Hot!eVGA SR-X (SR-3)

lehpron

beaker7
Still don't get why the 2690 is more expensive than the 2687w.

TDP rating. Unlike enthusiasts, the multi-CPU community has a segment willing to pay more for a CPU that can operate at a lower TDP with the same performance as a higher wattage part; resulting in lower power bill and lower cooling bill, considering the typical Xeon customer purchases dozens to hundreds of these CPUs.

Just so you know, Asus has several variations of dual socket boards because they've been making multi-socket boards for both AMD and Intel for years.  There isn't just one just because that's all enthusiasts care about regarding SR-X. 

Halfdead14

EVGA_JacobF
Its 2x16 and 2x8

What the, since when did this happen? Why can't it do 4 way X16?
EDIT: Okay so I read the last few pages, why aren't you using lanes from the secondary CPU?

They are sort of, 40 lanes per CPU means that 2x16 + 2x 8 = 48 lanes, the other eight has to come from somewhere.  I'm sure the other lanes are going in other slots since we still don't know the configuration, JacobF is just stating that  four dual-slot cards will see dual x16 3.0 and dual x8 3.0.  I'd like to think there are single-slot configurations with more lanes, but I don't know.  We need the configuation to determine what is or isn't possible with one or two CPUs.

I'm sure EVGA made sacrifices just to enable Xeon overclocking in pairs; just as well if lanes matter more than overclocking, then I suggest get a regular dual 2011 by either Supermicro or these by Tyan or wait for Asus and Gigabyte to chime in. 

I have no idea where the extra 8 lanes come from, likely a NF200 chip or similar.... he did say however that the lanes are only pulled from the first CPU though.

Guys, i get that it's less power hungry, I get that it's important in servers.  I build servers at work and it is an issue.
 
It just seems odd in this instance that it'd be priced higher and a higher model number.  I'd bet if you buy the 2687 and downclock it to 2.9 you'd get the same or similar TDP.  Save a few hundred.
 
Not really complaining, the 3.1 is less money :)

Halfdead14

lehpron

beaker7
Still don't get why the 2690 is more expensive than the 2687w.

TDP rating. Unlike enthusiasts, the multi-CPU community has a segment willing to pay more for a CPU that can operate at a lower TDP with the same performance as a higher wattage part; resulting in lower power bill and lower cooling bill, considering the typical Xeon customer purchases dozens to hundreds of these CPUs.

Just so you know, Asus has several variations of dual socket boards because they've been making multi-socket boards for both AMD and Intel for years.  There isn't just one just because that's all enthusiasts care about regarding SR-X. 

Halfdead14

EVGA_JacobF
Its 2x16 and 2x8

What the, since when did this happen? Why can't it do 4 way X16?
EDIT: Okay so I read the last few pages, why aren't you using lanes from the secondary CPU?

They are sort of, 40 lanes per CPU means that 2x16 + 2x 8 = 48 lanes, the other eight has to come from somewhere.  I'm sure the other lanes are going in other slots since we still don't know the configuration, JacobF is just stating that  four dual-slot cards will see dual x16 3.0 and dual x8 3.0.  I'd like to think there are single-slot configurations with more lanes, but I don't know.  We need the configuation to determine what is or isn't possible with one or two CPUs.

I'm sure EVGA made sacrifices just to enable Xeon overclocking in pairs; just as well if lanes matter more than overclocking, then I suggest get a regular dual 2011 by either Supermicro or these by Tyan or wait for Asus and Gigabyte to chime in. 

I have no idea where the extra 8 lanes come from, likely a NF200 chip or similar.... he did say however that the lanes are only pulled from the first CPU though.

 
http://www.evga.com/articles/00668/
The EVGA SR-X uses the Intel® C606 chipset. This chipset has native SATA 6G and SAS.
Only Xeon® E5 Class Socket 2011 CPUs are compatible. It IS NOT compatible with Core i5/Core i7 CPUs. Please visit our CPU Support Page for details.
The EVGA SR-X motherboard supports PCI-E 3.0 performance via a PLX PCI-E 3.0 certified bridge chip. This allows the SR-X to populate all PCI-E 3.0 slots at the maximum bandwidth possible. The PCI-E lane configuration is as follows:

• 1 Card: x16
• 2 Cards: x16 - x16
• 3 Cards: x16 - x16 - x16
• 4 Cards: x16 - x16 - x8 - x8

Finally they are for sale.
 
out of stock it seems.

nateman_doo

Finally they are for sale.

out of stock it seems.

