I have the 8 Core top model Xeon on ES and I an tell you its locked. Fully locked.

 
 
Processor Number Cache Clock Speed # of Cores/
# of Threads Max TDP Memory Types Graphics Intel® Xeon® Processor X5690 (12M Cache, 3.46 GHz, 6.40 GT/s Intel® QPI) 12.0 MB 3.46 GHz 6 / 12 130 DDR3-800/1066/1333 No Intel® Xeon® Processor X5675 (12M Cache, 3.06 GHz, 6.40 GT/s Intel® QPI) 12.0 MB 3.06 GHz 6 / 12 95 DDR3-800/1066/1333 No Intel® Xeon® Processor X5687 (12M Cache, 3.60 GHz, 6.40 GT/s Intel® QPI) 12.0 MB 3.60 GHz 4 / 8 130 DDR3-800/1066/1333 No Intel® Xeon® Processor X5672 (12M Cache, 3.20 GHz, 6.40 GT/s Intel® QPI) 12.0 MB 3.20 GHz 4 / 8 95 DDR3-800/1066/1333 No Intel® Xeon® Processor X5647 (12M Cache, 2.93 GHz, 5.86 GT/s Intel® QPI) 12.0 MB 2.93 GHz 4 / 8 130 DDR3-800/1066 No Intel® Xeon® Processor E5649 (12M Cache, 2.53 GHz, 5.86 GT/s Intel® QPI) 12.0 MB 2.53 GHz 6 / 12 80 DDR3-800/1066/1333 No Intel® Xeon® Processor E5607 (8M Cache, 2.26 GHz, 4.80 GT/s Intel® QPI) 8.0 MB 2.26 GHz 4 / 4 80 DDR3-800/1066 No Intel® Xeon® Processor E5606 (8M Cache, 2.13 GHz, 4.80 GT/s Intel® QPI) 8.0 MB 2.13 GHz 4 / 4 80 DDR3-800/1066 No Intel® Xeon® Processor E5603 (4M Cache, 1.60 GHz, 4.80 GT/s Intel® QPI) 4.0 MB 1.60 GHz 4 / 4 80 DDR3-800/1066 No Intel® Xeon® Processor X5680 (12M Cache, 3.33 GHz, 6.40 GT/s Intel® QPI) 12.0 MB 3.33 GHz 6 / 12 130 DDR3-800/1066/1333 No Intel® Xeon® Processor X5667 (12M Cache, 3.06 GHz, 6.40 GT/s Intel® QPI) 12.0 MB 3.06 GHz 4 / 8 95 DDR3-800/1066/1333 No Intel® Xeon® Processor X5670 (12M Cache, 2.93 GHz, 6.40 GT/s Intel® QPI) 12.0 MB 2.93 GHz 6 / 12 95 DDR3-800/1066/1333 No Intel® Xeon® Processor X5660 (12M Cache, 2.80 GHz, 6.40 GT/s Intel® QPI) 12.0 MB 2.80 GHz 6 / 12 95 DDR3-800/1066/1333 No Intel® Xeon® Processor X5650 (12M Cache, 2.66 GHz, 6.40 GT/s Intel® QPI) 12.0 MB 2.66 GHz 6 / 12 95 DDR3-800/1066/1333 No Intel® Xeon® Processor E5640 (12M Cache, 2.66 GHz, 5.86 GT/s Intel® QPI) 12.0 MB 2.66 GHz 4 / 8 80 DDR3-800/1066 No Intel® Xeon® Processor E5630 (12M Cache, 2.53 GHz, 5.86 GT/s Intel® QPI) 12.0 MB 2.53 GHz 4 / 8 80 DDR3-800/1066 No Intel® Xeon® Processor E5620 (12M Cache, 2.40 GHz, 5.86 GT/s Intel® QPI) 12.0 MB 2.40 GHz 4 / 8 80 DDR3-800/1066 No Intel® Xeon® Processor L5640 (12M Cache, 2.26 GHz, 5.86 GT/s Intel® QPI) 12.0 MB 2.26 GHz 6 / 12 60 DDR3-800/1066/1333 No Intel® Xeon® Processor L5630 (12M Cache, 2.13 GHz, 5.86 GT/s Intel® QPI) 12.0 MB 2.13 GHz 4 / 8 40 DDR3-800/1066 No Intel® Xeon® Processor L5609 (12M Cache, 1.86 GHz, 4.80 GT/s Intel® QPI) 12.0 MB 1.86 GHz 4 / 4 40 DDR3-800/1066 No Intel® Xeon® Processor X5677 (12M Cache, 3.46 GHz, 6.40 GT/s Intel® QPI) 12.0 MB 3.46 GHz 4 / 8 130 DDR3-800/1066/1333 No Intel® Xeon® Processor L5638 (12M Cache, 2.00 GHz, 5.86 GT/s Intel® QPI) 12.0 MB 2.00 GHz 6 / 12 60
No Intel® Xeon® Processor L5618 (12M Cache, 1.87 GHz, 5.86 GT/s Intel® QPI) 12.0 MB 1.87 GHz 4 / 8 40
