socket 2011 question

[Notigg]

realistically how much power will these processors use? I heard something about a max 180tdp compared to 130 TDP (whatever that means ) that is currently used.

In other words will a 1200 watt power supply have problems powering them along with SLI

and when will these be available to purchase from newegg?

 

[GreenGoose]

A 1200 watt power supply with SLI will be more than enough power even with a healthy overclock. SB-E will be available November 14.

 

[Tsumi]

A good 850 watt power supply should have no problems powering two overclocked 580's and an overclocked SB-E.

 

[Notigg]

so I read that the new socket type is pretty much pointless(for gaming) unless you need 6 cores instead of 4... or you want quad SLI. Is that true?

right now i heard that in higher resoultions such as 5760 x 1080... socket 1366 is better than 1155 with triple SLI

 

[Buyers]

The new socket 2011 is going to be best suited for Professionals: those people that use software that demand all the jiggahertz, threads, and FLOPS you can give 'em. People that are heavy photoshop users, 3D renderers, multimedia encoders, number crunching simulators (and Folders). The new processors will use more power because they'll be 6C/12T quad memory channel parts, probably higher clock speeds, and maybe 8C/16T down the line. Unless you're one of those people that do intensive work regularly, you won't see a tangible performance increase over a S1155 setup in everyday use. It'll just be for bragging rights and E-peen.

As already stated, an 850W PSU will probably be enough for that setup, and the rumored release date is the 14th or 15th. Hopefully that's accurate and you'll be able to find out what size PSU you'll reliably need.

 

[plugwash]

so I read that the new socket type is pretty much pointless(for gaming) unless you need 6 cores instead of 4... or you want quad SLI. Is that true?

right now i heard that in higher resoultions such as 5760 x 1080... socket 1366 is better than 1155 with triple SLI

LGA2011 gives you three things over LGA1155

1: more cores (6 rather than 4)
2: more PCIe lanes from the CPU (40 rather than 16)
3: two ram channels rather than 4 (and hence max ram of 64GB rather than 32GB)

From what I can gather 1 and 3 are pretty irrelvent for current games but 2 is probablly relavent in high res multimonitor/multicard gaming (basically in any scenario where 1366 beats 1155 i'd expect 2011 to be better than either).

 

[Tsumi]

so I read that the new socket type is pretty much pointless(for gaming) unless you need 6 cores instead of 4... or you want quad SLI. Is that true?

right now i heard that in higher resoultions such as 5760 x 1080... socket 1366 is better than 1155 with triple SLI

Not true. [H] testing with 1155 and 1366 systems have determined that the higher clock speed and higher IPC of 1155 processors enable greater tri-SLI performance than 1366. Even though 1155 processors require the NF200 bridge chip in order to utilize tri-SLI, performance is greater than 1366 systems not using the NF200 bridge chip.

For quad-SLI you would require socket 2011, I don't believe there are any current motherboards for 1155 that do support quad-SLI. I believe that there are some 1155 motherboards that do support quad-Crossfire though.

 

[tangoseal]

Not true. [H] testing with 1155 and 1366 systems have determined that the higher clock speed and higher IPC of 1155 processors enable greater tri-SLI performance than 1366. Even though 1155 processors require the NF200 bridge chip in order to utilize tri-SLI, performance is greater than 1366 systems not using the NF200 bridge chip.

For quad-SLI you would require socket 2011, I don't believe there are any current motherboards for 1155 that do support quad-SLI. I believe that there are some 1155 motherboards that do support quad-Crossfire though.

Quad SLI and Crossfire is supported on 1155 when using only 1 of 3 cards available Period.

GTX590/Asus Mars/Radeon HD 6990

And im not even sure if Mars has SLI connectors given than it is SLI on one custom made radical card.

But both cards will have 8 PCI-express 2.0 lanes each when in a 2 card configuration. Some motherboards use NF200 which will add a few lanes so you can do Quad Crossfire or SLI with a 3 card config i.e. 6990 + 6970 +6970 = 3 cards but 4 GPUs , or GTX 590 + GTX 580 + GTX580 = 3 Cards and 4 GPU's.

The NF 200 bridge is there to add an additional 16 lanes for a total of 8x/16/8x or some other whacky configuration typically. However the NF200 makes no sense because in the end of the pipeline back to the processor you have 16 Lanes being crunched into 8 lanes so I dont see the freaking benefit. I am definitely seeing where socket 2011 is going to absolutely destroy socket 1155 in the more than 2 cards scenario as far as available physical real bandwidth hence my signature below.

