Quote Originally Posted by crash5s View Post
I don't see what the outrage is. X79 is a workstation/server platform. You really don't need it and shouldn't be bothering with it for desktops. I honestly prefer server platforms be a bit behind the curve and get things latter as there is more time for validation. I don't care if my desktops and laptops at work catch fire and immolate, they are desktops, I do care if something goes wrong with a server. I don't care about the latest whizbang features, I want stability, stability, stability, stability, you get the point?

I agree they should segment it, and simply remove overclocking and all the other "gaming, main stream" sort of features from the server platform. It's a pain in the ass, what I want out of a server doesn't really mesh with "enthusiast" at all.

Out of my list of gripes with x79, this wouldn't even rate. Lack of native SAS is far more obnoxious.
Don't need it? This is XtremeSystems, not Have-Enough-Computer-To-Only-Meet-My-Needs-Systems. Most of us don't need half of the hardware we have. Should I settle for the mainstream platform's lousy PCI-E lane and CPU core count, and pitufilly low memory capacity because I don't need it? Of course not! Personally, I actually need the increased PCI-E lane count to run multiple graphics adapters and multiple RAID cards and the increased memory capacity is very handy. Even if I could make do with less, I want the best and I'm willing to pay for it. Is there a good reason why a server part like the E5-2687W can't do double duty? An unlocked E5-2687W would serve both the server market and the high end enthusiast market. For the asking price of the CPU, there is no reason why the multiplier should be locked at all. A server system will not even see the unlocked nature of the chip nor allow any adjustment, so there is no danger in using an unlocked CPU in a server motherboard. Only two boards on the market right now would actually allow a multiplier increase, and it's not likely that they'd end up in a server.

Validation is a requirement in a server product, yes. While I don't like waiting for new technology, I agree that there are inherent benefits to using a mainstream platform for validation and then releasing a server variant after. However, a fully functional enthusiast CPU based on the latest technology that is released six months ahead of the server variant would allow Intel to have a great deal of validation and bug finding done by enthusiasts, who are keen on pushing a new platform to its limits. We use all sorts of hardware and software in all sorts of weird configurations that probably aren't even considered at Intel. We could be an invaluable resource and allow Intel to produce even more robust products. Instead Intel has taken to treating us with little to no respect and even outright contempt. They deny us their best products and sell us defective crap, have twice forced upgrades down our throat (lack of G1 SSD TRIM support and now this) and assume we'll always be there to throw money at them. Intel turned over a new leaf and showed how friendly and decent they can be when AMD was going toe-to-toe with them during the P4/A64 era. Back then I was rejoicing that Intel had finally seen the light and would stop acting ignorant and arrogant. Unfortunately, the new leaf turned right back over when AMD fell behind, and now there's a rock on that leaf...