No Intel® Xeon® Processor E5645 (12M Cache, 2.40 GHz, 5.86 GT/s Intel® QPI) 12.0 MB 2.40 GHz 6 / 12 80 DDR3-800/1066/1333 No Intel® Xeon® Processor W5590 (8M Cache, 3.33 GHz, 6.40 GT/s Intel® QPI) 8.0 MB 3.33 GHz 4 / 8 130 DDR3-800/1066/1333 No Intel® Xeon® Processor L5530 (8M Cache, 2.40 GHz, 5.86 GT/s Intel® QPI) 8.0 MB 2.40 GHz 4 / 8 60 DDR3-800/1066 No Intel® Xeon® Processor E5502 (4M Cache, 1.86 GHz, 4.80 GT/s Intel® QPI) 4.0 MB 1.86 GHz 2 / 2 80 DDR3-800 No Intel® Xeon® Processor E5506 (4M Cache, 2.13 GHz, 4.80 GT/s Intel® QPI) 4.0 MB 2.13 GHz 4 / 4 80 DDR3-800 No Intel® Xeon® Processor E5530 (8M Cache, 2.40 GHz, 5.86 GT/s Intel® QPI) 8.0 MB 2.40 GHz 4 / 8 80 DDR3-800/1066 No Intel® Xeon® Processor E5540 (8M Cache, 2.53 GHz, 5.86 GT/s Intel® QPI) 8.0 MB 2.53 GHz 4 / 8 80 DDR3-800/1066 No Intel® Xeon® Processor X5550 (8M Cache, 2.66 GHz, 6.40 GT/s Intel® QPI) 8.0 MB 2.66 GHz 4 / 8 95 DDR3-800/1066/1333 No Intel® Xeon® Processor X5560 (8M Cache, 2.80 GHz, 6.40 GT/s Intel® QPI) 8.0 MB 2.80 GHz 4 / 8 95 DDR3-800/1066/1333 No Intel® Xeon® Processor X5570 (8M Cache, 2.93 GHz, 6.40 GT/s Intel® QPI) 8.0 MB 2.93 GHz 4 / 8 95 DDR3-800/1066/1333 No Intel® Xeon® Processor W5580 (8M Cache, 3.20 GHz, 6.40 GT/s Intel® QPI) 8.0 MB 3.20 GHz 4 / 8 130 DDR3-800/1066/1333 No Intel® Xeon® Processor E5520 (8M Cache, 2.26 GHz, 5.86 GT/s Intel® QPI) 8.0 MB 2.26 GHz 4 / 8 80 DDR3 1066/800 No Intel® Xeon® Processor L5520 (8M Cache, 2.26 GHz, 5.86 GT/s Intel® QPI) 8.0 MB 2.26 GHz 4 / 8 60 DDR3-800/1066 No Intel® Xeon® Processor E5504 (4M Cache, 2.00 GHz, 4.80 GT/s Intel® QPI) 4.0 MB 2.00 GHz 4 / 4 80 DDR3 800 No Intel® Xeon® Processor L5506 (4M Cache, 2.13 GHz, 4.80 GT/s Intel® QPI) 4.0 MB 2.13 GHz 4 / 4 60 DDR3-800 No Intel® Xeon® Processor L5508 (8M Cache, 2.00 GHz, 5.86 GT/s Intel® QPI) 8.0 MB 2.00 GHz 2 / 4 38 DDR3-800/1066 No Intel® Xeon® Processor L5518 (8M Cache, 2.13 GHz, 5.86 GT/s Intel® QPI) 8.0 MB 2.13 GHz 4 / 8 60 DDR3-800/1066 No  
Intel® Xeon® Processor E5503 (4M Cache, 2.00 GHz, 4.80 GT/s Intel® QPI) 4.0 MB 2.00 GHz 2 / 2 80 DDR3-800 No Intel® Xeon® Processor E5507 (4M Cache, 2.26 GHz, 4.80 GT/s Intel® QPI) 4.0 MB 2.26 GHz 4 / 4 80 DDR3-800 No Intel® Xeon® Processor EC5549 (8M Cache, 2.53 GHz, 5.87 GT/s Intel® QPI) 8.0 MB 2.53 GHz 4 / 8 85 DDR3 - 800/1066/1333 No Intel® Xeon® Processor EC5539 (4M Cache, 2.27 GHz, 5.87 GT/s Intel® QPI) 4.0 MB 2.27 GHz 2 / 2 65
No Intel® Xeon® Processor LC5528 (8M Cache, 2.13 GHz, 4.80 GT/s Intel® QPI) 8.0 MB 2.13 GHz 4 / 8 60
No Intel® Xeon® Processor EC3539 (8M Cache, 2.13 GHz) 8.0 MB 2.13 GHz 4 / 4 65
No Intel® Xeon® Processor EC5509 (8M Cache, 2.00 GHz, 4.80 GT/s Intel® QPI) 8.0 MB 2.00 GHz 4 / 4 85
No Intel® Xeon® Processor LC5518 (8M Cache, 1.73 GHz, 4.80 GT/s Intel® QPI) 8.0 MB 1.73 GHz 4 / 8 48
No  
 