Unfortunately the current CPUs have a locked multiplier so overclocking is limited to say the least.

LOL, I haven't been able to finish my SR-2 build (well it does work but is missing some cooling stuff and finishing the case) and the SR-X is out already! Daang!
 
Do the 2011 processors overclock the "same way" as the 1366 did?

geort45

LOL, I haven't been able to finish my SR-2 build (well it does work but is missing some cooling stuff and finishing the case) and the SR-X is out already! Daang!

Do the 2011 processors overclock the "same way" as the 1366 did?

Ill quote Jacob on this:
  
Does the board support OC'ing: Yes 
  
Does the board support OC'ing on current CPU's? The answer unfortunately is no. 
  
Current CPU's are multiplier locked, and they don't scale very high on bclock. 
 
http://forums.evga.com/fb.ashx?m=1485672
 
So yes the method is the same, Bclock adjustment, but the yield is not as high.

MatthewH
 
Do you know/can tell if there's going to be Unlocked Xeons for this board?

If Intel doesn't release unlocked CPUs, then I find it hard to buy this type of board. If only it could be overclocked like the SR-2, but they changed that >___>

Thanks for replying jacob. Already read the entire SR-X main page. I have a question that may make you all laugh at me but Ive never used SAS connectors before..  From my understanding I can connect regular SATA devices to the SAS ports and they will work just not reversed.. which is fine. My question is If I connect all SSD's what is the individual bandwith each would recieve?  would it be the equivilant of SATA 3? or SATA 2?  
 
@ Lephron  the 48 lane thing  Im not certain but I beleieved they discussed this earlier something about the way PCI-E 3.0 works increased the amount of lanes to 1 cpu or something.. so the 48 is still running from 1 cpu.. while the second cpu takes care of all the other system things..   how ever I could be completly wrong and misread the previouse discussion.

Oh yeah, Would love to see a HydroCopper water block for the SR-X I know its "not needed" but it makes water cooled systems look beter imo.

sokyoku

Thanks for replying jacob. Already read the entire SR-X main page. I have a question that may make you all laugh at me but Ive never used SAS connectors before..  From my understanding I can connect regular SATA devices to the SAS ports and they will work just not reversed.. which is fine. My question is If I connect all SSD's what is the individual bandwith each would recieve?  would it be the equivilant of SATA 3? or SATA 2?  

@ Lephron  the 48 lane thing  Im not certain but I beleieved they discussed this earlier something about the way PCI-E 3.0 works increased the amount of lanes to 1 cpu or something.. so the 48 is still running from 1 cpu.. while the second cpu takes care of all the other system things..   how ever I could be completly wrong and misread the previouse discussion.

 
I believe SAS ports have a cable that splits the connection up into 4 SATA connections. The bandwidth for each would be 6Gb/s. As for PCI-Express lanes, I believe the primary CPU does everything (South Bridge and all the PCIe slots with the aid of a PLX PCIe switch). Granted, having a secondary CPU will give you more cores, more memory, and more memory bandwidth.

No.. the SAS are sata 2.  3Gbs=usless

Interesting that Origin is claiming ability to overclock Xeons using SR-X.

beaker7

Interesting that Origin is claiming ability to overclock Xeons using SR-X.

link?
 
If it's true they can, then it would be from the baseclock or whatever it's called with a max of 108 I believe.

emach

beaker7

Interesting that Origin is claiming ability to overclock Xeons using SR-X.

link?

