lehpron
Couple things I want to mention for what it's worth:
 

1. Server, workstation, gaming, office, etc -- these are all uses, they are not functions limited to application specific hardware; you can use anything for anything, the only difference is what you expect versus a resulting performance.  All Intel's processor designs for the same architecture are the same; Intel only changes the core and cache counts, the number of PCIe and RAM channels enabled, and all other supported features including ECC based on the target market.  For the most part, the performance per core and per clock is identical whether we're talking about a Pentium G3220 or a Xeon E5-2699 v3.  Except the higher count Xeons have the advantage of the larger pool of share cache even while running single-threaded versus the Pentium.  
2. Ultimately, support for a particular feature is more about marketing territory when referring to a brand:  In the case of EVGA, the SR-2/SR-X products were catered to "Prosumers", which were not regular professionals who would find use for ECC while not regular consumers who wouldn't find use of more than one CPU.  One could say that Xeon support in Intel's HEDT platform is catering exclusively to those that want more cores than the flagship i7 model.  Furthermore, the fact that EVGA caters to overclockers in terms of board design could be why you may not see official ECC support despite seeing Xeon support:  Overclocking generally destabilizes a system, while anyone that prefers ECC generally wants absolute stability and endurance.  
   
   That said, you can have your cake and eat it too by simply choosing another board maker that openly supports more feature combinations.  ASUS and Gigabyte are among the largest manufacturers in term of global sales, the chances are much higher they may have what you want.
3. Some (albeit a few) Xeons are unlocked because they share the microcode with those i7 models meant for Intel's HEDT platforms, they are of course the E5-1600 series.  Pre-Sandy Bridge, there were no unlocked Xeons, per se.  The key is that Intel had the clock generator externally integrated into the mainboard, which gave motherboard makers the freedom to decide which processors could overclock.  This was why EVGA's SR-2 worked so well to overclock those Gainstown and Gulftown pairs of Xeons.  But when the Sandy Bridge/Sandy Bridge-E generation debuted, Intel integrated the clock generator into the processor die, which meant they had control and prevented all processors but those with K/X labeling from overclocking.  Recently, and ironically, it was Supermicro that allowed non-K overclocking on their Skylake platforms using an i3 which was quickly supported by a number of other vendors, most notably ASRock's SkyOC-- and then Intel reacted and some of those vendors created new BIOS to take that option back.  The reason that was possible is that apparently Intel put a secondary clock generator in the platform which was able to override the primary, thus leading to Bclk overclocking of non-K like the old days.  It is unknown, mainly due to unavailable data, whether anyone has attempted to overclock Xeon E3's in the Skylake platform, same whether the circumstance exists on the -E platforms.  
4. From what little rumors I've found on the subject thus far (because I pay attention as if I'll buy it), Intel's Skylake-E might have a different socket than Skylake-EP, i.e. LGA2011 v4 versus LGA3467, so prosumers can't just stick the upcoming 28-core Xeons in a proverbial X190 board when they come.  So if you want an 18-core Haswell-EP Xeon (or a 20-core Broadwell-EP) in an X99, it is now or never.  Core i7's might be limited to a 10-core early on, perhaps Cannonlake-E could be a 12-core.  

 
 

 
Great post, 1 thing though. You have overclock the bus of any Z motherboard and any I series processor. 
 
Sandy bridge Procs and z67 boards could be overclocked by the bus I have done it. As could Ivy as could Haswell, ect. 
 
The issue was that the bus was tied to the PCI lanes and Sata ports, not just to the CPU and memory. This is why we have strap in X99 and X79, this allows us to modify the bus speed of the CPU and memory while keeping the PCIe and Sata at there basic speeds. There is no secondary clock generator the CPUs Multiplier doesn't change the bus speed does which in turn causes and increase of clock speed, bypassing there locks.
 
Intel only locks the multiplier as thats all they needed to. If you overclock the bus for the PCIe and Sata too much it will cause issues. Skylake has changed this by separating the BLCK speeds of the CPU and Memory and the PCI and Sata in to 2 different BLCKs, so one can be changed to 125 for instance while the other remains at 100. this allows us to modify the CPU BLCK by as much as we want, without affecting other components just like Strap Overclocking on X79/X99. 
 
