eVGA SR-X (SR-3)

Re:eVGA SR-3 (pyrebuilder)

Tue, 20 Mar 2012 02:51:54 GMT

its called the tick-tock method, intel releases two generations staggered of each architecture and socket. so you get a low architecture chip released first that works on the new socket and gives a chance to experiment and improve for the tock cycle release of the high end new architecture chips. look at the release dates of the 1366 socket Xeons. they started off with a small batch (comparable to the current 2011 offerings) which were not very powerful and overall mediocre, then the next year they came out with the high end 1366 socket chips. the ones most of the SR-2 users have now. if anything EVGA should be praised for releasing this at the beginning of the cycle, letting us get our hands on it and play with it, work out the kinks and bugs before the cycle with the (im guessing) unlocked chips comes out. who wants to work out normal bugs while having overclockers shove complaints down your throat because they expect it to already be refined?
all in all, great board, ill be getting one, along with a waterblock from nateman_doo. haters will hate.

Re:eVGA SR-3 (lehpron)

Sat, 17 Mar 2012 12:49:40 GMT

Johnny_Utah

Indeed, the fact that they did this means they did do their homework. I have a question though, who IS their target customer? Before it was quite obvious, but with no unlocked chips on a board that's main selling point is overclocking...who are they selling this to? I can't figure it out:)

Assuming you weren't being sarcastic, the biggest clues are in EVGA's news articles comparing X79 to SR-X: X79 brags overclocking, SR-X does not. In otherwords, EVGA wasn't expecting to gain overclockers with SR-X; that they can survive on the other uses of the board from extreme power users, server admin, to folders and crunchers -- the latter could be the strongest market for EVGA. It may be possible that the majority of SR-2 customers didn't put Xeon overclocking in priority, remember the majority of frequent posters on the forums don't represent all customers.

The addition of the PCIe 3.0 PLX chip in SR-X and not in their X79 certain pushes those customers interested in multiple PCIe 3.0 cards. I was schoolded by X79 members that while games may not saturate PCIe 2.0 yet, computational ues of graphics cards can, so those users see a more significant difference from x8 to x16 2.0, thus feel similar about 3.0. It is EVGA's gamble whether those customers choose to put their demands in priority and choose another brand with more PCIe lanes, as opposed to being loyal to EVGA's new Global Warranty. I don't think it was made for simplifying the process. They are a business, everything they do is suspect, even their poll on the front page is another form of market analysis.

All is not lost with SR-X, they added single i7 use just to net those who may want more than an X79 with the option of a pair of 8-cores whenever they choose to, since none of EVGA's X79's allow Xeon E5's [yet].

Before with SR-2, EVGA allowed Xeon 5000's in X58 as a temporary, but it becomes a sale for Intel and not EVGA, so to speak. Allowing one i7 in SR-X allows EVGA to make a sale while users don't get an X79, the difference is negligible to Intel but significant to EVGA.

Re:eVGA SR-3 (Johnny_Utah)

Sat, 17 Mar 2012 12:00:39 GMT

lehpron

chillernr1

rottenmutt

Aggressor Prime

Jacob, does having all the PCIe slots from one CPU have anything to do with how nVidia restricts SLI certification on Sandy Bridge-EP motherboards?
No, the SLI certification thing was just a licensing issue, it isn't free.

People whant power, not restrictions. If you put down money for a complete SR-X setup, there should be NO restriction what so ever.
With respect, if the number of people and how much they are willing to spend don't add up to the cost of implimentation, then a business isn't going to bother with it. That any of us are willing to pay whatever it takes means absolutely nothing unless 1) there are enough of us to break-even from or 2) we pay for the whole development ourselves. The reason everything we can buy exists for purchase is because there was more demand than the cost to get it out there. Top-dollar items just refer to the maximum allowed features that the company could afford to sell; SR-X is the best it can be for who it was intended for, if you're unsatisfied then you weren't the target market.

Chances are EVGA already knew with zero unlocked Xeon E5-2600's to wire the board to take single i7's and thus route most of the PCIe lanes through one CPU; and not being able to wire it for a second CPU worth of lanes. You got to give EVGA credit for doing their homework and producing their product for their intended target customer.

