X58 To The Max: Three New Flagship LGA 1366 Motherboards

[foscooter]

When I was looking into building a new PC, I thouhht about the Asus Rampage II Extreme, until I saw the retail price! Not much less on eBay.

Then I caught a link to the new (yet to be released at the time) Rempage III. Wow! Still $$$$.

But I'm not a gamer, so all the goodies would be wasted on me.

 

[foscooter]

Can't edit above.

Asus Rampage III Extreme: $439.99 at MicroCenter.com, $379.99 at NewEgg.com.

Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD9: $699.99 at NewEgg.com

MSI Big Bang-XPower: $299.99 at NewEgg.com

 

[foscooter]

My choice (now) is Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD3R: $199.99 at both sites.

 

[torbee]

I recently built my gaming rig with a Swiftech watercooled R3E, i7-930 and (soon to be) 2x285GTX. This baby hums with joy at 4 Ghz for hours on end. I should be set for at least a couple of years before upgrading anything.

 

[cyberkuberiah]

all three are solid

 

[airgreek]

MSI is the winner here IMHO. This board is THE BEST motherboard I have seen in YEARS. Great job MSI!

 

[redgarl]

Isn't that Gigabyte board worth 600$? And that MSI 300$?

Even a high end user doesn't need 6 PCIe lines at 16X...

 

[treefrog07]

I'm skipping i7 and X58, what's next?

 

[MRFS]

Why aren't buyers like us requesting
integrated quad channel memory controllers
in anticipation of future 8GB and 16GB DIMMs
for desktop computers?

Such high density DIMMs can't be too far away,
as dies shrink below 30nm e.g. as reported by
GlobalFoundaries etc.

And, MS reports that about half of all new Win7 sales
are the 64-bit version.

4GB DDR3 DIMMs are available now x 4 slots = 16GB
instead of 12GB in triple-channel mode.

Raw memory bandwidth should increase roughly
by 4/3 over the latter (quad channel / triple channel).

Is this just another case of IT corporations
releasing new technology slowly and incrementally?


MRFS

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]MRFS[/nom]Why aren't buyers like us requesting integrated quad channel memory controllers in anticipation of future 8GB and 16GB DIMMs for desktop computers?Such high density DIMMs can't be too far away,as dies shrink below 30nm e.g. as reported by Global Foundaries etc.And, MS reports that about half of all new Win7 sales are the 64-bit version.4GB DDR3 DIMMs are available now x 4 slots = 16GBinstead of 12GB in triple-channel mode.Raw memory bandwidth should increase roughly by 4/3 over the latter (quad channel / triple channel).Is this just another case of IT corporationsrel easing new technology slowly and incrementally?MRFS[/citation]
The memory controller is on the CPU, so ask Intel. Also, DDR3 supports up to 16GB per module, so if any particular CPU doesn't...ask Intel. Finally, if you think 12GB isn't enough and 16GB is, then go the next step and do 24GB, in triple channel, using six slots.

Thanks.

 

[MRFS]

I asked AMD instead. They are smart enough
NOT to change sockets every other month.

I'd rather have a quad-channel memory controller
with 8GB or 16GB DIMMs, even if I must wait
for the price of the latter to drop.

As I see it, 6 DIMM sockets only serve to
increase the manufacturing costs of motherboards
as compared to 4-socket versions.


MRFS

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]MRFS[/nom]I asked AMD instead. They are smart enough NOT to change sockets every other month.I'd rather have a quad-channel memory controller with 8GB or 16GB DIMMs, even if I must wait for the price of the latter to drop.As I see it, 6 DIMM sockets only serve toincrease the manufacturing costs of motherboards as compared to 4-socket versions.MRFS[/citation]OK, then 4 -slot motherboards only serve to increase cost, as compared to 3-slot versions. Of course, if AMD does change to quad-channel, they'll need a new socket. Again. Because AMD is always changing sockets, and even when they keep the old one they often change the VRM specs so that new processors won't work in old boards.

 

[MRFS]

After working with IT For 40 years, I can count on 2 fingers
the number of times any vendor has ever asked me:
"What do YOU want in your NEXT computer?"

