The PCIe lanes from the chipset are still limited by the DMI connection. Last I remember DMI 3.0 has a limit of PCIe 3.0 x4. The extra 4 lanes from the cpu on AMD's side means a single M.2 SSD does not have to share any bandwidth with sata, usb and other devices on the PCH.
I know that the DMI is the limiting factor. No doubt that AMD has the upper hand there, plus the CPU attached USB ports. I just don't know why he's so angry about the number of chipset lanes, where having more might even be worse than less.
Nobody can ue all the available bandwidth because it has an unnecessary bottleneck. I have a 1080TI 16x video card - already proven to slow at 8x. I have an 8x raid controller with 4GB cache for 16 drives and I have a quad port 10gb 8x nic. You could say get an expensive intel 7900x but that's been proven to be slower for gaming. So with Intel you are screwed if you do or screwed if you don't. I'm not praising AMD either as their 2700x 2 card is still slower than the 8700k for gaming.
I can't fathom why you'd be running a RAID controller with 16 drives on a gaming PC? What is the use case here? Offload that workload to a dedicated server.
I think the big questioned is will z370 mother boards support any of the newer CPU'S such as 8 core Intel's or will z370 owners get hosed like z270 owners did? If this is the case and me wanting to upgrade my system if Intel hoses people again I have no choice but to go AMD and get a ryzen 3000 series once released. Maybe if enough people do this it may srnd a clear message to Intel we are tired of their chipset & socket games.
Agreed...If the Z370 doesn't get a bios update for newer CPU's and are forced to purchase a new CPU and motherboard to be current, it's obvious those who bought into the Z370 simply got taken for a ride.
Even for the longest time PCI-e 2.0 to 3.0 performance differences were negligible, and they still mostly are. Same thing with 3.0 x8 lane vs 3.0 x16 lane. Even GPUs aren't so sophisticated that it completely saturates the port's capabilities.
Forcing PCI-e 4.0 adoption now would only result in higher costs to consumers, without seeing any inherent benefit. I'm all for technology progressing, but there's just not a strong necessity for 4.0 right now.
"since gaming rigs can last 4-8 years before the CPU/mobo are outdated and need replaced they need to get the faster connect deployed years before it's actually needed to avoid premature retirement"
Why do you think Intel, OEMs, Nvidia, AMD, or anyone in the industry would really want you to avoid premature retirement?
*gaming* isn't bottlenecked yet on 3.0. But since gaming rigs can last 4-8 years before the CPU/mobo are outdated and need replaced they need to get the faster connect deployed years before it's actually needed to avoid premature retirement.
The foot dragging from 3.0 to 4.0 at the standard setting stage had gotten to the point that proprietary interconnects like NVLink were gaining traction because it was becoming an issue for forms of compute that required rapid interaction with the host CPU (not just dump into the GPU and let it chug until it has a result to spit out). Trying to catch up there and defend their territory is a big part of why the 5.0 spec came out only a year or two after the 4.0 one.
High end SSDs are also getting rather close to maxing out PCIe3 x4 connection, which is a feature at the enthusiast level.
DMI effectively being a single 3.0 x4 lane is becoming a potential bottleneck with is plausible to hang multiple devices capable of using most of an x4 slot of bandwidth by themselves.
The real reason we haven't seen 4.0 yet is that there hasn't been time to incorporate it into new CPUs yet. Ice Lake or Ryzen 3 next year might have the first 4.0 CPU lanes out a year from now. Even then chipset lanes are likely to lag a year or two behind based on Intel's past history; and possibly even longer for AMD. (They're still only 2.0 on the chipset, although with 24 on the CPU that's less critical a concern since they probably won't be running SSDs or a GPU off them.)
I suspect having to wait for the next major refresh is also why we don't have TB3 on this chipset yet. To avoid bottlenecking DMI it either needs to be on the CPU itself, or DMI needs to be based on something faster than an 3.0 x4 link.
