Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Is there a Z68 version withOUT on-board graphic

Last response: in Motherboards
Share
April 3, 2011 3:34:22 PM

I guess, as a hardcore gamer, on-board graphics is big no-no. As such, I wonder if Z68 is truly a chipset for enthusiasts, is there a version WITHOUT the on-board graphic that we can look forward to?
a c 716 V Motherboard
April 3, 2011 4:15:25 PM

Short answer nope, only the P67 is discrete graphics. The Z68 adds the ability to OC with improved Turbo Boost similar to that of the P67, but with onboard VGA like the H67.

Therefore, either get a P67 now or wait for the LGA 2011/X68 SB.

m
0
l
April 3, 2011 5:11:59 PM

Alecela, the point of the Z68 motherboard chipset is to be able to use both the CPUs (central processing unit's, aka processor's) built-in GPU (graphics processing unit), a unique feature of the LGA 1155 Sandy Bridge processors and discrete GPU card(s), while being able to overclock your CPU by increasing your CPU clock multiplier and (I think) overclock your GPU (or was it system memory), as well.

Beyond the P67 chipset, the Z68 chipset makes it possible to use the CPU's built-in GPU for a big deal thing called Quick Sync.

With 3rd party Lucid Virtu software (which will hopefully be included with all Z68 boards (otherwise what's the point, really), you can use discrete GPU for gaming and built-in CPU's GPU for Quick Sync's superior video encoding/decoding (much faster and better than a discrete GPU could today), while saving power to boot, on the fly.

Motherboards in the past added "on-board video" directly on the motherboard, separate from the CPU. Sometimes they were a pain to deactivate in the BIOS and would interfere with discrete video cards, which enthusiasts would tend to purchase and install separately anyway.

Sandy Bridge "on-board video" is different and is really on-CPU video. Not the best gaming option, but unmatched right now for video encoding/decoding. Video editors will benefit greatly from it. It's fast and doesn't change the final output video like nVidia's CUDA- and ATI's Stream-accelerated discrete GPU processing does.

So in that sense, Z68 is the ultimate enthusiast chipset for LGA1155, and the one I'm waiting for, which should be out sometime in May 2011. I just hope the boards that come out aren't stripped and/or buggy. I only use 1 discrete GPU (as opposed to SLI or Crossfire), but I do like my motherboards to be capable and reliable.

If you don't want an LGA 1155-compatible motherboard to have these on-board video connections, use a board with the P67 chipset (B3 revision). There aren't as many to choose from right now due to the supply still catching up with demand after the recall and correction of the SATA II problem with the chipsets, but technically the P67 boards are out and on sale already.

Your other option would be to wait for the LGA 2011 processors/motherboards coming out towards the end of the year 2011. It depends on how soon you want to do the build.
m
0
l
Related resources
April 4, 2011 2:56:21 AM

jaquith said:
Short answer nope, only the P67 is discrete graphics. The Z68 adds the ability to OC with improved Turbo Boost similar to that of the P67, but with onboard VGA like the H67.

Therefore, either get a P67 now or wait for the LGA 2011/X68 SB.

http://i1013.photobucket.com/albums/af254/Jaquith/Build_Chart_Q1-2011-1.jpg


Thanks. The oc potential of the 2600k & 2500k is what attracts me to a new rig. (ok, the old one is showing her age!) As such I was just wondering if it's worth waiting for the Z68 or should I just go ahead w/ the P67B3. So far I've heard of the extreme difficulty w/ oc'ing the FSB (sorry for the lack of better terms as they're constantly changing!) but I wonder if that's a limited by the chipset or the CPU itself. I guess I only have another month or so to find out.

LGA 2011/X68 is a bit of an unknown to me for my prime reason stated above...
m
0
l
April 4, 2011 3:03:14 AM

markmywords said:
Alecela, the point of the Z68 motherboard chipset is to be able to use both the CPUs (central processing unit's, aka processor's) built-in GPU (graphics processing unit), a unique feature of the LGA 1155 Sandy Bridge processors and discrete GPU card(s), while being able to overclock your CPU by increasing your CPU clock multiplier and (I think) overclock your GPU (or was it system memory), as well.

Beyond the P67 chipset, the Z68 chipset makes it possible to use the CPU's built-in GPU for a big deal thing called Quick Sync.

With 3rd party Lucid Virtu software (which will hopefully be included with all Z68 boards (otherwise what's the point, really), you can use discrete GPU for gaming and built-in CPU's GPU for Quick Sync's superior video encoding/decoding (much faster and better than a discrete GPU could today), while saving power to boot, on the fly.

Motherboards in the past added "on-board video" directly on the motherboard, separate from the CPU. Sometimes they were a pain to deactivate in the BIOS and would interfere with discrete video cards, which enthusiasts would tend to purchase and install separately anyway.

Sandy Bridge "on-board video" is different and is really on-CPU video. Not the best gaming option, but unmatched right now for video encoding/decoding. Video editors will benefit greatly from it. It's fast and doesn't change the final output video like nVidia's CUDA- and ATI's Stream-accelerated discrete GPU processing does.

So in that sense, Z68 is the ultimate enthusiast chipset for LGA1155, and the one I'm waiting for, which should be out sometime in May 2011. I just hope the boards that come out aren't stripped and/or buggy. I only use 1 discrete GPU (as opposed to SLI or Crossfire), but I do like my motherboards to be capable and reliable.

If you don't want an LGA 1155-compatible motherboard to have these on-board video connections, use a board with the P67 chipset (B3 revision). There aren't as many to choose from right now due to the supply still catching up with demand after the recall and correction of the SATA II problem with the chipsets, but technically the P67 boards are out and on sale already.

Your other option would be to wait for the LGA 2011 processors/motherboards coming out towards the end of the year 2011. It depends on how soon you want to do the build.


Thanks for the detailed response. Trouble is I have been building my own rig for over 10yrs now and never owned one w/ on-board graphics hence would be VERY reluctant to start this time. And I'm sure there're many enthaisiasts w/ similar mindsets like me. Having said that, I'm surprised to notice the general eager anticipation of Z68 chipset when I found out that it's got on-board graphics hence my original question.

As stated in my post above, the LGA 2011/X68 might be the right thing but it's just too far down the road and I'm itching to build! :-)
m
0
l
a c 716 V Motherboard
April 4, 2011 3:10:02 AM

I would go with the P67 unless you are looking at 3/4-WAY SLI/CF.

Correct BCLK OC is not a good idea with the non-K, OC the K is dirt simple: CPU Ratio eg 48 = 4.8GHz and a very small CPU Voltage increase. Frankly, to me it's too simple.

Go by the Building Chart and Enjoy :) 
m
0
l
a b V Motherboard
April 4, 2011 3:16:10 AM

If you've REALLY been building for over 10 years, why are you asking Jr HS Questions?
m
0
l
April 4, 2011 7:36:13 AM

marcellis22 said:
If you've REALLY been building for over 10 years, why are you asking Jr HS Questions?


This is really helpful & inspiring.
m
0
l
a c 716 V Motherboard
April 4, 2011 3:26:43 PM

Most people are very use to the BCLK and CPU being methods to OC, and up until just a few months ago with SB + LGA 1155 they'd be right. The LGA 1155 moved a lot of 'chipset' functions to the CPU, and few understand that the 100 MHz 'BCLK' {Base Frequency}. Fewer yet understand how the PCIe and SATA functions and that the Base Frequency OC essentially corrupts those components.

Very few people know about the Z68 which is why I put together the Building Chart. I often put the 'X68' in quotes because Intel loves to rename their stuff and next to no one knows about the 'X79' and its specs.

Forums are meant to be helpful :) 
m
0
l
April 4, 2011 4:19:20 PM

alecela said:
Thanks for the detailed response. Trouble is I have been building my own rig for over 10yrs now and never owned one w/ on-board graphics hence would be VERY reluctant to start this time. And I'm sure there're many enthaisiasts w/ similar mindsets like me. Having said that, I'm surprised to notice the general eager anticipation of Z68 chipset when I found out that it's got on-board graphics hence my original question.

As stated in my post above, the LGA 2011/X68 might be the right thing but it's just too far down the road and I'm itching to build! :-)


Alecela, I know what you mean. I build every few years and it takes some research every time since computer trends change.

(I've even avoided using AS5 -Arctic Silver 5- between the CPU and heatsink, because I just don't want to have to reinstall a heatsink (in case AS5 won't last 5 years) until it's time to build a new system. I don't OC the CPU within an inch of it's life, anyway, though I got an A70 cooler now, so I may have to use AS5.)

