# New X58 motherboard?



## HTC (May 9, 2008)

As we known, Intel’s next gen processor will be Nehalem, and desktop Nehalem will be Bloomfield. It is a 45nm process technology 4 core CPU, integrated with memory controller, SMT (Simultaneous Multi-threading) up to 8 processing threads, and w/ 8M cache. It has been revealed in IDF 08, but at that time no the supporting mobo is still being kept in secret.






Today we find out that the first Bloomfield supporting mobo will be Intel X58(with ICH10/R) coming out Q4 this year. Because Bloomfield have already got memory controller integrated, so north bridge will be simplified. The biggest point of the board will be the odd lay out, dual channel, Triple channel DD3 supporting and Dual PCIe 2.0 X16 or Quad PCIe 2.0 X8.

The north bridge have couples of new features, but Intel keeps ICH10/R as its south bridge, so there is nothing more to say about it.

Also here is a pic we believe it is a X58,which leaked to the web earlier.







Source: Expreview


----------



## kylew (May 9, 2008)

Looks like some interesting stuff, looking forward to alternate (improved) motherboard layouts.


----------



## Exavier (May 9, 2008)

think I'll stick with going P35/P45


----------



## btarunr (May 9, 2008)

I guess Intel is keeping lull about it because if they start all the pre-release hyporama, it could adversely affect the sales of its current products (CPU's and desktop chipset). Nehalem doesn't feel very far, just that very less is talked about it from Intel's side. It looks pretty revolutionary. 

Secondly, I don't think the northbridge in the schematic matches the one on that _Smackover_, looking at the arrangement of diodes/caps on the plastic package....I could be wrong since the one in the schematic doesn't look like a photo.

Here's a discussion about that board. The guys at Intel nicknamed it _Smackover_: http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=55640


----------



## kylew (May 9, 2008)

I hope they finally get rid of IDE ports and any other legacy stuff we don't really need. 10 SATA Ports anyone?  Does anyone know of any LGA775 Board that has 10+ SATA ports btw? I'm looking for a board for a file server. (i'm guessing i'll just be told to get a SATA Card though )


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (May 9, 2008)

kylew said:


> I hope they finally get rid of IDE ports and any other legacy stuff we don't really need. 10 SATA Ports anyone?  Does anyone know of any LGA775 Board that has 10+ SATA ports btw? I'm looking for a board for a file server. (i'm guessing i'll just be told to get a SATA Card though )



Abit ab9 pro .. 9 internal and 1 external .. plus ide...


----------



## kylew (May 9, 2008)

[I.R.A]_FBi said:


> Abit ab9 pro .. 9 internal and 1 external .. plus ide...



Ahh cool, thanks , it's just a shame the ports are badly set out  know of any other ones that have a better layout?


----------



## btarunr (May 9, 2008)

*kylew,*

While the AB9 Pro has 10 SATA connectors in all (plus IDE), not all of those are routed to the southbridge. Some are connected to 3rd party RAID controllers on the board. Just thought you should know in case a RAID setup is on the cards. Otherwise you can choose any board based on the ICH9R, add SATA cards (that run on PCI-E x1), you should get them < $20 each for cards with upto 4 SATA connectors.


----------



## vexen (May 9, 2008)

Intel has the worst Chipset road since years, even since the Pentium 4, 915, 925, 945, 955, 965.... i cannot name them all, then we got P35, still few people are on X38 (some are DDR3), they release the X48, why the X58??


----------



## farlex85 (May 9, 2008)

vexen said:


> Intel has the worst Chipset road since years, even since the Pentium 4, 915, 925, 945, 955, 965.... i cannot name them all, then we got P35, still few people are on X38 (some are DDR3), they release the X48, why the X58??



Because of nahalem, which will use a completely different chipset. This is a completely different chipset, not an expansion of the previous ones.


----------



## erocker (May 9, 2008)

X58 is a new socket and a whole new design.


----------



## spearman914 (May 9, 2008)

Do you know anything about the price yet? These look awesome and what about specs???


----------



## panchoman (May 9, 2008)

wait so will these have sli support?


----------



## yogurt_21 (May 9, 2008)

hmmm the x58 seems to cover up where the next P series would be, that doesn't make me happy.


----------



## hat (May 10, 2008)

panchoman said:


> wait so will these have sli support?


Crossfire most likely, no SLI.


----------



## kylew (May 10, 2008)

If there isn't any SLi support, NV really are crippling them selves. They're bascially saying don't buy our stuff if you want the best hardware. Even AMD/ATI  let their stuff run on Intel and AMD platforms, and AMD and intel are big rivals, but they know they'll both be making money from crossfire support, even if the multi GPU market isn't that big of a deal, any money is good money, especially for AMD.


----------



## Morgoth (May 10, 2008)

This X58 is Tylersburg chipset 

see 
http://www.nehalemnews.com/search/label/Tylersburg

the X58 is bloomfield only

btw its not a northbridge..