High end SSDs aren't close to maxing out PCIe3 x4. They already are. Who wants to dish out big bucks on a ten year machine when the storage bottleneck will be the interconnect from day one? Tech industries have operated for the past few decades to keep interconnects ahead of demand because it stinks when the bottleneck is not the most complicated and expensive component (interconnects are cheap compared to bleeding edge SSDs).
"since gaming rigs can last 4-8 years before the CPU/mobo are outdated and need replaced they need to get the faster connect deployed years before it's actually needed to avoid premature retirement"
Why do you think Intel, OEMs, Nvidia, AMD, or anyone in the industry would really want you to avoid premature retirement?
Sorry Joey but that is incorrect. The difference isn't negligible and will be more significant with the soon to be released 1180 card. In addition to that we need more PCIe lanes so 8x add on cards can communicate with the chipset at full speed instead of the 4x chipset bottleneck.
What is going on with Intel's marketing? We have gone from 3 classes of CPU with 2-3 classes of chipset to now 4 classes of CPU with 6! classes of chipsets. The mess alone is pushing me over to Team Red for next build.
I hope this means that Intel isn't going to force people to buy a new board for Cannon Lake. Releasing a new Coffee Lake chipset and then entirely new chipsets to Cannon Lake would seem like a pretty big cash grab (but it IS Intel we're talking about here).
Why is there no mention of Thunderbolt native? Some of us need Thunderbolt enabled motherboards, currently the market is using a TB header and add in card adding cost to PC builds, frustrating.
My guess is Intel doesn't want to add to the cost of the chipset by adding TB3 logic from their Alpine Ridge controller. They likely also figure those who need/want the higher top-end speed (TB3 can go up to 40Gbps vs USB 3.1 Gen2's 10Gbps) will pay more for it.
My guess'd be it's waiting for the new Ice Lake architecture on the desktop. TB3 needs a PCIe x4, putting it on the CPU lanes means you're down to only an x8 for the GPU. Putting it on the chipset significantly increases the risk of saturating DMI and bogging everything down.
They'll need to either add additional PCIe lanes to the CPU itself (a pair of x4's like Ryzen did for either 2 PCIe SSDs or 1 SSD and 1 TB3), or upgrade DMI to PCIe 4/5 to have enough bandwidth to the chipset.
What happened to the Integrated SDXC 3.0 Controller mentioned in few Spec sheets sometime back? Are they just rumors? I was expecting a SD Card Slot directly on the motherboard just like USB Ports or M.2 Slot instead of expecting on the Case (which probably only a couple of them do) or through an external 3.5 or 5.25 slot which are not reliable enough.
I suspect that's only going to show up on laptop chipsets where removing the need for an external controller frees a precious cm^2 of boardspace. On the desktop an onboard USB-SD adapter has been possible for many years if any mobo maker wanted to do it.
The problem is neither MB makers nor Case manufacturers are doing it. We got to do with only External 3.5 or 5.25 adapters. So, had to buy a case with one of those external drive slots or always have an USB to SD Card adapter hooked in the back or Front as a dongle which I hate. :(
On the front panel any case maker that wanted to build a slot in could just do it via an internal USB connection. They don't because the 99.9% of consumers who never swap SD cards around would rather have another USB port or an extra buck in their pocket. On the back panel is going to be awful for usability regardless of if it's a dongle plugged into port or built directly into the IO panel.
If it is in the desktop chipset not just the laptop one, i'd be shocked if it shows up on anything other than a few embedded boards as an alternative to an incase USB port.
I was really hoping they'd have a LOT more PCIe lanes and no chipset 4 lane restriction. Why can't intel show some love to gamers and IT people with lots of cards.
