My big budget custom PC build
- Thread starter UnsungHero
- Start date
GhostRyder
Posts: 2,151 +588
My opinion is with the others, at that price point, wait like 2 more weeks and grab ivy-bridge E to get a nice performance boost. Also you might want a bigger case to go around with the parts.
Also on video cards, if your doing 3 monitors and your going to want to game/have high performance, grab a pair of HD 7990's, that will be well within budget, and you will get the most power plus be able to game with literally zero problems at even 2560x1600 if you wished.
64gb of ram can be overkill, I would say get 4 8gb sticks and just start with 32gb and upgrade to more later if necessary.
Like JC713 said, a sound card might be a nice option to help the CPU out since your going to be doing so much with that machine. Its not necessary, but if it fits in the budget, I would go for it.
Liquid cool the CPU if you go 6core i7 because it will run a lot better in the long run and gives you the overclocking headroom.
That's my 2 cents on the matter
Also on video cards, if your doing 3 monitors and your going to want to game/have high performance, grab a pair of HD 7990's, that will be well within budget, and you will get the most power plus be able to game with literally zero problems at even 2560x1600 if you wished.
64gb of ram can be overkill, I would say get 4 8gb sticks and just start with 32gb and upgrade to more later if necessary.
Like JC713 said, a sound card might be a nice option to help the CPU out since your going to be doing so much with that machine. Its not necessary, but if it fits in the budget, I would go for it.
Liquid cool the CPU if you go 6core i7 because it will run a lot better in the long run and gives you the overclocking headroom.
That's my 2 cents on the matter
Jad Chaar
Posts: 6,481 +976
Rumors are that IB-E will only have a 5% improvement over SB-E. The only reason I would get one is because of the lower TDP and newer architecture. That is really the only advantage to IB-E. As of now at least.
GhostRyder
Posts: 2,151 +588
Yea ive seen those sample chips results too, its not as much as I was hoping, but the power consumption difference, mixed with a soldered heatsink and hopefully still the same overclocking power with that increase in performance will give us a nice boost. Im trying to decide on grabbing the lower 6 core 4930k and overclocking it to 5ghz. Im sure more advantages may arise including the support for PCI-E 3.0 and other things in that area, but only September will tell.
Jad Chaar
Posts: 6,481 +976
Or you can get a 4820K and wait for Haswell E.
GhostRyder
Posts: 2,151 +588
Im getting it for the 6 core/12thread part mostly otherwise I will stick with AMD. But im still curious on steamroller because of the rough 25% increase they are stating over vishera.
As for Haswell-E, I have been hearing about that and reading up a bit but im curious about 2 things.
1: Is it going to need a new socket because that's normally the run for new Intel Chips.
2: The price, at least this round they will still stick with the old pricing scheme, however with an 8-core/16thread processor, where are the prices going to go?
Jad Chaar
Posts: 6,481 +976
I think it will be LGA 2011, but it will require a X99 chipset, hence a new motherboard.
GhostRyder
Posts: 2,151 +588
Really? Normally Intel has been doing a 2 Gen's per socket setup lately so I was assuming there would be something like LGA 2014 (Or something like that) next in line.
cliffordcooley
Posts: 13,141 +6,441
Only if the CPU required 2014 pins for the socket.
GhostRyder
Posts: 2,151 +588
True, but they released that on purpose around that time to match the year, would not surprise me if they added a few more just so they can say the new socket is LGA 2014 released in 2014
Jad Chaar
Posts: 6,481 +976
True, but they released that on purpose around that time to match the year, would not surprise me if they added a few more just so they can say the new socket is LGA 2014 released in 2014
I wont be surprised either. But why would they increase the amount of pins if they dont have to?
dividebyzero
Posts: 4,840 +1,271
They wouldn't.
CPU pinouts are governed by three primary factors - power delivery to the processor, I/O connectivity (SATA, SAS, PCI-E etc.), and memory subsystem...so while I/O connectivity increases, power generally remains static, and in the case of the X99 chipset, while the memory remains quad channel - it only supports one DIMM per channel (unlike the two DIMM's -or eight slots total that X79 supports).
