Hot!eVGA SR-X (SR-3)

it would be nice to have a "thunderbolt" type port..

rottenmutt
Please post a link to the block diagram.

Not official until Intel spills beans, but this is what is known so far:


 
Just so you know Socket R = LGA2011 and pertaining to SR-X.

Hopefully EVGA doesn't use a pcie bridge chip and uses both the native bridges off both CPUs. Two CPU's would be required to enable all pcie ports, which isn't a big deal as no one will buy this board to only run one CPU. And if they did they probably wont be running quad sli anyway.

do they know of a possible release date yet? or season?

takuhari
do they know of a possible release date yet? or season?

Since SR-X can only use Xeon E5-2600 series processors, there is no point for the board to show up earlier, therefore look for when those Xeons appear to get an idea.   FYI, the Xeon 5500 debuted in March of 2009 while Xeon 5600 and SR-2 arrive on March 2010, so I'd look to this March 2012 for SR-X.

Yeah March of '12 would be nice. Here's a few more pics from VR-Zone:
 
http://vr-zone.com/articl...x-preview/14198-2.html

it looks like a whole bunch of uberness, except for the 8 on one 2 on the other really please just bust it out and make 8 on both it's not like you'll destroy the world with it. *yet*
I already have a case picked out for this bad boy.
and again please please make one with the grey/black combo.
 
side note: xenon 2011 socket could be fun

Is expected any xeon with more than 8 cores for the socket 2011?, it seems that Intel does not have in his roadmap any 10 core or more for this socket.

I've got to say, I'm a huge fan of the concept of the SR- series of motherboards; what I desire in a motherboard is essentially a highly break-out board for all the various features of the platform I'm running - and that is exactly what the SR- series is trying to offer.
 
However, I've got a few nits to pick on the SR-X motherboard, from what I've seen of it, because I don't think it goes far enough.
 
First off, RAM slots: I could care less about aesthetics, but having an asymmetric NUMA configuration is next-to-useless - there is potential for some performance issues those configurations, and naively implemented NUMA-aware software won't really behave nicely.  I'd much rather see 4-DIMMs per socket on both sockets, to free up some board space and minimize trace-lengths - 8 and 16GB DIMMs are readily available, and we haven't even seen LR-DIMMs on the market yet - and those should double capacities at similar prices per GB - memory capacity will hardly be the limit of this platform.
 
Secondly, I/O: Why are we stuck with only dual-GbE LANs and 4 USB3?  Why do we have only 7 PCI-E slots?  The biggest advantage of the SR-X that I can see is in I/O bound or lightly thready workloads that need high configurability and performance.  The Romly-EP platform has FAR too many PCI-E lanes to simply break them all out into slots, even on an HPTX motherboard.  As far as I can tell, if you went with 4DIMMs/socket on both sockets, you'd have room for 8 FHFL PCI-E slots; each CPU socket provides 40 lanes of PCIE3, with one of the sockets offering additional 4 lanes of PCIE2 because it isnt connected to a Patsburg chipset, and then Patsburg itself offers 8 PCIE2 lanes.  From my perspective, the SR- series motherboards are about making the most of what the platform has to offer - and I don't think the current configuration quite achieves that.  I, personally, would like to see 8 PCI-E slots, (4 per socket) configured electrically as PCIE3x8, PCIE3x16, PCIE3x0/x8, and PCIE3x16/x8 for each socket - this would expose all available PCIE3 lanes to the user, and leave room for a PCIE3x8 card even in quad-GPU scenarios.  Then we're left with the matter of what to do with our 12 other PCI-E lanes.  For the PCIE2x4 coming directly off the socket without Patsburg, I'd really like to see at a quad GbE NIC at the very least - something along the lines of Intel's i350-AMT4 controller would do the trick very nicely.  I'd also like to see 2-4 of the lanes from Patsburg going to mini-PCIE slots with mSATA connections - those are nifty little slots that don't take too much board real-estate, and mSATA for SSD caching would be a nice way to utilize the space under the PCI-E cards.  Needless to say, the native SATA and SAS interfaces on Patsburg should all be broken out, but that's already present on the current SR-X.  Pretty much anything else should go to USB3 (or maybe  firewire or thunderbolt to cater to the video-editing crowd), because why the hell not?  This is a "build it that they will come" product model - it's not "because we need it" it's "because someone, somewhere, might want it, and even if they don't we might as well."  Let's take that sentiment and run with it!
 