It appears the Z390 isn't much different than the Z370. The added 6 USB 3.1 v2 ports and the Wi-Fi isn't enough to make it "the Chipset" to have. Seems like Intel is really milking the cow (the public) for each little feature within a chipset vs. a completely new chipset offering as they had years back. The settle changes are now not worth the cost to move from Z270 to the 300 chipsets in my opinion. Unless folks believe a minimum of $600 to $800 for a hardware change for very little performance increase is worthy, stay with the 100 or 200 Chipsets. Especially with the fact that you will be left with perfectly good hardware left over. Hardly boils down to much value in doing so.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
34 Comments
Back to Article
austinsguitar - Monday, May 14, 2018 - link
"ONLY" 24 pcie lanes... intel is a joke... really this is embarrassing.eddman - Monday, May 14, 2018 - link
How so?Z370/390: 16 lanes from CPU, 24 (3.0) lanes from chipset
X370/470: 20 lanes from CPU, 8 (2.0) lanes from chipset
lioncat55 - Monday, May 14, 2018 - link
The PCIe lanes from the chipset are still limited by the DMI connection. Last I remember DMI 3.0 has a limit of PCIe 3.0 x4. The extra 4 lanes from the cpu on AMD's side means a single M.2 SSD does not have to share any bandwidth with sata, usb and other devices on the PCH.eddman - Monday, May 14, 2018 - link
I know that the DMI is the limiting factor. No doubt that AMD has the upper hand there, plus the CPU attached USB ports. I just don't know why he's so angry about the number of chipset lanes, where having more might even be worse than less.SirPerro - Tuesday, May 15, 2018 - link
I'm not trying to defend intel here. This is just my honest opinion.How many people IRL use all the available PCIe/DMI bandwidth?
Let's be serious here. For most people, even enthusiasts, there's more than enough PCIe lines there.
boe - Thursday, May 17, 2018 - link
Nobody can ue all the available bandwidth because it has an unnecessary bottleneck. I have a 1080TI 16x video card - already proven to slow at 8x. I have an 8x raid controller with 4GB cache for 16 drives and I have a quad port 10gb 8x nic. You could say get an expensive intel 7900x but that's been proven to be slower for gaming. So with Intel you are screwed if you do or screwed if you don't. I'm not praising AMD either as their 2700x 2 card is still slower than the 8700k for gaming.ydoucare - Wednesday, July 18, 2018 - link
I can't fathom why you'd be running a RAID controller with 16 drives on a gaming PC? What is the use case here? Offload that workload to a dedicated server.rocky12345 - Monday, May 14, 2018 - link
I think the big questioned is will z370 mother boards support any of the newer CPU'S such as 8 core Intel's or will z370 owners get hosed like z270 owners did? If this is the case and me wanting to upgrade my system if Intel hoses people again I have no choice but to go AMD and get a ryzen 3000 series once released. Maybe if enough people do this it may srnd a clear message to Intel we are tired of their chipset & socket games.gsuburban - Thursday, May 17, 2018 - link
Agreed...If the Z370 doesn't get a bios update for newer CPU's and are forced to purchase a new CPU and motherboard to be current, it's obvious those who bought into the Z370 simply got taken for a ride.MTEK - Monday, May 14, 2018 - link
What's going on with PCIe? Shouldn't we be seeing initial support for v4.0 by now?JoeyJoJo123 - Monday, May 14, 2018 - link
There's no need.Even for the longest time PCI-e 2.0 to 3.0 performance differences were negligible, and they still mostly are. Same thing with 3.0 x8 lane vs 3.0 x16 lane. Even GPUs aren't so sophisticated that it completely saturates the port's capabilities.
Forcing PCI-e 4.0 adoption now would only result in higher costs to consumers, without seeing any inherent benefit. I'm all for technology progressing, but there's just not a strong necessity for 4.0 right now.
lioncat55 - Monday, May 14, 2018 - link
We are right at the point that PCIe 3.0 x8 is starting to bottle neck. PCIe 4.0 will be needed in one to two generations.SirPerro - Tuesday, May 15, 2018 - link
You just answered yourself here"since gaming rigs can last 4-8 years before the CPU/mobo are outdated and need replaced they need to get the faster connect deployed years before it's actually needed to avoid premature retirement"
Why do you think Intel, OEMs, Nvidia, AMD, or anyone in the industry would really want you to avoid premature retirement?