Bear in mind that LGA 2011 for high end desktop features a number of redundant pins. Those pins are required for the QPI interconnects in Xeon processors to allow them to function in 2P and 4P operation
GhostRyder
Posts: 2,151 +588
You would be surprised, they do things like that more than you would imagine. While designing the chips, some things just come up for right moment right time so they focus around that. Sometimes a name/design that matches to something important (In this case a year) can subconsciously add to the value of something without you even realizing it. Names are strong things in PC world, I mean think about it, names like Gskill, Dominator, Sound Blaster, Hawaii, etc can influence us without noticing. I would not be surprised if they did it to keep up with a trend, however I don't think they will put all their efforts into doing that.
dividebyzero
Posts: 4,840 +1,271
Nope. If that were the case then Intel would have used 2011 to describe the CPUs and/or chipset. It also makes no sense from a marketing viewpoint...if LGA 2011 made sense in the year 2011 (and remember that the socket only debuted in the last six weeks of the year), by the same token, it would have a increasingly negative PR effect in 2012, 2013, 2014...
A view of the pinout diagram and reference land grid numbers (and the corresponding land assignments which start at page 212)
pretty much tells you that Intel basically jammed as many pins into the socket as was possible. The six indentations into the grid array are pedestals to support the chip.
That being the case, you wonder why Intel choose names like Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge, Haswell, Clarkdale, Bloomfield, Gulftown and Lynnfield then rather than some hyperbolic adjectives? After all, if Intel are supposedly designing a CPU architecture and pinout count to coincide with a six week window of a particular year for the sake of numerologists, you'd think that they could expend a miniscule fraction of that effort to come up with a snappy name to appeal to those swayed by such things.
Jad Chaar
Posts: 6,481 +976
Wooh, nice stuff there DBZ. Thanks.
But DBZ, if you think about it, I think they may put 2014 just for the sake of it (without actually adding pins) since consumers usually look at the numbers. Some people may see 2011 and think that it is outdated. What do you think?
cliffordcooley
Posts: 13,141 +6,441
Anyone comparing LGA1155, LGA1150, and LGA2011 shouldn't get confused thinking LGA2011 is a date. Especially the enthusiast crowd that would consider purchasing LGA2011.
Jad Chaar
Posts: 6,481 +976
True.
GhostRyder
Posts: 2,151 +588
Yea so its a magic coincidence that in 2011 they came out with a socket with 2011pins, pretty odd coincidence to say the least.
Yea, no that was not a coincidence, it was planned, while they didn't plan the entire thing around it, if it came close, they built the pins then to go with that and added to the design because it would not cause problems to make a design with that in mind. No matter how you define it, this was intentional.
First off, I would not really consider that the names of the chips (Though sandy-bridge and ivy-bridge roll right off the tongue and sound pretty cool) they are the names of the architectures. When you say what chip you own, you don't normally say to someone I own a sandy-bridge i7, you say I have an i7 2600K, the name i7 sounds cool like when you say you have an FX chip from AMD. They brought that name back strictly because a name subconsciously no matter how hard we try will influence us in some way. That's just psycology for ya.
Also those naming schemes (Bloomfield, Lynfield, Sandy, Ivy) all follow a naming scheme which Intel has stuck with and will for along time and wont be changing anytime soon.
Im not saying they will put 2014 pins in 2014 (That was a sarcastic Joke...) But at the same time it would not surprise me so long as they don't have to re-do the whole design of the socket, then they might just do that.
dividebyzero
Posts: 4,840 +1,271
LGA 2011 is primarily a socket for servers/data centres and HPC. High end desktop is a drop in the bucket regarding sales and cachet. If you think about it, if Core Extreme was such an important market, Intel would have added eight core i7 SB-E and a ten core i7 IB-E options.