Indeed, the fact that they did this means they did do their homework. I have a question though, who IS their target customer? Before it was quite obvious, but with no unlocked chips on a board that's main selling point is overclocking...who are they selling this to? I can't figure it out:)

Re:eVGA SR-3 (lehpron)

Sat, 17 Mar 2012 11:32:41 GMT

chillernr1

rottenmutt

Aggressor Prime

Jacob, does having all the PCIe slots from one CPU have anything to do with how nVidia restricts SLI certification on Sandy Bridge-EP motherboards?
No, the SLI certification thing was just a licensing issue, it isn't free.

People whant power, not restrictions. If you put down money for a complete SR-X setup, there should be NO restriction what so ever.

With respect, if the number of people and how much they are willing to spend don't add up to the cost of implimentation, then a business isn't going to bother with it. That any of us are willing to pay whatever it takes means absolutely nothing unless 1) there are enough of us to break-even from or 2) we pay for the whole development ourselves. The reason everything we can buy exists for purchase is because there was more demand than the cost to get it out there. Top-dollar items just refer to the maximum allowed features that the company could afford to sell; SR-X is the best it can be for who it was intended for, if you're unsatisfied then you weren't the target market.

Chances are EVGA already knew with zero unlocked Xeon E5-2600's to wire the board to take single i7's and thus route most of the PCIe lanes through one CPU; and not being able to wire it for a second CPU worth of lanes. You got to give EVGA credit for doing their homework and producing their product for their intended target customer.

Re:eVGA SR-3 (chillernr1)

Sat, 17 Mar 2012 08:53:45 GMT

rottenmutt

Aggressor Prime

Jacob, does having all the PCIe slots from one CPU have anything to do with how nVidia restricts SLI certification on Sandy Bridge-EP motherboards?

No, the SLI certification thing was just a licensing issue, it isn't free.

People whant power, not restrictions.
If you put down money for a complete SR-X setup, there should be NO restriction what so ever

Re:eVGA SR-3 (rottenmutt)

Sat, 17 Mar 2012 07:37:27 GMT

Aggressor Prime

Jacob, does having all the PCIe slots from one CPU have anything to do with how nVidia restricts SLI certification on Sandy Bridge-EP motherboards?

No, the SLI certification thing was just a licensing issue, it isn't free.

Re:eVGA SR-3 (coldpenguin)

Fri, 09 Mar 2012 07:05:54 GMT

Where did you see the prices?I see the 2687 as being more expensive than the 2690. The 2687 being higher frequency.
Some places buy servers in bulk, which gives them a discount on the components. Then they take the cpus out to customise the servers to their customers needs.
It is a reason to be careful if buying tray parts

Re:eVGA SR-3 (EVGA_MatthewH)

Thu, 08 Mar 2012 11:30:04 GMT

thegreatga

will the sas ports support raid 5 each so i could create two logical drives out of eight physical drives in raid 5? I know its only sata ii but its my understandig that non ssd's dont saturate sata ii anways?

Yes, the SAS support RAID 0, 1, 5, 10 and JBOD.

Re:eVGA SR-3 (Johnny_Utah)

Thu, 08 Mar 2012 11:24:55 GMT

beaker7

ZachA

For the amount of money, why not make it a DIY project??? I could easily send 11,000.00+ through them and still not get a quad SLI SR-X

Of course. Just pointing out that there must be at least a little to be gained via BCLK if they are offering it.

Great find. From the post here, it looks like a max of 105 on the BCLK. Now, Origin does not say how much the OC will be;)
Will be interested to see how high they can go......high enough to make people want to purchase for OCing? Who knows.

Re:eVGA SR-3 (pazza3169)

Thu, 08 Mar 2012 11:03:54 GMT

No overclock on CPU's evan by BLK makes this board pointless for me.

Re:eVGA SR-3 (thegreatga)

Wed, 07 Mar 2012 04:42:46 GMT

will the sas ports support raid 5 each so i could create two logical drives out of eight physical drives in raid 5? I know its only sata ii but its my understandig that non ssd's dont saturate sata ii anways?