I was reluctant about the built-in video when I heard about the 2nd gen i7, as well. But the more I learned about the brilliance of the Sandy Bridge (low temp, low power, 32nm architecture, FAAAAAST, high OC) and Quick Sync, the more excited I got about it (since I do video editing). It's built into the CPU so to me using "just" a P67 would be a wasted potential. And I wouldn't have to worry about disabling the built-in video- I'd be using it in a distributed computing way! Best of both worlds. I still think the idea of a 3rd party implementation of something so fundamental lacks a certain polish (for lack of a better word) and feels risky in terms of integrated computing, but the Virtu software appears very good and robust judging by tests so I'm willing to give it a try. It's actually quite a leap forward in computing. I do wish the software support for such distributed GPU processing between Quick Sync's built-in GPU and add-on card GPU would be built into the operating system, e.g. Windows 7 Service Pack 2, or better still into the BIOS/UEFI. But considering how much work gets put into anything like this, that's kind of an arrogant request, yet not unreasonable. Next step maybe if the right parties become motivated? In any case, the software I use for video editing (PD9U64) appears to support Quick Sync, as well, so I hope this works for me as well as I read and as well as I hope.

This may all be moot in the next generation of computing (for me likely around the year 2015) or even sooner, but right now, for my and many others' purposes, this appears to be the best bang-for-the-buck&volt by far!
m
0
l
April 6, 2011 10:08:36 PM

hey jaquith
nice table you 'made up'
where'd you get the info?
re: Z68 motherboards - your table seems to contradict other 'expert' predictions
do you know something we all should know?
am i missing the point?
m
0
l
a c 716 V Motherboard
April 7, 2011 2:22:58 PM

I've had other Experts look at it and scrutinize it many times, the benchmarks are what they are and are overlapping. You need to look carefully at the resolutions. The only thing that needs to be corrected is the X68 Q3-2011 -> Q4-2011 because of the P67/H67 fiasco.

Most people that are going to 3/4-WAY are running 5900± x 1080; running high-end GPUs 3/4-WAY for gaming on a std HD 1920 x 1080 is a waste. The H67's onboard have limited resolutions depending on the video port chosen, and the H67 shares both bandwidth and physical RAM.

If I said I wanted 3-WAY GTX 580 {$1,500} on a P55 then would it be smart to use 16 lanes or 32 lanes like the X58. The NF200 can have all sorts of PCIe lanes, but only 16 of them end up to the CPU.

The current Sandy Bridge uses more less the same architecture as the P55 with the PCIe now being processed on the CPU. The P67 is a consumer line and the soon to b released X68 and X79 are the extreme lines with a considerably more powerful Sandy Bridge 6/8-core & 6/8-HT or 6/6 or 8/8. Yep, with the recession Intel recently add a 4/4 to the LGA 2011 line.

RE: Z68 essentially is the 'same' as the H67 with then P67's CPU OC and improved Turbo Boost; in other words it's like a P67 with onboard GPU. Good source -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUgBNWtCsnk
m
0
l
April 8, 2011 10:34:26 AM

jaquith said:
I've had other Experts look at it and scrutinize it many times, the benchmarks are what they are and are overlapping. You need to look carefully at the resolutions. The only thing that needs to be corrected is the X68 Q3-2011 -> Q4-2011 because of the P67/H67 fiasco.

Most people that are going to 3/4-WAY are running 5900± x 1080; running high-end GPUs 3/4-WAY for gaming on a std HD 1920 x 1080 is a waste. The H67's onboard have limited resolutions depending on the video port chosen, and the H67 shares both bandwidth and physical RAM.

If I said I wanted 3-WAY GTX 580 {$1,500} on a P55 then would it be smart to use 16 lanes or 32 lanes like the X58. The NF200 can have all sorts of PCIe lanes, but only 16 of them end up to the CPU.

The current Sandy Bridge uses more less the same architecture as the P55 with the PCIe now being processed on the CPU. The P67 is a consumer line and the soon to b released X68 and X79 are the extreme lines with a considerably more powerful Sandy Bridge 6/8-core & 6/8-HT or 6/6 or 8/8. Yep, with the recession Intel recently add a 4/4 to the LGA 2011 line.

RE: Z68 essentially is the 'same' as the H67 with then P67's CPU OC and improved Turbo Boost; in other words it's like a P67 with onboard GPU. Good source -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUgBNWtCsnk

all very fancy – but your table still doesn’t reflect what seem to be the facts

looking at the table re: Z68

cpu – non-K, opt, K
you’re recommending a K processor as optional? – why would anyone put a non-K in an overclocking motherboard? a Z68 without a K is (i’m guessing) would be functionally similar to an H67 (with a K or a non-K) – except the Z68 will (eventually) be able to use an SSD cache

OC – cpu only
are you sure? most other opinions seem to think memory and igpu (and therefore quick sync) will have some level of oc

PCIe – x16
maybe correct for the Z68 PCH but not necessarily for Z68 motherboards (see link below)- i know you have explained this somewhat in your last post buy describing the NF200 but your table is still wrong – you should at least clarify this with a statement similar to Note4

GPU – Onboard (Recommended use is the onboard GPU, but can run single discrete GPU.)
you seem to be alone with this recommendation as most people are suggesting using the igpu AND one (or more) discrete gpu(s) WITH LucidLogix Virtu – as Linus says at about 3m30s into the video you linked “… it has sort of the best of both worlds”

8:00 AM - February 28, 2011 by Chris Angelini “To say I’m excited about Virtu is an understatement.”
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/lucidlogix-virtu-gp...

i think intel have made their position clear on this by announcing they will bundle Virtu with their first two Z68 boards

Z68 motherboards can support SLI and CrossFireX – maybe not x16/x16 but the table is still wrong

this link shows an unreleased motherboard which should do x16/x8 SLI or CrossFireX
http://news.softpedia.com/news/ASRock-Showcases-Intel-Z...

Single GPU – Optional (Recommended use is the onboard GPU, but can run single discrete GPU.)
Max SLI/ CF
Max SLI
Max CF
see ‘PCIe’ and ‘GPU’ above

Ideal Use – Desktop/HTPC
if a Z68 was configured with a non-K cpu using the igpu this would probably be true
but with a K cpu and a discrete gpu (what the majority seem to be recommending) it’s ideal use list should include ‘Typical Gaming’ (although in some cases this setup might loose HTPC from the list)
if you add Virtu to the mix it might also get an ‘Extreme En/Decoder’ badge

Resolution – <= 1920 x 1080
when using the igpu

i’m not expecting an extreme gaming experience but i don’t think you are giving a full and true picture of what will be available from Z68 motherboards

i’m waiting to see how the Z68 boards evolve – if I do get one i definitely won’t be following your recommendations when i configure it

anyway getting back to the original question – why would you not want the igpu? – when combined with Virtu it gives the best of both worlds with (in theory) seamless switching between a discrete gpu and the igpu (quick sync en/decode with appropriate software) as necessary

maybe you want to switch off the igpu to maximize the TDP of the cpu but for me the benefits of quick sync outweigh the extra TDP headroom
m
0
l
a c 716 V Motherboard
April 8, 2011 4:17:17 PM

meddyliwr said:
looking at the table re: Z68

1976791,13,864904 said:
cpu – non-K, opt, K
you’re recommending a K processor as optional? – why would anyone put a non-K in an overclocking motherboard? a Z68 without a K is (i’m guessing) would be functionally similar to an H67 (with a K or a non-K) – except the Z68 will (eventually) be able to use an SSD cache
said:


Both the H67/Z68 are typically underpowered platforms with limited Phase design, and are NOT geared to 12+2 or higher Phases; ideal for longterm high OC. Further, their design is with onboard video and in doing so are also not geared for gaming. As a Desktop they can be used for OC CPU computation, but few will choose an OC CPU for their work. Why do people add non-K to the P67?

Gaming 2600K vs 2500K - since games are typically blind to HT {Hyper-Threading} there's little point for the 2600K; clock per clock they yield the same results in FPS.

meddyliwr said:
OC – cpu only
are you sure? most other opinions seem to think memory and igpu (and therefore quick sync) will have some level of oc

Since the 'igpu' is integrated in the CPU on the Z68 it's along for the ride. Further, that row is meant for the CPU OC & Turbo Boost description.

1976791,13,864904 said:
PCIe – x16
maybe correct for the Z68 PCH but not necessarily for Z68 motherboards (see link below)- i know you have explained this somewhat in your last post buy describing the NF200 but your table is still wrong – you should at least clarify this with a statement similar to Note4

RE: 'Note4' and I glanced at the links and I'm totally confused what you're asking me to clarify. However, you slice the PCIe the P67/H67/Z68 are all limited by the SB CPU's 16 lanes; meaning you can have 2 X NF200's with 32-lanes BUT those 32-lanes are >=funneled== to the CPU's 16-lanes. Whereas the X68/Z79 SB CPU's are 32-lanes native.

GPU – Onboard (Recommended use is the onboard GPU, but can run single discrete GPU.)
you seem to be alone with this recommendation as most people are suggesting using the igpu AND one (or more) discrete gpu(s) WITH LucidLogix Virtu – as Linus says at about 3m30s into the video you linked “… it has sort of the best of both worlds”

8:00 AM - February 28, 2011 by Chris Angelini “To say I’m excited about Virtu is an understatement.”
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/lucidlogix-virtu-gp...

i think intel have made their position clear on this by announcing they will bundle Virtu with their first two Z68 boards

Z68 motherboards can support SLI and CrossFireX – maybe not x16/x16 but the table is still wrong

this link shows an unreleased motherboard which should do x16/x8 SLI or CrossFireX
http://news.softpedia.com/news/ASRock-Showcases-Intel-Z...

