manny2002

Oh, I see, you are one of the "Lucky 5" from Perfomance-PCs.
:-)

Yes! ... I just got mine. The delivery service left my house for 2 minutes.
 
 

CyberstormXIII


Hello dimobr

The Problem still persists primarily. But by following tutor's advice on setting the PLL, PWM and PCH voltages slightly up, it at least feels like there is less rebooting after going through the BCLK=100 (F4 = save and exit), BCLK = 105, F4, and then BCLK=107. the last couple of times, had either 0 or 1 resets in-between, so that might suggest, that increasing them a bit more might make it more stable. But regardless of those changes, it still have a hard time starting at 107 (either cold or warm reset) -- at least to my experience is, that doing a F3(restore optimal values), F4, then going the 100, F4, 105, F4, and then 107, F4  course is the one that gives a running system the fastest. 

My current values are something of the sort :
PLL Vcore = 1920, PWM = 520, and PCH = 1520

Had Cinebench run at 27.57 (so a 0.06 point increase) compared to the standard voltages - BCLK=108 still does not want to happen at all ... and I rather not go too high on the values with standard air cooling, and no proper cooling on chipset/mosfets - so it still might be possible to go a bit higher - hard to know for sure.
 

 
 
Thank you for your attention in your answer.

I'm with the motherboard in hand, only the processors Monday, has brought a friend from Japan. Once you're set up with all the same ajuster'll try and see the results. And Soon I'll post my results.
 
best regards,
DimoBR

CyberstormXIII


Hello Sleinous.

There are 2 slots between the 1st PCI-E slot and the I/O backplate (meaning, the first PCI-e slot goes into the 3rd expansion slot hole, counted from the I/O backplate) - at least for my Lian Li PC P80N chassis/cabinet/case - and I would assume goes for any chassis/cabinet/case. (and those 2 holes are unused, and can thus be used for e.g. water cooling extra, or USB/other backplate necessities).

Best regards : CyberstormXIII

Many thanks for this info Cyberstorm :D

geort45


Sorry I didn't see them, thanks!

Clock*core and clock*core the results are pretty much the same as Westmere, I had 2 hexacores at 3.33Ghz that gave 17 score, "scaling" your 2 octacores to 2 hexacores at 3.33 Ghz they'd yield 18.87 score which is 10% faster than previous gen Xeons mmmm

Hello geort45
 
Your calculations are not entirely correct though.
 
6/8 = 0.75 and
8/6 = 1.3333
 
so, we can go two ways
1.)  2x 6 cores @ 3.33Ghz yields 17. to go to 8 cores @ 3.33GHz we would have to multiply by 8/6 = 1.33, thus
      17 x 1.333 = 22.6666.
      So, an "2x 8-core Westmere" @ 3.33GHz yields 22.67
     And a 2x 8-core Sandy Bridge @ 3.33Ghz yields 27.57
to go from 22.67 to 27.57 would be an increase of 27.57/22.67 = 1.216 = 1.22 = 22% increase. clock for clock, core for core.
 
2.) 2x 8 cores @ 3.33GHz yields 27.57. to go yo 6 cores @ 3.33GHz, we would have to multiply by 6/8 = 0.75, thus
      27.57 x 0.75 = 20.6775.
      So, an "2x 6-core Sandy Bridge" @ 3.33GHz yields 20.6775.
     And a 2x 6-core Westmere @ 3.33GHz yields 17.
to go from  17 to 20.6775 would be an increase of 20.6775/17 = 1.216 = 1.22 = 22% increase, clock for clock, core for core.
 
I dont know how you got it to 10%,  but please be free to point out any errors that I might have made.
 
Best regards : CyberstormXIII

Hey
 
I did the calculations considering your turbo mode @3.64Ghz on all cores :), that's their speed at full load on all cores no?

geort45


Hey

I did the calculations considering your turbo mode @3.64Ghz on all cores :), that's their speed at full load on all cores no?

 

geort45


Sorry I didn't see them, thanks!

Clock*core and clock*core the results are pretty much the same as Westmere, I had 2 hexacores at 3.33Ghz that gave 17 score, "scaling" your 2 octacores to 2 hexacores at 3.33 Ghz they'd yield 18.87 score which is 10% faster than previous gen Xeons mmmm

 
from the last quoted post, it gave me the impression that you were basing the values on the stated GHz number, but of course you are correct wrt. Turbo mode across all the cores.
 
Which were the turbo mode clock of the westmeres then ? (I know I could calculate it, just too lazy atm).
 