I want 4 x DDR3 DIMM slots that operate in quad-channel mode
with DIMMs up to 16GB each (64 GB total).

I want raw memory bandwidth approaching 50 GB/second,
so I can create huge ramdisks that make my life a lot easier,
every minute of every day.

I want integrated SATA/6G controllers with TRIM support for
RAID arrays using SATA/6G SSDs, and I do NOT want to purchase
a third-party RAID controller when the motherboard can do
all of the above.


I encourage others to be clear about what they want too:
I don't ask, nor expect, anyone else to agree with me.

That's not the reason why I am posting multiple replies.


MRFS

 

[scook9]

SATA 3 is brand new....the next wave of chipsets will have it natively...x58 is 2 years old this november dude

Quad channel DDR3 will most likely do nothing. Just like triple channel offers little to no improvement over dual channel. To get that sort of memory bandwidth from DDR3 you need a wider bus, not more memory or channels. That is the sort of bandwidth GDDR3 with a 256-bit bus shows compared to CPUs with 64-bit DDR3

 

[ta152h]

[citation][nom]MRFS[/nom]After working with IT For 40 years, I can count on 2 fingersthe number of times any vendor has ever asked me:"What do YOU want in your NEXT computer?"I want 4 x DDR3 DIMM slots that operate in quad-channel modewith DIMMs up to 16GB each (64 GB total).I want raw memory bandwidth approaching 50 GB/second, so I can create huge ramdisks that make my life a lot easier, every minute of every day.I want integrated SATA/6G controllers with TRIM support forRAID arrays using SATA/6G SSDs, and I do NOT want to purchasea third-party RAID controller when the motherboard can do all of the above.I encourage others to be clear about what they want too:I don't ask, nor expect, anyone else to agree with me.That's not the reason why I am posting multiple replies.MRFS[/citation]

I guess you don't know that adding another channel would add additional latency, add additional cost, and use more power and generate more heat, and of course require a new slot with more pins.

It's not clear that this would be of any real benefit with the current processors, at least not compared to the costs associated with it.

I'd rather see them throw a SRAM cache on the motherboard to lower latency, than increase it. I guess it's not cost effective for mainstream parts, but for these motherboards, adding expense isn't so damning, and a big SRAM cache on the motherboard would help in almost any situation, not just a few. I guess the development costs would be too high for a very small niche product, but it would be kind of cool to see.

 

[ta152h]

[citation][nom]digitalrazoe[/nom]What irritates me is the fact that you have a 6+ PCIe 16 board ( with the exception of the ASUS ) and you still cant get full 16 all the way through with out either a bunch of glue chips or "lopping it off" at the legs - 16x/8x ok .. but 16/8/4 ? c'mon .. can someone develop a chipset that will give the USER the option of lopping off legs reassigning resources where needed ? Granted for TRUE quad SLI 72 lanes is desirable (48 is ok in a 16/8/16/8 fashion .. ) but enough is enough .. Intel, nVida, AMD make a chipset that when we plug in .. we get what we want how we want it .. it would mean return customers and money in your pocket and a smile on a system builders face .. (96 lane board should do it ... )[/citation]

It's not only scary that you actually thought you were making sense, but even scarier that five people voted you up.

Try to think about the negatives, because virtually everything in life has both sides.

Your desire for more PCIe lanes would be a disaster for Intel, or any other company stupid enough to try to implement it. Over 99.999% of the people don't need it, and don't want it. But why wouldn't they want it? Well, it would make the chipset more expensive, of course. It would make it hotter than Hell, requiring a lot of thought in cooling. It would burn power like crazy. It would make motherboards extremely expensive. How many people would want this horror?

Intel would never be so stupid to invest that kind of money into a specialized chipset with such limited market appeal. Even the x58 isn't a mainstream part because it's too expensive, and burns too much power, yet has considerably more obvious advantages. More than that makes no sense at all, especially if there are glue chips that can address this situation. Sure, it adds a small amount of latency, but that's preferable to making everyone who wants a real Nehalem to suffer with all the negatives of too many PCIe lanes that they will never use.