Re:eVGA SR-3 (EVGA_JacobF)

Wed, 07 Mar 2012 02:03:29 GMT

lollygag

EVGA_JacobF

All PCI-E lanes come from the first CPU socket (right hand one) This is why you can run a single CPU and still have all PCI-E lanes.

lol.. you say that like its a selling point.. when in fact its one of the reasons why the board is handicapped.

May be a benefit for some, maybe not for others. We are honest with our spec.

Re:eVGA SR-3 (Aggressor Prime)

Wed, 07 Mar 2012 00:12:41 GMT

SiriusDragon

I'm also curious about the PCI-E lanes too... I assume they did it for 4-way SLI compatibility...

But they could have powered the secondary slots by the secondary CPU, allowing for extra cards like RAID cards, PCI-E SSDs etc without affecting the GPUs.

While being able to run the board with 1 CPU is nice, it's hardly a selling point.

Assuming unlocked CPUs come out it'll still be a nice board, but the gimping of some of the features makes it slightly less appealing than what it was, it's probably a shame for EVGA too as I guess they were hoping for this to be an epic flagship board.

I don't mind about the RAM slots... I think that's one of the few complaints about the board I don't share. I'd rather have better VRMs and stuff than more RAM capacity.

Actually, looking at ASUS board's manual, they have a 16x/8x, 8x, 16x/8x, 8x, 16x, 8x, 16x setup by which the first four slots are powered by the primary CPU and the last three slots are powered by the secondary CPU. Also, they say the board can run 4-way SLI, by this setup, 4-way SLI all at 16x. Now whether having two CPU power the two sets of GPUs causes more or less performance than using 32 lanes from a single CPU as EVGA did (of course expanded by the use of a PLX chip, but those cards are still getting squeezed down a 16x lane) is up for debate. Then again, I think most of the crosstalk between GPUs would be done over the SLI bridge and not the PCIe interface. That would be mostly for communications with the CPU.

Anyway, if I were to redesign the SR-X (or a SR-X2), I would do just a few things differently:
1. Use a 16x, 4x, 16x, 4x, 16x, 4x, 16x setup with the first 3 slots coming from the primary CPU and the last 4 slots coming from the secondary CPU. Of course, all could use 16x physical slots. The reason for this is purely from a gamer's perspective, to maximize my bandwidth between my GPUs and the CPUs. As a CUDA rig, 10 8x slots (16x physical) would be more appropriate. If I populate the 4x slots in this scheme, my 16x slots won't suffer.
2. Use the C608 chipset, if for anything, RST3 SAS RAID 5 Support.
3. Perhaps use an Intel X540-AT2 10Gb/s Ethernet Controller. This would highly depend on what the projected adoption rate of 10Gb/s Ethernet was, but considering a Sandy Bridge-EP board from both Tyan ans Supermicro are using it, the adoption rate seems to be improving. Of course I would use an RJ-45 plug and not anything fancy like SFP+. Since the controller uses 8 PCIe 2.0 links, I would let it take all the PCH's links.
4. I would use a TI TSB83AA23 PCI-Firewire chip since C600 series support PCI and the PCIe-Firewire chips are really PCIe-PCI-Firewire chips. Also, I would place 1 Firewire 800Mb/s port on the rear.
5. Then I would connect 4 NEC µPD720201 USB 3.0 controllers to the secondary CPU's 4x PCIe 2.0 link (normally used to connect to the PCH), each one powering 1 rear USB 3.0 port.
6. Perhaps I would move some SATA 3Gb/s ports (native from the chipset) to the rear for eSATA, but I'm not a big fan of external hard drives to begin with.

Re:eVGA SR-3 (SiriusDragon)

Wed, 07 Mar 2012 00:07:24 GMT

I'm also curious about the PCI-E lanes too... I assume they did it for 4-way SLI compatibility...

But they could have powered the secondary slots by the secondary CPU, allowing for extra cards like RAID cards, PCI-E SSDs etc without affecting the GPUs.

While being able to run the board with 1 CPU is nice, it's hardly a selling point.

Assuming unlocked CPUs come out it'll still be a nice board, but the gimping of some of the features makes it slightly less appealing than what it was, it's probably a shame for EVGA too as I guess they were hoping for this to be an epic flagship board.

I don't mind about the RAM slots... I think that's one of the few complaints about the board I don't share. I'd rather have better VRMs and stuff than more RAM capacity.