Best regards : CyberstormXIII

I had a base clock of 185, when running in turbo they ran at 18 multiplier thus 3.33Ghz :)

So the GTX 690 came out,, and EVGA had a read-to-sell model right away,, very pricey by the way.
Maybe thats why they forgot about the SR-X users,, .
Maybe the profit margin on the GPUs is more 'interesting' than the MoBos.
:-(
Sobbing.
 

CyberstormXIII


Hello dimobr

The Problem still persists primarily. But by following tutor's advice on setting the PLL, PWM and PCH voltages slightly up, it at least feels like there is less rebooting after going through the BCLK=100 (F4 = save and exit), BCLK = 105, F4, and then BCLK=107. the last couple of times, had either 0 or 1 resets in-between, so that might suggest, that increasing them a bit more might make it more stable. But regardless of those changes, it still have a hard time starting at 107 (either cold or warm reset) -- at least to my experience is, that doing a F3(restore optimal values), F4, then going the 100, F4, 105, F4, and then 107, F4  course is the one that gives a running system the fastest. 

My current values are something of the sort :
PLL Vcore = 1920, PWM = 520, and PCH = 1520

Had Cinebench run at 27.57 (so a 0.06 point increase) compared to the standard voltages - BCLK=108 still does not want to happen at all ... and I rather not go too high on the values with standard air cooling, and no proper cooling on chipset/mosfets - so it still might be possible to go a bit higher - hard to know for sure.

 
1)  CyberstormXIII, What's under that Advanced (bios) menu?   There are no pics for it, even tho it's listed before "Chipset."   There might be something there that opens a wholly new horizon.
 
2) Point well taken regarding your surmise that I underlined, above.  So try it.

manny2002


So the GTX 690 came out,, and EVGA had a read-to-sell model right away,, very pricey by the way.
Maybe thats why they forgot about the SR-X users,, .
Maybe the profit margin on the GPUs is more 'interesting' than the MoBos.
:-(
Sobbing.

intel is used to find bugs after publishing new chipset or cpu , like the 1156 & 1155 sockets ....
may be soon we ll have to buy the 2012 one ;']
 

Just a little info to back up what others have seen.
I'm using a SM X9DAi w/2-E5-2687W's,8x2 gig DDR3-1333 ECC REG
25.61 in Cinebench 11.5..Rock solid but all defaults, no bios options to increase anything with SM systems..The price you get for their stability I guess!

Tutor

CyberstormXIII


Hello dimobr

The Problem still persists primarily. But by following tutor's advice on setting the PLL, PWM and PCH voltages slightly up, it at least feels like there is less rebooting after going through the BCLK=100 (F4 = save and exit), BCLK = 105, F4, and then BCLK=107. the last couple of times, had either 0 or 1 resets in-between, so that might suggest, that increasing them a bit more might make it more stable. But regardless of those changes, it still have a hard time starting at 107 (either cold or warm reset) -- at least to my experience is, that doing a F3(restore optimal values), F4, then going the 100, F4, 105, F4, and then 107, F4  course is the one that gives a running system the fastest. 

My current values are something of the sort :
PLL Vcore = 1920, PWM = 520, and PCH = 1520

Had Cinebench run at 27.57 (so a 0.06 point increase) compared to the standard voltages - BCLK=108 still does not want to happen at all ... and I rather not go too high on the values with standard air cooling, and no proper cooling on chipset/mosfets - so it still might be possible to go a bit higher - hard to know for sure.

1)  CyberstormXIII, What's under that Advanced (bios) menu?   There are no pics for it, even tho it's listed before "Chipset."   There might be something there that opens a wholly new horizon.

2) Point well taken regarding your surmise that I underlined, above.  So try it.

 
1.) I checked the pictures, and there is actually one, that I have posted - although it is a little blurred.
Anyways, under the advanced option, there are the following :
 *  ACPI Configuration  (Enable , Disable = { Enable Hibernation (Enable/Disable),
                                                            ACPI Sleep State (Suspend Disabled,
                                                                                     S1 (CPU Stop Clock),
                                                                                     S3 (suspend to RAM)),
                                                            EUP Control = (Enable/Disable)
                                                          }
 * Onboard Device Configuration
                           (PCI Express LAN 1 [ENABLED](greyed out, cant be disabled)
                           1394 Net Adapter [Enabled/Disabled]
                           PCI Express LAN 2 [Enabled/Disabled]
                           USB3.0 Port 3/4 [Enabled/Disabled]
                           e-SATA [Enabled/Disabled]
                           USB3.0 Header 1/2 [Enabled/Disabled]
                           USB3.0 Port 1/2 [Enabled/Disabled]
                           Audio Configuration
                           Azalia HD Audio [Enabled/Disabled]
                           High Precision Event Timer Configuration
                           High Precision Timer [Enabled/Disabled]
 