 

[rohitbaran]

Well, the already expensive and non-upgradeable X58 platform got costlier.

 

[Emperus]

Well, the already expensive and non-upgradeable X58 platform got costlier.

The i7 series constitute the fastest desktop processors currently.. A relatively higher cost is not going to change that.. The drop in processor analogy is more theory than practise.. The amount of performance on offer by the core i7's is good to carry a build for the next 4 years surely.. If you are talking about a drop in processor upgrade not available after that much time, i guess most of the people will be cool with that..

 

[marraco]

How to connect a good sound card to those mothers?
Expensive mothers should be bigger, and pack more PCI slots

 

[ksampanna]

Yeah, where is EVGA ??

 

[Crashman]

[citation][nom]ta152h[/nom]It's not only scary that you actually thought you were making sense, but even scarier that five people voted you up. Try to think about the negatives, because virtually everything in life has both sides. Your desire for more PCIe lanes would be a disaster for Intel, or any other company stupid enough to try to implement it. Over 99.999% of the people don't need it, and don't want it. But why wouldn't they want it? Well, it would make the chipset more expensive, of course. It would make it hotter than Hell, requiring a lot of thought in cooling. It would burn power like crazy. It would make motherboards extremely expensive. How many people would want this horror? Intel would never be so stupid to invest that kind of money into a specialized chipset with such limited market appeal. Even the x58 isn't a mainstream part because it's too expensive, and burns too much power, yet has considerably more obvious advantages. More than that makes no sense at all, especially if there are glue chips that can address this situation. Sure, it adds a small amount of latency, but that's preferable to making everyone who wants a real Nehalem to suffer with all the negatives of too many PCIe lanes that they will never use.[/citation]Actually we've already seen a solution that fits both markets from the same product. Several AMD chipsets had the same HT interface on both sides, allowing additional "Northbridge" components to be added. We even saw an example from ULI that used a PCIe controller "Northbridge" and an "all in one" AGP "chipset" as the "Southbridge" to enable both techologies as full bandwidth on a single board. And Nvidia did a similar thing with LGA-775 chipsets by using AMD's HyperTransport on the "south" side of its "Northbridge".

I'm not sure what the technical obstacles are, but it would have been nice if Intel could have put its QPI interface on both sides of the X58.

Of course it's not needed for Quad SLI and 4-way CrossFireX, because all four cards use the same data. You could probably get away with 16 lanes that were repeated 4 times to support 4-GPU graphics arrays.[citation][nom]marraco[/nom]How to connect a good sound card to those mothers?Expensive mothers should be bigger, and pack more PCI slots[/citation]I was a little disappointed that Gigabyte's oversized board has blank spaces rather than nine slots.

 

[spartanii]

The day where I can throw any card I want into SLI or XFire with any other card reguardless of manufacture, generation, model or whatever the differences are and it works without issue and without handicaping one of them is the day I will invest in SLI

 

[DSpider]

What is an average Joe gonna do with so many PCI Express slots ? Please, tell me. I'm not talking about the MSI x16-x8-x4 scenario. But really, now. Do you need more than 60 FPS ? Especially since the majority of LCDs out there only work at 60 Hz (which translates to 60 FPS).

It doesn't frigging matter if your 8 way SLI or CF can do 800 FPS ! By the time games are going to stress them there will be a different generation of GPUs and DirectX 12, 12.1, 13, etc. You'll just end up with a power hungry, heat generating LAWNMOWER PC. Think about it.

 

[Ubrales]

Good informative article!

 

[TechJunkie3281]

I'm with swuallypie, whoever said the EVGA X58 Classified doesnt support crossfire is smokin da crack, it not only supports crossfire, but also crossfirex....which is sort of a moot point since the 400 series gpu's outperform the cypress xt's in every category, especially with tessalation enabled, ignoring other bonus features such as surround vision and stereoscopic 3d, or even the PhysX ability....the difference between buying ATI and nVidia is like the difference between buying a toyota or a lexus...you only buy the toyota because you cant afford the lexus features.