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

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

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

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.
 

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 ;']
 

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.

wait the SRX in europe second time ?

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!
 

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... 

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

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

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).
 
 
 

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

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.

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