 

[cannondale06]

A good 850 watt power supply should have no problems powering two overclocked 580's and an overclocked SB-E.

an 850 watt psu is fine with only some very mild overclocking. its certainly not ok with any really high overclocking though. you can easily push a gtx580 in the mid to upper 300 watt range with some additional voltage and high clocks. that alone would be 700 watts or more just for the cards so even with a stock cpu, that would be pushing the psu almost to the limit. I would go for a very high quality 1000 watt psu if some real overclocking is the plan.

 

[Tsumi]

Quad SLI and Crossfire is supported on 1155 when using only 1 of 3 cards available Period.

GTX590/Asus Mars/Radeon HD 6990

And im not even sure if Mars has SLI connectors given than it is SLI on one custom made radical card.

But both cards will have 8 PCI-express 2.0 lanes each when in a 2 card configuration. Some motherboards use NF200 which will add a few lanes so you can do Quad Crossfire or SLI with a 3 card config i.e. 6990 + 6970 +6970 = 3 cards but 4 GPUs , or GTX 590 + GTX 580 + GTX580 = 3 Cards and 4 GPU's.

The NF 200 bridge is there to add an additional 16 lanes for a total of 8x/16/8x or some other whacky configuration typically. However the NF200 makes no sense because in the end of the pipeline back to the processor you have 16 Lanes being crunched into 8 lanes so I dont see the freaking benefit. I am definitely seeing where socket 2011 is going to absolutely destroy socket 1155 in the more than 2 cards scenario as far as available physical real bandwidth hence my signature below.

Well, for cross talk between the cards the extra bandwidth would probably be essential. The SLI/crossfire connectors do add only about x1 PCI-E worth of bandwidth for transferring of frames between the cards.

And yes, I do know that quad-crossfire and quad-SLI can be used on 1155 with dual GPU cards, anyone can realize that. I was talking about single GPU cards.

Physically limiting graphics cards to x8 bandwidth on a LGA1366 platform resulted in a net performance loss of perhaps 5% for games that aggressively use the bandwidth between the CPU and graphics cards and no performance loss whatsoever for games that don't aggressively use that bandwidth. Physically limiting it to x4/x4 led to I believe a 10% and 5% performance loss respectively. I believe Metro 2033 is a prime example of massive constant transfers, while most other games fall into the other category. And this required nvSurround to show the performance loss. Single monitor at 2560x1600 did not show any performance loss. Of course, if you're doing something like F@H, the story will probably be different.

an 850 watt psu is fine with only some very mild overclocking. its certainly not ok with any really high overclocking though. you can easily push a gtx580 in the mid to upper 300 watt range with some additional voltage and high clocks. that alone would be 700 watts or more just for the cards so even with a stock cpu, that would be pushing the psu almost to the limit. I would go for a very high quality 1000 watt psu if some real overclocking is the plan.

And really the only way to push a GTX 580 that high is to have a good watercooling system. Average overclocker won't push a 850 watt power supply.

 

[cannondale06]

Well, for cross talk between the cards the extra bandwidth would probably be essential. The SLI/crossfire connectors do add only about x1 PCI-E worth of bandwidth for transferring of frames between the cards.

And yes, I do know that quad-crossfire and quad-SLI can be used on 1155 with dual GPU cards, anyone can realize that. I was talking about single GPU cards.

Physically limiting graphics cards to x8 bandwidth on a LGA1366 platform resulted in a net performance loss of perhaps 5% for games that aggressively use the bandwidth between the CPU and graphics cards and no performance loss whatsoever for games that don't aggressively use that bandwidth. Physically limiting it to x4/x4 led to I believe a 10% and 5% performance loss respectively. I believe Metro 2033 is a prime example of massive constant transfers, while most other games fall into the other category. And this required nvSurround to show the performance loss. Single monitor at 2560x1600 did not show any performance loss. Of course, if you're doing something like F@H, the story will probably be different.



And really the only way to push a GTX 580 that high is to have a good watercooling system. Average overclocker won't push a 850 watt power supply.

you can most certainly push that 850 watt psu too hard with just air cooled overclocking. an i7 at 3.33 and stock gtx580 sli set up can pull 850 watts at the wall under full load. that alone could be over 725 real watts. just a decent bump in voltage and clocks on the gtx580 and bam, you just added another 50-75 watts per card for 100-150 watts more total. that alone would have the psu at its very limits and even beyond before even touching the cpu. and its easy to add more than another 100 watts without getting too crazy on the cpu. so no way would I recommend just an 850 watt psu for a gtx580 and sandy Bridge E setup if wanting to do some decent overclocking.

