EVGA SR-X Classified Review
AIDA64
Published: 22nd June 2012 | Source: EVGA | Price: £550est |
AIDA64
It's not a shock to anyone that the results in the CPU side of the AIDA64 benchmark suite are as insane as ever. What is a surprise is that the EVGA is consistently behind its ASUS counterpart. For a board that has a lot to live up to, it's an inauspicious start.
If there is one thing that the dual-CPU setup doesn't make for, it's huge amount of memory speed. Both the ASUS and SR-X give some pretty measly scores.
CPU Benchmarks
Memory Benchmarks
Most Recent Comments
What a let down :/
Shocking that the Asus board is better than this, especially with EVGA's track record with the SR2.
COOL PINK!
It will look great with the ugly collection of Nctua fans I have! I can make the UGLY TACKY RIG!
It will look great with the ugly collection of Nctua fans I have! I can make the UGLY TACKY RIG!
This smells of not being a finished product. I envisage a re-review in a number of months.
I never understand why anybody would buy a board like this. £500 for a mobo you could spend that money on a 7970 or a 680 that what matters when gaming. the graphics cards are a lot more important no need for two CPU's that are going to cost you £3000.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rastalovich
This smells of not being a finished product. I envisage a re-review in a number of months. |
Asus = Pure quality. But sometimes their motherboards can be all gimmicky and they advertise all sorts of different useless gimmicks to please the crowd. Really need to work on their marketing strategy and highlight the right features instead of the useless gimmicks. My honest opinion. 
I don't understand how they could let a board like this go to market in this state, its an important lesson in waiting for reviews but I still feel bad for all the evga supporters who have gone out and gotten what really is a sup par product in its category.
People who buy this kind of thing aren't looking for just gaming performance, they either want to end because building top end PCs is a passion and a hobby or they need it for intensive rendering and the like as was mentioned in the review.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DT-525
I never understand why anybody would buy a board like this. £500 for a mobo you could spend that money on a 7970 or a 680 that what matters when gaming. the graphics cards are a lot more important no need for two CPU's that are going to cost you £3000. |
not to make excuses, but the release of keplar, Z77 and Ivey, world economy representing dumped sales...
kind of a scramble to keep the ship ship-shaped?? its kinda been a teaser year so far, without epic
blow-overs in performance support. small incriments of increase delivery.. just saying..
airdeano
kind of a scramble to keep the ship ship-shaped?? its kinda been a teaser year so far, without epic
blow-overs in performance support. small incriments of increase delivery.. just saying..
airdeano
Tom, you talked a lot about cable management in this video but do you not think that people who would actually put money into this would be buying it purely for a dedicated specialised task and not really care what the system looked like inside? (Although I do know that many people will just buy hardware like this because they can)
Ouch, what a complete disappointment.
EVGA said themselves about the SR-2 that the SATA ports are this way to reduce the footprint...cant see much changing there
Also,BIOS 15 has been released which has improved it greatly..
But,more importantly,no SR-2 comparison?
Also,BIOS 15 has been released which has improved it greatly..
But,more importantly,no SR-2 comparison?
well, well, well.... here's a first........ beta-hardware!!!
i am soooooooooo glad i didn't go down this route
i am soooooooooo glad i didn't go down this route
This MIPS block might get around the battery issue 
ETA around week 26/27 and nickel pom around week 28/29
http://www.coolercases.co.uk/SR-X/sr-x_mips.jpg
http://www.coolercases.co.uk/SR-X/sr-x_mips_1.jpg
ETA around week 26/27 and nickel pom around week 28/29
http://www.coolercases.co.uk/SR-X/sr-x_mips.jpg
http://www.coolercases.co.uk/SR-X/sr-x_mips_1.jpg
it seems pretty overpriced for what you get
I expected so much from this board. And the ASUS one isn't on the market yet 
Shame for those who want a dual 2011 xeon build
Shame for those who want a dual 2011 xeon build
Such a great board but such a let down. I guess for some, the sr2 may still be the better route for a dual xeon setup even though its been out for a few years
disappointing!!!!
Very odd this.
Whilst I can see the advantages of being able to run two Xeons on the same board (for sheer core count alone) the fact that the new Xeons are un-clockable makes this a strange idea.
To make it worthwhile you would need to buy two Xeons with huge core counts which immediately starts to get very expensive, then you realise that new Xeons are really just the same Sandybridge/Ivybridge CPUs as their desktop counterparts in slightly different flavours (IE - The E3 1220 has the same core count as the I5 2500 but the L3 cache of the I7 2600 with ECC support) .
But the fact remains that other than different cache levels and core counts they are just Sandy/Ivy CPUs underneath it all.
Which begs the question (to me at least) why EVGA have bothered with the Xeons this time around given that you can't clock them, at all
Surely it would have been a better idea to make a board that can support multiple insert regular old chip model here on the same board and have the ability to clock them
I remember at the end of the 90s and into the early noughties several budget type boards that could take multiple CPUs (two usually was the norm). The difference, though, was that these boards could take anything that would fit. At that time it was a choice of Celerons or Coppermine flip chip P3s. You could then up the bus clocks and gain slight overclocks out of them which all made sense if you used Windows 2000.