In reality the only numbers the bulk of LGA 2011 consumers are after relate to efficiency. A quick perusal of the latest large contracts signed in HPC probably paint the picture:
July 31, 2013...Australia's NCI supercomputer online ( 7,184 Intel Xeon E5-2670 LGA 2011)
July 24, 2013 ..U.S. Dept of Defence begins deployment of "Spirit" (9, 216 Intel Xeon E5-2670 LGA 2011)
July 16, 2013...U.S. Dept of Defence begins deployment of two HPC clusters "Pershing" and "Hercules" (combined 4,704 Intel Xeon E5-2670 LGA 2011)
July 5, 2013...NASA's contracts upgrading of the Pleiades supercomputer with 6,624 Xeon E5-2680v2 10-core LGA 2011 to complement the 3,744 Xeon E5-2670 8-core's already installed
June 3, 2013...Tiahne-2 online (32,000 Intel Xeon E5-2692 LGA2011)
May 17, 2013...Stuttgart's HPC centre signs contract for the Hornet supercomputer (~12,500 Xeon E5 LGA2011) (Cray XC30)
May 9, 2013...Durham University's Cosma cluster upgrade online (1,232 Intel Xeon E5-2670 LGA 2011 added for a total of 6.720)
April 26, 2013...Finnish CSC's Sisu supercomputer (1,472 Intel Xeon E5-2670 LGA 2011 against a total requirement of 11, 776 )(Cray XC30)
That's something in the order of 90,000 top-bin Xeon E5's in four months, and doesn't take into account smaller clusters (which I couldn't be bothered looking for), servers, or workstation. You'll note that the customers include Universities, the U.S. Department of Defence, and NASA. What would be the chances that these contracts would have been influenced by numerology ?
Yep. Only a tin-foil hat wearer would see it otherwise.
Name one other instance where the year and the pin count were the same ?
Once is coincidence. More than one is a pattern.
GhostRyder
Posts: 2,151 +588
Yea sure whatever you say... The fact is, the LGA 2011 socket came out in 2011 and was a huge skip from the former socket and the amount of pins increased significantly. This was a marketing gimmick, with the redesign of the socket, they came close and decided to go with the flow (Or delayed, whichever way you want to call it) but it was intentional. Your saying its now bad publicity, not really, like you said the E series is more aimed at enthusiasts and is dated at this point (Ivy-Bridge E will soon solve the issue).
If you want to believe that, go ahead, fact is it was clearly planned at some point because the odds of that happening were very low and its a general practice for companies to find ways to interest their customers consciously or sub-consciously. While it had not happened before, the amount of pins was close enough with the new design that the company decided to take advantage of this as a marketing ploy. Everyone does it no matter how much you want to deny it, it was quite obvious.
There has been no opportunity before, the years vs amount of pins has been relatively low and the years much higher.
cliffordcooley
Posts: 13,141 +6,441
And you don't know this. The only way for you to know is if you was in on the designing of the socket. Besides what difference does it make. It's not as if they can make every socket pin count aligned with the date.
GhostRyder
Posts: 2,151 +588
Ok assuming by that logic, then we both cant be confirmed, so that means neither argument holds water.
dividebyzero
Posts: 4,840 +1,271
Do you even read the previous posts?
LGA 1366 (X58/Intel 5520) to LGA 2011 (X79/C600 series) pin count increase 47% ( 2011/1366)
X79 memory channels: 4......X58 memory channels: 3 (33.33% increase)
X79 PCI-E lanes: 45* (includes 1 PCI-E 3.0 for USB 3.0)...X58 PCI-E lanes: 40** (12.5% increase)
There's also the matter of design power. LGA 2011's specification is 150 watts, whilst LGA 1366's is 130 watts.
* 40 lanes for expansion slots, 4 lanes for DMI (20 Gbit/sec), 1 lane USB 3.0 rear I/O
** 36 lanes for expansion slots, 4 lanes for DMI (2Gbit/sec)
GhostRyder
Posts: 2,151 +588
Do you?
I have stated I was joking around with JC713 on the 2014 pin thing though it still would not surprise me, however the fact was LGA 2011 came out in 2011 and there was more than a "Oh we made this chip with 2011 pins in 2011, wow such a coincidence huh". There was obviously at least some planning involved, and either way you cant prove your argument and nor can I mine because neither of us designed the chip or socket. However I disagree that this was just an unplanned coincidence and believe they planned it out for marketing while you believe it was just a lucky coincidence.
dividebyzero
Posts: 4,840 +1,271
Believe what you wish. Some people place their faith in many things that the majority scoff at. Just because logic and literature don't back up your argument it shouldn't deter you from your beliefs. Just remember that this is public forum, so you're going to be better off clarifying what constitutes your opinion from fact...
...because if you're telling everyone it is a fact when it's just your musings, you are going to get asked for proof.
BTW: If you want to know how Intel actually market their product, I suggest you check out the literature:
Latest posts
-
New charging algorithm could double life of li-ion batteries- Freddie159 replied
