Now why can't desktop motherboards have the same IO panel layout with all the USBs, instead of a bajillion display outputs nobody's ever gonna use? I'd happily pay a few extra bucks more for a board with outputs I'll actually use. Even better, go with quad-stack USB 3.0 A-type connectors as used on e.g. the MAXIMUS IX FORMULA and MSI Z97 MPOWER and you have space to fit the damn display connectors, if they're so bloody necessary.
But I guess blingy LEDs, "gaming-optimised" network chips and "audio isolation" snake oil are more important than useful connectivity to most.
There are at least a few AM4 motherboard's without display output capabilities. The Asus Crosshair VI Hero and Asrock X370 Taichi / Fatal1ty Professional Gaming boards for instance don't have video output's.
Most people at this price point aren't going to be purchasing APUs to power that type of motherboard and will usually have a spare video card, or more, lying around. The only time I buy motherboards with multiple display options, is for family members when I'm footing the build bill.
Interesting that C422 motherboards list official support for Windows 7. X299 motherboards provide Windows 7 drivers, but don't officially claim Windows 7 support. So does Skylake-W and C422 have full support from Microsoft with Windows 7 security updates until Windows 7 EOL in 2020 or is Microsoft going to block Skylake-W and C422 from Windows 7 security updates after-all despite Intel claiming Windows 7 is a supported configuration?
Microsoft blocks Windows 7 updates on all cpu's post Skylake so Skylake X and W will not get updates. And a chipset having Windows 7 support means theres drivers available for that OS.
.....and why can't desktop CPU's maximize CACHE instead of maximizing core counts at the expense of cache?
I'd like to see single and multi thread performance AND cache optimized up to the maximum die size allowance
Instead of gimping the L3 to 1.75MB on the Xeon-W, how about maximizing L1/L2 and L3 up to maybe 8 or 10 cores and then go back to gimping anything over 10 cores?
Start with 4MB L3 per core and see if they sell
How about 8MB if you share it with graphics?
I'd like to see performance maximized for the cores we can actually use instead of gimping the clocks and cache to maximize the core count
I don't need 36 threads under 2Ghz I need 8-16 threads (4-8 cores) @ 4+ Ghz
Well, if I remember correctly, with the latest batch of processors Intel did some serious rebalancing of the cache sizes, and this was done based on usage patterns.
As for a CPU for you - the W-2145 is 8 cores/16 threads @ 3.7 ghz base. I don't think you'll get 4.0+ ghz on all cores though, as the Xeons are locked with regards to their clock speeds, and the thermals would probably start to get rather high with 8 cores running at 4.0+ ghz.
Of course, you could just go Threadripper. 8 cores/16 threads and capable of 4.0ghz on 8 cores. Plus a lot of cache. Plus more PCIe lanes.
I'd be interested in seeing Intel bring back socketed desktop processors with 128MB L4 eDRAM after flirting with them with Broadwell. Intel deliberately designing low core count, large L2/L3 cache variant dies seems unlikely, but offering some variants with large on-package eDRAM caches should be economically and commercially viable.
indeed horrible PCI-e layout, Intel screwing as usual, this is the issue with Market domination. Pushing solutions as they seem to fit. THis is all over the place from Laptop to datacenter Intel telling OEM what and how to use there products or else get consequences.
LOL, "bridged the gap between consumer and enterprise platforms once again making cross-compatibility easier."
Bridging the gap my ass. Exactly the opposite is what they've done: They made sure that nothing is cross-compatible by separating the platforms widely and now shoved in something in between. I can only hope the hole strategy flops and sanity (or AMD) takes over. This is totally FUBAR.
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
15 Comments
Back to Article
The_Assimilator - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link
Now why can't desktop motherboards have the same IO panel layout with all the USBs, instead of a bajillion display outputs nobody's ever gonna use? I'd happily pay a few extra bucks more for a board with outputs I'll actually use. Even better, go with quad-stack USB 3.0 A-type connectors as used on e.g. the MAXIMUS IX FORMULA and MSI Z97 MPOWER and you have space to fit the damn display connectors, if they're so bloody necessary.But I guess blingy LEDs, "gaming-optimised" network chips and "audio isolation" snake oil are more important than useful connectivity to most.