Single GPU – Optional (Recommended use is the onboard GPU, but can run single discrete GPU.)
Max SLI/ CF
Max SLI
Max CF
see ‘PCIe’ and ‘GPU’ above
said:


LucidLogix Virtu is a power savings scheme, and in leagues with EPU-4 which saves power but too often also induces greater problems. One post with EPU-4 enabled almost ruined a CF by under powering them and setting off BIOS alarms as a component failure. The LucidLogix Virtu simply switches use between IGPU and discrete GPU - YEAH that's what I want & need during gaming. I'm an Enthusiast. The only valid argument is for Quick Sync.

There will be some non-standard built MOBOs, there always are, but you're still left with Shared Bandwidth and Shared Physical RAM; there's no way to turn these off other than limit shared memory. The CF only requires two x8/x8, some --> bad idea are x8/x4, and nVidia only requires a 'BIOS Key' with the same PCIe availability though nVidia smartly requires x8. Even with the LGA 1156/AM3 that did 'this' it never was a good idea. Again, if you want a CF/SLI LGA 1155 then do yourself a favor and get a P67!

I know Linus and Truby and we all share expensive X58 gaming rigs, and not H67/P67/etc. The "best of both worlds" comment is directly aimed at the H67 vs Z68. Unlike Linus who won't say anything negative about any platform -- I'm not getting PAID to sell you on anything -- otherwise where's my checks {$}?!? If I'm getting paid then I'll figure-out some crap to tell you to get any platform. ;) 

meddyliwr said:
Ideal Use – Desktop/HTPC
if a Z68 was configured with a non-K cpu using the igpu this would probably be true
but with a K cpu and a discrete gpu (what the majority seem to be recommending) it’s ideal use list should include ‘Typical Gaming’ (although in some cases this setup might loose HTPC from the list)
if you add Virtu to the mix it might also get an ‘Extreme En/Decoder’ badge

Resolution – <= 1920 x 1080
when using the igpu


As I Clearly said, it depends upon the video out connection that you use and the resolutions it provides.
Multi-VGA Output Support: HDMI, DVI-D and D-SUB Ports
HDMI with Max. Resolution : 1920 X 1200 @60Hz
DVI with Max. Resolution : 1920 X 1200 @60Hz
D-SUB with Max. Resolution : 2048 X 1536 @75Hz

Gaming using the IGPU would be a painful and frustrating experience with standard HD 1920x1080 monitor even with details completely turned-off - 0xAA & 0xAF which is a miserable experience all by itself, you want a minimum FPS >25~30+ which the IGPU won't provide on most popular current games. Choppy + Blurry.

meddyliwr said:
i’m not expecting an extreme gaming experience but i don’t think you are giving a full and true picture of what will be available from Z68 motherboards

i’m waiting to see how the Z68 boards evolve – if I do get one i definitely won’t be following your recommendations when i configure it

I think you're giving the Z68 a completely wrong impression, and trying to make a silk purse out of a sows ear and looking though rose glasses.

meddyliwr said:
anyway getting back to the original question – why would you not want the igpu? – when combined with Virtu it gives the best of both worlds with (in theory) seamless switching between a discrete gpu and the igpu (quick sync en/decode with appropriate software) as necessary

maybe you want to switch off the igpu to maximize the TDP of the cpu but for me the benefits of quick sync outweigh the extra TDP headroom


Let me say it again, if your 'Goal' is to play Games then today, don't wait, get a P67 - period. If you're an Extreme Gamer looking for 3/4-WAY SLI/CF e.g. GTX 570/580+ then WAIT a few months for the X68. Extreme Gamers with high budgets - 'Get it' - and won't be throwing $1500~$2000+ of GPUs on any consumer architecture. There are extremes in any chipset or design, and in those cases you should weigh out all of the options and logically choose the smarter option; e.g. extreme Z68 vs typical P67 - if the goal is Gaming then choose the 'typical P67'. Extreme gaming is an expensive tier to obtain.

If you want to put $1000 of GTX 580's on a Z68 then go for it, and watch those same on a P67 run circles around you.

I don't care what people do with their money, I just care about what makes the most sense and yields the best possible benefit for myself or those that understand.
m
0
l
April 8, 2011 10:59:30 PM

jaquith said:
Both the H67/Z68 are typically underpowered platforms with limited Phase design, and are NOT geared to 12+2 or higher Phases; ideal for longterm high OC. Further, their design is with onboard video and in doing so are also not geared for gaming. As a Desktop they can be used for OC CPU computation, but few will choose an OC CPU for their work. Why do people add non-K to the P67?


Lolwat? That doesn't even make any sense. Why, would you even make an o.c. board if you can't use it? Of course, that must be exactly why most of the z68 boards shown at CeBIT were modified p67 boards...

btw...the Maximus IV is only 8 + 3 phase so obviously it's a terrible choice for overclocking.... :lol:  :lol: 
m
0
l
a c 716 V Motherboard
April 8, 2011 11:29:46 PM

^ :non:  The Maximus IV uses a doubled up high/low pair; essentially it's 16 + 3. MSI uses 'SFC' which are ~30%+ more efficient, so an 8~10+ SFC works fine.

You can OC a 4+1 to 5GHz -- the question is how long before the Phases burn out. Example {Typical Phases}: 4 -> 80% load; 8 -> 40% load ; 12 -> 27% load, etc.

m
0
l
April 8, 2011 11:54:48 PM

alecela said:
I guess, as a hardcore gamer, on-board graphics is big no-no. As such, I wonder if Z68 is truly a chipset for enthusiasts, is there a version WITHOUT the on-board graphic that we can look forward to?


Sorry I forgot to answer your question. The Z68 boards are what P67 boards should have been (o.c. plus on-board graphics) plus extras such as the new ssd caching feature (making it even better for gaming by using the ssd as a cache for the hdd). From what's been demonstrated so far it you will NOT be making any sacrifices at all by choosing it over the P67 boards. The price is even expected to be very close to the P67 pricing.

Honestly, from the way I see it, the Z68 boards will be replacing the P67 boards with the H67 boards staying as a lower/middle end alternative.

By the way, if your an "extreme gamer," then I guess you can wait to overpay for the "extreme" X68 boards coming out at the end of the year like the rest of the morons. Otherwise, It's way cheaper to update your pc every year or 2 on middling/high-end hardware such as the P67/Z68 platform then to splurge on "extreme" hardware that will give you barely-noticeable improvements.
m
0
l
April 9, 2011 12:07:39 AM

jaquith said:
^ :non:  The Maximus IV uses a doubled up high/low pair; essentially it's 16 + 3. MSI uses 'SFC' which are ~30%+ more efficient, so an 8~10+ SFC works fine.

You can OC a 4+1 to 5GHz -- the question is how long before the Phases burn out. Example {Typical Phases}: 4 -> 80% load; 8 -> 40% load ; 12 -> 27% load, etc.

http://www.bjorn3d.com/Material/revimages/motherboards/Asus_P8P67/feature15.jpg


So? How does that change what I said?

You suggested that you need at least 12+ phases which is wrong when better quality components are available. "Essentially" the Maximus IV is NOT a 16+3 board but it behaves like one.

And what's up with all the unnecessary spreadsheets and pictures? Do you think it makes you look cooler?
m
0
l
a c 716 V Motherboard
April 9, 2011 1:05:09 AM

Apparently, :lol:  :lol:  you think making LOL makes you 'smart' even when you're wrong. Frankly, the ASUS grid above was to stop nonsense Phase arguments at least on ASUS.

Actually, I never said anything about 'minimum' requirements for Phases; however, what I am/was saying is that most H67/Z68 have more limited Phases in comparison to the P67 counter parts. Absolutely, there are exceptions - the ORIGINAL context was the Building Chart.

You went off on some Phase tangent argument...
m
0
l
April 9, 2011 2:13:46 AM

jaquith said:
Apparently, :lol:  :lol:  you think making LOL makes you 'smart' even when you're wrong. Frankly, the ASUS grid above was to stop nonsense Phase arguments at least on ASUS.

Actually, I never said anything about 'minimum' requirements for Phases; however, what I am/was saying is that most H67/Z68 have more limited Phases in comparison to the P67 counter parts. Absolutely, there are exceptions - the ORIGINAL context was the Building Chart.

You went off on some Phase tangent argument...


Hahaha, are you mad? I put a little smiley in my post and your telling me how I think now?

Where am I wrong and where did I say I was smart?

What non-sense phase argument was I starting? I never said anything about the number of phases not being important if that's what you were referring to. I did however show that it's not the only number you should be looking at.