If it's true they can, then it would be from the baseclock or whatever it's called with a max of 108 I believe.

 
http://www.originpc.com/g...2-desktop-features.asp
 
If you go and build-to-order there is an option for overclock which force switches the mobo to SR-X.
 
I asked the live chat rep what kinds of clocks they were getting and was told that information will be released in a few weeks.

beaker7

emach

beaker7

Interesting that Origin is claiming ability to overclock Xeons using SR-X.

link?

If it's true they can, then it would be from the baseclock or whatever it's called with a max of 108 I believe.

http://www.originpc.com/g...2-desktop-features.asp

If you go and build-to-order there is an option for overclock which force switches the mobo to SR-X.

I asked the live chat rep what kinds of clocks they were getting and was told that information will be released in a few weeks.

For the amount of money, why not make it a DIY project??? I could easily send 11,000.00+ through them and still not get a quad SLI SR-X

ZachA


For the amount of money, why not make it a DIY project??? I could easily send 11,000.00+ through them and still not get a quad SLI SR-X

 
Of course.  Just pointing out that there must be at least a little to be gained via BCLK if they are offering it.

beaker7

ZachA


For the amount of money, why not make it a DIY project??? I could easily send 11,000.00+ through them and still not get a quad SLI SR-X

Of course.  Just pointing out that there must be at least a little to be gained via BCLK if they are offering it.

 
101 bclk wooooo

For BCLK maximum expect around 105MHz on current CPU's.

sokyoku

Thanks for replying jacob. Already read the entire SR-X main page. I have a question that may make you all laugh at me but Ive never used SAS connectors before..  From my understanding I can connect regular SATA devices to the SAS ports and they will work just not reversed.. which is fine. My question is If I connect all SSD's what is the individual bandwith each would recieve?  would it be the equivilant of SATA 3? or SATA 2?  

@ Lephron  the 48 lane thing  Im not certain but I beleieved they discussed this earlier something about the way PCI-E 3.0 works increased the amount of lanes to 1 cpu or something.. so the 48 is still running from 1 cpu.. while the second cpu takes care of all the other system things..   how ever I could be completly wrong and misread the previouse discussion.

 
You will need to get adapters that go from the SAS to SATA ports. Each SAS port can support 4 SATA ports. They are SATA 3G.
 
All PCI-E lanes come from the first CPU socket (right hand one) This is why you can run a single CPU and still have all PCI-E lanes.

EVGA_JacobF
All PCI-E lanes come from the first CPU socket (right hand one) This is why you can run a single CPU and still have all PCI-E lanes.

 lol.. you say that like its a selling point.. when in fact its one of the reasons why the board is handicapped.

So how many people are as bummed out as me?  I was looking forward to the specs specified at CES 2012..   4 way sli x16 on all ...   6g/s sas (had to research it)  I know its small things..   but they where very nice things..  I still plan on finishing a SR-X set up ..  just kinda let down a little i supose.

The only thing I am bummed about is the lack of overclocking on the E5 chips.  That's not the fault of EVGA but it sure makes a board that overclocks well a moot point, doesn't it.

Jacob, does having all the PCIe slots from one CPU have anything to do with how nVidia restricts SLI certification on Sandy Bridge-EP motherboards? I can understand if having two CPUs supply the lanes for 4-way SLI needs too much crosstalk on the QPI links to make it SLI certified. Or was the choice an EVGA one?
 
As for the 3Gb/s SAS, if you look through the Intel literature, I believe this was a last minute change.
 
See here, a March 2012 Thermal Guide:
http://www.intel.com/cont...set-thermal-guide.html
Go to page 13 and you will see that the SAS was supposed to be 6G.
 
Then see the March 2012 Datasheet:
http://www.intel.com/cont...chipset-datasheet.html
Go to page 37 and the SAS is listed as 3Gb/s.
 
Another interesting thing to note is which generation of PCIe Intel uses for the SAS 4x uplink. Intel gives 3 different generations. On page 43 of the datasheet, they say the port can only operate at 5GT/s (gen 2) or 2.5GT/s (gen 1). Yet below that, they say the expected/supported configuration of the uplink is 4x gen 1. Gen 1 is emphasized on page 95 but then immediately contradicted when they say the expected/supported configuration of the uplink is 4x gen 3. In short, whoever wrote the Intel datasheet really wasn't paying attention. If they are using a link older than gen 3, it would explain why the SAS is only 3Gb/s.

