Intel, AMD, and PCIe Counts

[patrickjp93]

Why is it Intel thinks/thought 16 PCIe lanes are enough for the socket 1150 line, especially when they made a chip like the 4790k which puts the 3820 to shame? Then why do they release no quad core on the Haswell-E lineup with an equal oomph? Are they just ignoring gamers at this point? Did they not foresee M.2 becoming mainstream?

 

And socket 1151 only promises 20 lanes. Are they out of their minds?

 

AMD brought 24 to the Kaveri lineup, but Carrizo is specced to have only 16. Are these cost-cutting measures? Is this pressure for people to buy more of the enthusiast-grade chips? 

 

If Intel has no intention of putting igpu onto their enthusiast chips until Skylake-E and the rumored socket 2200 (wccftech, so probably a lie), and if both companies are pushing towards heterogeneous SOCs, then how does their PCIe allocation make any sense if they want people to buy the heterogeneous chips? There has to be functionality across the board if they want server and supercomputer makers to use their chips instead of Qualcom's new beasts or ARM by Samsung and Apple.

 

Maybe I'm overthinking this, which has resulted in this scruffy first post, but AMD's move to substantially fewer PCIe lanes on their upcoming mainstream APUs, and Intel's hamstringing moves to mainstream customers and sluggishly reacting to PCIe SSD solutions on both socket 1151 and no move to migrate from socket 2011 until 2017 just make no sense to me.

 

Anyone have a reasonable explanation for these moves if both companies really want to compete against each other?

[Faa]

16 3.0 lanes could split in 32 2.0 lanes so it could work in 2.0 x8/x8/x8/x8 instead of 3.0 x8/x8, either boards should find a way to do it or its just a cpu limitation. 3930k's could run 40 2.0 lanes or 40 3.0 lanes so confuses me here.

Sandybridge and up, you have 16 lanes from the cpu and 4 from the chipset and skylake isn't any different for this. Kaveri 4 lanes are reserved for the umi link between the APU & chipset so you have 4 left for soundcards orsomething and 16 for gpu's. If you want 4 cards in SLI/CF with mainstream cpu's just get a board with a plx chip.

[Archangel1994]

IIRC There hasn't been a single even CLOSE to significant performance increase with PCIe 3.0 x16 over PCIe 2.0 x16 (And PCIe 3.0 x8 = PCIe 2.0 x16) So the 8 lanes for PCIe 3.0 is more than enough since no game at this very moment can utilise the full 16 lanes making lots of lanes basically redundant.

 

Even with SLI/CF 2 graphics cards both running on PCIe 3.0 x8, which adds up to "only" 16 lanes, is more than enough making the need for something arbitrary (at this point in time) 40 lanes. Given this information my guess would be that they reduced the amount of lane to 16/20/24 because it could indeed simply be cost-cutting.

 

 

Is this pressure for people to buy more of the enthusiast-grade chips? 

The enthusiast chips will remain what they are: Enthusiast chips. A regular gamer that still wants to enjoy high performance (Performance that a single R9 290(x) or GTX 780 (Ti) can deliver) you do not need an arbitrary amount of lanes.

 

 

Anyone have a reasonable explanation for these moves if both companies really want to compete against each other?

This is one thing that confuses me too as well though. It would make sense for both companies to work on making a solid chipsets etc. for the use of 2 graphics both running on PCIe 3.0 x16 as opposed to x8 to make it more futureproof.

[patrickjp93]

IIRC There hasn't been a single even CLOSE to significant performance increase with PCIe 3.0 x16 over PCIe 2.0 x16 (And PCIe 3.0 x8 = PCIe 2.0 x16) So the 8 lanes for PCIe 3.0 is more than enough since no game at this very moment can utilise the full 16 lanes making lots of lanes basically redundant.

 

Even with SLI/CF 2 graphics cards both running on PCIe 3.0 x8, which adds up to "only" 16 lanes, is more than enough making the need for something arbitrary (at this point in time) 40 lanes. Given this information my guess would be that they reduced the amount of lane to 16/20/24 because it could indeed simply be cost-cutting.