Where did I say you said anything about "minimum" (I didn't even use that word why are putting quotes on it?) requirements? I'm assuming your trying nitpick on my phrasing and I'm sorry you might feel the need to do that because you failed. I said you "suggested" needing a 12+ phase board. I did not say you said you plainly needed a 12+ phase board. I'm rather confused as to how you thought your little semantic arguments were going to work but if you try it again I'm just going to assume your retarded.

And your still wrong about "most" Z68 having a limited phase design in "comparison" to P67 boards as was my "ORIGINAL" context.
m
0
l
a c 716 V Motherboard
April 9, 2011 4:36:36 AM

First, I know exactly what 'lolwat' means, and I didn't appreciate your tone. Next, you're trying to use the 'Maximus IV is only 8 + 3' as you example to make your point. I already pointed-out the flaw in that argument.

The crazy comes from your repeated parroted statements, and more oddly how you're tangling in my statements.

To answer your statement/'question', "Why, would you even make an o.c. board if you can't use it?"

My analogous answer is it's like entering a Camry against a race car in the Le Mans endurance race - you can push the pedal to the floor - it won't finish the race running top speed, flat out, for a prolonged time its engine {Phases} will be throwing rods {burnt out}. Simpler, the MOBOs with lower phases aren't meant to be run at extremes with extreme loads and with extreme heat longterm. As I said, you most certainly can run a 4+1 @ 5GHz don't be shocked after a year or so when you press the power button -- and nothing.

So @ 5GHz WITH 4+1 vs vs 8+2 vs 12+2 vs 24 {UD7} AND 5 years => you tell me which will be running and what MOBO's will be in the trash heap.

This is what happens when you push too hard, and a MOBO with limited Phases goes poof:
Subtle:

Big time:
m
0
l
April 11, 2011 4:40:21 PM

are you trying to trick us with backyard science, photos and tables? (“pay no attention to that man behind the curtain”)

i’m not saying you know nothing – just you should stick to the facts and only comment on matters you are actually knowledgeable about
jaquith said:
Go by the Building Chart and Enjoy :) 

to everyone: PLEASE DO NOT GO BY THE BUILDING CHART – and don’t believe what i say either – do a bit of research and find the best fit for your needs

jaquith i suggest you re-read the thread title – the vast majority of people googling ‘Z68’ right now are going to be mislead by your table
jaquith said:
Forums are meant to be helpful :) 

something we agree on – but they need to be factual to be helpful
jaquith said:
I've had other Experts look at it and scrutinize it many times…

so you’re a self proclaimed ‘Expert’?
i found a previous post of yours from a couple of months ago with the same table – it attracted one reply – hardly scrutinisation and definitely no resounding endorsements for your recommendations
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/285590-30-tomshardwar...
jaquith said:
…the benchmarks…

what benchmarks? do you have benchmarks for the Z68 and the X68?! please link to them
jaquith said:
Most people that are going to 3/4-WAY are running 5900± x 1080; running high-end GPUs 3/4-WAY for gaming on a std HD 1920 x 1080 is a waste. The H67's onboard have limited resolutions depending on the video port chosen, and the H67 shares both bandwidth and physical RAM.

If I said I wanted 3-WAY GTX 580 {$1,500} on a P55 then would it be smart to use 16 lanes or 32 lanes like the X58. The NF200 can have all sorts of PCIe lanes, but only 16 of them end up to the CPU.

The current Sandy Bridge uses more less the same architecture as the P55 with the PCIe now being processed on the CPU. The P67 is a consumer line and the soon to b released X68 and X79 are the extreme lines with a considerably more powerful Sandy Bridge 6/8-core & 6/8-HT or 6/6 or 8/8. Yep, with the recession Intel recently add a 4/4 to the LGA 2011 line.

there’s no clear or concise argument here
this isn’t a thread about the best sli/cfx setup – your table shows ‘Max SLI/CF’ for the Z68 as ‘NA’ – that’s incorrect and could mislead or confuse people – i would fully endorse you saying ‘Not Recommended (NR)’ if that was your opinion but facts are facts
jaquith said:
The current Sandy Bridge uses more less the same architecture as the P55 with the PCIe now being processed on the CPU. The P67 is a consumer line and the soon to b released X68 and X79 are the extreme lines with a considerably more powerful Sandy Bridge 6/8-core & 6/8-HT or 6/6 or 8/8. Yep, with the recession Intel recently add a 4/4 to the LGA 2011 line.

how does this information relate to my claim that your table is incorrect regarding the Z68? firstly i have concerns that your table is not factual – secondly you keep comparing the Z68 ‘consumer’ with the X68 ‘extreme’ – can we keep to Z68 vs P67 vs H67
jaquith said:
…5900± x 1080…

lolwat! are you sure?
jaquith said:
RE: Z68 essentially is the 'same' as the H67 with then P67's CPU OC and improved Turbo Boost; in other words it's like a P67 with onboard GPU.

i prefer to look at the Z68 as a P67 + QuickSync (and ssd caching) – who’s glass is half full?
by the way Turbo Boost is controlled by the PCU which is on the same die as the cpu – it has nothing to do with the pch/chipset or motherboard
jaquith said:
Both the H67/Z68 are typically underpowered platforms with limited Phase design, and are NOT geared to 12+2 or higher Phases; ideal for long term high OC. ...

lolwat! you really don’t “’Get it’”

the number of phases has nothing to do with the pch/chipset – it’s up to the motherboard designers / marketeers to decide the number of phases

how do you know how many phases will be included on motherboards that haven’t been released yet (Z68)? what makes you think people designing Z68 boards would use a similar vrm design to a H67? why wouldn’t they use a similar vrm design to a P67? – you have NO WAY of knowing any of these things

now for a lesson on phases – you’ll be surprised at how little you really do know

well designed multiple phase vrm’s produce voltages that are fast reacting, clean and stable – this is a good thing

with multi-phase vrm’s the power is distributed across more ‘power transistors’

let’s look at a non-real world example and make the numbers simple for clarity

V = 10V; I = 1A; P = V x I = 10W

1 phase – the power transistors must rated to handle 10W
10 phases – the power transistors in each phase must be rated to handle 1W

some over-engineering headroom is built in and then a transistor package is chosen which is the closest fit (and cost) to our requirements

1 phase – we choose 20W transistors – headroom = 10W
10 phases – we choose 1.5W transistors – total headroom = 5W

which one should produce more stable voltages? the 10 phase vrm
which one is more likely to pop a transistor especially when you oc / over-volt? again it’s the 10 phase vrm

it’s the design of the vrm that counts not the number of phases

people who oc / over volt must actually understand what they are doing and use their motherboard within its specified limits

this link might help you understand a little but more
http://www.improbableinsights.com/2009/08/28/do-i-need-...
jaquith said:
Further, their design is with onboard video and in doing so are also not geared for gaming

Z68 + Virtu means the igpu isn’t used for gaming – a new version of Virtu can use the discrete gpu as default and only the igpu when ‘QuickSync enabled’ software is running – didn’t you know discrete gpu’s are very good for gaming?
jaquith said:
As a Desktop they can be used for OC CPU computation, but few will choose an OC CPU for their work

are you implying the only reason to overclock is for gaming? (and benchmarks?)
jaquith said:
Why do people add non-K to the P67?

i don’t know – you tell me, ‘Expert’
jaquith said:
Gaming 2600K vs 2500K - since games are typically blind to HT {Hyper-Threading} there's little point for the 2600K; clock per clock they yield the same results in FPS.

you seem to be confused – you are replying to a quote from me – i was trying to point out that with a Z68 motherboard a K (2500K or 2600K) would be a better choice than a your recommendation of a non-K (2500 or 2600) – this is because i believe a modest 24/7 overclock would be beneficial and the price difference isn’t prohibitive – it’s also a waste putting a non-K on a Z68 and you’d be better with a H67 (unless the SSD cache is a deal clincher for you) – you however have missed the point and shot off at a tangent about HT which is totally irrelevant
jaquith said:
Since the 'igpu' is integrated in the CPU on the Z68 it's along for the ride.

so we agree the igpu can be overclocked – why isn’t that in your table?
jaquith said:
Further, that row is meant for the CPU OC & Turbo Boost description.

lol – your table is ‘meant’ to be clear and factual
jaquith said:
RE: 'Note4' and I glanced at the links and I'm totally confused what you're asking me to clarify.

the information is a little bit technical in nature so i’m not surprised you are confused – the link shows an unreleased Z68 motherboard with “three PCI Express x16 slots, dual PCI-E x1 slots as well as a pair of regular PCI slots. Of the three PCI Express x16 slots available, only the first one works in x16 mode, the second running in x8 mode while the third has only four PCI-E lanes routed to it.” – essentially it is evidence your table is wrong
jaquith said:
However, you slice the PCIe the P67/H67/Z68 are all limited by the SB CPU's 16 lanes; meaning you can have 2 X NF200's with 32-lanes BUT those 32-lanes are >=funneled== to the CPU's 16-lanes. Whereas the X68/Z79 SB CPU's are 32-lanes native.