Intel® Itanium® Processor 9330 (20M Cache, 1.46 GHz, 4.80 GT/s Intel® QPI) 20.0 MB 1.46 GHz 4 / 8 155
No Intel® Itanium® Processor 9310 (10M Cache, 1.60 GHz, 4.80 GT/s Intel® QPI) 10.0 MB 1.60 GHz 2 / 4 130
No Intel® Itanium® Processor 9320 (16M Cache, 1.33 GHz, 4.80 GT/s Intel® QPI) 16.0 MB 1.33 GHz 4 / 8 155
No Intel® Itanium® Processor 9340 (20M Cache, 1.60 GHz, 4.80 GT/s Intel® QPI) 20.0 MB 1.60 GHz 4 / 8 185
No Intel® Itanium® Processor 9350 (24M Cache, 1.73 GHz, 4.80 GT/s Intel® QPI) 24.0 MB 1.73 GHz 4 / 8 185
No  

All released multi processor cpu's SR-X like SR-2 needs QPI link. my previous post showed fact sheets primarily about single processor server chips. yes still for servers. However if you read carefully through them you can find the links and information that relates to the cpu's for the Multi Processor boards which is what i meant in my third post i did make one mistake only after being frustrated because of responses but still the posts did relate just like this one does. these are all multi cpu ready. look for QPI. if you look at the series numbers. then add to the series you can predict what will come out for the SR-X and general price ranges. the difference between this post and this earlier is i have not gone and gotten a way to get to 2011 socket only information.

Forgotton

Processor Number Cache Clock Speed # of Cores/

 
None of these work in SR-X.  If you don't believe us, buy some Itaniums and give it a whirl.  

An idea for NDA finish date ?
and series release date ?
 
ORB, TIN, ... and auther peaple have certenely a good news for potentiol octo es OC.

Last I heard, the E5-2600's are supposed to be released in March. 
 
I would think the board would debut soon after that. 

They are currently slated to be released basically the same time in march.

WOOT!!! march

I'll have to inform my electric utility 6-8 weeks prior to launch so they can upgrade my transformer. Wouldn't want to cause a brownout.
 

Well I'm very glad, though a little upset I didn't know sooner, to find the EVGA boards do support ECC and RDIMMS. That's enough for me to know that I will likely purchase the SR-3 from EVGA. I'm a little upset I didn't know that the SR-2 will run the ECC registered memory because I really did want to purchase the board.

EDIT: 
There was a guy here that I thought was saying that ECC memory runs on all systems, (the system obviously needs to support the technologies to use them) but turns out he was just supporting ECC and Registered memory, just as they deserve, especially these days when not a lot of people find the technologies desirable. Good deal! 

