AnandTech Ivy Bridge Performance Preview

[Diogenes2]

......
X79 does not have SRT, correct? And nearly all of the IVB chips do (and Z68)? That is the primary feature I speak of... also, yes, it would have been expected for all of the SATA ports to be Gen 3 (like my lowly AMD 870 chipsets?) but I would say that is a nitpick and is not "behind" Z68.

I have used that feature in a number of builds with great results. I plan on using the SSD and mechanical in my sig for my games and desktop VMs and using a 128GB SSD for my main boot/app drive in the future. Without SRT that cannot happen... and what else am I going to use that little SSD for?

I'm not sure about other boards, but the Asrock x79 Extreme9 has SSD caching with the Marvell controller.. Not equal to SRT on Z68, but a nice boost none the less..

 

[blckgrffn]

While X79 does offer something the Z68 does not, that *something* is actually just PCIE 3.0 ... Great...

The reason for that is Intel had issues integrating the USB 3.0 and it kept getting delayed. The fact that SRT isn't there, nor more than 2 6GB/s sata nor SAS is something you should be complaining about, particularly when it's marketed as the workstation platform that essentially sells you server chips at skyrocket prices.

Which begs the question: why the hell would you pay an inflated amount of money for a platform that's really no different than 1155 other than the differences in chips that are compatible? The SB-E chips are great because the Xeons are great, but the 2011 platform in its current iteration is a pass.

If the lack of goodies was coupled with a cheaper price then fine, but at the moment it's both neutered and expensive and I still don't get it.

Haha, NO. You're doing it wrong. If Intel has decided it is fit for our consumption it is good enough for us, expressing any discontentment is showing that you are not in lock step with our benevolent x86 Overlords. Do you dare risk their wrath?

Extra Smiley in case you didn't see the first one:

 

[Edrick]

While X79 does offer something the Z68 does not, that *something* is actually just PCIE 3.0 ... Great...

Ability to go to 6 core and 8 core CPUs, quad channel memory, 40 lanes of PCIe 3.0 (compared to 16 for IB later). That is worth the $50 premium everyone keeps bringing up.

The reason for that is Intel had issues integrating the USB 3.0 and it kept getting delayed. The fact that SRT isn't there, nor more than 2 6GB/s sata nor SAS is something you should be complaining about

USB 3.0 is there. Who really cares if it is part of the chipset or needs a secondary onboard chip? As for the SAS support, show me a SSD that uses SAS (that does not have a SATA equivilent). And I am sure some select few people may have used it for HDDs, those are 2x-3x more expensive. And yes, most people including myself, were disappointed with only 2 SATA 6Gps ports. That is one area I will complain about.

Which begs the question: why the hell would you pay an inflated amount of money for a platform that's really no different than 1155 other than the differences in chips that are compatible?

As I stated above, there are many good reasons to move to X79. The only reason NOT to go X79 is money. But this "inflated" platform is only $50 to $100 more. That is not a lot of money. RAM and CPU (quad core) are the same price. The only difference is motherboards.

 

[pelov]

While you're right, the difference in price isn't substantial, the point is the features aren't there. The original chipset was planned to integrate both USB 3.0 and SATA into the chip but Intel kept delaying it due to issues with implementation, thus offering a neutered chipset at a still all-too-high price.

The PCIE 3.0 is the biggie and really the only added bonus (I wouldn't consider quad channel nor chip support motherboard features but rather platform features independent of chipset), but PCIE 3.0 is being offered with Z77 and IVB, along with some Z68 boards being slotted with IVB chips.

The lack of SAS is what bugs me. It's supposed to be a workstation platform that offers server chips at reasonable prices yet lacks an essential feature of any server platform. I use 2x sata 6gb/s because I dual boot OSes and wanted 2 different SSDs but what if I'd wanted RAID? Or to use multiple SSDs for storage, bypassing HDDs? It's not unreasonable when you consider just how much the platform and in turn the chips themselves cost that someone would want to go that route.

It's a case of Intel being forced to rush and release the platform/chipset before it was ready because they were getting far too close to the Z77/IVB release. Hell, look at the chips themselves. Intel have recently started accepting RMAs for their C1 > C2 stepping screwup.

2011 was just handled really poorly

 

[Edrick]

2011 was just handled really poorly

Agreed there. Clearly they had issues with the CPUs and chipset.

The lack of SAS is what bugs me. It's supposed to be a workstation platform that offers server chips at reasonable prices yet lacks an essential feature of any server platform.

SAS would have been nice, I would be lying if I said I was not looking forward to it. But it was more of a novelty for me. But keep in mind that Intel does not have SAS 6Gps support on any of its chipsets (including server). Last week with the SB-EP release, Intel finally introduced SAS 3Gps support and sited problems with SAS 6Gps. Clearly Intel is going through a "learning curve" when it comes to SAS. I am hopeful by Haswell these will be worked out.

Having no more than 2 SATA 6Gps ports is a big one. Here is where Intel really let us down. But even so, no other Intel chipset offers more than 2 ports, so there is no better option on the market.

With that said, I think we all agree that X79 was not what we hoped for, or even what was initially promised. But that does not make it a bad platform by any means. I am happy with my system and I look at it as an upgrade to my P67 SB system.