it might be limited but it is there so why doesn’t your table show that?
if the P67/H67/Z68 all have the same limitations why are the table entries different?
jaquith said:
LucidLogix Virtu is a power savings scheme, and in leagues with EPU-4 which saves power but too often also induces greater problems. One post with EPU-4 enabled almost ruined a CF by under powering them and setting off BIOS alarms as a component failure. The LucidLogix Virtu simply switches use between IGPU and discrete GPU - YEAH that's what I want & need during gaming. I'm an Enthusiast. The only valid argument is for Quick Sync.

power saving might be where Virtu originated but since Intel couldn’t provide gpu switching in hardware they invested in LucidLogix and Virtu found a niche and evolved – currently Virtu can use the discrete gpu as default so YOU would probably have to be stupid enough run ‘QuickSync enabled’ software whilst running a game to encounter any problems
jaquith said:
There will be some non-standard built MOBOs, there always are, but you're still left with Shared Bandwidth and Shared Physical RAM; there's no way to turn these off other than limit shared memory. The CF only requires two x8/x8, some --> bad idea are x8/x4, and nVidia only requires a 'BIOS Key' with the same PCIe availability though nVidia smartly requires x8. Even with the LGA 1156/AM3 that did 'this' it never was a good idea. Again, if you want a CF/SLI LGA 1155 then do yourself a favor and get a P67!

still no clear or concise argument – how does this make the P67 pch any better than the Z68 pch? if they are the same why does your table show them as being different?


hero…
jaquith said:
Good source -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUgBNWtCsnk

…to zero…
jaquith said:
I know Linus and Truby and we all share expensive X58 gaming rigs, and not H67/P67/etc. The "best of both worlds" comment is directly aimed at the H67 vs Z68. Unlike Linus who won't say anything negative about any platform -- I'm not getting PAID to sell you on anything -- otherwise where's my checks {$}?!? If I'm getting paid then I'll figure-out some crap to tell you to get any platform.

so Linus is only a ‘good source’ when he agrees with you? – are you implying his ‘expert’ opinion is sullied buy the lure of hard cash? are you saying he’s an advocate not an expert? are you saying Linus is not impartial!?? omg! (tongue in cheek)
and no, i would not pay you for your opinion
jaquith said:
As I Clearly said, it depends upon the video out connection that you use and the resolutions it provides.

jaquith said:
You need to look carefully at the resolutions.

is this the clear statement you are refering to? hardly ‘clear’ now is it?
jaquith said:

Multi-VGA Output Support: HDMI, DVI-D and D-SUB Ports
HDMI with Max. Resolution : 1920 X 1200 @60Hz
DVI with Max. Resolution : 1920 X 1200 @60Hz
D-SUB with Max. Resolution : 2048 X 1536 @75Hz

Gaming using the IGPU would be a painful and frustrating experience with standard HD 1920x1080 monitor even with details completely turned-off - 0xAA & 0xAF which is a miserable experience all by itself, you want a minimum FPS >25~30+ which the IGPU won't provide on most popular current games. Choppy + Blurry.

as i stated (maybe not clearly enough for you) –
igpu + discrete gpu + Virtu (with the discrete gpu as default) = you don’t use the igpu for gaming and you are not limited by the video connectors on the motherboard
you seem to be having difficulty grasping this concept – try searching Tom’s Hardware for ‘virtu’ and you’ll find some good reviews
jaquith said:
I think you're giving the Z68 a completely wrong impression, and trying to make a silk purse out of a sows ear and looking though rose glasses.

i think you need to do a little more research on the subject and stop parading yourself as an ‘Expert’ on subjects you clearly have little knowledge of
jaquith said:
Let me say it again, if your 'Goal' is to play Games then today, don't wait, get a P67 - period. If you're an Extreme Gamer looking for 3/4-WAY SLI/CF e.g. GTX 570/580+ then WAIT a few months for the X68. Extreme Gamers with high budgets - 'Get it' - and won't be throwing $1500~$2000+ of GPUs on any consumer architecture. There are extremes in any chipset or design, and in those cases you should weigh out all of the options and logically choose the smarter option; e.g. extreme Z68 vs typical P67 - if the goal is Gaming then choose the 'typical P67'. Extreme gaming is an expensive tier to obtain.

If you want to put $1000 of GTX 580's on a Z68 then go for it, and watch those same on a P67 run circles around you.

I don't care what people do with their money, I just care about what makes the most sense and yields the best possible benefit for myself or those that understand.

blah blah blah – read the thread title – it’s not an ‘extreme gamers’ thread
yes i do “Get it” and i am NOT suggesting the Z68 will be an extreme gaming platform – i’m referring to your comparision of the Z68 to the P67 – do you ‘Get it’?
you still haven’t addressed the issue that your table is incorrect
please tell me why a P67 is better than a Z68 in these regards
jaquith said:
^ :non:  The Maximus IV uses a doubled up high/low pair; essentially it's 16 + 3. MSI uses 'SFC' which are ~30%+ more efficient, so an 8~10+ SFC works fine.

You can OC a 4+1 to 5GHz -- the question is how long before the Phases burn out. Example {Typical Phases}: 4 -> 80% load; 8 -> 40% load ; 12 -> 27% load, etc.

again – the number of phases is relevant to oc because it provides ‘cleaner’ power rails – it is not directly relevant to whether a phase will ‘burn out’
jaquith said:
Simpler, the MOBOs with lower phases aren't meant to be run at extremes with extreme loads and with extreme heat longterm.

depends on the power rating of the components not the number of phases
jaquith said:
As I said, you most certainly can run a 4+1 @ 5GHz don't be shocked after a year or so when you press the power button -- and nothing.

where did the 5GHz figure come from? most 24/7 oc’ers don’t expect that frequency
jaquith said:
So @ 5GHz WITH 4+1 vs vs 8+2 vs 12+2 vs 24 {UD7} AND 5 years => you tell me which will be running and what MOBO's will be in the trash heap.

it depends on power handling capabilities of the components used and if the user has the intelligence to use the board within its specified limits
oh – and are you suggesting that an extreme gamer / extreme oc’er will be using the same motherboard in 5 years time? i very much doubt that
jaquith said:
This is what happens when you push too hard, and a MOBO with limited Phases goes poof:

correction – this is what happens when someone uses a motherboard outside of it’s specified limits regardless of the number of vrm phases

sorry to everyone about the length of this post but i felt the information needed to be represented more clearly and factually

everyone out there please keep in mind when you are reading forum posts that not all ‘Experts’ are actually experts
m
0
l
April 12, 2011 2:22:58 PM

If you are not looking for the on-board graphics, the only reason for Z68 would be quick Cache. (IMO) Quick cache is only good if you have a small 60-80G SSD. If you have a bigger SSD, just load the OS on in and it will way outperform. It seems like SSD cahce is a gimmick. Just go P67, Z68 is probably gonna be delayed and more expensive for functionality you don't want.
m
0
l
a c 716 V Motherboard
April 12, 2011 5:23:39 PM

Q = Title "Is there a Z68 version withOUT on-board graphic"
ANS = No, defeats the purpose of the Z68. The Z68 is what the H67 should have been from day 1. Lately Intel seems to be 'Chipset happy' by producing so many overlapping Chipsets it bares asking the question 'why?'


Z68 Pros w/Caveats:
* Quick Sync ; BUT currently the support is limited, and your encoding App MUST support that feature or have a plug-in available. Last I looked H.264/AVC {MPEG-4} and MPEG-2 only were supported. http://www.intel.com/technology/quicksync/index.htm
* Intel’s SSD caching technology ; adds 0~5MB/s± on dinky SSD's 40GB or smaller which are more aggravation than an asset. Unless you can fit both your OS + ALL Apps on an SSD don't bother buying. My assumption is the Z68 sucks up 32MB+ of physical RAM for the cache {BIOS level} in creasing the HW Reserved. Setting it up properly is a pain.
* 16 Lanes are available, but share bandwidth with the IGPU which inhibits frame rates; the question is by how much.

I have seen rumors of 2-WAY CF/SLI, 10+2 Phase MOBO based upon the Z68.

My experience is the IGPU acts like a leach to discrete GPU MOBOs, and in the 'past' this negates some performance. So until there's overlapping benchmarks available no one knows the full affect.

Therefore, if the 'Goal' is 'Gaming' then every review/reviewer I've read stated the same as I have above - Gaming and mixed use get the P67 when using discrete GPU(s). Encoding via Quick Sync or 'Desktop' usage being the primary use get the Z68.
m
0
l
a c 716 V Motherboard
April 12, 2011 5:27:53 PM

meddyliwr said:
are you trying to trick us with backyard science, photos and tables?