 

 

The enthusiast chips will remain what they are: Enthusiast chips. A regular gamer that still wants to enjoy high performance (Performance that a single R9 290(x) or GTX 780 (Ti) can deliver) you do not need an arbitrary amount of lanes.

If you want a dual card and an M.2 SSD you're up sh@t creek, and who honestly doesn't like having the performance of the GTX 690?

[patrickjp93]

16 3.0 lanes could split in 32 2.0 lanes so it could work in 2.0 x8/x8/x8/x8 instead of 3.0 x8/x8, either boards should find a way to do it or its just a cpu limitation. 3930k's could run 40 2.0 lanes or 40 3.0 lanes so confuses me here.

Sandybridge and up, you have 16 lanes from the cpu and 4 from the chipset and skylake isn't any different for this. Kaveri 4 lanes are reserved for the umi link between the APU & chipset so you have 4 left for soundcards orsomething and 16 for gpu's. If you want 4 cards in SLI/CF with mainstream cpu's just get a board with a plx chip.

From what I've found the Z97 chips don't split the 16 3 into 32 gen 2. Also, there are no extra 4 lanes from the chipset for Sound or anything else. It's quite frustrating.

[Archangel1994]

If you want a dual card and an M.2 SSD you're up sh@t creek, and who honestly doesn't like having the performance of the GTX 690?

As much as this may or may not be true this is irrelevant to Intel and AMD. People that run 2 GPU's and an M.2 SSD are obviously enthusiasts so they will go to X79 and X99 with expensive as well CPU's like the 3960x and 4960x or one step below like the 4930k as opposed to the more accessible Z87/Z97 with an I7 4790k.

[ForsakenLive]

The intel 1150 socket has 16x PCIe 3.0 (main) and 8x PCIe 2.0 as an extra, more than enough for the general consumers. With 2011 the story is different, it's aimed at a difference audience (workstation and nut enthusiast) prices are higher,expansion is overkill and there is no need of integrating the CPU and the graphics into a computational marvel together; those guys just don't need it. They are not ignoring gamers, 2011 is not for gamers.

M.2 is a great expansion that is the mayor reason socket 1151 will have 20 PCIe lanes instead of 16. Remember that this are only the main lanes, and that motherboards will have extra expansion. Also extra motherboard implementation can bump up the expansion at a extra cost, what can be paid by people that needs this sort of expansion.

Kaveri doesn't have 24 PCIe 3.0 main lanes, it's only x16 just like 1150, and if Carrizo still plans on x16 for socket compatibility on the APU side.

Why they don't give us more expansion and features? Because there is no need for them, on mainstream platforms most of the users out there still don't even have Sata SSDs, they can't aim their whole production on the high tier buyers that already have the enthusiast grade platform option.

[patrickjp93]

As much as this may or may not be true this is irrelevant to Intel and AMD. People that run 2 GPU's and an M.2 SSD are obviously enthusiasts so they will go to X79 and X99 with expensive as well CPU's like the 3960x and 4960x or one step below like the 4930k as opposed to the more accessible Z87/Z97 with an I7 4790k.

Not true. If you want a gaming build none of the Socket 2011 chips have the 4790k's single-core performance without insane cooling solutions.

[patrickjp93]

The intel 1150 socket has 16x PCIe 3.0 (main) and 8x PCIe 2.0 as an extra, more than enough for the general consumers. With 2011 the story is different, it's aimed at a difference audience (workstation and nut enthusiast) prices are higher,expansion is overkill and there is no need of integrating the CPU and the graphics into a computational marvel together; those guys just don't need it. They are not ignoring gamers, 2011 is not for gamers.

M.2 is a great expansion that is the mayor reason socket 1151 will have 20 PCIe lanes instead of 16. Remember that this are only the main lanes, and that motherboards will have extra expansion. Also extra motherboard implementation can bump up the expansion at a extra cost, what can be paid by people that needs this sort of expansion.

