Archangel7765

I will also be forced to go elsewhere for a server board, as I already have all the other parts, sold the older parts, and am now stuck with several thousand dollars in parts and no board to rebuild my server with.  If you did not intend to sell the board, why in the hell did you announce it?  Not even the courtesy of advising people that it would not be available til xx/xx so they would not start purchasing parts, selling parts, etc?   Way out of line, and shows a complete lack of integrity or appreciation for the people who buy your products.

texinga 
  As to the new Intel E5 Xeons and overclocking, that is another issue all-together that I personally believe will not end with an overclockable version.  If that changes, I'll be the first one to shout "yeah baby"! 

Brocasta

TheWolf

Maybe EVGA knows something but not telling yet?
You didn't see EVGA run out and make a 1155 dual socket motherboard for overclockers because there are no unlocked server chips for that platform.

They didn't do that because it's not possible. 1155 Xeons are 1P only.

texinga

Halfdead14
Well shouldn't a major manufacturer like EVGA confirm there's going to be unlocked processors before spending a large sum of money investing in a platform for overclocking them..?

This is certainly a good question and from history EVGA has been smart about what they choose to manufacture.  With the SR-2, we basically knew from the start that the 56xx Xeons were overclockable, just not how far we could push them on the SR-2 with stability.  With the SR-X, we have a very different situation where we also know something from the start...that the E5 (LGA 2011) processors are not overclockable in any realistic sense of the word.  So, the question in my mind is not whether EVGA didn't know this going into the SR-X because I think they probably did.  I'm wondering if EVGA has a slightly different concept for the SR-X market than what they had for the SR-2.  Maybe because they knew Intel had changed the game for overclocking Xeons, they are going after a more traditional Server/Workstation market with some (hopeful) draw by enthusiasts.  I really don't know, don't feel the enthusiast draw that I felt with the SR-2 and would love to know EVGA's thoughts here. 

The letters "SR" in the SR-2 were for "super record holder".  I'm still grasping for how that will be true of the SR-X in light of Xeons that can't be overclocked.  Is there an overclockable Xeon LGA2011 CPU that is coming from Intel that nobody is able to talk about?  I really hope so for the sake of what I would love to see the SR-X do, but I'm also skeptical that Intel would be compelled to do that for this Server chip when they have clearly not enabled it with the first set of E5 Xeons.  Believing that Intel's target market for Xeons is Corporate Servers, then there is no need for overclocked Xeons.  Intel may have decided that the overclocked products will be exclusive to the consumer/enthusiast market.

shadow001

texinga

Halfdead14
Well shouldn't a major manufacturer like EVGA confirm there's going to be unlocked processors before spending a large sum of money investing in a platform for overclocking them..?

This is certainly a good question and from history EVGA has been smart about what they choose to manufacture.  With the SR-2, we basically knew from the start that the 56xx Xeons were overclockable, just not how far we could push them on the SR-2 with stability.  With the SR-X, we have a very different situation where we also know something from the start...that the E5 (LGA 2011) processors are not overclockable in any realistic sense of the word.  So, the question in my mind is not whether EVGA didn't know this going into the SR-X because I think they probably did.  I'm wondering if EVGA has a slightly different concept for the SR-X market than what they had for the SR-2.  Maybe because they knew Intel had changed the game for overclocking Xeons, they are going after a more traditional Server/Workstation market with some (hopeful) draw by enthusiasts.  I really don't know, don't feel the enthusiast draw that I felt with the SR-2 and would love to know EVGA's thoughts here. 

The letters "SR" in the SR-2 were for "super record holder".  I'm still grasping for how that will be true of the SR-X in light of Xeons that can't be overclocked.  Is there an overclockable Xeon LGA2011 CPU that is coming from Intel that nobody is able to talk about?  I really hope so for the sake of what I would love to see the SR-X do, but I'm also skeptical that Intel would be compelled to do that for this Server chip when they have clearly not enabled it with the first set of E5 Xeons.  Believing that Intel's target market for Xeons is Corporate Servers, then there is no need for overclocked Xeons.  Intel may have decided that the overclocked products will be exclusive to the consumer/enthusiast market.

Actually it's the other way around, since all E5 2600 Xeon's are exactly the same chip as the socket 2011 3960k desktop version save for 3 technical differences for the 3960k desktop version: 

1: Unlocked multiplier.
2: 2 cores are fused off.
3: Only 1 QPI link is still enabled in the 3960k desktop version. 

Basically all socket 2011 chips are born the same way with the same features, and it's intel's method to force people into using the much more expensive Xeon version in 2 socket motherboard systems....It's almost nearly twice as expensive as the 3960k if going for the top of the line E5 2600 clocked at 3.1 Ghz, by selectively enabling or disabling hardware within each chip, but like i said that hardware is present in every one of them that comes out of the assembly line.

psyq321

I'd guess Intel might release an unlocked Ivy Bridge E variant of Xeon somewhere near the life of the LGA 2011 platform (assuming Haswell will move to a different socket)  to clear up existing stock and squeeze the last bit of profit from the (then to be) EOL-ed platform.  

Skulltrail is a case in point - QX9775 was released quite late in the LGA771 platform life, and quickly became more or less obsolete once Nehalem was released shortly afterwards.

I'd also say that the overclockability of Gulftown/Westmere Xeons was just a side-effect and not some kind of planned feature in any way - as it could be seen from the Intel desktop platform evolution, Intel is putting ever tighter grip on CPU control, and less and less options for 'enthusiasts' are available outside of the very narrow and planned "extreme" SKUs with "extreme" price...  
Unfortunately this particular segment we're all in is not interesting for Intel - it potentially jeopardizes much more important enterprise market (overclockable Xeon potentially endangers much more expensive "super enterprise" SKU for certain types of buyers such as traders that are already playing with factory-overclocked systems)  while the number of "enthusiasts" is peanuts compared to the other, for Intel certainly more valuable,  Xeon customer base.

Think about it - fully unlocked "enthusiast" Xeon can be potentially configured to be more capable than some of the more expensive "EX" variants. Sure, most of the enterprise clients would never touch an overclocked CPU - but there is a certain % of them, such as algorithm trading market, where there is already an established market for factory-overclocked rigs...    And that tiny percentage alone is probably higher than all the potential buyers of SR-X :(   

So I am not optimistic when it comes to overclockable Xeons in any way except "stock clearance" items near the platform's end of life...

beaker7

It might, but is very dependant on what you do. Plus you have to run a server OS with 4 sockets, or Linux.

I do 3D rendering and am currently moving from a 4-socket AMD MagnyCours machine to a dual E5-2687 rig.