----------



## hat (May 10, 2008)

kylew said:


> If there isn't any SLi support, NV really are crippling them selves. They're bascially saying don't buy our stuff if you want the best hardware. Even AMD/ATI  let their stuff run on Intel and AMD platforms, and AMD and intel are big rivals, but they know they'll both be making money from crossfire support, even if the multi GPU market isn't that big of a deal, any money is good money, especially for AMD.



Nvidia will be developing an SLI chipset anyway, don't worry about it. Actually Intel only supporting crossfire on Intel chipsets has been thier big FU to Nvidia for some reason.


----------



## btarunr (May 11, 2008)

hat said:


> Nvidia will be developing an SLI chipset anyway, don't worry about it. Actually Intel only supporting crossfire on Intel chipsets has been thier big FU to Nvidia for some reason.



It's the other way round. NVidia not letting Intel support SLI on their chipset is a big FU to Intel and its big fat corporate ego.

sidenote: I heard 'Whoop-ass' is the brand name of a BBQ sauce in the US, is it true?


----------



## hat (May 11, 2008)

Apparantly.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000G6VDYA/?tag=tec06d-20


----------



## largon (May 11, 2008)

I have a dreading feeling Nehalem will be a HUGE disappointment...


----------



## Morgoth (May 11, 2008)

no it wont
there are all rumours.. like it was said many times before
like on p3 p4 core2


----------



## largon (May 11, 2008)

The latest doomsday-rumor hasn't landed TPU yet...


----------



## btarunr (May 11, 2008)

largon said:


> The latest doomsday-rumor hasn't landed TPU yet...



Mind letting us in on it?


----------



## JrRacinFan (May 11, 2008)

I think largon is speaking of no SLi wtih any Intel products and no overclocking unless you buy the extreme highest end stuff, upon the release of Nehalem.


----------



## btarunr (May 11, 2008)

But that's a misinterpreted 'statement' from Intel. It actually meant that SLI won't be part of Intel's chipset, but nowhere mentioned anything about 3rd party chipsets. NForce is 3rd party. oops I've got a party to attend as well, forgetful that I am


----------



## JrRacinFan (May 11, 2008)

I am aware of the whole 3rd party thing. But I took it as nVidia is not even creating an SLi chipset for Nehalem.


----------



## largon (May 11, 2008)

I don't care about SLi support. It's the non-Bloomfield overclock-lock I'm worried about. 
If the rumor turns out valid then here's what you'll have to pay if you're interested in OC'ing Nehalem:
LGA1366 CPU: $400/€ ->
X58 motherboard: $250/€ ->
2-3 DDR3 DIMMs: $300/€ ->>


Morgoth said:


> no it wont


How is your Nehalem? Huh? 
I mean, I really don't know if the rumour is true but since you "do know" it's not...


----------



## btarunr (May 11, 2008)

you mean to say that to OC, you need to pay Intel? What is this OC-lock exactly, apart from a locked FSB multiplier?


----------



## vega22 (May 11, 2008)

thats it according to the rumor mill, the ondie mem controller wont do different speeds but the x range will allow you to change the multi.

how true only time will tell.


cant sombody just stick the nv 200 mcp onto a x58 mobo like they have with the nf600 to nf700?


----------



## btarunr (May 11, 2008)

It's now I feel the most that AMD should compete aggressively with Intel in the high-performance segment.


----------



## largon (May 11, 2008)

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7255&Itemid=35

Say hello to "bus lock". Since we're already familiar with locked multipliers it's possible there would be no way whatsoever to OC a non-LGA1366 Nehalem. Bloomfield which is the high-end platform wouldn't have the bus lock so it would be the only OC'able Nehalem platform.


----------



## btarunr (May 11, 2008)

Greedy bas*****.  

Now what this should trigger is that AMD speeds up the entry of Shanghai / SandTiger (and derivatives), bring Socket 1207 to the desktop, implement DDR3 IMC, and hit Intel where it would hurt the most, sub-400 dollar CPU market.


----------



## TheLostSwede (May 11, 2008)

Well, Intel seems to have done it this time, but with a bit of luck, one of the board partners will find a way around the overclocking lock. It's not impossible, but it won't be easy 
Maybe we should start a petition and tell Intel to tear it out?


----------



## farlex85 (May 11, 2008)

Eh, screw nahelem anyway. I'm not paying $400 for 4gb of memory, I'm just not. I don't care how much money I have. And I'm not paying what I'm sure the Bloomfield will cost. I've already decided I'm gonna get the x3360 once it drops below $300 and let that play out for a while, maybe till Sandy Bridge.

Although, by the time it hits, prices could be down to much less than they are. I would imagine that DDR3 prices have to be, or Intel could lose a lot of business. Please AMD, knock them off their high horses, please.


----------



## Oliver_FF (May 11, 2008)

Intel don't have a huge choice when it comes to moving the memory controller onto their chips. At the moment an Intel cpu has multiple cores sharing a common L2 cache. Pretty much all communication goes via the northbridge (where the memory controller is atm) which means when you start upping the number of cores the traffic on the northbridge starts rising too. If you want 12 cores and have a 1333MHz FSB, with a hefty throughput graphics card relying on the northbridge too, it becomes a massive massive bottleneck.