 * SATA Configuration
                           SATA Mode [Disabled/IDE Mode/ACHI Mode/RAID Mode]
                           Aggressive Link Power [Enabled/Disabled]
                           SATA Port 0
                              Hot Plug [Disabled/Enabled]
                           SATA Port 1
                              Hot Plug [Disabled/Enabled]
                           ...
                           SATA Port 5
                              Hot Plug [Disabled/Enabled]
 * SAS Configuration
              SAS Port 0 [no parameters, with no device connected]
              ...
              SAS Port 7 [ no parameters, with no device connected]
 
 * USB Configuration
              USB Devices : [showing greyed, those connected]
              USB Port 1: [Enabled/Disabled]
              USB Port 2: [Enabled/Disabled]
              USB Port 3: [Enabled/Disabled]
              USB Port 4: [Enabled/Disabled]
              USB Header 1: [Enabled/Disabled]
              USB Header 1: [Enabled/Disabled]
              USB Header 2: [Enabled/Disabled]
              USB Header 3: [Enabled/Disabled]
              USB Header 4: [Enabled/Disabled]
              USB Header 5: [Enabled/Disabled]
              USB Header 6: [Enabled/Disabled]
              Bluetooth: [Enabled/Disabled]
              USB Beep: [Disabled/Enabled]
              Legacy USB Support: [Enabled/Disabled]
 * H/W Monitor
            CPU Temperature : xx C
            VREG Temperature: xx C
            System Temperature: xx C
            P0_CPUFAN Speed : xxxx RPM
            P0_CPUFAN Mode [SmartFAN//Manual]
            ...
            Basically temperatures for all Fans and voltages for all measure points
 
I didnt feel to make a lot of extra screenshots, so this was a bit faster - I can make them if necessary.
 
2.) I have tried to up them up to the following voltages :
      CPU0/1 PLL VCore: 1.950,
      PCH Voltage 1.5000V : 1.550,
      PWM Frequency Control : 550 KHz
 
Without getting any extra stability. So, unfortunately, it does not seem to give extra stability by increasing them up to this point (Maybe further rising them will, but Im not really sure, if that will be wise without extra cooling on mosfets/chipset.

I'm seriously starting to be tempted to get the Asus model and be done with it, especially since i'm seeing talk about making the SR-X stable at 107 BCLK, wich comes to a very small overclock overall and one that makes little to no performance difference over stock anyhow, and it isn't the motherboards fault in the least, but the Asus model is available right now and cheaper by about 100$...

wait the SRX in europe second time ?

shadow001


I'm seriously starting to be tempted to get the Asus model and be done with it, especially since i'm seeing talk about making the SR-X stable at 107 BCLK, wich comes to a very small overclock overall and one that makes little to no performance difference over stock anyhow, and it isn't the motherboards fault in the least, but the Asus model is available right now and cheaper by about 100$...

 
I know its tempting, but just wait a bit more.
 
Also, I just received my Intel i7 3960x, which I will use to test on both the Asus Z9PE-D8 WS and the EVGA SR-X for their 1 CPU OC potential - I am guessing that it will be similar to the Asus Rampage IV Extreme or EVGA X79 Classified ... maybe with a little less oc, but basically giving the option for 2CPU, and 1CPU, and if intel releases an oc'able Xeon 2011...
 
Anyways, ill get onto it, as soon as I have fetched yet another Noctua NH-D14 cooler later today - it all depends on how long it will take to get things running smoothly, and if my memory (1333MHz will yield any problems - have some 2000MHz non-ecc, but only 3, so that would defeat the purpose of running quad-channel)
 

Hi CyberstormXIII,,,
 
I was trying to find information about one Intel i7 3960x on the Asus Z9PE-D8 WS. Have tried it? does it work?
That was the selling point for me on the SR-X,, (the ability to run two E5-2600s or one i7,,  since both have LGA 2011).
If the Asus Z9PE-D8 WS can run a single i7 also,, problem solved for me.
 
Thanks!
 