I have tested in the asus sabertouth: hynix 8GB 1333 ECC modules but not boot. actualy not compatible.
 
But the 2000 C6 gskill worck fine at 2050 and boot at 23XX.
 
Very need a bios update for xeon.

Any idea as to when this will be out?

Jason Eller

My wallets been cocked for a while now... 

Jason Eller


Any idea as to when this will be out?

 
April, probably. If it's sooner than that, it would be a miracle.

I need to do a build asap. I don't know when this board will be out, but I would like to run a dual cpu configuration with a total of 24 threads. Still looking for the best deal on this.

rhussain


I need to do a build asap. I don't know when this board will be out, but I would like to run a dual cpu configuration with a total of 24 threads. Still looking for the best deal on this.

 
If you must build ASAP then SR-2 is the only game in town if you want to overclock.
 
If not, there are many 5520 boards available.

can you overclock the sr-x? processor wise?

I thought initially not, or certainly only minimal via BLK. But the odd comment in other forums have led me to believe otherwise. I think you will be able to clock the Xeons via the CPU straps. they certainly won be unlocked via multi but if they boot at the 166 strap who needs multipliers!!!

Yup.. 24 threads @ 4.8.  185bclk  x26.. I hope we we be able to do the same on the SR-X.. I cant wait!

With SRX it will be 32 threads mate!!! but the BLK manipulation will be much more stringent than SR2. You will have to stay close to the strap settings in numbers for stability. However you will haveupto 34 multi to play with.

Oh Snap 

Is there a release date yet? And full specs?

darkagentj007

Is there a release date yet? And full specs?

Scroll up to reply #155.  Because SR-X needs Xeon E5-2600 series CPUs, it can't debut before that.  Those CPUs are slated for March 2012, look up those rumors. 

The board is tentatively slated to be released at the same time as the processors march-12 as lampron say's this is promising news as it came from EVGA employees however anyone who watches the tech industry for any length of time knows there can always be delays. so hope for march but do not be all angry if it's later. Before EVGA started releasing pictures of the next board I and others would have advised people to go for SR-2 but with an official release of the pictures. That has changed that advice at least from me. If you can wait for the next release do, if you need something absolutely 100% before or by March I would advise still going with SR-2 despite it's known issues. If anyone claims its a set date or has given you the impression its 100% sure to come out at the same time of the CPU's or even that the CPU's are sure to come out in march. Take it with a grain of salt and hope for the best but if you can't wait plan for the worst.

My concern is what the price is going to be.  The SR-2 hasn't budged a bit from $599.99 but when you corner such a market I guess it doesn't need to drop.  I'm just hoping this one will be the same or at least not much more.  The price may be the break between this or going back to an SR-2.  I will have to wait I guess.

I assume it will be more than the SR-2. Even if it's, say, 800, it's still going to give you more value than the SR-2 which will probably not go down in price. The 1366 Xeons certainly wont go down in price.

Ok guys somebody posted something a while back in the thread (few pages ago think it was pg. 4), that annoyed/confused the hell outta me. 
 
Bear in mind I am getting my info from this site: http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Xeon
 
Now I was under the impression that out of the E5 family (the ones coming out that ARE compatible with SR-X , or at least expected to be compatible with it), that in particular the http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Xeon/Intel-Xeon%20E5-2687W.html E5-2687W was/is the best of the currently planned/announced chips.
 
So i guess my question/frustration is that if this chip is practically IDENTICAL to the http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Xeon/Intel-Xeon%20E5-2690.html E5-2690 barring the fact that the E5-2687W has a HIGHER clock speed, then why do they list the latter as being more expensive and thus better (according to the poster referred to at the beginning of this post), or am i missing something BLATANTLY obvious?.

more expensive doesnt always equal better. the wattage is lower on the xx90 so it might run cooler, who knows, good question. I plan on waiting a year for something like this though.
http://techiser.com/10core-intel-ivy-bridgeep-cpu-95w-tdp-24ghz-147116.html
 

badass1982


Ok guys somebody posted something a while back in the thread (few pages ago think it was pg. 4), that annoyed/confused the hell outta me. 

So i guess my question/frustration is that if this chip is practically IDENTICAL to the http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Xeon/Intel-Xeon%20E5-2690.html E5-2690 barring the fact that the E5-2687W has a HIGHER clock speed, then why do they list the latter as being more expensive and thus better (according to the poster referred to at the beginning of this post), or am i missing something BLATANTLY obvious?.

