I was thinking about the hopefully inevitable successor to the Classified SR-2. Probably the SR-3 or something along those lines. What would you want such a board to have, feature-wise?
 
This is just my opinion but if there's ever gonna be an "SR-3" Classified board here's what I personally would want it to rock out in the specs department:
-For one, keep most of the great features of the SR-2, using top-quality parts and components in the board's constructions. However modify a few things
-Support for 2 next-gen Socket-2011 processors. Either the upcoming Sandy Bridge E and its Xeon equivalent or, looking even further to the future, Ivy Bridge E depending on when, if ever, this board were to be released
-New CPU's mean new chipsets; Intel's next-gen Socket-2011 chipset would provide superior storage interfaces (supposed to have native SATA 6Gbps, integrated SAS, USB 3.0, etc). Plus the server-class version of this chipset would hopefully address the issues currently plaguing the consumer-class X79, causing feature removal and delaying the Sandy Bridge E release
-This is probably overkill, but support for up to 64GB of DDR3 RAM at 2000Mhz+ speeds! If Socket-2011 supports quad-channel memory controller then 8x slots per each CPU stuffed with 4GB sticks in all 16 slots would make 64GB seem reasonable
-More extreme OC potential than the SR-2 with at least 16-phase PWM per CPU. More power available for CPU voltages, etc for setting a TRUE super record. This might not be entirely possible with a dual-CPU design though
-Integrate uEFI features into the BIOS in order to support 2TB+ hard drives and GUID partitions [edit: I think EVGA has already started rolling out P67 boards that, according to their specs, have uEFI feature in addition to the AMI BIOS]
-Wireless functionality: integrated gaming-grade dual-band 802.11n WiFi adapter and/or Bluetooth capability. Real-time BIOS access and OC tweaking via wireless devices maybe
-Integrate a Killer E2100 NIC in addition to a Marvell based ethernet adapter for powerful networking acceleration. I personally like the Killer NICs but I know they're not everyone's favorites which is why the normal ethernet adapter would still be available. Or go into BIOS and leave both enabled for dual-port networking
-Please for the love of god, ditch Realtek audio! Replace it with a Creative CA20K2 onboard X-Fi chip with 128MB X-Ram (like G***Byte's G1.Killer series). Add in support for HDMI audio, like what the Auzen Hometheater HD X-Fi card has, for the ultimate audio solution. Don't like (or just plain hate) Creative? Disable onboard audio in BIOS and drop in an Asus XONAR or HT-Omega Claro in the last PCIe slot
-Speaking of PCIe slots, I would want no less than 8 PCIe 3.0 x16 slots running at x16,x16,x16,x16 or x8 for all eight. Add an nForce chip or two if Intel's server-class Socket-2011 chipset can't pull off full x64 lane bandwidth. The 8 lanes provide for most every extreme setup one's mind could think of: 4-way SLI/Crossfire, Quad-SLI/Quad-Fire with plenty of spare PCIe slots, 3-Way SLI + PhysX with one more slot left over for alternate soundcard, network interface, discrete RAID hardware processor or even a TV-Tuner. Endless possibilities depending on the application the rig would be built for. I, myself, want Tri-SLI + PhysX and an Areca SAS 6Gbps RAID card
-The board itself will be similar form factor as the SR-2 but with extra height to accommodate an eighth PCIe slot. The modified HPTX  dimensions will still fit in any 10-slot case; there aren't too many out there but the SR-2 needed a special case anyway
 
This would be a perfect motherboard for me but I want other people's opinions. Feedback on my desired features and suggestions for other features maybe you would like to see (or see removed) from a potential successor to the SR-2...
 
[note: I have no idea if they're ever gonna make an SR-3, this is just pure speculation.]


 
EDIT 1: Ditch the Killer NIC idea. If there's going to be a network chipset that upgrades the traditional Marvell Yukon LAN, I think Intel Server-class dual-port LAN should be implemented instead.


EDIT 2: I took out the part about the integrated bootdisk ROM chip, that's a whole separate concept that needs its own dedicated thread to convey the ideas properly.

I disagree completely about Realtek; I hate having to choose between *real* sound, true RAID or PhysX. An inevitable compromise would have to be made on a no-compromises rig IMO.
 
I have to say I don't completely disagree about nixing the NIC though, as long as I have dual-port.
 
They could offer 2 versions though: one version for extreme gamers who want the most insane gaming rig possible and another version with more high-end server-class features but strippo on features that gamers would enjoy. Servers don't need high-end audio but gamers don't need 256+GB of RAM...
 