How come USA still has none of these available? I still didn't even receive an e-mail stating they were ever in stock.

manny2002


Hi CyberstormXIII,,,

I was trying to find information about one Intel i7 3960x on the Asus Z9PE-D8 WS. Have tried it? does it work?
That was the selling point for me on the SR-X,, (the ability to run two E5-2600s or one i7,,  since both have LGA 2011).
If the Asus Z9PE-D8 WS can run a single i7 also,, problem solved for me.

Thanks!

 
 
All dual socket motherboards for the last 15 years can run processors meant for single socket motherboards, as long as there's only 1 installed...Can't be done with 2 processors unless they're Xeons.
 
The main question is wich motherboard will overclock better with a single Desktop CPU, and i'm guessing that even then it comes down more to the processor you get than anything else, as some will naturally overclock better than others and not so much the board itself, as we already see the Asus board running fine up to 105 bclk without having issues with it's built in network, while the SR-X has trouble doing better than that without becoming unstable.
 
 
I might even do that option to be honest, as the prices for Xeon processors are painfull to say the least(the high end versions at least), and get the Asus board, an 3930K and faster memory(DD3 2400 from Gskill), and call it a day.....The ones were i might get back to to Xeon's would be the Xeon version of ivy bridge with 10 cores onboard, but that's only coming out early next year... 

I see,,, well thats the thing,, SR-X looks cool, has a potential for more RAM, etc,, but unfortunately is not even for sale.
I have one i73960x and two E5-2687W already (same as you), I wanted to compare how the performance varies for my application,.
From one overclocked i73960x against two stock E5-2787W,, the rest (Mobo, RAM, RAID, etc) being the same.
 
I wanted to test on the SR-X, but looks like EVGA is not collaborating here.
 
If I can do the same with the Asus Board,, so be it then.
 
One question I still have,, I noticed that Asus board is C602 chipset, and SR-X is C606,,, I tried to google and read but I dont know the difference,,,,,, does the chipset really matters? where I can get a comparison table for chipsets?
 
Thanks!!

Only thing I found was:
 
SKU,SCU ports (#), PCIe Uplink, SME BUs:
602, 4 (sata only),No,4
606, 8, Yes,5
 
Src:  http://www.intel.com/cont...chipset-datasheet.html

manny2002


Hi CyberstormXIII,,,

I was trying to find information about one Intel i7 3960x on the Asus Z9PE-D8 WS. Have tried it? does it work?
That was the selling point for me on the SR-X,, (the ability to run two E5-2600s or one i7,,  since both have LGA 2011).
If the Asus Z9PE-D8 WS can run a single i7 also,, problem solved for me.

Thanks!

 
Hello Manny2002
 
I have just completed the test with the i7 3960x. It works very nicely in the Asus Z9PE-D8 WS. But I did have some initial problems (getting stuck at POST id 60 ... I had this nagging feeling that it probably was because the 3960x is a desktop processor, and the ram I used was server ECC ram ... so I looked it up
 
http://ark.intel.com/prod...815M-Cache-3_30-GHz%29
 
Naming Terminology:
ASUS Z9PE-D8 WS | EVGA SR-X
-------------------------------
CPU1                   |  CPU0
CPU2                   |  CPU1
 
And quite rightly so, it said it didnt support it (although, sometimes, these statements arent always true, so I wondered if there were anything else, but couldnt come up with anything, so I wrote a PM to another member on the Bios Mods forums, that I had talked to, and after writing, I disassembled this computer, and used the Non-ecc ram from that, and the Asus Z9PE-D8 WS booted like a charm.
 
So, yes, INDEED, you can use 3960x in the ASUS Z9PE-D8 WS. I have heard reports of others using a 3820, so I guess the whole line of i7 2011 lga socket CPU's will work (that is, the 3930k, being that last not mentioned ;-)
 
Anyways. I would still advice some caution - there are a number of problems with the Asus, if you have large air coolers, like the Noctua NH-D14 SE 2011 - there is a mechanical distance problem between the CPU's and the first PCI-E slot, i.e. you wont be able to fit a full length graphics card into that slot (if example wise, you were going to have quad-sli for example).
 
Also, and MOST importantly, (for 1 CPU configuration) - if you look in the manual, for the ASUS Z9PE-D8 WS, you will find :
 
http://dlcdnet.asus.com/p...254_Z9PE_D8_WS_web.pdf
 
on page 2-18 (38 of 208), that gives :
 

2.5.4 PCI Express x16 slot (x16 link)
The onboard PCIE 1 and 3 provide one x16 Gen3 link to CPU1 (Auto switch to x8 link if PCIE 2 and 4 are occupied); The onboard PCIE 5 and 7 provide one x16 Gen3 link to CPU2. These slots support VGA cards and various server class high performance add-on cards.
 