Kaveri doesn't have 24 PCIe 3.0 main lanes, it's only x16 just like 1150, and if Carrizo still plans on x16 for socket compatibility on the APU side.

Why they don't give us more expansion and features? Because there is no need for them, on mainstream platforms most of the users out there still don't even have Sata SSDs, they can't aim their whole production on the high tier buyers that already have the enthusiast grade platform option.

but the problem with this idea is PCIe solutions are becoming cheaper and more numerous. It won't be long before we have consumer 8x PCI lane SSDs.

[Faa]

 

Also, there are no extra 4 lanes from the chipset for Sound or anything else. It's quite frustrating.

 

You have either this configuration; 8x/8x/4x (4x here comes from the southbridge and the 8x/8x from cpu) or you have this config (usually with cheaper boards) 8x/4x/4x (nothing coming from the southbridge, just the 2nd slot shares its lanes with the 3rd slot) and 2way SLI + a soundcard won't work on such boards but only on 8x/8x/4x boards.

The chipset does provide an additional 4 lanes:



8x 2.0 lanes which comes down to 3.0 x4
 

[Archangel1994]

insane cooling solutions.

A Cooler Master 212 isn't an insane cooling solution and does an incredible job.

[ForsakenLive]

but the problem with this idea is PCIe solutions are becoming cheaper and more numerous. It won't be long before we have consumer 8x PCI lane SSDs.

well, consumers are not people on the forum., most PCs out there are on offices, schools, business, and people with tight budgets. They will not get PCIe SSDs at least in a decade.

PCIe SSDs are becoming cheaper, but not the PCIe lanes on the motherboard, that's still expensive to add on a CPU.

[patrickjp93]

 

 

 

You have either this configuration; 8x/8x/4x (4x here comes from the southbridge and the 8x/8x from cpu) or you have this config (usually with cheaper boards) 8x/4x/4x (nothing coming from the southbridge, just the 2nd slot shares its lanes with the 3rd slot) and 2way SLI + a soundcard won't work on such boards but only on 8x/8x/4x boards.

The chipset does provide an additional 4 lanes:

8x 2.0 lanes which comes down to 3.0 x4

 

 

forgive me but where did you get this graphic? I'd like to see Z97.

[patrickjp93]

A Cooler Master 212 isn't an insane cooling solution and does an incredible job.

Coolermaster 212 can't bring a 4960x up to 4.7GHz without holding it in the mid-high 80s.

[Archangel1994]

Coolermaster 212 can't bring a 4960x up to 4.7GHz without holding it in the mid-high 80s.

If you have a 6 Core with hyperthreading you do not need to crank it up to 4.7 for a first. Secondly the people that buy 4960x's like I said have money so they will use cooling solutions like Kraken X61 or Corsair H100/110. It's not about what is feasible on every level it's about what feasible on specific levels. Sure if you want to OC to those levels you will need a better cooling solution but people that buy a 900-1000 euro CPU have the money to get better.

[Faa]

forgive me but where did you get this graphic? I'd like to see Z97.

http://benchmarkreviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Intel-Z87-Chipset-Diagram.png

It's the same for Z97. Some of they just show 16x or 8x/8x or 8x/4x/4x because they only cover whats coming from directly from the CPU and this depends on what board you have google a cheap z87 msi board its 8x/4x/4x and an asus 160$ board orsomething is 8x/8x/4x which can use the southbridge as extra lanes for a GPU although nvidia requires x8 regardless of 2.0 or 3.0. 

[patrickjp93]

If you have a 6 Core with hyperthreading you do not need to crank it up to 4.7 for a first. Secondly the people that buy 4960x's like I said have money so they will use cooling solutions like Kraken X61 or Corsair H100/110. It's not about what is feasible on every level it's about what feasible on specific levels. Sure if you want to OC to those levels you will need a better cooling solution but people that buy a 900-1000 euro CPU have the money to get better.

single-threaded performance still governs a lot of old, classic games and a great deal of MMOs I enjoy while not doing high-end computing. It is about what's feasible on every level. I can understand there not being a hex-core or 8-core CPU on Z-series chips, but PCIe is cheap to implement. Cache is the damn expensive part.