I wouldn't normally go this far with armchair design suggestions, but this platform is likely to be the absolute peak of the high-end market for both Sandy Bridge EP and Ivy Bridge EP; if this high end has to last us 2 years until Haswell (or, hope against hope, a halfway decent AMD platform :P) it'd better be done in the right way.

massdestructor
Is expected any xeon with more than 8 cores for the socket 2011?, it seems that Intel does not have in his roadmap any 10 core or more for this socket.

I suspect a 12-core variant is possible only with the 22nm shrink to stay within the 150W TDP max, although it is my tentative belief it will be for E5-4600 market early on.  It is the only market where they would need to improve their more cores per dollar ratios. 
 
The reasoning for my thinking is as follows (you should look beyond leaked roadmaps and rumors):

1. The upper end Xeon for enterprise systems in 4-way boards have always had more cores than regular server, let alone desktop.  Intel's first 6-core was a 45nm Penryn part known a Xeon 7400-- before Nehalem.  Intel's first 8-core was a Nehalem-EX known as Xeon 7500 Nehalem part in LGA1567 socket while no such variant arrived in mainstream server, while that same socket saw the Westmere-EX bring 10-core models known as Xeon E7 and the highest-end desktops only saw the 6-core Gulftown.  Intel reserves the highest cores for Xeon multi-processor and i7's won't have it.
2. When Intel created the LGA1567 socket for their upper end Xeons 7500 series, it was on the assumption AMD would stick to monolithic dies like ther first dual-core, quad-core, 6-core and eventually the Bulldozer 8-core.  Intel wasn't counting on AMD finally invoking it a few years back and suddenly made a 12-core and Bulldozer brought a 16-core.  While any one of us can say Intel's parts still beat AMD, Intel doesn't tolerate any advantage AMD can grasp, it is a threat even if we don't think so.  AMD has the potential of selling more cores per dollar in their drop-in compatible LGA1944 while LGA1567 was limited to 10-cores based on the previous idea Intel wouldn't need more to compete.  So to beat AMD, Intel created LGA2011; it is designed for more than ten cores.  How much more is unknown.
3. Just so you know, there is a LGA1356 socket and those parts are known as Xeon E5-2400 series include 8-core models arriving after SR-X and E5-2600's.  Simplified math (ignoring IMC and IPC) comes to 170 pins per core and therefore 11.8 cores can fit in 2011.  I'm sure you can see if the controller and system agent related pins were constant, a 12-core would easily fit.

Would these monster super-core CPus come to SR-X?  I don't know; if there were to come to Ivy-Bridge-EP then sure, but I'm betting they will remain an Ivy Bridge-EX parts.  You did ask about any Xeon in 2011, it is not like SR-X and X79 are the only versions.

listen to people, please get rid of the nvidia bridge chip (no it isn't required for SLI).  Also it would be nice to have another south bridge chip, perhaps with a thunderbolt port.

will the SR-X board be better for gaming then the x79 classified? I am not sure if server processors offer something that gamers need over the normal processors except for possible more l3 cache? Would anyone be able to elaborate?

This isn't a board that will benefit gaming - single-processor Sandy Bridge E based boards have more than enough I/O to satisfy quad GPU solutions, so the presence of extra lanes on the SR-X won't really help.  The point of the SR-X is to enable a CPU monster - Sand Bridge EP processors can have a full 8 cores enabled, and overclocked with two sockets would offer fantastically high performance in a single system image.

I figured as much, so unless it had 4x PCI-E 16x lanes it wouldn't really matter.

Even then it wouldn't matter; current generation GPU's are not constrained by the bandwidth of a PCIE2x8; PCIE3 doubles bandwidth relative to PCIE2.  PCIE3x16 is unlikely to offer an performance difference over PCIE3x8.

n v o

This isn't a board that will benefit gaming - single-processor Sandy Bridge E based boards have more than enough I/O to satisfy quad GPU solutions, so the presence of extra lanes on the SR-X won't really help.  The point of the SR-X is to enable a CPU monster - Sand Bridge EP processors can have a full 8 cores enabled, and overclocked with two sockets would offer fantastically high performance in a single system image.

