enjoy your obviously diligent research, charts, and discussions !
Hope you will ignore the obvious manic obsession of M., and his digressions, and keep updating your well-thought out posts.
best, Bill Woodruff
jaquith
Glorious
- Feb 8, 2009
- 14,235
- 27
- 49,290
The Z68 concerns I've had are to the following comparisons:
AMD 890FX Discrete GPS(s) only {P67} vs AMD 890GX {Z68} IGPU + Discrete GPS(s) ; Gamers always choose 890FX
The 890FX + Crossfire clearly outperforms the 890GX's IGPU + Crossfire.
The question is:
P67 SLI/CF vs Z68 SLI/CF ; Shared Bandwidth
What threw me for a loop has the GA-Z68X-UD7-B3 which completely ignores/circumvents the Z68 IGPU all together and a discrete GPU is required. If the Z68 chipset can 'somehow keep' the normally shared PCIe lane bandwidth from the GPU(s) then there's no disadvantaged to the Z68 vs P67, and you're left with the advantage(s). However, GA-Z68X-UD7-B3 without IGPU, as I understand it, Quick Sync won't work unless the processor's GPU is enabled...
@meddyliwr is a mental case. He's stuck on the 4-month old Building Chart, plus the Z68 rumor mills. Originally, the Z68 had IGPU + Single PCIe x16 shared, but can't get it through his skull that there are and have been so many contradicting articles it's impossible to update until the BENCHMARKS and MOBOS are available for review. He/She/It needs to produce their own Building Chart and place it here...and otherwise shut-up
Most Z68's popping-up have IGPU like the ASUS P8Z68-V PRO, and MSI Z68A-GD80(B3), etc. Other rumors had Gigabytes 'Z68X' now changed to Z68, other rumors had Gigabyte quiting production of H67 & P67 which were exposed to be false. Unless the Z68 can add some value to Gaming Frame Rates -- what's the fuss about?! {I get Quick Sync -- most people don't care about it}
Guessing, Beta Building Chart:
AMD 890FX Discrete GPS(s) only {P67} vs AMD 890GX {Z68} IGPU + Discrete GPS(s) ; Gamers always choose 890FX
The 890FX + Crossfire clearly outperforms the 890GX's IGPU + Crossfire.
The question is:
P67 SLI/CF vs Z68 SLI/CF ; Shared Bandwidth
What threw me for a loop has the GA-Z68X-UD7-B3 which completely ignores/circumvents the Z68 IGPU all together and a discrete GPU is required. If the Z68 chipset can 'somehow keep' the normally shared PCIe lane bandwidth from the GPU(s) then there's no disadvantaged to the Z68 vs P67, and you're left with the advantage(s). However, GA-Z68X-UD7-B3 without IGPU, as I understand it, Quick Sync won't work unless the processor's GPU is enabled...
@meddyliwr is a mental case. He's stuck on the 4-month old Building Chart, plus the Z68 rumor mills. Originally, the Z68 had IGPU + Single PCIe x16 shared, but can't get it through his skull that there are and have been so many contradicting articles it's impossible to update until the BENCHMARKS and MOBOS are available for review. He/She/It needs to produce their own Building Chart and place it here...and otherwise shut-up
Most Z68's popping-up have IGPU like the ASUS P8Z68-V PRO, and MSI Z68A-GD80(B3), etc. Other rumors had Gigabytes 'Z68X' now changed to Z68, other rumors had Gigabyte quiting production of H67 & P67 which were exposed to be false. Unless the Z68 can add some value to Gaming Frame Rates -- what's the fuss about?! {I get Quick Sync -- most people don't care about it}
Guessing, Beta Building Chart:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Question Recommended Graphics Card (Max budget ~$500)
- Started by deathbysalt
- Replies: 5
-
-
News Windows 11 will reportedly display a watermark if your PC does not support AI requirements- Started by Admin
- Replies: 31
-
Question Need help with ssd purchase please?! How is the one i have?
- Started by edp213
- Replies: 1
-
Question Secondary HDMI port on graphics card not working + more
- Started by Solkorate
- Replies: 0
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram