I think even a 1080 Ti can't saturate PCIe 3.0 x8, so you really only need eight lanes for that. Four lanes for the M.2 drive leaves me another four lanes. Apart from that most consumers won't have a 1080 Ti in their system anyways.
Is M.2 really mainstream? Just because you see all the tech youtubers put M.2 drives and 1080 Tis in their builds doesn't make it mainstream. I think 90% of consumers won't need more than a good SATA SSD at the moment.
Not enough, more like 80 lanes for my two 1080 Tis in SLI, dual M.2 in RAID 0, 10GBit-NIC and two RAID cards.
I agree that in general that most PC users have one GPU card, and maybe one M.2 (if not just only SATA SSD). And that in such case 16x vs 8x do not matter due to version 3.0 being actually used.
But thats what the Z chipsets (if not lower - B, H, ....) with socket smaller than 2066 is for.
What would be purpose of a 2066 socket CPU that perfectly would fit in the existing lower pin number socket?
Only for 4 memory channels? But then again for normal users it is the same speed difference like PCIe 16x vs 8x. So then maybe just to have more memory? (not sure what is the max for i9 but 50% chances are that it is not higher than Skylake).
So finally I can answer my own question: "What would be purpose of a 2066 socket CPU that perfectly would fit in the lower number pin socket?" -> more money for Intel
They are tempting "normal" users for affordable x299 that can do exactly the same as mainstream platform but gives more money for Intel. And also they are "forcing" those that can really utilize x299 platform (EDIT: and more precisely 2066 socket) to choose more pricey processors just because of PCIe lanes (they might really need).
Ryzen doesn't have 16 pci-e lanes, it has 24, atleast with platform. For SLI or CF you need 16 (8+8) and for nvme ssd 4. So basically it all average consumer needs
Everyone who needs more than two gpu's isn't gamer and needs to go for enthusiast platform (for like gpu rendering)
I agree about the high-end GPU sli demographic, I think watching people like Linus or JayzTwoCents or Paul's Hardware has colorized how PC gamers see themselves a bit and touting the label "pcmasterrace" doesn't help either.
I don't quite understand what you point is, but the Core i9 CPUs are not the one's that only have 16 lanes. That chart shows four new Core i7 CPUs as well. Two of those Core i7 chips are the ones that have 16 lanes which is exactly the same as the current Core i7 7700K. In fact the only difference between the 7740X and the 7700K is the slightly higher base clock and support for faster memory. Given the higher TDP, you might be also able to get better overclocks compared to the 7700K, but that is just my speculation.
I don't quite agree with your point that SLI/CF and NVMe SSDs are an average consumer need. Since most games don't even properly utilize two GPUs, most people are recommending getting the best single GPU instead.
Only dual 1080 Tis in SLI and a M.2 RAID 0 will get you 60 fps on your 8K monitor with minimal loading times
The point is, that those i7 with 16 lanes make very little to absolutely no sense in 2066 sockets. They would perfectly fit into the LGA1151. As you already see those two new CPUs are almost 1:1 to what Intel is already offering on the cheaper platform.
Given the higher TDP, you might be also able to get better overclocks compared to the 7700K, but that is just my speculation.
Not quite. If anything, in general, when looking only at the TDP, you should rather expect the opposite. Higher TDP with similar specs (core count, speed) means that the OC might be more limited.
But that would need to be determined in testing as many more details comes together when doing the OC.
For some reason I thought that only the i9s will be on 2066 and the i7s will stay on 1151. Yeah I guess it seems stupid to get the new chipset with those two chips, but this is the same discussion you can have about the $30 Pentium/Celeron for 1151. Someone might spend a few dollars extra on a 2066 board and then upgrade to a better CPU later. For some companies it might also make sense to order a 1000 of the 2066 boards and get some discount because of that than to pay the normal price for 500 2066 boards and 500 1151 boards.
That's true. Maybe those extreme edition CPUs might even allow you use ECC memory and other features that were limited to Xeons in the past. Given that some people think these are just recycled Xeons anyways, it would be a cheap way to compete with AMD who offer ECC on Ryzen as well.
I thought that, considering Intel is way bigger than AMD, that they would have some trump card if AMD brings something to the table but apparently because they have been so complacent for a decade of a monopoly that they forgot how to compete. Is Intel run by marketers now?
This move by them really confuses me but makes me excited if Threadripper can deliver.
The hard limit for AMD's silicon is 4.1ghz, and that's if at all, on all 10+ cores. Intel on the other hand is hitting 4.5ghz on their 8c/16T and 10c/20T part. That's not counting the fact that it's on stock TIM, if you actually remove the TIM with a better thermal paste or use liquid metal you can probably get better overclocks, which we've already seen done on the 7700k.
16 pcie lanes only? wow sorta downgrade that's like running 1 graphics card 1 pcie ssd and 1 sound card?
Or 8x graphics, 8x HBA raid card..
Might as well buy itx motherboard. Also on Linus' video it's UP TO DDR4 2666.. what are they doing SUPPORT DDR4 4000+ plz!!! Anybody with a 5820k or higher won't even budge to upgrade. Save for that $2000 dollar 1180 ti!
That chart is more than enough reason why anybody w/ as little mental capacity as a parrot should pass up on any Intel offering for AMD's instead this go around.