DanNeely - Monday, May 14, 2018 - link
*gaming* isn't bottlenecked yet on 3.0. But since gaming rigs can last 4-8 years before the CPU/mobo are outdated and need replaced they need to get the faster connect deployed years before it's actually needed to avoid premature retirement.The foot dragging from 3.0 to 4.0 at the standard setting stage had gotten to the point that proprietary interconnects like NVLink were gaining traction because it was becoming an issue for forms of compute that required rapid interaction with the host CPU (not just dump into the GPU and let it chug until it has a result to spit out). Trying to catch up there and defend their territory is a big part of why the 5.0 spec came out only a year or two after the 4.0 one.
High end SSDs are also getting rather close to maxing out PCIe3 x4 connection, which is a feature at the enthusiast level.
DMI effectively being a single 3.0 x4 lane is becoming a potential bottleneck with is plausible to hang multiple devices capable of using most of an x4 slot of bandwidth by themselves.
The real reason we haven't seen 4.0 yet is that there hasn't been time to incorporate it into new CPUs yet. Ice Lake or Ryzen 3 next year might have the first 4.0 CPU lanes out a year from now. Even then chipset lanes are likely to lag a year or two behind based on Intel's past history; and possibly even longer for AMD. (They're still only 2.0 on the chipset, although with 24 on the CPU that's less critical a concern since they probably won't be running SSDs or a GPU off them.)
I suspect having to wait for the next major refresh is also why we don't have TB3 on this chipset yet. To avoid bottlenecking DMI it either needs to be on the CPU itself, or DMI needs to be based on something faster than an 3.0 x4 link.
willis936 - Monday, May 14, 2018 - link
High end SSDs aren't close to maxing out PCIe3 x4. They already are. Who wants to dish out big bucks on a ten year machine when the storage bottleneck will be the interconnect from day one? Tech industries have operated for the past few decades to keep interconnects ahead of demand because it stinks when the bottleneck is not the most complicated and expensive component (interconnects are cheap compared to bleeding edge SSDs).SirPerro - Tuesday, May 15, 2018 - link
You just answered yourself here"since gaming rigs can last 4-8 years before the CPU/mobo are outdated and need replaced they need to get the faster connect deployed years before it's actually needed to avoid premature retirement"
Why do you think Intel, OEMs, Nvidia, AMD, or anyone in the industry would really want you to avoid premature retirement?
boe - Thursday, May 17, 2018 - link
Sorry Joey but that is incorrect. The difference isn't negligible and will be more significant with the soon to be released 1180 card. In addition to that we need more PCIe lanes so 8x add on cards can communicate with the chipset at full speed instead of the 4x chipset bottleneck.beginner99 - Monday, May 14, 2018 - link
I woudl rather like to see 8xPCIe 3 from CPU to chipset. DMI 3.0 is a joke at this point.Cygni - Monday, May 14, 2018 - link
2020, same time as DDR5.wr3zzz - Monday, May 14, 2018 - link
What is going on with Intel's marketing? We have gone from 3 classes of CPU with 2-3 classes of chipset to now 4 classes of CPU with 6! classes of chipsets. The mess alone is pushing me over to Team Red for next build.Flunk - Monday, May 14, 2018 - link
I hope this means that Intel isn't going to force people to buy a new board for Cannon Lake. Releasing a new Coffee Lake chipset and then entirely new chipsets to Cannon Lake would seem like a pretty big cash grab (but it IS Intel we're talking about here).eddman - Monday, May 14, 2018 - link
You've missed the news then. Z390 is compatible with CNL but it doesn't even matter. There isn't going to be any high performing CNL parts anyway.CFL is rumored to be replaced by the 14nm++(+?) whiskey lake and then the 10nm+ ice lake.