 
Some of these boards end up as Cuda crunching monsters with as many graphics cards as possible.  I/O does help with the overhead required to manage the processes running.
Please eliminate the bridge chip which will also help with heat and cost.  And as mentioned by others that platform is meant to be a processor monster; therefore, nobody should be running it single socket and if so I'm sure they wont miss the other half of the pci-e slots.

nivekt

farthestkris

evga should stick with either 8 dimms for both or 4 dimms for both, the board looks. disproportionate.

Function over form, I always say. Im sure there is a very good reason for the layout. Besides, with that layout and 8gb DIMMS, the possibility of 96gb of ram exists. Is that not enough?

Lets get wild and shoot for both

Striderstone
will the SR-X board be better for gaming then the x79 classified? I am not sure if server processors offer something that gamers need over the normal processors except for possible more l3 cache? Would anyone be able to elaborate?

1. Server is a use and not a function, meaning there is no such thing as a "server" processor versus a "normal" processor.  They're all the same in terms of the micro-architecture except the difference in the die design that set them apart.  Most of them are still following the x86 instruction set; thus install a Windows/Mac OS and any program that can be installed.  An example non-x86 CPUs would be Intel's Itanium series and the IBM CPU in an Xbox360, neither of which are DIY-user friendly.
2. As for gaming alone, understand that developers don't code games openly to take as many cores as available, there is a limit and right now that varies between 2-4 cores mainly because that's what most people own-- I'm talking about everyone.  That won't change until the very cheapest CPUs becomes quads, but their still dual-cores.  As you can see, unless you get a Core i7-3820 for X79 or a pair of Xeon dual-cores for either SR-2 or SR-X, have more uses.

Consider EVGA's marketing for SR-2:
 

We have literally created a new form factor to fit all the amazing things on one board. Whether you are an extreme gamer, overclocker, power user, workstation user, server admin, folder/cruncher, or just a PC enthusiast; this is the ultimate motherboard. This board will encode your movies, render your images, or even load your games faster than you ever thought possible

 
Gaming isn't the only aspect of appeal.

Has there been any educated estimates as to pricing, I'm going to guess it will be in the 600 dollar range (as I believe , but correct me if I'm wrong , that the SR-2 cost around that)
 
On another note I REALLY hope i can afford this board when It's released , it looks EPIC!
 
Martin

badass1982
Has there been any educated estimates as to pricing

Sort of, even if these were real, consider them to be 1,000 unit bulk MSRP (which is how Intel usually sells processors) and not individual retail.  $600 will limit you to the quads and low-freq 6-cores, you don't even have a shot at the only dual-core model for LGA2011.

I was referring to the price of the BOARD not the CPU's!!!

lehpron

Striderstone
will the SR-X board be better for gaming then the x79 classified? I am not sure if server processors offer something that gamers need over the normal processors except for possible more l3 cache? Would anyone be able to elaborate?

1. Server is a use and not a function, meaning there is no such thing as a "server" processor versus a "normal" processor.  They're all the same in terms of the micro-architecture except the difference in the die design that set them apart.  Most of them are still following the x86 instruction set; thus install a Windows/Mac OS and any program that can be installed.  An example non-x86 CPUs would be Intel's Itanium series and the IBM CPU in an Xbox360, neither of which are DIY-user friendly.
2. As for gaming alone, understand that developers don't code games openly to take as many cores as available, there is a limit and right now that varies between 2-4 cores mainly because that's what most people own-- I'm talking about everyone.  That won't change until the very cheapest CPUs becomes quads, but their still dual-cores.  As you can see, unless you get a Core i7-3820 for X79 or a pair of Xeon dual-cores for either SR-2 or SR-X, have more uses.

Consider for SR-2:

We have literally created a new form factor to fit all the amazing things on one board. Whether you are an extreme gamer, overclocker, power user, workstation user, server admin, folder/cruncher, or just a PC enthusiast; this is the ultimate motherboard. This board will encode your movies, render your images, or even load your games faster than you ever thought possible

Gaming isn't the only aspect of appeal.

Thank you for the information, sorry about wording my question improperly, I do know that making something a "server" is how you use it an what applications are put on it, it was just the simplest way of explaining myself. The information you provided was of great quality and I will put it into consideration

badass1982
I was referring to the price of the BOARD not the CPU's!!!

