QuickSync not available on some processors

[bcn_246]

Real shame Intel chose to leave out QuickSync (and all intergrated video) from 2011 boards... just paid out well over $1.5k upgrading from 1366.

Wondering if Haswell would have been a better option...

[Asmodian]

It isn't left out of the boards it is left out of the CPU. Well the connections for it were left out of the motherboard too but it is because of the lack of the GPU on the CPU's silicone; its die area (and a lot more) was used for the extra cpu cores and cache. I am glad they left out integrated video from the 6 core chips, 2011 is already a crazy number of pins and if I am spending that much on a system I want a better GPU anyway (wasting die area, motherboard traces, etc.). Besides a smaller area means more profit per chip. ;)

You have plenty of extra PCI-E slots, a decent cheap new Nvidia works very well. :)

[bcn_246]

I know it's the CPUs that actually hold the integrated video. I suppose I was referring to the 2011 standard generally (not just the 3xxx or 4xxx CPUs lacking QuickSync). But yes you are correct I should have said "...Intel chose to leave it out of all 2011 CPUs".

I do agree about the benefits of losing integrated video for 6 cores. I run my 4930K at 4.2GHz w/1.35v with 16GB of 2133MHz memory on a standard H100i. It can go as high as 4.5GHz with 1.425v and remain 24h Prime95 stable. I just find it gets too hot (mid 70s) so I don't like running more than 1.35v through a CPU long term just so not too risk reducing its lifespan. Running 12 threads is a real advantage with AVISynth, I can run 1080p with SVP at level 5g (along with other quite intensive ffdshow filters) in realtime with the CPU rarely going above 50%

As for if there will be 6 core Haswell I am unsure. Before going with 2011 I read up on this and found a lot of speculation but no real evidence that it was or was not possible... do you know if it is doable?

Part of my concern over 2011 is due to the disappointing amount of development that happened after release with Intel's the last 'Professional' standard (1366) compared to the again 'Mainstream' counterpart (1156, which like Haswell to 2011 was released shortly after 1366). One major example I can think of is newer 1156 boardd managing to support (kind of) native Intel SATA3 using a P67 transformer. Still, 1366 was stuck with the awful Marvell 912x (which on a side note was falsely advertised as 'True 6.0GB/s SATA3' despite it running through PCI-E, limiting it to 5.0GB/s). To summarise, given how much I had spent on it I felt lt disappointed at how little 1366 was developed and supported after release. I am hoping Haswell does not cause Intel and board manufacturers to forget about all those that paid significant amounts for 2011 CPUs and Motherboards.

Regards,

Ben

[Asmodian]

Well I am waiting for LGA2011-3 to adopt 2011, it looks like 3rd quarter this year 6 and 8 core Haswell-E chips.
http://www.techpowerup.com/196158/intel-core-i7-haswell-e-to-launch-in-q3-2014.html

It looks like Haswell did cause Intel to consider current 2011 "obsolete". 10x SATA 6 Gb/s ports. :D

Hmm, going rather off topic, sorry. :o

[bcn_246]

Well I am waiting for LGA2011-3 to adopt 2011, it looks like 3rd quarter this year 6 and 8 core Haswell-E chips.
http://www.techpowerup.com/196158/intel-core-i7-haswell-e-to-launch-in-q3-2014.html

It looks like Haswell did cause Intel to consider current 2011 "obsolete". 10x SATA 6 Gb/s ports. :D

Hmm, going rather off topic, sorry. :o
It really pisses me off. They are neglecting there hardcore user base. They did it with 1366 and I can see it happening again with 2011.

Seriously considering if I should sell my ASUS Sabertooth TUF 2011 + Intel i7 4930K quickly (before people realise that 2011 may well become neglected like 1366) and replace it with a ASUS Maximus VI Formula Z87 1150 + Intel Core i7 4770K...

I don't know, my 2011 setup does run extremely well... still, it bugs me that the priority and focus for things like enabling TRIM for RAID-0 SSDs is on 1150 Haswell and not 2011 setups, despite the 2011 users probably having paid $400 for their mobo and $600 for their i7 CPU and 1150 users having paid $250 for their mobo and $300 for their i5...

[lansing]

1150 users having paid $250 for their mobo and $300 for their i5...

My board (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813130695) cost less than a $100 and it's working just fine. Seriously I don't understand why people chose the high price board, as various tests had shown that there're literally no differences in performance between a $400 z87 board and a $70 micro-ATX board.

[mastrboy]

So many reasons to choose a higher price motherboard: Overclocking options, DPC latency, Power Consumption, Number of available SATA ports, Wireless/or not, BIOS quality/stability/update frequency, warranty period (some boards gives you 5 years), number of available fan ports, lan nic provider (I always go for boards who use intel onboard nics). memory speed and manufacturer compatibility, etc...

[lansing]

So many reasons to choose a higher price motherboard: Overclocking options, DPC latency, Power Consumption, Number of available SATA ports, Wireless/or not, BIOS quality/stability/update frequency, warranty period (some boards gives you 5 years), number of available fan ports, lan nic provider (I always go for boards who use intel onboard nics). memory speed and manufacturer compatibility, etc...

Name me a z87 board under $100 that doesn't have OC option and an onboard NIC? Only one among all your listed reasons is legit and that's the number of SATA ports, but I don't think that's enough to make up the $300 difference.

[mastrboy]

Did not mean just having a onboard nic, I was talking about the manufacturer of the nic chip. Most cheap cards just use realtek/marvel chips, more expensive cards usually go with Intel.
And I didn't try to justify going with a 300-400$ board either... My board costs about 150$ and it satisfied all the options I mentioned.