jwickham - Monday, May 14, 2018 - link
Why is there no mention of Thunderbolt native? Some of us need Thunderbolt enabled motherboards, currently the market is using a TB header and add in card adding cost to PC builds, frustrating.romrunning - Monday, May 14, 2018 - link
My guess is Intel doesn't want to add to the cost of the chipset by adding TB3 logic from their Alpine Ridge controller. They likely also figure those who need/want the higher top-end speed (TB3 can go up to 40Gbps vs USB 3.1 Gen2's 10Gbps) will pay more for it.DanNeely - Monday, May 14, 2018 - link
My guess'd be it's waiting for the new Ice Lake architecture on the desktop. TB3 needs a PCIe x4, putting it on the CPU lanes means you're down to only an x8 for the GPU. Putting it on the chipset significantly increases the risk of saturating DMI and bogging everything down.They'll need to either add additional PCIe lanes to the CPU itself (a pair of x4's like Ryzen did for either 2 PCIe SSDs or 1 SSD and 1 TB3), or upgrade DMI to PCIe 4/5 to have enough bandwidth to the chipset.
jwickham - Monday, May 14, 2018 - link
This makes sense, but how is Apple getting away with it? So Apple's solution is equivalent to the add in card solution available to PC's today?eddman - Tuesday, May 15, 2018 - link
Yes. Look here, step 6:https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/MacBook+Pro+15-Inc...
romrunning - Monday, May 14, 2018 - link
I hope this version of the ME engine had all of the past firmware fixes already baked in, especially for the vPro-enabled versions.Srikzquest - Monday, May 14, 2018 - link
What happened to the Integrated SDXC 3.0 Controller mentioned in few Spec sheets sometime back? Are they just rumors? I was expecting a SD Card Slot directly on the motherboard just like USB Ports or M.2 Slot instead of expecting on the Case (which probably only a couple of them do) or through an external 3.5 or 5.25 slot which are not reliable enough.DanNeely - Monday, May 14, 2018 - link
I suspect that's only going to show up on laptop chipsets where removing the need for an external controller frees a precious cm^2 of boardspace. On the desktop an onboard USB-SD adapter has been possible for many years if any mobo maker wanted to do it.Srikzquest - Monday, May 14, 2018 - link
The problem is neither MB makers nor Case manufacturers are doing it. We got to do with only External 3.5 or 5.25 adapters. So, had to buy a case with one of those external drive slots or always have an USB to SD Card adapter hooked in the back or Front as a dongle which I hate. :(DanNeely - Tuesday, May 15, 2018 - link
On the front panel any case maker that wanted to build a slot in could just do it via an internal USB connection. They don't because the 99.9% of consumers who never swap SD cards around would rather have another USB port or an extra buck in their pocket. On the back panel is going to be awful for usability regardless of if it's a dongle plugged into port or built directly into the IO panel.If it is in the desktop chipset not just the laptop one, i'd be shocked if it shows up on anything other than a few embedded boards as an alternative to an incase USB port.
boe - Thursday, May 17, 2018 - link
I was really hoping they'd have a LOT more PCIe lanes and no chipset 4 lane restriction. Why can't intel show some love to gamers and IT people with lots of cards.gsuburban - Thursday, May 17, 2018 - link
It appears the Z390 isn't much different than the Z370. The added 6 USB 3.1 v2 ports and the Wi-Fi isn't enough to make it "the Chipset" to have. Seems like Intel is really milking the cow (the public) for each little feature within a chipset vs. a completely new chipset offering as they had years back. The settle changes are now not worth the cost to move from Z270 to the 300 chipsets in my opinion. Unless folks believe a minimum of $600 to $800 for a hardware change for very little performance increase is worthy, stay with the 100 or 200 Chipsets. Especially with the fact that you will be left with perfectly good hardware left over. Hardly boils down to much value in doing so.