Calm down, mistakes happen.  Most folks are already interested in the board and ask about CPU cost once they find out it doesn't take i7's.  If the rumor about Asus competing with EVGA this time is true, the price could be lower, but non-enthusiast versions of boards using the same i5520 chipset average about $100 south of SR-2.  Tentatively, search of any rumors on the Intel chipset for their dual LGA2011 (C600 series) and when you find that board cost, add $100.

rottenmutt
Some of these boards end up as Cuda crunching monsters with as many graphics cards as possible.  I/O does help with the overhead required to manage the processes running.
Please eliminate the bridge chip which will also help with heat and cost.  And as mentioned by others that platform is meant to be a processor monster; therefore, nobody should be running it single socket and if so I'm sure they wont miss the other half of the pci-e slots.

I agree completely; what I meant was that, purely for gaming purposes, the extra bandwidth is of marginal benefit; however, there are other ways to use GPUs besides gaming.  For GPGPU, that extra bandwidth is a huge deal.  I agree on the point of the bridge chip.  Kill it NOW.  The Romley-EP platform has 80GBps (unidirectional) of PCIE3 bandwidth - bridge chips are wholly unnecessary given that a fully broken-out board would have 80 lanes to work with.  And unless you go with a true PCIE3 switch (PLX 87xx series is the only one I know of) you won't even gain burst bandwidth, which is the whole point of a PCI-E switch.
 
Honestly, anyone looking for an even bigger bandwidth monster for GPGPU should keep an eye out for Quanta (or someone who OEMs from them); their product roadmaps list a quad-socket LGA-2011 system due sometime in H1 2012; IIRC, it has something like eight PCIE3x16 slots.

Also @EVGA: will this board be compatible with LR-DIMMs? those would boost RAM capacities quite nicely, at the cost of some latency.

 
I am by no means an expert, so be kind to me if I have something completely wrong
 
I am looking at the Wiki page for these Sandy Bridge Server CPUs.
 

 
I see that the memory for some of the CPUs is at DDR3-1333 and some at DDR3-1600.  So, assuming the multipliers are all locked, is it safe to assume the DDR3-1333 Xeons are going to be better overclockers than DDR3-1600 Xeons?
 
If we also assume that the board will only be stable up to 2000 (like the SR-2), then
 
the top 8 core chip 2687W is 3.1 GHz at DDR3-1600, which is probably multiplier 19, so max overclock is 3.8 GHz (19 * 1600 = 3.04 GHz, Intel must be rounding up because 20*1600 is 3.2 GHz).  This chip is already 150W so it may not even overclock as well as this.
 
the top 6 core chip is 2667 but that uses DDR3-1600, so look at the 2640 which is 2.5GHz at DDR3-1333, which is also multiplier 19, which will overclock to 3.8 GHz.  This chip is 95W.
 
I know I'm assuming a lot, but is my math roughly correct?
 
Thanks

I had a link to the Wiki, but it didn't show.  Just search for "Xeon E5-2600 wiki" and it is the first result.

I'll be putting one of these in a Little Devil case. I'll probably use a couple of mid-range octo-core chips once the D stepping is out and upgrade to  high-end Ivy Bridge-EP when they come out.
Mine will be primarily for folding, I'm not sure what gpus I'll be using yet, I'm going to wait for folding benchmarks for the new ranges before I decide that, but there will be 4 of them and they will be the best available :D

they best put 16 slots in total, so 8 per cpu and 4 sata3 6gb/sec.
Than is it a good concurrent for the asus rog motherboard, if you look at the number of 6gb/sec drives you san use

If I was interested in the SR-X (not saying I'm not, heh heh), I would be less concerned about whether it had 12 or 16 DIMM slots and more concerned about whether it officially supported 8GB and 16GB DIMMs. A 16x16GB full complement of RAM would be 256GB. There might be someone out there who can use all that physical RAM, but I'm not sure who that is.

I ran into a memory issue on a machine with 96GB of RAM where the program I was using needed to unroll a for-loop and it hit 100GB of RAM usage and then ran out..

jabloomf1230

If I was interested in the SR-X (not saying I'm not, heh heh), I would be less concerned about whether it had 12 or 16 DIMM slots and more concerned about whether it officially supported 8GB and 16GB DIMMs. A 16x16GB full complement of RAM would be 256GB. There might be someone out there who can use all that physical RAM, but I'm not sure who that is.

Does anyone sell 16GB  modules yet? I've never seen them.

echrei

I ran into a memory issue on a machine with 96GB of RAM where the program I was using needed to unroll a for-loop and it hit 100GB of RAM usage and then ran out..

