The 5930k is poised to cost quite a chunk more than the 4930k does now.
I seem to recall some one saying around £480.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
This is bad for multi GPUs - Intel Core i7-5820K Features Fewer PCI-Express Lanes After All
- Thread starter Kaapstad
- Start date
The 5930k is poised to cost quite a chunk more than the 4930k does now.
I seem to recall some one saying around £480.
Associate
- Joined
- 28 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 2,174
- Location
- Behind you
I don't need to upgrade for a while then
My mobo runs my cards both at x16 and is 2 and half years old LOL.
My mobo runs my cards both at x16 and is 2 and half years old LOL.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 15 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 3,417
Percentage of people running more then 2 GPU's is slim and people who buy this CPU are buying it because they can't afford it's bigger brother, and if they can't afford it's big brothers then they can't afford more then 2 GPU's.
My 2 pence
My 2 pence
I don't need to upgrade for a while then
PCI-E 3.0 hacked to run or do you get issues?
Can they afford AV?
Percentage of people running multiple GPUs in X79 = huge.
It's very rare you see a X79 'budget build'.
You don't need to hack it, X79 with SB-E was the platform that introduced PCI-E 3.0, Because it was a new standard though a couple of mobo manufacturers did have issues, as a result AMD enable it by default and you have to disable it yourself if you have issues, Nvidia disable it by default and you can enable it if you wish.
I'm running a 4.5GHz 4930K with 4x8GB sticks of DDR3 and a single GTX780, because that's how I roll!
PCI-E 3.0 is NOT officially supported on SB-E because it was released before the official PCI-E 3.0 spec was finalised and there are supposedly timing differences/issues, whether you will suffer issues relating to it is unknown but Intel backtracked and stopped advertising them as PCI-E 3.0 and NVidia saw fit to limit their GPU's to 2.0 for stability reasons. AMD didn't act but that's nothing new and just reaffirms that they're a tinpot outfit.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Jul 2012
- Posts
- 16,158
- Location
- London
So why does a GTX 690 run by default @PCI-E 3.0 on SB-E.
I'm sure on these new boards (X99) possibly even X79? that you can disable the CPU lanes through the bios and use the mainboards. I'm positive that even with the 28 lanes on a 5820k, you can use workstation boards (not sure which yet) that have lane extenders like they did on some X79's.
Current Haswell (4770k/4790k) only has 16 lanes.
Wrong, the USD cost between 4930k and 5930k is no different.
GBP price will be higher as pound has being weakening all week, but Intel are not to blame for exchange rates.
Last edited:
Wrong, the USD cost between 4930k and 5930k is no different.
GBP price will be higher as pound has being weakening all week, but Intel are not to blame for exchange rates.
Thanks for confirming that gibbo
Last edited by a moderator:
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Sep 2011
- Posts
- 12,883
- Location
- Surrey
Told yah 
Q What is a GTX 690
A It is two GTX 680s on the same PCB
Q If That is the case why does the GTX 680 not run @native PCI-E 3.0
A Lack of effort and interest by NVidia
The two GPUs on a GTX 690 also talk to each other using PCI-E 3.0 as well as the card talking to the outside world at native 3.0
Worse still why does the Titan and all other NVidia cards that came after the GTX 690 need the hack to run lol.
Very sloppy work there NVidia or is it just laziness.
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Sep 2011
- Posts
- 12,883
- Location
- Surrey
This basically, they ran out of time and the spec wasn't validated. You can blame big vendors for this as Intel was working for a pre Christmas shipment and had already been delayed due to issues with the native SATA controller. To be honest, I'm amazed x79 has lasted this long considering the state it was released.
Long live x79
Last edited:
This basically, they ran out of time and the spec wasn't validated. You can blame big vendors for this as Intel was working for a pre Christmas shipment and had already been delayed due to issues with the native SATA controller. To be honest, I'm amazed x79 has lasted this long considering the state it was released.
Long live x79
I have a strange feeling that X79 is still going to be the system for benching in 3 months time.
If Haswell-E clocks worse than the average 4770k it is not going to be good, I hope I am wrong.
