@farthestkris:
yeah, check the bottom of my original post to see my recant of Killer NICs and what I think should be implemented for networking instead

I'm assuming it's going to be a Classified board, so it will be black and red.

Whatever it's called, I'm down for one for sure.

I really like the idea of getting one (or maybe two) PCI-E 1x above the other PCI-E in order to get a real sound card instead of the integrated soung.
 
Just like de x58 Classified. It is really a marvellous thing on this board.

also i would like to see them move to a standard ATX length vs this XL-ATX length.

dual LGA2011 with 16 dim slot and 7 pcie is a little great size of SR2
htpx2

The Xeons that work in the SR-2 have more QPI links than consumer processors, which allows them to communicate with other CPUs.

Eru_JRRT
Also the 24 pin MOBO power connector and the sata connectors are at a right angle this time

 
 That would effectively increase the size of an already huge board.

That is why I'm hesitant on upgrading to a SR-x. I'm in love with my little $300 2600k and can't imagine that a $1500 CPU would be five times better. My dream machine would be a dual (quad?) socket with consumer level CPUs. Something equivelent to a dual 2600k. While you're at it, double the cores and try to keep it around $300-400 each.   

widsssMy dream machine would be a dual (quad?) socket with consumer level CPUs.    

You have to pay the piper if you want this capability, though you can still use cheap (ish) CPUs like the E5645 in the SR-2.

Most customers of multi-socket aren't desktop consumers, they are professional from businesses or organizations that otherwise make enough use out of the processing power that it pays itself and they would get their retun on investment pretty quickly.  The couple thousand per CPU is a drop in the bucket; so Intel will add a premium for each additional socket.  2-way might have a 50% increase while 4-way has a 100% increase, that's just how it has been done for years.   That might change, if it does we can thank AMD for pushing a 2.2Ghz 12-core in the same price as a 4-way capable quad with HT...
 
As for the general high costs associated with multi-socket systems, as long as you justified getting the best, there is no point whatsoever in complaining about it; no gun to your head.  We speak with our wallets, the best way to tell Intel you don't like the price is to simply not purchase Intel again.  But if you get it anyway, you're telling them cost isn't a big deal.  Just be proud of what you can achieve or do with the setup that cannot be done with anything else, that should help you forget what you spent if it bothers you that much. 

 
For the price of a Xeon X5690 you could get two AMD Opteron 6168 45nm 12-cores at 1.9GHz.   You can argue which is faster, 6-core at 3.46Ghz or 24 at 1.9Ghz from different companies...? 
 

So does anyone know if the consumer Sandy Bridge-E chips will be compatible with the SR-X? Or will it only be Xeons?

i read somewhere that the SB-E cpu's have a dual cpu compatibility built in them. I'm not sure where i read it but it was legit

Strange DIMM layout must have purpose, cue those who are confused.
 

El_MUERkO
So does anyone know if the consumer Sandy Bridge-E chips will be compatible with the SR-X? Or will it only be Xeons?

 
You know how only dual-QPI Xeon 5500/5600 works in SR2 while single-QPI i7's do not? Same thing with the next gen, that isn't going to change. Only Xeon E5-2600 series will work in dual-LGA2011 mode. Also the board chipset may not be called "X79" because there are five different version pf Patsburg.

IceMatroX

here you go.

that's amazing