EDIT: I agree 100% about the ECP v4 though

I understand where you're coming from now....
 
Still, though, using a PCIe slot for an Asus Xonar, Auzen X-fi or HT Omega Claro (all superior to Creative's own branded cards) would mean one less slot for either more graphics, PhysX or a hardware RAID setup T-T
 
[I'll admit tho that dedicated PhysX, if not PhysX altogether, will definitely become completely irrelevant in the next few years...]
 
The Gigabyte G1.Killer integrated version of the X-Fi is definitely, like Auzen's X-Fi cards, superior to Creative's own uninspired offerings. I love X-Fi but hate Creative so Auzen or a Mobo manufacturers own implementation are the way to go for me.
 
I realize it's absolutely impossible to please everyone with just one feature set; even if it features absolutely everything one could ask for, many won't need or want all those features
 
EDIT: An extra slot utilizing PCIe x1 bus would definitely work though. Put the ninth slot above the first PCIe x16 lane and I would definitely be happy with the exclusion of X-Fi CA20K2...

If they (EVGA) EVER produce a board like this, I'll consider selling a kidney to buy one. Sounds awesome though hope they produce a sequel to the SR-2, and more to the point that I can find a chassis to hold it.

@badass1982:
If they keep a similar form factor to the original SR-2, then it would fit perfectly in a CoolerMaster Cosmos 2 and with room to spare (why I wanted an eighth PCIe slot added). Sure, that case hasn't been released yet, but then again, it'll definitely come out before the SR-3
 
Speaking of Cosmos 2 (and completely irrelevant to the topic), that thing does look dead sexy, as long as it's not painted yellow like in MaxPC's subpar Dream Machine '11. I was completely frustrated with the lack of aesthetically-stunning cases that incorporate all the well-thought-out design features of high-end (but boring-looking) cases; apparently one can't have both looks and function at the same time.
 
I had found an Alienware chassis on Ebay and was saving up for the ridiculous asking price ($500 plus $100 shipping!) because it's the only aspect where Alienware not only doesn't totally fail, but actually manages to produce one of the best looking cases around IMO. But the Cosmos 2 looks better, addresses all the shortcomings of the original, won't be a gamble with cooling-performance, will cost alot less and can fit an SR-2 (maybe even SR-3) motherboard-based rig :3
 
Since I was trying to save up $600+ for a new case anyways, the possible $350 price tag of the Cosmos 2 is still expensive but much easier to swallow than getting a used Fail-ienware barebones system ^.^

@emepror:
Can you point me to Joe's post please? I wasn't sure if an SR-3 was actually in the works and would love to find out more info :D
 
I didn't necessarily say such a design was feasible but it would be cool if it could be implemented and if that implementation wouldn't require you to mortgage your house to afford it...

Wow, I can't believe I didn't see that post. Thanks for pointing that out.

Integrated Intel NICs like you would find on a typical server/workstation board would do the job fine, for me anyway.

killer NIC's are actually much more expensive that intel NIC's just check newegg and you'll see the price differences 

nordhavn

Please no Killer NIC or "high end" audio.  A pair of Intel Gigabit Server Class NICs would be fine.  Realtek is fine for sound.  A firewire port (either 400 or 800) would be nice as true high end audio solutions use them.  I would rather choose my own audio solution than pay for something I would disable anyway.

Ram support...256+ GB per CPU would be a good start.  Support for a riser board in case users want 1TB+ memory.

More PCI-E 3.0 lanes supporting 10 or more graphics cards in a system with an expander.

ECP V. 4.0 with a touch LCD featuring control of fans, monitoring of temps, voltages, etc.  Ability to shut down system in hardware in case of over temp, over voltage, etc.

 
 YES!