Do you know how cRaZy your reply is!? Like a monkey throwing his poop around in a cage. :pt1cable: 

I'm not wasting my time nor breath replying to your crazy OCD nonsense! :hello: 
m
0
l
April 13, 2011 8:14:47 AM

Jaquith & all, thanks so far for your response, althought a bit heated! :-)

Question for J: you mentioned that you recommend going w/ N card for the intel CPU/Chipset combo. May I know on what basis do you recommend that? Any major know incompatibility issue between intel i5/i7/P67 combo and ATI video card?
m
0
l
April 13, 2011 9:59:04 AM

EDIT: @jaquith
You really don’t like it when you’re shown to be wrong, do you?

backyard science – you don’t seem to understand component power ratings
photos – your motherboard photo’s are irrelevant
tables – your build chart table is (still) incorrect

On a positive note your latest reply is more balanced. Maybe it’s what your reply “should have been from day 1”. But omg another table! I have seen it before and the good thing about you including it is that it provides evidence your table is incorrect regarding “Performance Over Clocking” and ‘Discrete Graphics Support” for the Z68.

jaquith said:
I have seen rumors of 2-WAY CF/SLI… based upon the Z68.


So maybe now you will either remove your table or revise it regarding the Z68.

I’m glad to see you have also accepted that the number of motherboard vrm phases is not dependant on the PCH.

The major outstanding issues are –
1 – You claim your table is based on benchmarks. Please reveal your source(s).
2 – You imply a non-K is preferred for the Z68. This doesn’t make sense.
3 – You state that only the CPU can be overclocked on a Z68. Incorrect.
4 – You claim more phases provide an inherently more robust vrm. Incorrect.
5 – You claim the IGP will hinder gaming performance on a Z68. This will only be verifiable when benchmarks are available.
6 – You claim video resolution is limited by the onboard connectors on a Z68. Incorrect.
7 – You imply the SSD cache is ‘more aggravation than an asset’. Again only time will tell. (by the way – should I try to disable the cache on my CPU and my HDD?)
8 – You can’t decide if a source of information is ‘good’ or not. lol

For anyone who has been patient enough to read this far down the post I still stand by my statement – “PLEASE DO NOT GO BY THE BUILDING CHART”.

My advice is that if you want a system that can be overclocked AND use a discrete graphics card (or cards) AND use QuickSync (for accelerated video [and possibly audio] en/decoding) – get yourself a Z68 with an i5-2500K or an i7-2600K. For gaming there is no evidence so far that the Z68 will be any less able than the P67.

It makes no difference to me if you reply to this post or not. But your lack of reply to this, and my previous post, will hopefully help others understand that you are not willing to stand by your claims and statements.

For the record OCD (Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder) can be an extremely serious condition which in no way implies that a sufferer is ‘crazy’. Maybe a contribution to an OCD support group would help to mitigate your erroneous and insulting remark.
m
0
l
a c 716 V Motherboard
April 13, 2011 3:01:28 PM

alecela said:
...althought a bit heated! :-)

Question for J: you mentioned that you recommend going w/ N card for the intel CPU/Chipset combo. May I know on what basis do you recommend that? Any major know incompatibility issue between intel i5/i7/P67 combo and ATI video card?

'Heated' is the understatement of the day! :) 

I have been around for a while, and I'm use to AMD {formally ATI} and nVidia leapfrogging one another. The closest thing now is the nVidia GTX 590 vs AMD HD 6990 and the AMD does outperform the nVidia GPU -- today. However, the HD 6990 has such high temps that few want it whereas the GTX 590 runs cooler; the GTX 470/480 were not efficient power consumers but didn't suffer from similar heating issues either. The high-end GPUs all run hotter than average/mainstream GPUs; after the 'heated issues' above I'm certain there are exceptions like EVGA 015-P3-1589-AR that don't run hot.

That said, the nVidia for quite sometime has been on top and offers better scaling in SLI. Further, my long experience with ATI at best is mixed, meaning I have blown a ton of ATI GPUs over the years but never an nVidia so there's a question of reliability. Drivers, I have had more problems with ATI drivers over the years including maintaining and stability than those of nVidia. Further, AMD MOBOs use AMD Chipsets and obviously CPUs with AMD biased performance, meaning the current AMD Chipsets like 890FX don't support SLI -- imagine that.

So performance, reliability and cost/FPS yields nVidia. Doesn't mean that that all cannot change. In either case, if you are only looking for a single GPU then do some research on your particular Application or Game, often AMD is better in one case but not another. Then you need to factor in your environment last year I replaced all of our work PC's and they all are running HD 5770. The decision was for use, the HD 5770 can support 3 monitors off one GPU. In this case ATI/AMD had the advantage, and some single ATI/AMD can support up to 6 monitors; ideal for work not for gaming off a single GPU. Also, AMD is offering their version of 3D that doesn't require 120 Hz monitors, but nVidia does require 120Hz which are very expensive compared to 60 Hz monitors.

If you want AMD/ATI then look at companies like XFX that support 'Lifetime Warranties.' Lastly, there's no issues with Intel and AMD/ATI GPUs so from the platform perspective there's no compatibility issues.

Good Luck! :) 
m
0
l
a c 716 V Motherboard
April 13, 2011 4:51:35 PM

meddyliwr said:

So maybe now you will either remove your table or revise it regarding the Z68.

I’m glad to see you have also accepted that the number of motherboard vrm phases is not dependant on the PCH.

The major outstanding issues are –
1 – You claim your table is based on benchmarks. Please reveal your source(s).
2 – You imply a non-K is preferred for the Z68. This doesn’t make sense.
3 – You state that only the CPU can be overclocked on a Z68. Incorrect.
4 – You claim more phases provide an inherently more robust vrm. Incorrect.
5 – You claim the IGP will hinder gaming performance on a Z68. This will only be verifiable when benchmarks are available.
6 – You claim video resolution is limited by the onboard connectors on a Z68. Incorrect.
7 – You imply the SSD cache is ‘more aggravation than an asset’. Again only time will tell. (by the way – should I try to disable the cache on my CPU and my HDD?)
8 – You can’t decide if a source of information is ‘good’ or not. lol

For anyone who has been patient enough to read this far down the post I still stand by my statement – “PLEASE DO NOT GO BY THE BUILDING CHART”.


Your brain is going 1000 MPH. Unlike you, I hate long drawn posts that are a waste of energy.

Responses:
1. Look at early P67 launch benchmarks using: high resolutions, high AA 8 or 16, 3/4-WAY is where the 16 lanes becomes saturated. Intel deliberately crippled the LGA 1155 with PCIe 2.x and 16 lanes. The LGA 2011 is 32 lanes of PCIe 3.x effectively quadrupling the bandwidth over the P67.
2. I imply nothing, the title is Recommended and not Required, there are extremes to everything and I look to the majority as deciding factors. It's Building Chart Q1 2011. If 2-WAY Z68 is mainstream then I'll update to Building Chart Q2 2011, and incert 2-WAY under Z68 but also add {note 5} Shared bandwidth with IGPU. Make your own Chart ;)  then post it the forum for ridicule and rebut - I did.
3. OC Column is the 'form' of OC and has nothing to do with IGPU. When the chart was completed most folks didn't know you couldn't BCLK OC the Sandy Bridge, technically you can but your risking SATA corruption.
4. Wrong, unless the engineers have a bad implementation of the Phases and Channels on their MOBOs.
5. Every single IGPU + CF/SLI has suffered at least a 10%~30% hit off the primary discrete GPU because it shares bandwidth with the PCIe lanes -- so it's not a long-shot to assume the same on the Z68.
6. The Onboard Graphics Integrated Chipset is the limiting factor - to slice the hair in two.
7. The setup, SSD size limitation benefits are the 'aggravating factors.' There's plenty of Reviews on this subject. Many folks won't set it up correctly -- this should be as simple as you using/plugging-in a SSD on the Intel SATA ports, but it's not. Blame Intel.
8. Sources are good as long as there's not an agenda attached to them or hidden 'caveats' or unrealistic bias or a paid Sponsor. A couple of examples: SSD - OCZ Vertex 3 Read 530 MB/s & Write 450 MB/s have fun reaching those speeds with your onboard SATAIII; similarly reviews fail to mention their SSDs are tested off high-end LSI Controllers and most onboard SATA3's crap out ~ 360 MB/s. So if the onboard SATA3 or SATA3 Dedicated Card is used by the reviewer you get a variety of results. Next, I know Soderstrom from here and he recently did his version of P67 vs X58 SLI. Prior to the review we had a huge debate PCIe saturation and Realistic uses of 3/4-WAY. Most extreme uses who spend $4 or $5 thousand or more with 3/4-WAY do it on 5900± x 1080 or 2/3-WAY on 2560 x 1600 30" AND 8xAA or 16xAA; otherwise its silly to spend that money just to see blur. However, Soderstrom set out on his agenda to prove they were more less the same with 0xAA and 4xAA -- which otherwise would saturate the PCIe and would have shown the X58 with 32-lanes the clear victor. BTW - this contradicted a prior Tom's Forum Article -- with the caveat of blurry AA.

Unless you fully understand and/or know how to sift through things like this you're assuming things blindly. I ain't no sheep.