 

[DejaWiz]

LGA2011 gives you three things over LGA1155

1: more cores (6 rather than 4)
2: more PCIe lanes from the CPU (40 rather than 16)
3: two ram channels rather than 4 (and hence max ram of 64GB rather than 32GB)

From what I can gather 1 and 3 are pretty irrelvent for current games but 2 is probablly relavent in high res multimonitor/multicard gaming (basically in any scenario where 1366 beats 1155 i'd expect 2011 to be better than either).

Isn't 2011 also multi-socket capable?

 

[plugwash]

Afaict LGA2011 will have dual and quad socket parts later but the intial release will be single socket only.

 

[Notigg]

I actually have 3 X GTX 580 lightning extremes.... 3 samsung 950D monitors (1080P resolution) for a total of 5670x1080 resolution in nvidia surround

if 2011 has 40 lanes how many does 1366 have?

 

[tangoseal]

Afaict LGA2011 will have dual and quad socket parts later but the intial release will be single socket only.

Can you elaborate on this please? Is there to be a revision past release revision that enables this or something? Is this a limitation of the initial chip or is it the X79 chipset?

If it is the chipset then great no worries at all. EVGA SR3 is using Intel server chipset, not sure which one yet but it wont be X79 based. I would fucking hate for the initial release processors to be limited to only one chip because of the chip its self being locked in some wierd way.

I really want to build a 3930K (pending SMP support is there on the chips) workstation with dual chips for Folding, and Video work.

Thanks and please elaborate for us.

 

[plugwash]

Afaict as with 1366 you will need to buy specific multi-socket enabled XEON processors for a multi-socket system.

 

[tangoseal]

Afaict as with 1366 you will need to buy specific multi-socket enabled XEON processors for a multi-socket system.

Oh so you are basing your statement on what happened with 1366.

Well that might be true but I would like to see some hard fact. I guess we will have to wait and see what happens.

 

[Tsumi]

I actually have 3 X GTX 580 lightning extremes.... 3 samsung 950D monitors (1080P resolution) for a total of 5670x1080 resolution in nvidia surround

if 2011 has 40 lanes how many does 1366 have?

2011 has 40 lanes. 1366 has 32 lanes. One key difference being that 2011 will have those lanes as PCI-E 3.0 (double bandwidth of 2.0, but only with 3.0 compliant hardware), but it's unsure how many of those lanes will run at 3.0 speeds. Most likely at least 32 lanes will run at 3.0, if not all 40.

Oh so you are basing your statement on what happened with 1366.

Well that might be true but I would like to see some hard fact. I guess we will have to wait and see what happens.

It comes down to how many QPI links the consumer models have. Based on my understanding of Intel technology, additional QPI links are needed for multi-processor support. Consumer level 1366 models only had 1 QPI link, for interface with the NB. Xeon processors have 2, one for interface with the NB and one with each other. Based on some sparse reading I've done, 2011 processors can support up to 4 QPI links for quad-socket systems. So it comes down to how many QPI links the consumer models will have, and generally Intel has put only one on them. Only Xeon processors get more than 1 QPI link, because they can charge a premium for them. And even then, the lower model Xeons have only 1 QPI link, you need to go for the more expensive Xeons.

 

[plugwash]

Oh so you are basing your statement on what happened with 1366.

I'm basing it on a couple of things

1: the fact that the model tables i've seen have sections for "desktop", "UP server", "DP server" and so on.
2: the fact that the last time intel allowed multi-socket with a non-xeon chip was back in the days of the pentium 3!

 

[tangoseal]

I'm basing it on a couple of things

1: the fact that the model tables i've seen have sections for "desktop", "UP server", "DP server" and so on.
2: the fact that the last time intel allowed multi-socket with a non-xeon chip was back in the days of the pentium 3!

Well lets hope we arent stuck with just XEON and if we are thats cool but they better be unlocked hopefully. Intel is pretty much a monopoly and well thanks AMD. There is no reason for Intel to offer anything special and charge less for it.

 

[naizarak]

most desktop TDP's tend to hover below 150w.