Ro_Ja - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link
You'd want your pc to be usable as much as possible if your graphics card broke for example.For AM4's case however, it may look like it's worthless but it's because A12 CPUs are compatible with the current AM4 motherboard.
caqde - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link
There are at least a few AM4 motherboard's without display output capabilities. The Asus Crosshair VI Hero and Asrock X370 Taichi / Fatal1ty Professional Gaming boards for instance don't have video output's.Fujikoma - Wednesday, August 30, 2017 - link
Most people at this price point aren't going to be purchasing APUs to power that type of motherboard and will usually have a spare video card, or more, lying around. The only time I buy motherboards with multiple display options, is for family members when I'm footing the build bill.ltcommanderdata - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link
Interesting that C422 motherboards list official support for Windows 7. X299 motherboards provide Windows 7 drivers, but don't officially claim Windows 7 support. So does Skylake-W and C422 have full support from Microsoft with Windows 7 security updates until Windows 7 EOL in 2020 or is Microsoft going to block Skylake-W and C422 from Windows 7 security updates after-all despite Intel claiming Windows 7 is a supported configuration?Error415 - Tuesday, October 3, 2017 - link
Microsoft blocks Windows 7 updates on all cpu's post Skylake so Skylake X and W will not get updates. And a chipset having Windows 7 support means theres drivers available for that OS.Bullwinkle J Moose - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link
.....and why can't desktop CPU's maximize CACHE instead of maximizing core counts at the expense of cache?I'd like to see single and multi thread performance AND cache optimized up to the maximum die size allowance
Instead of gimping the L3 to 1.75MB on the Xeon-W, how about maximizing L1/L2 and L3 up to maybe 8 or 10 cores and then go back to gimping anything over 10 cores?
Start with 4MB L3 per core and see if they sell
How about 8MB if you share it with graphics?
I'd like to see performance maximized for the cores we can actually use instead of gimping the clocks and cache to maximize the core count
I don't need 36 threads under 2Ghz
I need 8-16 threads (4-8 cores) @ 4+ Ghz
Got anything for ME?
bill.rookard - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link
Well, if I remember correctly, with the latest batch of processors Intel did some serious rebalancing of the cache sizes, and this was done based on usage patterns.As for a CPU for you - the W-2145 is 8 cores/16 threads @ 3.7 ghz base. I don't think you'll get 4.0+ ghz on all cores though, as the Xeons are locked with regards to their clock speeds, and the thermals would probably start to get rather high with 8 cores running at 4.0+ ghz.
Of course, you could just go Threadripper. 8 cores/16 threads and capable of 4.0ghz on 8 cores. Plus a lot of cache. Plus more PCIe lanes.
Jhlot - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link
Intel beats Threadripper single core performance by as much as 20% looking at https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.htmlIan Cutress - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link
You could use AnandTech's own benchmark database. http://www.AnandTech.com/benchduploxxx - Wednesday, August 30, 2017 - link
so? what cage are you coming from?glad there are 15 more cores to worry about....
ltcommanderdata - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link
I'd be interested in seeing Intel bring back socketed desktop processors with 128MB L4 eDRAM after flirting with them with Broadwell. Intel deliberately designing low core count, large L2/L3 cache variant dies seems unlikely, but offering some variants with large on-package eDRAM caches should be economically and commercially viable.RedGreenBlue - Tuesday, August 29, 2017 - link
I got 99 problems but crippled PCI bandwidth aint one. - Epycduploxxx - Wednesday, August 30, 2017 - link
indeed horrible PCI-e layout, Intel screwing as usual, this is the issue with Market domination. Pushing solutions as they seem to fit. THis is all over the place from Laptop to datacenter Intel telling OEM what and how to use there products or else get consequences.Daniel Egger - Wednesday, August 30, 2017 - link
LOL, "bridged the gap between consumer and enterprise platforms once again making cross-compatibility easier."Bridging the gap my ass. Exactly the opposite is what they've done: They made sure that nothing is cross-compatible by separating the platforms widely and now shoved in something in between. I can only hope the hole strategy flops and sanity (or AMD) takes over. This is totally FUBAR.