 
That's pretty impressive, managing to run out of memory using just one app in that sort of configuration. Time to rent some supercomputer space :D

debs3759

echrei

I ran into a memory issue on a machine with 96GB of RAM where the program I was using needed to unroll a for-loop and it hit 100GB of RAM usage and then ran out..

That's pretty impressive, managing to run out of memory using just one app in that sort of configuration. Time to rent some supercomputer space :D

 
I managed to use over 2.2TB of RAM spread out over a bunch of machines by just converting a file from one format to another!

debs3759

jabloomf1230

If I was interested in the SR-X (not saying I'm not, heh heh), I would be less concerned about whether it had 12 or 16 DIMM slots and more concerned about whether it officially supported 8GB and 16GB DIMMs. A 16x16GB full complement of RAM would be 256GB. There might be someone out there who can use all that physical RAM, but I'm not sure who that is.

Does anyone sell 16GB  modules yet? I've never seen them.

 
Why get 16GB sticks when you can go 32?
 
http://www.memory4less.co...59762027&rid=fd_10
 
Here's some 16s: http://www.crucial.com/st...MODULE=CT204872BB1067Q

echrei

I ran into a memory issue on a machine with 96GB of RAM where the program I was using needed to unroll a for-loop and it hit 100GB of RAM usage and then ran out..

What!!!  But... WHY???
 
That doesn't make even the slightest bit of sense!  Sure, unrolling is a nice way to get an IPC increase in longer loops, but the whole point of unrolling is to increase performance overall - if you're hitting main memory - or even L2 cache - with your unrolled loop then you're loosing performance - even the ****iest branch predictors will have almost perfect accuracy on a loop that long - the only reason to unroll it at that point is to make the better use of architectural registers in in-order processors, but if you're missing the L1 cache then you're decode starved, and end up loosing performance...
 
Reading your post hurt my brain... what have you done???
 
That aside, more memory is not unwelcome, but LR-DIMMs (which SB-EP supports) are able to hit 32GB using 4Gbit DRAMs - if they use the full rank-multiplication options of LR-DIMMs, then they could even hit 64GB on a single DIMM.  LR-DIMMs might add a cycle or two of latency, but this gained back by the fact that you can run them at significantly higher datarates.

I'm sorry if this is something that has been covered but I've not come across any clear answer. I feel this thread is appropriate for it and that this shouldn't be considered hijacking, apologies if that's not the case.. Question:
Anyone know if the SR-3 will support ECC and / or registered memory? I got a pretty conclusive "no" when looking into ECC support on the SR-2 and I just happen to be one of those people that prefers it (ECC, not FB support.) Not looking for a debate on the issue just an answer. Thanks 

What makes you think that the SR-2 doesn't support ECC DIMMs? There are numerous threads in this forum, where people have stated that they are using ECC RAM and claim that the SR-2 does support ECC.

nivekt Function over form, I always say. Im sure there is a very good reason for the layout. Besides, with that layout and 8gb DIMMS, the possibility of 96gb of ram exists. Is that not enough?

No you can never have enough memory!
Because actually, one of the main reason for me to consider the SR-3,  is to have as many dimm slots as possible , and to be able to use 96/128GB of system memory, to make a RAMDrive.

Ramdrive software: www . memory . dataram . com/products-and-services/software/ramdisk
HowTo Video: www . youtube . com/watch?v=zrecoX2nsOM

The admin has set up some restrictions to prevent link (URL) SPAM.

As noting beats a RamDrive in assess speed and transfer of files!
And with 16 dimm slots, i would take the SR-3 and the extra cost, over any other board with 8 slots, But with only 12 slots its more of a toss.

kimura

I'm sorry if this is something that has been covered but I've not come across any clear answer. I feel this thread is appropriate for it and that this shouldn't be considered hijacking, apologies if that's not the case.. Question:
Anyone know if the SR-3 will support ECC and / or registered memory? I got a pretty conclusive "no" when looking into ECC support on the SR-2 and I just happen to be one of those people that prefers it (ECC, not FB support.) Not looking for a debate on the issue just an answer. Thanks 