You and I look at things differently, you somehow think the Z68 is the superior to the P67 it's not; it's the superior to the H67. I look from the top down knowing things like LGA 2011 or LGA 1356, and you look from the bottom up. You're confusing consumer products with extreme products and platforms and seemingly locked in time and oblivious to 4~6 months down the road.

This ALL is based upon PURPOSE and NEED. If you need Extreme then wait, if your need is typical Gaming then the P67, if you need to encode Z68, etc. It's nice to know the Pros & Cons...
m
0
l
April 18, 2011 1:17:43 PM

Finally I ‘Get it’! This is a late April Fools joke you’re playing on me by ignoring or deliberately misconstruing comments in my posts. HaHaHa. Good one! You got me lol.

I have been talking specifically about your comparison of the 1155 solutions.

If the allegations are true that Gigabyte have discontinued their P67 range I’m sure the reasons were not only technical. But similarities between it and the Z68 must have made the decision easy. Maybe, as I did, they assessed that the Z68 is a P67+.

And in light of that they have slowly started to release Z68 mobo’s into limited regions (before the Z68 chip is officially released)
http://www.xfastest.com/thread-59703-1-1.html
I’m sure you will find reasons to discredit this board technically but it looks like a nice high-end consumer mobo to me.

I wouldn’t consider putting a non-K on this board since I wouldn’t get “UNLOCKED PERFORMANCE”; it has plenty of phases (your requirement) with ‘nice’ components; it looks like it has good cooling; it does 3-way SLI or CFX (but SLI is used more in the marketing); and it even has “Hybrid EFI”. It doesn’t seem to include Virtu but allegedly AMD/ATI and NVIDIA are both developing their own equivalents.

The future is looking rosier for the Z68 than it is for the P67 right now so maybe you can stop splitting hairs and put the final nail in the coffin of your ‘recommended building chart’.

I don’t think everyone who bought a P67 mobo in the last couple of weeks will be entirely happy with their decision. If you “ain't no sheep” maybe you’re the sheepdog that sends the flock down a dead end path.
m
0
l
a c 716 V Motherboard
April 18, 2011 3:51:29 PM

The link didn't work, assuming a 3/4-WAY Z68 it's going to need a NF200 chipset(s) since it lacks the required lanes of 32, the LGA 1155 native GPU lanes are 16. As I stated before, there are going to be 'Extreme' examples of ANY chipset MOBO. However, it's not the 'purpose' or 'norm' of the Z68. Worst, a comparison between the Z68 vs P67 in the same 3/4-WAY configuration(s) is going to yield inferior gaming performance for the Z68; shared bandwidth of the Z68's onbaord. It's just that way. I am aware of the Z68X which lacks, non-spec Z68, and will not have the shared bandwidth problem.

Next, keep in mind my dog is not in the LGA 1155 fight. I'm an LGA 1366 and LGA 2011 fan. In other words I'm a disinterested party -- I see the H67, P67, Z68 or any LGA 1155 chipset for what it is -- it's a consumer platform with NO preferences - I'd never buy one.

Therefore, I would assume that OEM builders like Acer, Gateway, Dell, eMachines, HP, etc are going to 'push' ANY platform that includes an onboard GPU to save money. So I'd expect to see H67, Z68, AMD's equivalent in Best Buy, Wal-Mart, etc all equipped with non-K i3 & i5 CPUs with a sprinkling of i7 also with non-K. Only a small percentage OC the CPU.

Where the 'Optional' comes into play -- the K will indeed yield performance in the P67 which is the de facto 'LGA 1155 Gaming' platform. Whereas, OC the CPU and onboard VGA yields very little benefits -- you still cannot game, most current popular games, using an onboard VGA of the Z68 the frame rates are too slow and thereby too choppy.

Again, with the exception of a couple benefits: encoding / {minimal} SSD acceleration / {poor for gaming} onboard VGA, I see no other advantages in P67 vs Z68. The standard Z68 IS aimed at mainstream.

There are oddball niche chipsets like Q67, H61, B65, C206, etc and likely to be similar versions of Z68. As of today the information is too lacking to construct an intelligent Q2 Building Chart.

The non-spec Z68X without onboard VGA are a different standard and in leagues with the spec P67 with the real world encoding advantage, the SSD is still more gimmick than advantage. However, the P67 $340 GA-P67A-UD7-B3 vs $500+ GA-Z68X-UD7-B3 is a crazy choice, and $160 for encoding is expensive to encode YouTube videos and simple DVD authoring. Duh, if you're blowing $500+ on a MOBO supporting unlocked SB CPUs get the K. That is the most extreme 'Z68' that I'm aware of and still doesn't represent the norm.

My Building Chart is/was based on available and published information in January 2011. As I said the 'Q2' will be updated as needed when information is clear -- it still DOES represent current released hardware with hints of upcoming tech. Somehow you feel it is static, it is not. There will be a Q2, Q3, Q4, etc Building Chart when updates are needed. It will always be correct for current chipsets.
m
0
l
April 18, 2011 4:46:32 PM

If you’re a “disinterested party” why would you even click a link to “Is there a Z68 version withOUT on-board graphic”? And why would you make tables on including 1155 information? And recommend the P67?

The link is broken here now as well. Anyway it showed photos of a retail box for a Z68X-UD7-B3 for sale in Taiwan. You’ll be pleased to hear it has 24 phases!

There’s more info at Softpedia who price it at “the equivalent of 412 USD”
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Z68-Motherboard-from-Gig...
m
0
l
April 18, 2011 7:34:17 PM

Z68 looks like it might appeal to some people but really, who cares? Grab a p77 board and build your damn machine and stop bickering about frivolous matters! Intel is damn foolish for releasing all these damn chipset, and revisions, and blah blah...it really upsets me... Jaquith actually knows what he's talking..now, while I remain neutral in most situations, I have to say I agree with J...build your machine with what's available now.OP your gonna end up buying a gtx 570/580 or 6950 or something of the sort..so who gives a flying fig about quicksync, and ssd caching, and all that other garbage..

Get a a p67 board for today, and just start building..you don't need features you won't utilize, ever, just to brag about it to forum buddies or include in your sig for people to look at..do what makes the most sense
m
0
l
a c 716 V Motherboard
April 18, 2011 9:13:53 PM

The price conversion I saw was $513. The larger question is 'where's the D-Sub, DVI-D, HDMI or DisplayPort'?; see below. I recall the EVGA P67 Classified -- never saw real production. So the question is if have if those pathways that are unused then what impact does it have on the PCIe lanes?!

Disinterested means as I said, I don't have any P67, Z68, etc preference or bias. It doesn't mean that I have no interest whatsoever.

I/O Comparisons
H67 - GA-H67A-UD3H

Z68X - GA-Z68X-UD7-B3


The Z68 Chipset 'does' include pathways for the 'Display' options.
m
0
l
April 19, 2011 1:44:46 AM

@ jaquith
Are you just regurgitating what you have read elsewhere? Or did you forget what you had said in your previous post?
jaquith said:
The non-spec Z68X without onboard VGA ... vs $500+ GA-Z68X-UD7-B3 ...


Then I said “…a retail box for a Z68X-UD7-B3…”.

And then you labelled the photo “Z68X - GA-Z68X-UD7-B3”.

Can you see where I’m going with this?? As I said I knew you would nit-pick but I thought you could do better than that.

@asantesoul
I thought you said…
asantesoul said:
.. Jaquith actually knows what he's talking..

Really?
m
0
l
April 19, 2011 2:27:18 AM

Are we really having this discussion? Still? It's laughable that people get a rise out of this sorta thing...errrm..i stand by what I said...you can...errmm..kick rocks :bounce: 
m
0
l
April 19, 2011 4:21:35 AM

It is laughable and I'm having a good chuckle right now! (“kick rocks” – hahaha)

If you’d been following the thread you would’ve seen that “i’m waiting to see how the Z68 boards evolve” so your comment “Grab a p77 board and build your damn machine and stop bickering about frivolous matters!” wasn’t only foolish, it was irrelevant.

And your assumptions for why I would prefer the Z68 don’t stand up to reasoning either. Since this is the first forum I have ever joined I don’t yet have a “sig”; and I don’t have any “forum buddies” to brag to; and I’m definitely not fortunate enough to have a ‘fanboy’ who will turn up and fight for my honour!

I think you have missed my point. You see I’m not FOR the Z68. And I’m not AGAINST the P67. I’m AGAINST ‘Experts’ spreading misinformation.
m
0
l
April 19, 2011 4:35:14 AM

I agree...and yes, I pretty much missed the threads purpose almost entirely..I just wanted to belong :(  ...It's intel's fault ...they are the ones making us fight! I hate you Intel..I wish I stayed with AMD and never heard of your ridiculously powerful sandy bridge chips.. it's made animals of us all..
m
0
l
April 19, 2011 5:21:51 AM

asantesoul said:
I agree...and yes, I pretty much missed the threads purpose almost entirely..I just wanted to belong :(  ...It's intel's fault ...they are the ones making us fight! I hate you Intel..I wish I stayed with AMD and never heard of your ridiculously powerful sandy bridge chips.. it's made animals of us all..