2.5.5 PCI Express x16 slot (x8 link)
The onboard PCIE 6 provides one x8 link to CPU2; The onboard PCIE 2 and 4 provide one x8 Gen3 link to CPU1. These slot support VGA Cards and various server class high performance add-on cards.

                                                           | My summary from the above:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
PCIE 1    1 x PCI-E x 16 (Gen3 x16/x8 link)  | CPU1
PCIE 2    1 x PCI-E x 16 (Gen3 x8 link)        | CPU1
PCIE 3    1 x PCI-E x 16 (Gen3 x16/x8 link)  | CPU1
PCIE 4    1 x PCI-E x 16 (Gen3 x8 link)        | CPU1
PCIE 5    1 x PCI-E x 16 (Gen3 x16/x8 link)  | CPU2
PCIE 6    1 x PCI-E x 16 (Gen3 x8 link)        | CPU2
PCIE 7    1 x PCI-E x 16 (Gen3 x16/x8 link)  | CPU2
 
I am not entirely sure how EVGA SR-X internally is working w.r.t. this - but I would assume, either identical OR by using the CPU1 disable jumper (CPU1 = CPU2 in Asus terminology, to allow the PCIE slots to act like e.g. the X79 Classified - This needs clarification by an EVGA Employee, along with several of the other problems that I have highlighted (most notably the LAN disappearance with BLCK>100)
 
 
Thats all for now, hope you all can use all the time I have spent researching - Soon I will be able to show a real review and comparison between the two boards --- wondering why noone else have reviewed them, or why noone else have written about their experiences with these two boards.
 
I will sometime in the coming week plug the 3960x into the SR-X and see how it fares (when I have acquired some 2400MHz non-ecc ram).
 
Best regards : CyberstormXIII

Oh, didnt see that you had responded since I started writing my last response.
 
Yes, there are differences between the different Intel Chipsets, but they are not easy to be found.
 
Intel C600 series chipset, have the following :
 
http://www.intel.it/conte...-chipset-datasheet.pdf
 
If you go to page 48 of 936 - you will see the following :
 

 
Also, the Errata spec sheet will give a little extra detail :
http://www.intel.com/cont...hipset-spec-update.pdf
 
So, basically, you will get 8 sas ports on c606 and c608, but 4 sata ports on c602 (this is not necessarily all ports on the motherboards, as the vendors often add extra ports through other chipsets, like VIA, Broadcom or similar chipset producers)
 
Best regards : CyberstormXIII

Oh,, thanks for the answers above, specially about the chipset,, it wont apply to me too much,, my test environment has 26 HDDs (SSD and SAS 6Gbs) on top of an Areca 1882ix Card.
Im not going to use the onboard controller(s).
Good to know anyways, I couldnt find a website with the table but I didn't think on reading the manual :-(.
 
On the other hand, I will pay attention to the RAM on the Asus mobo if I get it,, but you are right,, a proper answer from EVGA in terms of the PCI-E distribution and other limitations when running 1 CPU would be appropriated on this case.
Thanks.
 

To sum up from my previous to last post, if you have a large air cooler, and want to use a  1 cpu configuration, you will end up with the following (for the ASUS Z9PE-D8 WS Motherboard):
4 ram slots, and 4 pcie slots (where of slot 1 will be blocked by the cooler), so 3 pcie slots (and using slot 2 and 4 if using two double width graphics cards, will only run in x8)
 
- meaning :
  *  4 x 8gb = 32gb is the max ram (ecc/registered not allowed with 3960x
  * 2 graphics cards running in max pcie x8 (Gen3) (or 3 if you can get single width ones)
 
--- these are some rather serious limitations - that at least for the ram will be somewhat better with the SR-X - you will there have 64GB (8x8GB), and keeping the cpu1 disable in mind, it is >probably< possible to use all 7 pcie slots (this is a guess).
 
 
 

What do you think it will be on watercooled? I have two Waterblocks from Aquacomputer that I was planning to use.
 
Im not into SLI, Im planning only one GPU (GTX 580) but I do have the ARECA RAID which is PCI-E x8 and im planning another USB card.
 
No air cooling for me,, the rig I have now sounds like a jet engine taking off. Im trying to make the next one as quiet as possible.
 