I'm also curious about the PCI-E lanes too... I assume they did it for 4-way SLI compatibility...
 
But they could have powered the secondary slots by the secondary CPU, allowing for extra cards like RAID cards, PCI-E SSDs etc without affecting the GPUs.
 
While being able to run the board with 1 CPU is nice, it's hardly a selling point.
 
Assuming unlocked CPUs come out it'll still be a nice board, but the gimping of some of the features makes it slightly less appealing than what it was, it's probably a shame for EVGA too as I guess they were hoping for this to be an epic flagship board.
 
I don't mind about the RAM slots... I think that's one of the few complaints about the board I don't share. I'd rather have better VRMs and stuff than more RAM capacity.

SiriusDragon

I'm also curious about the PCI-E lanes too... I assume they did it for 4-way SLI compatibility...

But they could have powered the secondary slots by the secondary CPU, allowing for extra cards like RAID cards, PCI-E SSDs etc without affecting the GPUs.

While being able to run the board with 1 CPU is nice, it's hardly a selling point.

Assuming unlocked CPUs come out it'll still be a nice board, but the gimping of some of the features makes it slightly less appealing than what it was, it's probably a shame for EVGA too as I guess they were hoping for this to be an epic flagship board.

I don't mind about the RAM slots... I think that's one of the few complaints about the board I don't share. I'd rather have better VRMs and stuff than more RAM capacity.

 
Actually, looking at ASUS board's manual, they have a 16x/8x, 8x, 16x/8x, 8x, 16x, 8x, 16x setup by which the first four slots are powered by the primary CPU and the last three slots are powered by the secondary CPU. Also, they say the board can run 4-way SLI, by this setup, 4-way SLI all at 16x. Now whether having two CPU power the two sets of GPUs causes more or less performance than using 32 lanes from a single CPU as EVGA did (of course expanded by the use of a PLX chip, but those cards are still getting squeezed down a 16x lane) is up for debate. Then again, I think most of the crosstalk between GPUs would be done over the SLI bridge and not the PCIe interface. That would be mostly for communications with the CPU.
 
Anyway, if I were to redesign the SR-X (or a SR-X2), I would do just a few things differently:
1. Use a 16x, 4x, 16x, 4x, 16x, 4x, 16x setup with the first 3 slots coming from the primary CPU and the last 4 slots coming from the secondary CPU. Of course, all could use 16x physical slots. The reason for this is purely from a gamer's perspective, to maximize my bandwidth between my GPUs and the CPUs. As a CUDA rig, 10 8x slots (16x physical) would be more appropriate. If I populate the 4x slots in this scheme, my 16x slots won't suffer.
2. Use the C608 chipset, if for anything, RST3 SAS RAID 5 Support.
3. Perhaps use an Intel X540-AT2 10Gb/s Ethernet Controller. This would highly depend on what the projected adoption rate of 10Gb/s Ethernet was, but considering a Sandy Bridge-EP board from both Tyan ans Supermicro are using it, the adoption rate seems to be improving. Of course I would use an RJ-45 plug and not anything fancy like SFP+. Since the controller uses 8 PCIe 2.0 links, I would let it take all the PCH's links.
4. I would use a TI TSB83AA23 PCI-Firewire chip since C600 series support PCI and the PCIe-Firewire chips are really PCIe-PCI-Firewire chips. Also, I would place 1 Firewire 800Mb/s port on the rear.
5. Then I would connect 4 NEC µPD720201 USB 3.0 controllers to the secondary CPU's 4x PCIe 2.0 link (normally used to connect to the PCH), each one powering 1 rear USB 3.0 port.
6. Perhaps I would move some SATA 3Gb/s ports (native from the chipset) to the rear for eSATA, but I'm not a big fan of external hard drives to begin with.

lollygag

EVGA_JacobF
All PCI-E lanes come from the first CPU socket (right hand one) This is why you can run a single CPU and still have all PCI-E lanes.

lol.. you say that like its a selling point.. when in fact its one of the reasons why the board is handicapped.