*smile* I agree, it's Intel's fault!

imo - Intel probably should've just released the Z68 pch which could’ve been implemented as a Z68 or a Z68X mobo

My original point was that the 'building chart', and subsequent posts, imply that Z68 mobo’s will be technically / functionally inferior to equivalent P67 boards. I think they will be so similar that if the unit price is competitive there would be no reason to buy a P67 (unless you need a mobo immediately).
m
0
l
April 19, 2011 6:16:49 AM

okay..that much I can agree on...there's speculation that z68 boards will cost roughly the same as current p67's...either way...for intel to operate this way...it kind of deters me from wanting to remain a customer...but..I see what your saying..and apologize for not carefully reading the post before making my comment
m
0
l
April 19, 2011 12:00:12 PM

asantesoul – no worries – and thanks for bringing some sense to this thread (myself included)

i’m looking to build a new high-end all-rounder in the near future and SB is the clear winner – i know bulldozer and 2011 are on their way but we all have to stick a stake in the ground somewhere

intels marketing and product launch for the 1155 have been a shambles but on technical ability alone i’m still willing to consider their products

i’m eager to see the how the cost and performance of Z68 and P67 boards compare – and to make an informed purchase when the 1155 dust has settled a little

happy computing!
m
0
l
a c 716 V Motherboard
April 19, 2011 3:52:44 PM

Until recently Intel kept the X79 secret and at last word it probably Intel will skip the 'X68' chipset. Next the 'Panther Point' looks to render P67, H67, Z68 obsolete in matter of months; I've seen news that suggests Q1 12.

So constructing a static Building Chart is nearly impossible. If Gigabyte screws with chipsets like 'Z68' or there's a subset of the 'Z68x' who knows?!

Similarly, the LGA 2011 has been projected to have PCIe 3.x yet others project PCIe 2.x; HUGE difference!

Again, the Building Chart will be updated WHEN the LGA 2011 and Z68 and {X68}/X79 is CONFIRMED. Intel, as I and asantesoul and other have been saying Intel is out of their minds changing specs, names, etc like the direction of the wind.
m
0
l
a c 716 V Motherboard
April 19, 2011 4:00:06 PM

meddyliwr said:
*smile* I agree, it's Intel's fault!

My original point was that the 'building chart', and subsequent posts, imply that Z68 mobo’s will be technically / functionally inferior to equivalent P67 boards. I think they will be so similar that if the unit price is competitive there would be no reason to buy a P67 (unless you need a mobo immediately).

We agree on one MAJOR point, Intel is a real problem.

That said, back when the 'Building Chart' was put together the Z68 was purpose to replace the H67; that WAS the plan. In other words as we 'seem' to agree -- what the H67 should have been from day 1.

THINGS CHANGE - Thanks to Intel!
m
0
l
April 19, 2011 4:44:53 PM

Intel is insane...I mean, the products they make are quality, yet they only support it for a short time..why do that? P55 owners got screwed..now, it looks like p67 owners will get screwed as well..some may not think it's a big deal..but seriously..no one feels good about buying or owning something that will be yesterday's news in a matter of months.. AMD's approach is what I really like...it's just unfortunate that, from what I've heard, their products are not as fast...but...they have the best approach
m
0
l
a c 716 V Motherboard
April 19, 2011 9:08:19 PM

AMD 'really' needs a new socket with more pins for more functionality.

What would be cool, considering, is to make CPU socket with some forethought. Make a e.g. '2500' pin CPU socket and allow user replaceable Chipset. Offload a lot of the 'architecture' to the chipset and CPU paths.

MOBO Mfg's love to add-on crap {chipsets} that prevents/interferes/shares with spec design. For once it would be nice to have SATA3 600 MB/s 'real' port speed instead of ~375 MB/s SATA3. Now that SSDs are 550/500 -- MAYBE -- JUST MAYBE time for a 'SATA4' standard with 1.2GB/s. The problem even there is that Z-Drives are 1.2+GB/s, so skip SATA4 and go with 'SATA5' or just double port speed via PCIe 3.0. edit: BTW - I 'get' PCIe 2.x x1 is 500MB/s -- hence the Marvell 9182 {no typo} it's x2 and accommodated the full SATA3 assumed bandwidth.

Over the next 5-10 years it's going to be interesting...
m
0
l
April 19, 2011 11:08:51 PM

Jaquith, a CPU socket pin standard would be nice, like the die-hard ATX and the like. (Also, a smooth way to upgrade an OS without a recommended "clean" install, though there are custom OS installation tools out there. Also, a good OS cleaning utility that actually gets rid of crap and keeps the good stuff on, but that's asking for a lot.)

But sadly I don't see that we're moving in that direction.

Ultimately, a user has to ask oneself, does this computer meet my needs in terms of what it can do for me? A 5-year-old computer is still usable for most things, a 10-year-old computer is perfectly good at internet browsing and music... and often 25-year-old computers run industrial machines. It's when it's time to upgrade when a failure occurs that you have to worry. Will the old operating system run newer hardware? Will old programs work with new operating systems? Most people don't need a new version of PDF reader and Office software, or an OS even. The 'upgrades' will essentially do the same thing as the previous version, display and edit documents, organize files... . If it works, people keep it and use it, though there are advantages (and disadvantages) to upgrading, of course.

You're also right about the "up to" speeds. Knowing actual speeds is more useful.

By the way, I just looked up z drives and, woaw!
m
0
l
April 20, 2011 3:43:42 AM

Jaquith, you really are a fool.

I didn’t even imply “what the H67 should have been from day 1”. (In the unlikely event that anyone is interested in what i actually said just read the thread.)

Can you see where this conversation is going (hypothetically):
you – ‘things change’
me – ‘so change the build chart’
you – ‘it’s not Q2 yet!’ [it is Q2 actually]
You're arguing against yourself.

You’re happy to tell people “Go by the Building Chart and Enjoy” even though you know the chart is incorrect…and all because...umm…it’s not time to update your chart yet. And right on the cusp of the Z68 release you say “either get a P67 now or wait for the LGA 2011/X68 SB” when you know nothing of how the Z68 motherboards will be implemented. To quote myself “i would not pay you for your opinion”.

And I love the way you dodged the bullet about “The larger question is 'where's the D-Sub, DVI-D, HDMI or DisplayPort'?”. We got 3 more photos (one even repeated from a previous post) because you didn’t notice the big, prominent, X on the photo of the Z68X box. Well done ‘Expert’

You’re more like a politician resorting to “slice[ing] the hair in two” and answering the question you wanted to hear, rather than the one that was asked.

And now you’re off on some other tangent. Have fun with that one.

Finally jaquith, I really am a fool too – for wasting my time conversing with you.
Bye.
m
0
l
April 20, 2011 6:03:47 PM

@jacquith,

Really enjoy your obviously diligent research, charts, and discussions !

Hope you will ignore the obvious manic obsession of M., and his digressions, and keep updating your well-thought out posts.

best, Bill Woodruff
m
0
l

Best solution

a c 716 V Motherboard
April 20, 2011 9:39:04 PM

The Z68 concerns I've had are to the following comparisons:

AMD 890FX Discrete GPS(s) only {P67} vs AMD 890GX {Z68} IGPU + Discrete GPS(s) ; Gamers always choose 890FX
The 890FX + Crossfire clearly outperforms the 890GX's IGPU + Crossfire.

The question is:
P67 SLI/CF vs Z68 SLI/CF ; Shared Bandwidth

What threw me for a loop has the GA-Z68X-UD7-B3 which completely ignores/circumvents the Z68 IGPU all together and a discrete GPU is required. If the Z68 chipset can 'somehow keep' the normally shared PCIe lane bandwidth from the GPU(s) then there's no disadvantaged to the Z68 vs P67, and you're left with the advantage(s). However, GA-Z68X-UD7-B3 without IGPU, as I understand it, Quick Sync won't work unless the processor's GPU is enabled...

@meddyliwr is a mental case. He's stuck on the 4-month old Building Chart, plus the Z68 rumor mills. Originally, the Z68 had IGPU + Single PCIe x16 shared, but can't get it through his skull that there are and have been so many contradicting articles it's impossible to update until the BENCHMARKS and MOBOS are available for review. He/She/It needs to produce their own Building Chart and place it here...and otherwise shut-up ;) 

Most Z68's popping-up have IGPU like the ASUS P8Z68-V PRO, and MSI Z68A-GD80(B3), etc. Other rumors had Gigabytes 'Z68X' now changed to Z68, other rumors had Gigabyte quiting production of H67 & P67 which were exposed to be false. Unless the Z68 can add some value to Gaming Frame Rates -- what's the fuss about?! {I get Quick Sync -- most people don't care about it}

Guessing, Beta Building Chart:
Share
April 27, 2011 1:09:37 PM

Best answer selected by alecela.
m
0
l
!