 

with watercooling blocks, you will have 4 pcie slots on 1 cpu, without any problems with mechanical distance problems.
1x GTX 580 - pcie 1 and 2 (guessing its a 2 slot card),
1x Areca card - pcie 3
1x usb3.0 card - pcie 4
 
so should be all fine and dandy --- but really unless you want to save some extra for a motherboard until 10-core ivy bridge E5's comes out, I think, that you might be more rewarded with a EVGA X79 Classified or ASUS Rampage IV Extreme - at least if you want to have at least 1-3 free pcie slots for expansion you havent taken into consideration.
 
On a sidenote - I dont know what you know of air-cooling, but it sounds, like you have never tried e.g. Noctua's aircoolers and fans - with their LNA or ULNA (Ultra Low Noise Adapter) - if not, you really should try - (now I know that you have water cooling) - to hear the sound/noise level of Noctua's or similar air coolers - at least the maintenance is less than for water cooling, and also, a water cooler will have to move the heat through some fins - in this case air-coolers with a very large fin array will provide the same cooling (except if it is chilled water) as water coolers (some might disagree).
 
 
 
But --- if I were you - I would wait for the SR-X (and a response from EVGA on the PCI-E lane config in a 1 CPU situation)
 
Best regards : CyberstormXIII

@CyberstormXIII
,
Looking forward to results of your DDR3-2400 testing.
 
With Z9PE-D8-WS I have the following results:
 
- G.Skill RipJaws Z, DDR3-2133 MHz (9-11-10-28),  32 GB total (4x4 GB on CPU0 + 4x4 GB on CPU1) ==> Works flawlessly
 
- G.Skill Trident X, DDR3-2400 MHz (10-13-13-31), 64 GB total (4x8 GB on CPU0 + 4x8 GB on CPU1) ==> No way to boot on anything higher than 1600 MHz :( :( 
 
This alone might be a reason to switch to SR-X (I need memory speed, so using slower RAM is not really an option), provided that SR-X can supprort 8 GB DIMMs with DDR3-2400 MHz or at least 2133 MHz..  but to me this looks rather more like the limitation of CPU's IMC in this case... 

Nevertheless, ASUS Z9PE-D8 has very poor options for tweaking - way better than server boards out there, for sure - but nothing like "enthusiast" X79 boards - SR-X looks like much better in this regards, so maybe it would be possible to "tweak out" DDR3-2400 support even if the CPUs do not immediately accept it by fiddling with various voltages.

so the explanation i got was that they sold out, im guessing that the production is just slow enough that their release was only 10-20 boards, split between the US through distributors and to europe since a lot of people complain about the lack of availability in other countries. now we have to hope that they continue releasing more instead of just saying good enough.

psyq321


@CyberstormXIII
,
Looking forward to results of your DDR3-2400 testing.

With Z9PE-D8-WS I have the following results:

- G.Skill RipJaws Z, DDR3-2133 MHz (9-11-10-28),  32 GB total (4x4 GB on CPU0 + 4x4 GB on CPU1) ==> Works flawlessly

- G.Skill Trident X, DDR3-2400 MHz (10-13-13-31), 64 GB total (4x8 GB on CPU0 + 4x8 GB on CPU1) ==> No way to boot on anything higher than 1600 MHz :( :( 

This alone might be a reason to switch to SR-X (I need memory speed, so using slower RAM is not really an option), provided that SR-X can supprort 8 GB DIMMs with DDR3-2400 MHz or at least 2133 MHz..  but to me this looks rather more like the limitation of CPU's IMC in this case... 

Nevertheless, ASUS Z9PE-D8 has very poor options for tweaking - way better than server boards out there, for sure - but nothing like "enthusiast" X79 boards - SR-X looks like much better in this regards, so maybe it would be possible to "tweak out" DDR3-2400 support even if the CPUs do not immediately accept it by fiddling with various voltages.

 
It shouldn't be the IMC within the CPU dies, since you're still using a single memory stick for every memory channel available( 4 channels per CPU)...I can live with 32 GB of ram, but i'd also prefer a 64GB configuration but using ram with lower timings, and there are some nice options with 2133 ram while still having good timings, and if limited to 1600Mhz in order to boot, use that 2133mhz ram with very tight timings at least....You'll be surprised how well some applications love it. 
 
My SR-2 setup is water cooled and so will the socket 2011 platform i end up with, so clearances shouldn't be too much of a problem with either the Asus or the SR-X

The SR-X is available on Performance PCs!
 
http://www.performance-pc...&products_id=33978
 
Just ordered mine!!!
 
 

Same here....Finally.
 
Edit: woot, order is being processed right now so they didn't run out of stock(yet)...