Abit were the kings of it, and the price was good too, about £140 IIRC.
Not only that but you could use bog standard SDRAM modules too, with no need for ECC support. So I guess that's what I am finding hard to figure out here. Why didn't EVGA design a board that you could throw two 2500ks (for example) onto and then clock them?
And the price? well it's ridiculous. P77 or whatever they are called (and P67 etc) boards don't cost that much. Not like a 2011 or the 1366 before it.
So the only thing this board has going for it is the ability to run a pair of (example) £1500 processors for sheer core count.
Which kind of rules out the enthusiast as there's no gains to be had, and no special techniques to set any records with. All you need is a huge bank balance and a large dose of stupidity.
Which makes it all a bit pointless really. Even more pointless that companies like Supermicro make boards just like this one for around the same price.
Whilst I can see the advantages of being able to run two Xeons on the same board (for sheer core count alone) the fact that the new Xeons are un-clockable makes this a strange idea.
To make it worthwhile you would need to buy two Xeons with huge core counts which immediately starts to get very expensive, then you realise that new Xeons are really just the same Sandybridge/Ivybridge CPUs as their desktop counterparts in slightly different flavours (IE - The E3 1220 has the same core count as the I5 2500 but the L3 cache of the I7 2600 with ECC support) .
But the fact remains that other than different cache levels and core counts they are just Sandy/Ivy CPUs underneath it all.
Which begs the question (to me at least) why EVGA have bothered with the Xeons this time around given that you can't clock them, at all
Surely it would have been a better idea to make a board that can support multiple insert regular old chip model here on the same board and have the ability to clock them
I remember at the end of the 90s and into the early noughties several budget type boards that could take multiple CPUs (two usually was the norm). The difference, though, was that these boards could take anything that would fit. At that time it was a choice of Celerons or Coppermine flip chip P3s. You could then up the bus clocks and gain slight overclocks out of them which all made sense if you used Windows 2000.
Abit were the kings of it, and the price was good too, about £140 IIRC.
Not only that but you could use bog standard SDRAM modules too, with no need for ECC support. So I guess that's what I am finding hard to figure out here. Why didn't EVGA design a board that you could throw two 2500ks (for example) onto and then clock them?
And the price? well it's ridiculous. P77 or whatever they are called (and P67 etc) boards don't cost that much. Not like a 2011 or the 1366 before it.
So the only thing this board has going for it is the ability to run a pair of (example) £1500 processors for sheer core count.
Which kind of rules out the enthusiast as there's no gains to be had, and no special techniques to set any records with. All you need is a huge bank balance and a large dose of stupidity.
Which makes it all a bit pointless really. Even more pointless that companies like Supermicro make boards just like this one for around the same price.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fallout3
Very odd this.
Whilst I can see the advantages of being able to run two Xeons on the same board (for sheer core count alone) the fact that the new Xeons are un-clockable makes this a strange idea. To make it worthwhile you would need to buy two Xeons with huge core counts which immediately starts to get very expensive, then you realise that new Xeons are really just the same Sandybridge/Ivybridge CPUs as their desktop counterparts in slightly different flavours (IE - The E3 1220 has the same core count as the I5 2500 but the L3 cache of the I7 2600 with ECC support) . But the fact remains that other than different cache levels and core counts they are just Sandy/Ivy CPUs underneath it all. Which begs the question (to me at least) why EVGA have bothered with the Xeons this time around given that you can't clock them, at all Surely it would have been a better idea to make a board that can support multiple insert regular old chip model here on the same board and have the ability to clock them I remember at the end of the 90s and into the early noughties several budget type boards that could take multiple CPUs (two usually was the norm). The difference, though, was that these boards could take anything that would fit. At that time it was a choice of Celerons or Coppermine flip chip P3s. You could then up the bus clocks and gain slight overclocks out of them which all made sense if you used Windows 2000. Abit were the kings of it, and the price was good too, about £140 IIRC. Not only that but you could use bog standard SDRAM modules too, with no need for ECC support. So I guess that's what I am finding hard to figure out here. Why didn't EVGA design a board that you could throw two 2500ks (for example) onto and then clock them? And the price? well it's ridiculous. P77 or whatever they are called (and P67 etc) boards don't cost that much. Not like a 2011 or the 1366 before it. So the only thing this board has going for it is the ability to run a pair of (example) £1500 processors for sheer core count. Which kind of rules out the enthusiast as there's no gains to be had, and no special techniques to set any records with. All you need is a huge bank balance and a large dose of stupidity. Which makes it all a bit pointless really. Even more pointless that companies like Supermicro make boards just like this one for around the same price. |
The SR 2 doesnt require ECC ram either
I guess for some, the sr2 may still be the better route for a dual xeon setup even though its been out for a few years
CSS Valid
We finally get our hands on the sequel to the insane EVGA SR2, the much anticipated EVGA SR-X Classified.
Continue Reading