I've not seen a 1366 ITX board yet, but have seen the 1156 ones that you mentioned.
Why would it be pointless to go 1156? What are you planning on using the computer for?
Most tests show that the 1366 series has narrow advantages over the 1156, and that triple channel memory does not show significant benefits for most users (fractional, usually). I believe the one clear advantage is the PCIE lanes, of which you would not take advantage if you were using ITX, which typically has only one PCIE slot.
Up to you, but I don't think you'd have any issues with something like an i5 750 and an ITX board. I guess it depends on what you plan on doing. If you need more slots/horsepower, I think you'll have to go mATX
Hmmm....what do you mean by PCIe lanes. Talking about using PCIe graphics cards as general processing units to pick up the slack from processors... or simply joining cards for enhanced graphics processing?
If 1366 is really that marginal then might just get 1156. Would have the get an 800 series i7. The 1156 i7 cost the same as the 1366 i7...so bit painful to buy a chip with less functionality for the same price.
Will be using it for advanced database work (where the system / page file / data are all split over 3 separate velociraptors) and will also be using for high end gaming, so will be bolting on a £200 Nvidia card into the PCIe slot (breadown of Nvidia cards around this mark would be appreciated).
The database work i do is not processor intensive but is more memory intensive, so thought triple channel would be better. But will soon fill up the 8gb of DDR3 i plan on installing, and spill over on the page / temp drive (which will prob be a solid state drive). Only prob is that it is a 32 bit app, so will only recognise 4gb ram, leaving the other 4gb for windows and other tasks
Honestly, most benchmarks I have seen do not show significant improvement from the i7 860 vs the i5 750. The big case I could see a benefit would be the use of hyper-threading, so more operations could go on at once - usually in video rendering/encoding.
Any reason for nvidia graphics? Are you going to be doing work with CUDA? The ATI offerings right now are quite good and use less power and heat when they idle.
I think most ITX boards have only 2 slots for RAM, so if you go for 8GB, you'll be using 4GB modules - not cheap (you're looking at $300-$400 for memory alone).
If you're going to have 3 velociraptor drives, have you thought of getting SSDs? Also, how will you all fit those in the ITX form factor?
Are you sure you might not want to go mATX? It may give you more room for what you are doing - there are some pretty small/slim cases in the mATX space too.
I'm new here, but thought I should chime in on this one. Is there a specific reason for trying to build a super small PC? Because from my experience, a giant graphics card gives off quite a bit of heat, and would probably heat up your tiny case very quickly. Not to mention my memories of cutting out pieces of metal from the harddrive bay to fit a card into even a "larger" mid size case. Just trying to give fair warning, and am curious to find out why you're building a tiny powerhouse.
triple channel memory does not show significant benefits for most users (fractional, usually).
Is that at the same Clock speed? I'm of the Opion that all new PC's should have Tripple Channel ram. Not only is it 50% wider buss, but that the clock speed is double with out OC the ram. (1333 H55 vs 2200+ X85a)
Not overclocking the ram seems to be a must in most itx (tiny) cases.
Would be sweet to build a Media center pc that would support 1366, so I could build a small super system that would run a 6 core 980x,( Why no 6 core procs or Hyperthreading Procs for 1156 socket anyway?), or lesser with HT proc, with ability to support either hybrid sli/ crossfire, having at least a 16x pci-e slot & on board graphics, either using a modified server or modify a regular 700 + watt power supply with perhaps vesa mount to attach to say a 32" or greater 1080p hdtv set it to multitask also a challenge would to find an OC able mini itx mobo that would support, ddr3 2000+ speed, but alas, we can all dream can't we? ~ firstname.lastname@example.org
I appreciate this post. I, too, have been considering a Mini ITX build.
Size is the main restraining factor in this build. It doesn't have to be super light weight, just cannot be too bulky. The linked Lian Li is too long for my plans.
I only need one hard drive on the system and I am thinking about using a PCI Express x4 SSD.
Would it be better to get a PCI express 2.0 x16 lane slot so that future SSD's at higher bandwidth could be upgraded down the road? Is there a clear cut way of determining whether the x16 slots are only capable of being used with video?
I also need at least one serial port, yes the old technology, but would prefer to have two. I also would prefer PS/2 connections for the keyboard and mouse. Depending on these two factors, however, I would need 1 to 5 USB ports. Either way, having up to 6 USB ports would be great. I don't need any more than 6 USB ports.
Onboard graphics would be sufficient. If/when I need additional displays, it would be preferable to add them via a hot swap device like USB (literature I have read states that VGA(~d sub 15) is NOT hot swappable/pluggable) -- but whether I would need USB 3.0 to handle the video bandwidth is another question...
Also, I don't NEED audio, so if that could be skimped, perhaps it would save cost...but I think sound is one of the basics built into all nonserver mobos.
I want to put one of the more powerful Intel CPU's in there but I had not compared the 1156 to the 1366.
From what I have looked at with the 1366, the maximum memory bandwidth is 25.6 GB/s with the Core i7 980 x and the i7 950.
Does this mean that if you had memory bandwidth in your RAM in excess of this amount that it would be hindered?
I haven't found the PCI Express Configurations for the i7 980 or i7 950, but do the 1156 or 1366 CPU's have a more direct connection(hardware layout-wise) than traditional motherboards?
I am not sure which RAM to go with. None of the i7's support ECC on RAM; so, does this rule out RIMM's and UDIMM's?
I also want to have at least 4 GB of RAM...but whether I go more than 4 GB is contingent upon how the excess would be handled.
I wouldn't need SATA, or IDE(EIDE/ATA) for that matter, but most boards come with SATA. If I have an adapter (clip) to turn an internal SATA port into an eSATA port, will it work with the newer SATA 6 Gbps? Will it work at the higher speed or will the adapter's (lower?)standard(I think it is SATA 3.0 Gbps) be imposed? If it operates at
Another nicety would be a single firewire port for an isosynchronous connection.
Also nice would be USB 3.0. As mentioned above with supplemental hot-pluggable video, it could improve video bandwidth. Also, to avoid any compatibility issues with eSATA, it might be preferable to use for connecting external HD's/flash drives. This is thinking ahead for when I upgrade to USB 3.0 flash drives and/or SATA 6 Gbps HDD's, though.
I do not need room for mounting optical/magneto optical drives, as I will use a USB to IDE/SATA adapter to connect my CD/DVD drive.
Seeing as there are adapter cards including both USB 3.0 and eSATA, I could put off including either in the motherboard....but perhaps because of limited number of PCI slots it would be better to have them.
I have quite a few questions: with XP Pro 32 bit when more than 4 GB is present in a system that has hardware support for more than 4 GB, what occurs?
Does the excess RAM (beyond the recognition of the OS) lie stationary or is the excess "free" for any application to use it?
Can two operating systems run at once on a single system (NOT one WITHIN the other as in virtual/emulated OS's) in a single core, single CPU system? in a multicore system? in a single core, multi CPU system? in a multi core multi CPU system?
If I cannot utilize more than 4 GB, then the two choices I see would be four 1 GB RAM chips, preferably in quad channel (which doesn't exist? the ones I have seen claiming "quad" are two dual channels...) or two 2 GB RAM chips in dual channel.
The advantage I perceive from multi(dual, tri, quad??) channel RAM is that there are more traces (wider bandwidth) for the RAM to operate at.
Thus, in either of these two options I do not perceive a need for triple channel RAM. However, this would change if more than 4 GB could be utilized by the OS or apps...