Re:eVGA SR-3 (Aggressor Prime)

Tue, 06 Mar 2012 23:54:20 GMT

Jacob, does having all the PCIe slots from one CPU have anything to do with how nVidia restricts SLI certification on Sandy Bridge-EP motherboards? I can understand if having two CPUs supply the lanes for 4-way SLI needs too much crosstalk on the QPI links to make it SLI certified. Or was the choice an EVGA one?

As for the 3Gb/s SAS, if you look through the Intel literature, I believe this was a last minute change.

See here, a March 2012 Thermal Guide:
http://www.intel.com/cont...set-thermal-guide.html
Go to page 13 and you will see that the SAS was supposed to be 6G.

Then see the March 2012 Datasheet:
http://www.intel.com/cont...chipset-datasheet.html
Go to page 37 and the SAS is listed as 3Gb/s.

Another interesting thing to note is which generation of PCIe Intel uses for the SAS 4x uplink. Intel gives 3 different generations. On page 43 of the datasheet, they say the port can only operate at 5GT/s (gen 2) or 2.5GT/s (gen 1). Yet below that, they say the expected/supported configuration of the uplink is 4x gen 1. Gen 1 is emphasized on page 95 but then immediately contradicted when they say the expected/supported configuration of the uplink is 4x gen 3. In short, whoever wrote the Intel datasheet really wasn't paying attention. If they are using a link older than gen 3, it would explain why the SAS is only 3Gb/s.

Re:eVGA SR-3 (Johnny_Utah)

Tue, 06 Mar 2012 23:44:47 GMT

The only thing I am bummed about is the lack of overclocking on the E5 chips. That's not the fault of EVGA but it sure makes a board that overclocks well a moot point, doesn't it.

Re:eVGA SR-3 (sokyoku)

Tue, 06 Mar 2012 21:54:41 GMT

So how many people are as bummed out as me? I was looking forward to the specs specified at CES 2012.. 4 way sli x16 on all ... 6g/s sas (had to research it) I know its small things.. but they where very nice things.. I still plan on finishing a SR-X set up .. just kinda let down a little i supose.

Re:eVGA SR-3 (lollygag)

Tue, 06 Mar 2012 21:41:51 GMT

EVGA_JacobF

All PCI-E lanes come from the first CPU socket (right hand one) This is why you can run a single CPU and still have all PCI-E lanes.

lol.. you say that like its a selling point.. when in fact its one of the reasons why the board is handicapped.

Re:eVGA SR-3 (EVGA_JacobF)

Tue, 06 Mar 2012 21:30:59 GMT

sokyoku

Thanks for replying jacob. Already read the entire SR-X main page. I have a question that may make you all laugh at me but Ive never used SAS connectors before.. From my understanding I can connect regular SATA devices to the SAS ports and they will work just not reversed.. which is fine. My question is If I connect all SSD's what is the individual bandwith each would recieve? would it be the equivilant of SATA 3? or SATA 2?

@ Lephron the 48 lane thing Im not certain but I beleieved they discussed this earlier something about the way PCI-E 3.0 works increased the amount of lanes to 1 cpu or something.. so the 48 is still running from 1 cpu.. while the second cpu takes care of all the other system things.. how ever I could be completly wrong and misread the previouse discussion.

You will need to get adapters that go from the SAS to SATA ports. Each SAS port can support 4 SATA ports. They are SATA 3G.

All PCI-E lanes come from the first CPU socket (right hand one) This is why you can run a single CPU and still have all PCI-E lanes.

Re:eVGA SR-3 (EVGA_JacobF)

Tue, 06 Mar 2012 21:29:17 GMT

For BCLK maximum expect around 105MHz on current CPU's.

Re:eVGA SR-3 (Brocasta)

Tue, 06 Mar 2012 21:11:42 GMT

beaker7

ZachA

For the amount of money, why not make it a DIY project??? I could easily send 11,000.00+ through them and still not get a quad SLI SR-X

Of course. Just pointing out that there must be at least a little to be gained via BCLK if they are offering it.