If I were on the design team for the SR-3, my main focus would be to make sure they get the PCIe slots right. There are a few ways to go about it considering what we know about the Sandy Bridge-EP. First, each CPU features 40 PCIe 3.0 lanes controlled by 10 controllers. Each CPU also features either a DMI2 x4 or a PCIe 2.0 x4 lane. In a dual CPU setup, the first CPU would use this lane to connect with the X79 chipset. The second CPU would use it as a PCIe 2.0 x4 lane. Now, to ensure that I get the features I want from a board, of course it would need 4 PCIe 3.0 x16 lanes, 2 from each CPU. I would not implement that optional PCIe 3.0 x4 lane from the primary CPU that connects to the X79 which allows for dedicated bandwidth for SATA drives simply because I think the enthusiast market is more geared to the PCIe SSD market. Having that optional connection to the X79 would prevent users from having 2 PCIe 3.0 x8 lanes. Why are 2 needed? So you can use one for PhysX and the other for a PCIe SSD drive, or a RAID card to allow for more SATA/SAS drives than the X79 can provide. The DMI2 x4 should provide enough bandwidth for those who are not that extreme for storage speed. Then I would make sure there were at least 2 PCIe 2.0 x1 slots for an X-Fi sound card and a Killer NIC. I wouldn't integrate those chips on the motherboard itself since an X-Fi card would provide better quality than any integration job, and also better flexibility as well since there are multiple X-Fi cards and some feature interchangeable components. I would not integrate the Killer NIC since it only works with certain OS's and I wouldn't want to restrict a board to a set list of OS's because Bigfoot Networks' drivers aren't as universal as Intel's. Also, some people may prefer teaming their dual on-board Gigabit. I would have the X79 power those two slots since it can configure up to 8 PCIe 2.0 x1 slots. I would also connect 3 4-port USB 3.0 controllers to the X79, giving the motherboard 12 USB 3.0 ports without the need of any splitter chips. 8 USB 3.0's would be on the rear, eliminating the need to put USB 2.0 there, and 4 would be available on the board (2 USB 3.0 plug-ins since 1 powers 2 USB 3.0 ports) so that I can plug USB 3.0 from a case directly into the motherboard up to 4 since that is the most cases have on their front panels. Then I would make use of that PCIe 2.0 x4 lane from the second CPU and just put in on the board as a PCIe 2.0 x4 slot for use with whatever else the customer wants. In the end, the PCIe configuration would look like this:

PCIe 3.0 x8 (x16 physical) (From CPU0) Could be used for PhysX card.
PCIe 3.0 x8 (x16 physical) (From CPU1) Could be used for a PCIe SSD/RAID card.
PCIe 3.0 x16 (From CPU0) First GPU watercooled to fit one slot.
PCIe 2.0 x4 (From CPU1)
PCIe 3.0 x16 (From CPU0) Second GPU watercooled to fit one slot.
PCIe 2.0 x1 (From X79) Could be used for an X-Fi sound card.
PCIe 3.0 x16 (From CPU1) Third GPU watercooled to fit one slot.
PCIe 2.0 x1 (From X79) Could be used for a Killer NIC.
PCIe 3.0 x16 (From CPU1) Fourth GPU watercooled to fit one slot.

Now this may seem like more slots than your standard SR-2, but you may notice that the standard SR-2 has 2 spaces above its top slot that 2 more slots could be placed if the board was rearranged before you hit the I/O bracket. I would only use 4 memory slots per socket to make sure this space is available. I figure gamers would not use 2 or 3 DIMMs per channel as such would limit their memory speed, and 8 DIMMs seem like enough (8x4GB=32GB, not to mention the new 8GB modules).

I would have to agree that they need to include dual intel NIC's onboard, i can't stand the marketing gimmick that is the killer NIC's.  i Don't care whats said you cannot improve your ping more than a couple ms anyways.  Once that packet hits the modem its subject to the ISP. Period.
I would agree on putting a good creative audio chip onboard as well.  I hate that i had to give up a PCIe slot for sound card.  And the ECPV4, love the idea.

One thing is for sure I'm going to start prepping for the "SR-3".  I for one would like a more refined version of the ECP but again the rugged one is easier to modify or replicate if need be.  A more advanced one could limit the ability to mod it into a case so I hope they don't add to much more to it.
 
I can't wait! 

(A long post about what I think would be the ideal feature-set and design for the next-generation EVGA Control Panel)
 
My dream EVGA Control Panel would combine all the functions of a traditional front-bay controller panel with the hardware-level control of previous iterations of the ECP, then enhance these features and add even more killer functionality, resulting in the ultimate in total system control.

Imagine having this level of control and convenience on a single panel:
-fully-functional fan-controller that can adjust the fan-speed for every motherboard fan-header
-hard-reset and instant power-off/on
-easy temperature-display toggle
-monitor temperature thresholds and set automatic system actions when temps reach user-defined ranges
-easily-understood plain-language POST messages instead of cryptic numbers or beep codes
-tweak specific BIOS settings on-the-fly
-adjust overclocking parameters and core voltages at any time
-troubleshoot hardware failure with ease: disable hardware components such as specific PCIe lanes and single DIMM slots at bootup to single out the faulty part instead of opening up the case and physically removing parts one-at-a-time
-all this control, only one cable to connect; by using a single cable for interfacing with the motherboard, cable clutter is reduced significantly over traditional controller panels