 
May be a benefit for some, maybe not for others. We are honest with our spec.

will the sas ports support raid 5 each so i could create two logical drives out of eight physical drives in raid 5? I know its only sata ii but its my understandig that non ssd's dont saturate sata ii anways?

No overclock on CPU's evan by BLK makes this board pointless for me.

beaker7

ZachA


For the amount of money, why not make it a DIY project??? I could easily send 11,000.00+ through them and still not get a quad SLI SR-X

Of course.  Just pointing out that there must be at least a little to be gained via BCLK if they are offering it.

 
Great find.  From the post here, it looks like a max of 105 on the BCLK.  Now, Origin does not say how much the OC will be;)
Will be interested to see how high they can go......high enough to make people want to purchase for OCing?  Who knows.

thegreatga

will the sas ports support raid 5 each so i could create two logical drives out of eight physical drives in raid 5? I know its only sata ii but its my understandig that non ssd's dont saturate sata ii anways?

Yes, the SAS support RAID 0, 1, 5, 10 and JBOD.

Where did you see the prices?I see the 2687 as being more expensive than the 2690. The 2687 being higher frequency.
Some places buy servers in bulk, which gives them a discount on the components. Then they take the cpus out to customise the servers to their customers needs.
It is a reason to be careful if buying tray parts

Aggressor Prime

Jacob, does having all the PCIe slots from one CPU have anything to do with how nVidia restricts SLI certification on Sandy Bridge-EP motherboards?

 
No, the SLI certification thing was just a licensing issue, it isn't free.

rottenmutt

Aggressor Prime

Jacob, does having all the PCIe slots from one CPU have anything to do with how nVidia restricts SLI certification on Sandy Bridge-EP motherboards?

No, the SLI certification thing was just a licensing issue, it isn't free.

 
People whant power, not restrictions.
If you put down money for a complete SR-X setup, there should be NO restriction what so ever

chillernr1

rottenmutt

Aggressor Prime
Jacob, does having all the PCIe slots from one CPU have anything to do with how nVidia restricts SLI certification on Sandy Bridge-EP motherboards?

No, the SLI certification thing was just a licensing issue, it isn't free.

People whant power, not restrictions. If you put down money for a complete SR-X setup, there should be NO restriction what so ever.

With respect, if the number of people and how much they are willing to spend don't add up to the cost of implimentation, then a business isn't going to bother with it.  That any of us are willing to pay whatever it takes means absolutely nothing unless 1) there are enough of us to break-even from or 2) we pay for the whole development ourselves.  The reason everything we can buy exists for purchase is because there was more demand than the cost to get it out there.  Top-dollar items just refer to the maximum allowed features that the company could afford to sell; SR-X is the best it can be for who it was intended for, if you're unsatisfied then you weren't the target market.
 
Chances are EVGA already knew with zero unlocked Xeon E5-2600's to wire the board to take single i7's and thus route most of the PCIe lanes through one CPU; and not being able to wire it for a second CPU worth of lanes.  You got to give EVGA credit for doing their homework and producing their product for their intended target customer.

lehpron

chillernr1

rottenmutt

Aggressor Prime
Jacob, does having all the PCIe slots from one CPU have anything to do with how nVidia restricts SLI certification on Sandy Bridge-EP motherboards?

No, the SLI certification thing was just a licensing issue, it isn't free.

People whant power, not restrictions. If you put down money for a complete SR-X setup, there should be NO restriction what so ever.

With respect, if the number of people and how much they are willing to spend don't add up to the cost of implimentation, then a business isn't going to bother with it.  That any of us are willing to pay whatever it takes means absolutely nothing unless 1) there are enough of us to break-even from or 2) we pay for the whole development ourselves.  The reason everything we can buy exists for purchase is because there was more demand than the cost to get it out there.  Top-dollar items just refer to the maximum allowed features that the company could afford to sell; SR-X is the best it can be for who it was intended for, if you're unsatisfied then you weren't the target market.