I have people that have inside information and it would seem that Intel knew about this all along (Honestly how could they not.) they became upset when it was marketed as a feature to everyone. With the SkyOC ect is when Intel became up in arms if it had remained a little known enthusiast fact there would not be a problem.  
 
That could not be true, but I have a few sources that have told me that, that have positions in the community that info could have came to them. 
 
Anyway, I do not see how Intel would not have seen that happening regardless, I have overclock plenty of non K processors like that in the past. You cant do much, a bus of 102-105 is usually acceptable and can net you a few hundred mhz. This is actually pretty common place on HWbot as even though the numbers are not gigantic, the base of users doing it is small so it can get points that are less competed over. 
 

Sorry to revive quite an old post, but I'm hoping that some involved in the topic will receive notice and provide feedback, a year later, on their experience with ECC memory over the past year on the x99 board.
 
Did unregistered RAM work?  I already see above that the registered RAM is not likely to post.
 
Thanks,
Dave

Warboy

arestavo

Warboy

arestavo

Warboy
...They unofficially support Xeons. One of the reasons why my X79 Dark has a Xeon in it right now. Only problem is the memory dividers don't work correctly. So it's limited to 1600mhz DDR3. So yours might be limited to 2133mhz DDR4. But I'm not sure, I don't know if they fixed that for X99.

Really? My X79 Dark has a 1650V2 running at 4.5 GHZ with 32GB (8 sticks) of 2400MHz RAM running at 2133MHz with just a slight RAM voltage bump. Or were you referring only to the locked 2XXX series?

And both the X79 and X99 officially, not unofficially, support Xeons.All of them may not be on the QVL, but a lot of them are. Unless that's what you meant?

V1s encounter the problem. Also double check CPU-Z to see if it's really running.
 
Because V1s claim to be running 2400mhz in bios, but only 1600mhz in windows. This was also proven by SuperPI 32M numbers.

I have checked CPU-Z when I was doing a bit of testing using the pre-DX12 version of Rise of the Tomb Raider to see how much RAM speed affected minimum FPS. It most assuredly works on my 1650V2 and X79 Dark.

Could you give me a CPU-Z verification possibly please?

http://oi63.tinypic.com/670106.jpg
 
The same is true for my 1660V3 @4.3GHz with 2800MHz RAM @3200MHz. I'm off to work so I can't post it until later, should you request it.

Warboy

arestavo

Warboy

arestavo

Warboy

arestavo

Warboy
...They unofficially support Xeons. One of the reasons why my X79 Dark has a Xeon in it right now. Only problem is the memory dividers don't work correctly. So it's limited to 1600mhz DDR3. So yours might be limited to 2133mhz DDR4. But I'm not sure, I don't know if they fixed that for X99.

Really? My X79 Dark has a 1650V2 running at 4.5 GHZ with 32GB (8 sticks) of 2400MHz RAM running at 2133MHz with just a slight RAM voltage bump. Or were you referring only to the locked 2XXX series?

And both the X79 and X99 officially, not unofficially, support Xeons.All of them may not be on the QVL, but a lot of them are. Unless that's what you meant?

V1s encounter the problem. Also double check CPU-Z to see if it's really running.
 
Because V1s claim to be running 2400mhz in bios, but only 1600mhz in windows. This was also proven by SuperPI 32M numbers.

I have checked CPU-Z when I was doing a bit of testing using the pre-DX12 version of Rise of the Tomb Raider to see how much RAM speed affected minimum FPS. It most assuredly works on my 1650V2 and X79 Dark.

Could you give me a CPU-Z verification possibly please?

http://oi63.tinypic.com/670106.jpg
 
The same is true for my 1660V3 @4.3GHz with 2800MHz RAM @3200MHz. I'm off to work so I can't post it until later, should you request it.

Thanks for the picture, Clearly something wrong is wrong with v1 then because both my 1650 and 2670v1s wont go above 1600mhz.

From everything that I've read, the retail 1650 V1 should allow for that, but ES (engineering sample) versions are likely locked down. The 2600 V1, 2, 3, and 4 series can only go up to the max that they are rated for (1600, 1866, 2133, and 2400, respectively) - at least that's been my experience, and one reason why I've gone with the 1600 series.