[Archangel1994]

single-threaded performance still governs a lot of old, classic games.

Then like I said people that do not buy X79/99 and stick with "only" 16/20 lanes will not need more especially with the older classic games.

[patrickjp93]

Then like I said people that do not buy X79/99 and stick with "only" 16/20 lanes will not need more especially with the older classic games.

My point is versatility. You should be able to do high-end gaming on the Z-series chipset, and you should be able to get the chip speeds on the X-series chips that you get from Z-series. There's no reason Intel can't do the second and there's no reason they shouldn't do the first.

[Archangel1994]

My point is versatility. You should be able to do high-end gaming on the Z-series chipset without a $500 CPU, and you should be able to get the chip speeds on the X-series chips that you get from Z-series. There's no reason Intel can't do the second and there's no reason they shouldn't do the first.

And I'm saying that Z87/97 etc. already have versatility. Look at the diagram for Z87/97. With a 4th gen processor you can run 2x PCIe 3.0 8x which is the same speed as 2x PCIe 2.0 x16. I also noted before that there is no performance increase for 2.0x16 to 3.0 x16 so the 2 3.0 8x will be more than enough.

 

Just look up benchmarks for 2-way SLI/CF and you can see that you can do some serious high end gaming with "just" a non-enthusiast setup.

[patrickjp93]

And I'm saying that Z87/97 etc. already have versatility. Look at the diagram for Z87/97. With a 4th gen processor you can run 2x PCIe 3.0 8x which is the same speed as 2x PCIe 2.0 x16. I also noted before that there is no performance increase for 2.0x16 to 3.0 x16 so the 2 3.0 8x will be more than enough.

 

Just look up benchmarks for 2-way SLI/CF and you can see that you can do some serious high end gaming with "just" a non-enthusiast setup.

We're nearing the end of that being true, but yes I'm aware.

[harrynowl]

If you really need all the PCIe x16 lanes for expansion, red rockets, sound cards, raid and multi-gpu etc you should probably be buying an X79 anyway as it's also likely you need more cpu grunt.

 

As to why intel wouldn't put it on their consumer platform... well prosumers will pay for it so why not let them pay. Not as if the competition can really do much about it to stop them

[Archangel1994]

We're nearing the end of that being true, but yes I'm aware.

Not nearing the end of that being true, it IS true.

 

2-Way SLI/CF grants you incredible performance on something relatively cheap like Z87/97 with a relatively cheap CPU like 4690k. This is exactly why intel and AMD don't HAVE to care about using more lanes on non-enthusiast grade because 16 lanes is enough for 2-way SLI/CF. Only true enthusiasts go more than 2 graphics cards so they can "reserve" that for X79/X99. If the reduction in PCIe lanes can reduce costs of motherboards by 20-30 (raw guess) then it is ofcourse very much worth it for both companies and it will have a negative impact to have more as it could increase costs.

[vm'N]

Simple answer: Because Intel don't want their productlines to compete against eachother. Same reason why the non-K feature TSX and VT-d (we are not taking DC into consideration).

[patrickjp93]

Not nearing the end of that being true, it IS true.

 

2-Way SLI/CF grants you incredible performance on something relatively cheap like Z87/97 with a relatively cheap CPU like 4690k. This is exactly why intel and AMD don't HAVE to care about using more lanes on non-enthusiast grade because 16 lanes is enough for 2-way SLI/CF. Only true enthusiasts go more than 2 graphics cards so they can "reserve" that for X79/X99. If the reduction in PCIe lanes can reduce costs of motherboards by 20-30 (raw guess) then it is ofcourse very much worth it for both companies and it will have a negative impact to have more as it could increase costs.

The GTX 800 series will be the last line where PCIe 2 is fast enough for SLI. Nvidia is pushing for a new mounting socket altogether because it claims current scaling and cooperation needs will completely saturate PCIe 3 and PCIe 4 before PCIe 5 is even ratified. 

 

Now, I'm not sure how they're going to pull that off, though HBM may contribute to that.