Back to Article

  • R3MF - Friday, June 06, 2014 - link

    "The Z97-G55 SLI used the ASMedia ASM1142 Controller that requires two PCIe 2.0 lanes, which puts more pressure on PCIe lanes given the new storage technologies implemented on the 9-series that also require PCIe lanes."

    This is exactly why I was impressed with AMD for providing Kaveri with 24x PCIe 3.0 lanes on the chip, a far more forward looking platform than the marketing-crippled s1150.

    All we need is an Kaveri FX with three steamroller modules and 256 shaders on board...
  • Flunk - Friday, June 06, 2014 - link

    Load it up with CPU and ditch the GPU if you really want high-end. A version with more GPU cores and less CPU cores might be good too but you can't have everything. Reply
  • Jedibeeftrix - Saturday, June 07, 2014 - link

    amd is simply not going to make those products, for it goes against the entire purpose of creating HSA.

    they might on the other hand differentiate a new FX range from the current mainstream by adding cores and removing shaders. spending more of the power/transistor budget on the CPU rather than the GPU.
  • The Von Matrices - Friday, June 06, 2014 - link

    The math is the same. If you're using a PCIe x16 graphics card, then both Z97 and Kaveri have 8 remaining PCIe lanes. It doesn't matter whether they are PCIe 2.0 or 3.0 because the USB 3.1 controller only accepts PCIe 2.0 anyway. Reply
  • R3MF - Saturday, June 07, 2014 - link

    at least it, and all other devcies and PHY's connected via PCIe will talk straight to the chip, and not via the northbridge over an already saturated link. Reply
  • Galatian - Friday, June 06, 2014 - link

    X99 and only M.2 with 2 PCIe 2.0 connections? Screw that! Why is ASRock the only manufacture capable of a higher speed implementation? I mean seriously: if you want to give us a new solution for connecting SSDs make it goddamn faster! Reply
  • romrunning - Friday, June 06, 2014 - link

    I agree - all M.2 slots should be x4 from the start. Don't start me off with what I can get through a regular SATA 6Gbps port. Reply
  • extide - Friday, June 06, 2014 - link

    Especially on X99, with 40 PCIe 3 lanes! Reply
  • The Von Matrices - Friday, June 06, 2014 - link

    What's disappointing is that it basically confirms that X99 has only PCIe 2.0 lanes, so for another 3 years the high end platform will be stuck with a PCIe 2.0 chipset. Reply
  • Morawka - Saturday, June 07, 2014 - link

    your totally wrong on this. X99 has 5X PCIe 3.0 Lanes

    x16/NC/x8/x8/x8, x16/NC/x16/NC/x8 or x8/x8/x8/x8/x8. The chipset will hold a maximum of 10 SATA 3 ports, Removed SAS support to make way for more Sata 3. and 6 native USB 3.0 ports.
  • p3ngwin1 - Friday, June 06, 2014 - link

    dual channel DDR4 ?

    i thought with DDR4 each DIMM had essentially it's own "channel" ?
  • LtGoonRush - Friday, June 06, 2014 - link

    I had also read that DDR4 moved to a point-to-point bus, but apparently there was a spec change late in the game to enable multiple DIMMs per channel at a cost to clockspeeds. It's rather disappointing that motherboard manufacturers are choosing to implement this outside of servers, I'd rather see more workstation/enthusiast boards with fewer, faster DIMM slots. Reply
  • extide - Friday, June 06, 2014 - link

    You always have the option of not populating all the slots... Reply
  • extide - Friday, June 06, 2014 - link

    This is a quad channel board, with 2 DIMM's per channel. Not sure what the deal is with the whole One Dimm Per CHannel thing... but I guess that's not that case.. It would be good for someone at AT to do a quick writeup on that, though! Reply
  • ddarko - Friday, June 06, 2014 - link

    "Also at the MSI booth was a motherboard featuring a USB 3.1 controller. The Z97-G55 SLI used the ASMedia ASM1142 Controller..."

    Since this is an ASMedia controller, this means the real world speed of USB 3.1 on the board will be about the same as the native Intel USB 3.0 ports. Looking forward to it....
  • Alexvrb - Monday, June 09, 2014 - link

    Hey that's not bad! I was anticipating USB 2.0 speeds. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now