Chances are EVGA already knew with zero unlocked Xeon E5-2600's to wire the board to take single i7's and thus route most of the PCIe lanes through one CPU; and not being able to wire it for a second CPU worth of lanes.  You got to give EVGA credit for doing their homework and producing their product for their intended target customer.

 
Indeed, the fact that they did this means they did do their homework.  I have a question though, who IS their target customer?  Before it was quite obvious, but with no unlocked chips on a board that's main selling point is overclocking...who are they selling this to?  I can't figure it out:)

Johnny_Utah
Indeed, the fact that they did this means they did do their homework.  I have a question though, who IS their target customer?  Before it was quite obvious, but with no unlocked chips on a board that's main selling point is overclocking...who are they selling this to?  I can't figure it out:)

Assuming you weren't being sarcastic, the biggest clues are in EVGA's news articles comparing X79 to SR-X: X79 brags overclocking, SR-X does not.  In otherwords, EVGA wasn't expecting to gain overclockers with SR-X; that they can survive on the other uses of the board from extreme power users, server admin, to folders and crunchers -- the latter could be the strongest market for EVGA.   It may be possible that the majority of SR-2 customers didn't put Xeon overclocking in priority, remember the majority of frequent posters on the forums don't represent all customers.
 
The addition of the PCIe 3.0 PLX chip in SR-X and not in their X79 certain pushes those customers interested in multiple PCIe 3.0 cards.  I was schoolded by X79 members that while games may not saturate PCIe 2.0 yet, computational ues of graphics cards can, so those users see a more significant difference from x8 to x16 2.0, thus feel similar about 3.0.  It is EVGA's gamble whether those customers choose to put their demands in priority and choose another brand with more PCIe lanes, as opposed to being loyal to EVGA's new Global Warranty.  I don't think it was made for simplifying the process.  They are a business, everything they do is suspect, even their poll on the front page is another form of market analysis.
 
All is not lost with SR-X, they added single i7 use just to net those who may want more than an X79 with the option of a pair of 8-cores whenever they choose to, since none of EVGA's X79's allow Xeon E5's [yet].
 
Before with SR-2, EVGA allowed Xeon 5000's in X58 as a temporary, but it becomes a sale for Intel and not EVGA, so to speak.  Allowing one i7 in SR-X allows EVGA to make a sale while users don't get an X79, the difference is negligible to Intel but significant to EVGA.

its called the tick-tock method, intel releases two generations staggered of each architecture and socket. so you get a low architecture chip released first that works on the new socket and gives a chance to experiment and improve for the tock cycle release of the high end new architecture chips. look at the release dates of the 1366 socket Xeons. they started off with a small batch (comparable to the current 2011 offerings) which were not very powerful and overall mediocre, then the next year they came out with the high end 1366 socket chips. the ones most of the SR-2 users have now. if anything EVGA should be praised for releasing this at the beginning of the cycle, letting us get our hands on it and play with it, work out the kinks and bugs before the cycle with the (im guessing) unlocked chips comes out. who wants to work out normal bugs while having overclockers shove complaints down your throat because they expect it to already be refined?
all in all, great board, ill be getting one, along with a waterblock from nateman_doo. haters will hate.

Is this mobo compatible with XEON 5125? The 5125 is SocketP LGA 3647, but there is no explicit mention of it on any SR-3 related stuff that I've been able to find.

someone have sr-x for sale?

mvidart2401
someone have sr-x for sale?

These are very hard to find now even on websites like EBAY. 

rjohnson11

mvidart2401
someone have sr-x for sale?

These are very hard to find now even on websites like EBAY. 

It's the only one I'm missing :(

Hello.
Just bought this board and I wonder if anyone knows if its finnicky with RAM?
Any particular brands/models that dont work? or can you pretty much throw any DDR3 ECC RAM without problems?

