Search results

where is the bracket listed?

Looks like your correct, it has the EEB mounting holes on there. the dominus is just oversized an extra inch width wise and two inches height wise. The extra space doesn’t use any extra mounting holes... I would seriously put some spacers there, don’t want to be flexing a £1500 board.

I hoping to future proof with the bracket, I thought it was needed for SSI EEB also?

Also we have no reference to what 7nm means for Intel, again marketing fudging the numbers exactly what the other foundries are doing... this is common practice unfortunately.

Intel reps don’t have up to date information, 10nm is shipping with HEDP/Server parts in validation... this was still the case 6 months ago. It’s the validation causing the issues.

Do we have any details regarding the EATX bracket that will fit the Dominus board, I think it’s also needed for EATX-EEB.

150c with 10 year minimum life, with little to no degradation in function and performance isn’t willy nilly...

Not sure where you got your facts from, the issue Intel is having is validation, the passing criteria is intentionally very strict. The other foundries are shipping willy nilly because the parts are consumer validated not server/datacenter, automotive etc... Im not even going to mention node...

The original rumour is from SA if I remember correctly.

Fake news, its well known semiaccurate has an issue with Intel. Like I said before, at these nodes you cant compare the sizes as each manufacturer measures differently, some nodes from the same manufacturer are the same yet they change the size for marketing i.e. Samsung 14LPP vs 11LPP for...

Rroff you are right, these are simply variations of the same problem. All CPU architectures will have the same issue in one way or another and to varying degree's (I don't care if AMD, ARM, IBM say other wise), the basic base design is the same as there is a finite way a basic CPU can be...

System builders got the entire first batch, for the rest of us its 2-3 months wait.

Its impossible to make power comparisons between two completely different architectures, way to many variables involved. Given the target audience of this product, power draw shouldn't even be a consideration... this is only the beginning it will be commen place in the next 12-24 months for...

Think of the power draw as the top level (this is way over simplified) i.e. what starts at the power headers, you then have loses in the traces, VRM's, pins, LGA package etc... until it reaches the CPU die (every step has resistance), some power is used by the CPU the rest is just heat which...

Yes that's correct, its basically the total heat generated by the CPU however I need to stress it is for stock operation. For Intel stock turbo yes its applicable, the turbo frequencies are completely tied to the TDP as to never exceed it. For all core turbo (which is nothing to do with Intel...

Monolithic does will disappear, the next gen Xeon is allready done with them. Also same for NVidia, they have designs but no silicone. Availability is at least another month away, just to be clear the boutique vendors are getting the majority of the CPU’s and boards, you may have to wait a few...

Boards are £1500 inc VAT. Also the TDP listed on CPU’s is for stock clocks ignoring any turbo frequencies.

They go to OEM’s first for testing/validation typically 6-12 months before retail.

Server parts come out first because they provide the quickest and largest ROI, yes they are the most difficult to get working and validate however Intel can afford this approach as once you have it done it’s plain sailing with the rest of the dies. Production actually starts with ring...

Totally depends on the design and what is being produced... My problem with EUV is that its only a stop-gap solution, you have dozen's of other issues to worry about when you get to <5nm