101 bclk wooooo

Re:eVGA SR-3 (beaker7)

Tue, 06 Mar 2012 21:09:52 GMT

ZachA

For the amount of money, why not make it a DIY project??? I could easily send 11,000.00+ through them and still not get a quad SLI SR-X

Of course. Just pointing out that there must be at least a little to be gained via BCLK if they are offering it.

Re:eVGA SR-3 (ZachA)

Tue, 06 Mar 2012 21:04:58 GMT

beaker7

emach

beaker7

Interesting that Origin is claiming ability to overclock Xeons using SR-X.

link?

If it's true they can, then it would be from the baseclock or whatever it's called with a max of 108 I believe.

http://www.originpc.com/g...2-desktop-features.asp

If you go and build-to-order there is an option for overclock which force switches the mobo to SR-X.

I asked the live chat rep what kinds of clocks they were getting and was told that information will be released in a few weeks.

For the amount of money, why not make it a DIY project??? I could easily send 11,000.00+ through them and still not get a quad SLI SR-X

Re:eVGA SR-3 (beaker7)

Tue, 06 Mar 2012 19:44:43 GMT

emach

beaker7

Interesting that Origin is claiming ability to overclock Xeons using SR-X.

link?

If it's true they can, then it would be from the baseclock or whatever it's called with a max of 108 I believe.

http://www.originpc.com/g...2-desktop-features.asp

If you go and build-to-order there is an option for overclock which force switches the mobo to SR-X.

I asked the live chat rep what kinds of clocks they were getting and was told that information will be released in a few weeks.

Re:eVGA SR-3 (emach)

Tue, 06 Mar 2012 19:32:47 GMT

beaker7

Interesting that Origin is claiming ability to overclock Xeons using SR-X.

link?

If it's true they can, then it would be from the baseclock or whatever it's called with a max of 108 I believe.

Re:eVGA SR-3 (beaker7)

Tue, 06 Mar 2012 18:57:48 GMT

Interesting that Origin is claiming ability to overclock Xeons using SR-X.

Re:eVGA SR-3 (lollygag)

Tue, 06 Mar 2012 16:05:22 GMT

No.. the SAS are sata 2. 3Gbs=usless

Re:eVGA SR-3 (Aggressor Prime)

Tue, 06 Mar 2012 15:37:40 GMT

sokyoku

Thanks for replying jacob. Already read the entire SR-X main page. I have a question that may make you all laugh at me but Ive never used SAS connectors before.. From my understanding I can connect regular SATA devices to the SAS ports and they will work just not reversed.. which is fine. My question is If I connect all SSD's what is the individual bandwith each would recieve? would it be the equivilant of SATA 3? or SATA 2?

@ Lephron the 48 lane thing Im not certain but I beleieved they discussed this earlier something about the way PCI-E 3.0 works increased the amount of lanes to 1 cpu or something.. so the 48 is still running from 1 cpu.. while the second cpu takes care of all the other system things.. how ever I could be completly wrong and misread the previouse discussion.

I believe SAS ports have a cable that splits the connection up into 4 SATA connections. The bandwidth for each would be 6Gb/s. As for PCI-Express lanes, I believe the primary CPU does everything (South Bridge and all the PCIe slots with the aid of a PLX PCIe switch). Granted, having a secondary CPU will give you more cores, more memory, and more memory bandwidth.

Re:eVGA SR-3 (sokyoku)

Tue, 06 Mar 2012 14:08:12 GMT

Oh yeah, Would love to see a HydroCopper water block for the SR-X I know its "not needed" but it makes water cooled systems look beter imo.

Re:eVGA SR-3 (sokyoku)

Tue, 06 Mar 2012 14:04:24 GMT

Thanks for replying jacob. Already read the entire SR-X main page. I have a question that may make you all laugh at me but Ive never used SAS connectors before.. From my understanding I can connect regular SATA devices to the SAS ports and they will work just not reversed.. which is fine. My question is If I connect all SSD's what is the individual bandwith each would recieve? would it be the equivilant of SATA 3? or SATA 2?

@ Lephron the 48 lane thing Im not certain but I beleieved they discussed this earlier something about the way PCI-E 3.0 works increased the amount of lanes to 1 cpu or something.. so the 48 is still running from 1 cpu.. while the second cpu takes care of all the other system things.. how ever I could be completly wrong and misread the previouse discussion.