Edit.
Plan is to put 12x8gb sticks in, if Im not wrong it wont support more than 96gb? 

Many Thanks, Halibut King.

temp lock for review
 
Unlocked

Halibut King
Hello.
Just bought this board and I wonder if anyone knows if its finnicky with RAM?
Any particular brands/models that dont work? or can you pretty much throw any DDR3 ECC RAM without problems?

Edit.
Plan is to put 12x8gb sticks in, if Im not wrong it wont support more than 96gb? 

Many Thanks, Halibut King.

 
CPU & RAM information can be found: CPU and Memory Support
 SR-3 found in main link
https://www.evga.com/support/motherboard/
 
For legacy versions, please click here.
 
https://www.evga.com/support/motherboard/legacy/
 
SR-X = C606 Series Motherboards (Dual-QPI LGA 2011)
 
https://www.evga.com/products/pdf/270-SE-W888.pdf
 

Cool GTX

Halibut King
Hello.
Just bought this board and I wonder if anyone knows if its finnicky with RAM?
Any particular brands/models that dont work? or can you pretty much throw any DDR3 ECC RAM without problems?

Edit.
Plan is to put 12x8gb sticks in, if Im not wrong it wont support more than 96gb? 

Many Thanks, Halibut King.

 
CPU & RAM information can be found:
 SR-3 found in main link

 
For legacy versions, please click .
 

 
SR-X = C606 Series Motherboards (Dual-QPI LGA 2011)
 
https://www.evga.com/products/pdf/270-SE-W888.pdf
 

Ty so much for that post, I only managed to find the manual.

Seems like the SR-X dont support Xeon V2, I got two xeon 26997v2 I was planning to pop in.
From what I can see Xeon E5 2687W is the strongest CPU supported?

//Halibut King

Tried to Quote you but seems like my post didnt go thru.
Many thanks for the link, I only managed to find the manuak.
Its a SR-X and from what I can see it dont support Xeon V2 models.
My plan was to put in two 2697v2, seems like 2687W is the most powerful CPU supported?

Anyone tried this board with Xeon V2 models? I thought c606 chipset supported them?

//Halibut King

Halibut King
Tried to Quote you but seems like my post didnt go thru.
Many thanks for the link, I only managed to find the manuak.
Its a SR-X and from what I can see it dont support Xeon V2 models.
My plan was to put in two 2697v2, seems like 2687W is the most powerful CPU supported?

Anyone tried this board with Xeon V2 models? I thought c606 chipset supported them?

//Halibut King

For some reason your post was flagged as spam but I have restored it. 

Halibut King
Tried to Quote you but seems like my post didnt go thru.
Many thanks for the link, I only managed to find the manuak.
Its a SR-X and from what I can see it dont support Xeon V2 models.
My plan was to put in two 2697v2, seems like 2687W is the most powerful CPU supported?

Anyone tried this board with Xeon V2 models? I thought c606 chipset supported them?

//Halibut King

Happy to help
 
I can't help you on the CPU front, as I have never owned a SR-X
 
However, when searching the EVGA Forum make sure you change the default timeline to "from the beginning" as 30 days is default
 
Learn your way around the EVGA Forums, Rules & limits on new accounts Ultimate Self-Starter Thread For New Members
 
from link above see 16. Searching the Forums

Ok.
Did some digging and found it does seem to support Xeon v2 series but only way to get it to post with two CPUs is to use ECC RAM.
Sounds crazy but there is a Y-tube video from GamersNexus that found that out.


Also gotten the board. And wow its a beauty, not single scratch and looks more or less brand new (little bit of dust here and there).
Even got what I think is the original peripherals that it came with. Says EVGA on the backsides of the plastic bags and are OLD, never opened too, none of them.
Looks like the board is hardly ever used, but seller said it working perfect and he just updated the BIOS before he shipped it.
Only thing missing I think is the Box it was sold in.

Still waiting for the ECC RAM so cant test it yet, but should arrive this or next week :)

Edit. 
Seems like I cant post pics or links.