All motherboards and i do mean ALL can support ECC and or Registered memory. anyone who say's otherwise needs to go back to computers 101. So yes SR2 & SRX  can utilize it. The main difference between ECC and non-ECC is speed. NON Can be faster. But it's because NON sacrifices double checking the data before it is shipped off to the processor to be thought about. So you end up with less junk bits clogging up your processing time. This is usually most useful when rendering or some other CPU intensive process where accuracy is more important then speed Which is why it is normally associated with enterprise level systems. Gamers usually prefer NON because its cheaper and they cannot conceptualize why they would need to buy more expensive hardware that to them does the same job. Though many will go out and do this same thing the moment a new video card is released. The ECC ram saves processor time in the long run when rendering, folding, managing massive databases, + the like.
 

yeh i agree man... to just build this around sandy bridge is really quite not good enough... considering pci(e) 3.0 is ivy well they will be very outdated...
 
i am waiting for this before i build a new machine, i never bought an sr2 because I knew its simply not good enough for what I need and lets see if this new board will be...
 
I do have big faith in them... I dont think its going to arrive when we are expecting... I think our prayers will be answered.
 

badass1982

Has there been any educated estimates as to pricing, I'm going to guess it will be in the 600 dollar range (as I believe , but correct me if I'm wrong , that the SR-2 cost around that)

On another note I REALLY hope i can afford this board when It's released , it looks EPIC!

Martin

 
nah man it will be worth more than that... sr2 is still that price from most ppl. in australia where im from its like 900 bucks still lol.
It will start expensive then drop down quite quick. always the case

I'm starting to get concerned about how the E5s are going to overclock. Apparently the ES chips anyway have their straps and multipliers locked, so they overclock about as well as a vanilla Sandy Bridge like a 2500 or 2600.

Limitations

[] Overclocking

Due to a single clock generator controlling the speed of all electrical buses, of -1155 compatible processors beyond the default 100 MHz base clock speed is very limited, up to 5-7% without other hardware components failing. However, Intel has made available K-edition processors which feature unlocked multipliers; the highest multiplier for Sandy Bridge is 57.
Intel has demonstrated a Sandy Bridge CPU running stably overclocked at 4.9 GHz on air cooling.
Intel Sandy Bridge E-series Processors will come with "Performance OverClocking" support.

[] Chipset

Non-K edition CPUs can overclock up to four bins from its turbo multiplier. Refer for chipset support.

yaren

Limitations

[] Overclocking

Due to a single clock generator controlling the speed of all electrical buses, of -1155 compatible processors beyond the default 100 MHz base clock speed is very limited, up to 5-7% without other hardware components failing. However, Intel has made available K-edition processors which feature unlocked multipliers; the highest multiplier for Sandy Bridge is 57.
Intel has demonstrated a Sandy Bridge CPU running stably overclocked at 4.9 GHz on air cooling.
Intel Sandy Bridge E-series Processors will come with "Performance OverClocking" support.

[] Chipset

Non-K edition CPUs can overclock up to four bins from its turbo multiplier. Refer for chipset support.

 
 
is wrong , the lga2011 is overclock by bus speed and multiplicator  is not SB 1155
search on coolaler site ,

possibly in english? all I get is chinese...

Im also certain that is correct... Its not actually denying what you are saying...

If it wasn't for someone reminding me that "if I keep waiting for the next best thing I'll be perpetually waiting" I wouldn't have pulled the trigger on the SR-2 and waited for this puppy to come out.  I think the expected prices of the LGA2011 Xeon chips gave me a little nudge in that direction too .  But I must admit that I'm cheating on my SR-2 with this board in my sleep.

use google web translater all pages
 

yaren

Limitations

[] Overclocking

Due to a single clock generator controlling the speed of all electrical buses, of -1155 compatible processors beyond the default 100 MHz base clock speed is very limited, up to 5-7% without other hardware components failing. However, Intel has made available K-edition processors which feature unlocked multipliers; the highest multiplier for Sandy Bridge is 57.
Intel has demonstrated a Sandy Bridge CPU running stably overclocked at 4.9 GHz on air cooling.
Intel Sandy Bridge E-series Processors will come with "Performance OverClocking" support.

[] Chipset

Non-K edition CPUs can overclock up to four bins from its turbo multiplier. Refer for chipset support.