Also that the one's for the SR-X's will need to have QPI links and will be much more stable built more for computational then for gaming or other such mainstream End User processors. Intel believes most of these chips will be for enterprise level server systems.

badass1982

So i guess my question/frustration is that if this chip is practically IDENTICAL to the http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Xeon/Intel-Xeon%20E5-2690.html E5-2690 barring the fact that the E5-2687W has a HIGHER clock speed, then why do they list the latter as being more expensive and thus better (according to the poster referred to at the beginning of this post), or am i missing something BLATANTLY obvious?.

It is obvious if you were the intended customer, enthusiasts generally aren't and usually downplay the primary factor: TDP rating.  For the typical Xeon customer, TDP matters just as much as performance since they are usually bought in the hundreds so every last wattage matters.  The slightly slower part is more expensive because it is stuck into a lower TDP rating, more than likely its Vcore is lower, hence premium charge.   For all we know, it maybe one of those Xeons with the unlocked multiplier applicable to SR-X, which would boost the cost anyway.
 
I figure enthusiasts used to the 130W TDP range of X58 and X79 parts would rather maintain that thermal comfort level with an 8-core in the 135W TDP category rather than 150W TDP. 
 
Furthermore, 

• TDP isn't actual per CPU, it is just a category so Intel can debut future parts within the same category and not exceed that upper limit
• "T" in TDP stands for "thermal", meaning it is a heat category and not power draw (which is a common misconception because the rate of heat dissipation and the rate of electrical draw happen to be both measured in Watts in the metric system). 
• Intel will **never** publically publish their power data per CPU, so they hide it by aligning their CPUs in thermal categories to make it easy for cooling companies to design one cooler rated for each TDP that qualifies for any Intel CPU in that category.  As long as there are socket adapters, any 130W TDP cooler works with any CPU rated at 130W TDP or less until the end of time; that's the idea. 
• Most importantly, if a CPU's actual full load wattage is just above one category, it gets stuck into another; if a CPU dissipated 85W of heat, it will qualify for 95W TDP but not 80W TDP.  Meaning, chances are very high 2687W just barely disqualified for 135W TDP and Intel has enough room to debut faster 8-cores within the same TDP rating.

Short of a calorimeter, the rate of heat dissipation cannot be measured.  Last year I did an guesstimation of sorts, to analyze each TDP and spec of LGA2011 Xeon E5's to figure what the actual TDP wattage could be.  This was my result:  

 
Estimated actual TDP for 32nm LGA2011 parts = 27 + 1.414 x (number of cores) x (core frequency)²
 

This way, the actual wattage of the 2690 becomes 122W of heat dissipation; over the 115W TDP (thus not qualfying) and under 135W TDP (which it does) -- but also 130W TDP, so if you want to tweak the math a bit go ahead, I was trying to get as many Xeons in one formulas as possible.)  Going by this Core i7 3960 ends up around 119W, so the E5-2690 and i7-3960X at stock should have about the same temperatures with the same coolers.  We'll see in a month if that is true.
 
My primary assumption for this formula is that the voltage per core for every Xeon E5 in LGA2011 is the same; more than likely this is wrong so take it with salt.  But this formula makes sense for the majority.  It could even apply to X79 parts, but it does not apply to LGA1155 or LGA1356 parts.  That 27W constant takes into account the 40 lanes of PCIe and quad-channel DDR3 that remains constant for all LGA2011 parts, you'd have to fractionalize for other sockets.  Looking at the SNB-EP die shot, 80% of the surface area was cores and cache; then assumed wattage and surface area were porportional (which they are not) and treated the 2687's actual wattage as barely qualifying for 150W TDP rating setting it to 135W TDP exacty-- then scaled everything other Xeon E5 down.
 
Can you use that equation for overclocking?  Only if you don't touch voltages, because of the primary assumption.  Adjusting voltage has an exponential effect heat and power wattages.  Those of you lucky enough to double the frequency of 8-cores for WR benchmark runs will end up needing over 40A per CPU.  Doubling frequency tends to quadruple the wattage; you were warned.

Any of the E5-2600 processors should work in the SR-X (they are part of the same platform!). The E5-4600 (quad processor capable) chips probably work as  well, but I have yet to see any real news about them other than Intel published part numbers.