Plan is to load it up with 12x8gb ECC RAM, 2x2697v2, 4x3060. Gonna crunch some numbers on it.

Not sure how PCIE lanes are configured on the board (seems a little funky), from what little Ive read so far it supports 4 gpus at x16 x16 x8 x8, not sure if there is no more lanes left for 5th GPU and is used for other stuff?
Would like to use a NVME disc in a PCIE slot as well.
Anyone know if you can turn down PCIE speed in BIOS and run it x8 x8 x8 x8 for GPUs + NVME disc in PICE card for example?
or its a hard limit with max 4 PCIE slots in use at the same time?

//Halibut King

I love that project! where have you managed to buy the motherboard? I want one :(

mvidart2401
I love that project! where have you managed to buy the motherboard? I want one :(

I stumbled upon it on the domestic market place here in Norway.
He was selling it as a whole server but also parts alone. 
When I found it RAM, PSU and some other stuff was already sold.

I had no idea how rare this board was at first. I was just looking for boards that can support several GPUs with decent PCIE speed.

But after I bought it and looked around a little bit more about it I realized it must be pretty rare, couldnt find a single one for sale anywhere else.
Also looked up some history about it, pretty interesting, seem to be made to be a proper OC machine bud sadly didnt turn out that way due to locked CPUs.

I post some results from when I get the RAM and can fire her up. Hopefully wont be any issues :)

//Halibut King

Edit.
Will also do my best to not get any marks or scratches on it, because it looks brand new tbh.

excellent! Please let me know when you sell it :)

Fired up the board tonight. 
Got it to boot no issues with 2x2697v2, so that works =)

Small issue, it wont post with DIMM slot 5 or 6 populated.
With slot 5 populated I get post code 67 and stuck, with slot 6 populated I get code 60 and stuck.
So right now 10 DIMM slots populated with 80gb of RAM.

Little bit of bummer, might try to re-seat the CPUs and if that dont work I have 2x2687w try with as well.
Else the board seem to work fine.

Had to improvise with CPU coolers because the coolers Im supposed to use has gotten delayed and the ones right now is wrong socket and weak so I just slapped them on.
Only been in BIOS quickly and checked that everything was working.

Will also send a message to seller and see if he ever had any issues with the DIMM slot, I know he only used 8 sticks, but those should be populated with that setup.

Thanks for the updates. 

Halibut King
Fired up the board tonight. 
Got it to boot no issues with 2x2697v2, so that works =)

Small issue, it wont post with DIMM slot 5 or 6 populated.
With slot 5 populated I get post code 67 and stuck, with slot 6 populated I get code 60 and stuck.
So right now 10 DIMM slots populated with 80gb of RAM.

Little bit of bummer, might try to re-seat the CPUs and if that dont work I have 2x2687w try with as well.
Else the board seem to work fine.

Had to improvise with CPU coolers because the coolers Im supposed to use has gotten delayed and the ones right now is wrong socket and weak so I just slapped them on.
Only been in BIOS quickly and checked that everything was working.

Will also send a message to seller and see if he ever had any issues with the DIMM slot, I know he only used 8 sticks, but those should be populated with that setup.

what good news! both xenons work!
It's a shame that the 12 banks of ram don't work! It could be the failed mother itself, or the CPU memory controllers!

Finally gotten my coolers and have some time to tinker.

Anyone know if its possible to boot from a NVME drive in a PCIE adapter? 
I have no issues installing Linux on it, and I see the PCIE card connected in BIOS with correct speed, but it refuses to boot from it and goes straight to BIOS.

Guessing this board is too old to have BIOS support to boot from NVME drive? It does not show up under Boot Options.
Or am I missing a setting in BIOS? 

Edit. I have the latest BIOS according from what I found at the Download Center, v1.04

Some good news, I re-seated the CPU, took out the 2 RAM sticks with issues and blew 2 DIMM-slots clean with my mouth for good luck, and guess what, all DIMMs works :D

I believe it was the CPU, because I tried re-seating the RAM many times before and already cleaned the DIMM slots out, but who knows ;)