It would actually be comprised of 2 components, the first one being a small PCB module (the core ECP) and the second one being a LCD panel (the expanded ECP) that mounts on the front of any PC case. The first part can operate by itself with access to every control panel feature but with a minimalist appearance and would be designed for advanced users who either like to mod and can't work with rigidly finalized designs, can't STAND flashy and blingy components, like more flexibility when it comes to finding a home for the ECP, or any combination thereof. The second part is a much more aesthetic extension of the first one. It docks the PCB and lets users access its control functions on a visually-intuitive interface that is easy and simple to operate. It has access to every feature offered on the core ECP module and is designed for users who either want simple installation, want to maximize efficiency with one- or two-touch input rather than having to scroll through cumbersome text menus, have more flamboyant tastes in case aesthetics, or any combination thereof. With two different mechanisms to use the EVGA Control Panel, users can choose their preferred ECP interface and not have to worry about the non-preferred method that they may not care for.

The core ECP was obviously inspired by the look and feel of the first-generation EVGA Control Panel that came bundled with the first X58 Classified. The PCB module would feature a simple I/O on the front side, consisting of a basic monochrome LCD panel, capable of displaying readouts, menus and prompts, as well as rudimentary input devices, such as buttons, dials, switches and jumpers. These controls will allow the user to tweak and monitor system hardware variables in an interface similar to a command-line. The combination of inputs and monochrome display would all be designed, arranged and filled-in to give the PCB-module a sleek, simple and streamlined appearance. The backside of the board would be where the chips and connector are attached. Flash-chip EEPROMs would store the firmware that powers the functionality of the entire ECP and memory caches allow users to save their customized settings. Then you have the port used to connect the core ECP to the motherboard through a special cable, the Molex 4-pin power-connector and the slots used to dock with the LCD panel.

The expanded ECP would fit in any single 5.25" external drive bay. It would feature a touchscreen LCD  that displays all the menus and options of the core ECP's monochrome display in full, vibrant color in a more intuitive graphical environment. It will also have dedicated function buttons for certain commands but would primarily be interfaced with through the touchscreen. It should be focused on ease-of-use and have effectively designed menus and configuration screens that are simple enough to navigate without having to read an instruction manual of any kind. The multi-toned display colors would also be able to be adjusted to the users preferences with hundreds of personalization possibilities. The drive-bay insert itself is essentially a docking port for the core ECP and will have male-type connectors on the backside to attach to the core ECP's docking slots. When docked, the core ECP will shut down the monochrome display and turn off its input devices to save power. The expanded ECP will have its own Molex 4-pin power connector in addition to the core ECP's own power input. Because of this, the ECP will have to come with an optional Molex splitter that takes one 4-pin connection from the power supply unit and enables it to power both devices at once to cut back on cable clutter that would result from having to connect two different power supply cables to the expanded ECP. All-in-all a sweet-looking (and fully functional) case-addon for users who like that kind of thing.

There would also be optional-to-install driver software that would extend the capabilities of the hardware panel even further. Once installed, the user would have the ability to reset or power-off at the software level to avoid NTFS corruption and data-loss. This would be accomplished by adding a startup service that issues the shutdown command whenever the user presses either the soft-shutdown or soft-reset button; these dedicated software-command buttons are present on both the core ECP and the expanded ECP. The emergency-shutdown service will constantly run in the Windows background; they use 0% CPU and no more than 1KB memory resources at all times, unless activated by pressing a dedicated software-command button. Once pressed, the process-priority shifts to real-time so the shutdown command can attempt to supercede hung and frozen application processes. The driver software can also be configured to issue the shutdown command automatically if temperatures become critical, automatically sparing users an overheating-induced system lockup or crash. The drivers and software would also be available for Linux platforms.

I'm not sure if such a design and feature-set is possible, but it would be frikkin' awesome if this all got implemented somehow...

@danny.nguyen:
I have no idea when it's gonna be released unfortunately. Heck, I didn't even know *IF* such a board was gonna be released when I first started this thread. Thankfully, that's been confirmed as a definite "yes" via one of the links posted above by emepror.
 
The release of the SR-3 will probably be Q2 2012, if I had to venture a guess. Intel isn't gonna release the socket-2011 platform until the end of the year and I imagine EVGA will want to take some time after it's release to make sure the chipsets have all the kinks worked out. I've read articles about problems with the X79 chipset delaying the release of socket-2011 Sandy Bridge E's and next-gen Xeons. Plus, I don't think EVGA's gonna rush a product like this out at the launch of the new platform's release.
 
Q2 2012 would also give EVGA time to ensure forwards compatibility with 22nm socket-2011 Ivy Bridge E's due out sometime next year :)