 
You might as well explain how to overclock a Pentium 4.

cateno
is wrong , the lga2011 is overclock by bus speed and multiplicator  is not SB 1155
search on coolaler site ,

Actually, each of the i7's have different variables for change.  The postponed 3820 has just the strap ratios and can have it's stock 36x multi lowered to enabled any frequency up to 6GHz.  3930K had 3820's features plus the unlocked CPU multiplier, while 3960X has 3930K's features as well as variable bus.  Theorhetically both 3900's can reach 9GHz although I have yet to see any WR run using the Strap ratios as even the fastest 3960X's don't breach 5.8GHz.  It's pretty pathetic seeing how a 980X was able to reach 7Ghz last year, unless there is a cold bug these early i7-3900 steppings no one is talking about...
 
In the SR-2 environment, RAM divder was not unlocked and speed could only be increased with Bclk, while only Bclk increased CPU speed.  Sandy Bridge changed the rules by locking or limiting the reference bus, leaving any CPU/RAM adjustment highly dependent on strap ratio and multiplier adjustment. 
 
My tentative guess with lower-end Xeon E5-2600's, the strap ratio and system clock may be locked and only allowing a few bins speed increase, just like non-K parts in LGA1155.  This means there is a chance of a very limited RAM overclocking in SR-X and only adjustable with pre-sets similar to X79, if any.
 
I think it is worth being concerned if Intel were to limit full-flexibility overclock to the expensive E5-2600's.  Why would Intel want their lower-end Xeon E5's to outsell better than the premium models?  It would make sense to botch the level playing field. 

There has been very little talk about OCing with the straps other than to say that the highest strap is unusable.

Trying to get some info off vince aka kingpin about this board, seeming as he did 4 way under ln2 :D

When SRX will release?
 
 

Guys the latest Xeons C0 ES do not support straps and only support the usual Turbo ratios i.e they are not unlocked. Only way to clock em is BLK from what I can see and this means like 107 - 110 BLK tops!!! Very poor really.  I tried on Asus R4E.

Can't wait
 
 

Brocasta
There has been very little talk about OCing with the straps other than to say that the highest strap is unusable.

I'm thinking i7-3820 will introduce strap ratio overclocking to the world to get some attention on it.  I just don't see why there aren't many with SB-E's doing it already ready.  It is almost like LGA2011 users are spoiled by the LGA1155 approach of CPU multiplier only adjustment, so they "do what works" instead of getting creative.

danny.nguyen
When SRX will release?

March 2012, just google when the Xeon E5's debut. FYI, it is the same month as when Xeon 5600 and 5500 debuted.

pazza3169
Guys the latest Xeons C0 ES do not support straps and only support the usual Turbo ratios i.e they are not unlocked. Only way to clock em is BLK from what I can see and this means like 107 - 110 BLK tops!!! Very poor really.  I tried on Asus R4E.

Well, on one hand, ES' usually aren't representative of retail.  Though, on the other hand, the typical Xeon customer isn't an overclocker, it is an organization that deploys dozens or hundreds of these processors at once.  Each segment will see their purchase as drop-in-the-bucket depending on their revenue, while overclockers tend not to make money from their builds, hence our hesitation (albeit breif) with high prices.
 
I won't be surprised if Intel takes an X79-style approach to limiting overclocking to a handful of pricy Xeon E5's, to prevent overlapping with either LGA1156 or X79.
 
Although, with Skulltrail and the Asus counterpart, then SR-2 and SR-X with the rumored counterparts-- it looks like the dual-CPU enthusiast market is growing, so the selection of Xeon E5's might be relatively decent.

None of the current ES CPU's evan what is gonna be the flagship 3.1ghz has unlocked multi or CPU straps enabled.
 
I use the 1.25 strap when clocking my 3690x for 24/7 to 5125ghz linq stable with 32gb G.Skill @ 2333mhz. So I personally do use a strap yes!!!

pazza3169
I use the 1.25 strap when clocking my 3690x for 24/7 to 5125ghz linq stable with 32gb G.Skill @ 2333mhz. So I personally do use a strap yes!!!

May I ask what is your CPU's FPO/Batch number, either on the retail box or CPU?

You can ask yeah!!! But the answer is I dont know LOL!!

pazza3169

None of the current ES CPU's evan what is gonna be the flagship 3.1ghz has unlocked multi or CPU straps enabled.

I use the 1.25 strap when clocking my 3690x for 24/7 to 5125ghz linq stable with 32gb G.Skill @ 2333mhz. So I personally do use a strap yes!!!

 
How many different ES part numbers have you had the opportunity to test? I'm wondering what is the differnce between the E5-2687W and other parts (other than a higher TDP) if none of them have any of the overclocking features unlocked?