AMD's approach, putting the memory controller on the CPU, means that all memory accesses for all the cores are kept separate the disk reads, graphics cards and USB devices. This is why AMD's architecture is generally quoted to be more scalable than Intels. AMD's cpu's all have their own L2 cache and share a common L3 cache which further reduces stress on the memory.


----------



## AsRock (May 11, 2008)

Looks pretty cool to me if that is a pic of it..  like all that space you have around the CPU area.  This mean CPU coolers going get EVEN BIGGER ..


Not some thing i'll get it be some years(2-4) before i upgrade..


----------



## largon (May 11, 2008)

Err...
Board in the article is some prototype, nothing like that will ever go retail.


----------



## Morgoth (May 11, 2008)

here is the X58 board design


----------



## imperialreign (May 11, 2008)

HTC said:


>





wow . . . that's a rather large form factor right there . . . I wonder if it's a server or workstation board


----------



## Morgoth (May 11, 2008)

thats the prototype..


----------



## imperialreign (May 11, 2008)

Morgoth said:


> thats the prototype..



with Intel that means they've already started production


----------



## largon (May 12, 2008)

*imperialreign*,
I think the prototype is just a standard size ATX board.


----------



## imperialreign (May 12, 2008)

largon said:


> *imperialreign*,
> I think the prototype is just a standard size ATX board.



It very well could be . . . could also be EATX, kinda hard to tell based on the angle of the pic - I was basing my initial assumption off the spacing between PCB components, but that could also be from the unusual (read: different than standard ATX) placement of the components as well.


----------



## tkpenalty (May 12, 2008)

Hmm... Intel moving to design boards in a similar manner to BTX? That board design pretty much looks like one of their server boards, looks like 771. Triple channel memory? :S


----------



## Morgoth (May 12, 2008)

yep tri channel


----------



## largon (May 12, 2008)

Yup, Bloomfield (high-end) Nehalem has a 3-channel 192bit DDR3 memory controller. 
It's a bit shame all this CPU power and memory bandwidth goes to waste as there's nothing CPU-bottlenecked out there except benchmarks. Games are becoming increasingly GPU-bottlenecked (especially shader-wise), CPU speeds don't do squat anymore. "CPU is dead" as nVIDIA said the other day.


----------



## DeathTyrant (May 12, 2008)

Hmm. I really like the look of these new mobos, and have a case that could house them. However, I don't like the OC lock at all.


----------



## philbrown23 (May 12, 2008)

well thats a socket 775, I thought the nalahem and bloomfield were going to be socket 1366 or something like that.


----------



## largon (May 12, 2008)

Err... 
That's certainly _not_ LGA775.


----------



## Morgoth (May 12, 2008)

lol it is lga1366


----------



## Morgoth (May 12, 2008)

*Early Tylersburg (x58) Driver, Sighting*

The latest version of Intel's 4-Series chipset driver package includes a couple of interesting additions in the form of IntelCPU.inf and IntelIOH.inf both of which contain some interesting references to QuickPath components...

Driver Package Readme: 
	
	



```
* Product: Intel(R) Chipset Device Software
* Release: Production Version
* Version: 9.0.0.1007
* Target Chipset#: Intel(R) 4 Series Chipset
* Date: March 26 2008
```

IntelCPU.inf:


```
INTEL="Intel"
PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_2C01.DeviceDesc="Intel(R) QuickPath Architecture System Address Decoder - 2C01"
PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_2C10.DeviceDesc="Intel(R) QuickPath Interconnect Link 0 - 2C10"
PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_2C11.DeviceDesc="Intel(R) QuickPath Interconnect Physical 0 - 2C11"
PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_2C14.DeviceDesc="Intel(R) QuickPath Interconnect Link 1 - 2C14"
PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_2C15.DeviceDesc="Intel(R) QuickPath Interconnect Physical 1 - 2C15"
PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_2C18.DeviceDesc="Intel(R) QuickPath Memory Controller - 2C18"
PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_2C19.DeviceDesc="Intel(R) QuickPath Memory Controller Target Address Decoder - 2C19"
PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_2C1A.DeviceDesc="Intel(R) QuickPath Memory Controller RAS Registers - 2C1A"
PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_2C1C.DeviceDesc="Intel(R) QuickPath Memory Controller Test Registers - 2C1C"
PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_2C20.DeviceDesc="Intel(R) QuickPath Memory Controller Channel 0 Control Registers - 2C20"
PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_2C21.DeviceDesc="Intel(R) QuickPath Memory Controller Channel 0 Address Registers - 2C21"
PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_2C22.DeviceDesc="Intel(R) QuickPath Memory Controller Channel 0 Rank Registers - 2C22"
PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_2C23.DeviceDesc="Intel(R) QuickPath Memory Controller Channel 0 Thermal Control Registers - 2C23"
PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_2C28.DeviceDesc="Intel(R) QuickPath Memory Controller Channel 1 Control Registers - 2C28"
PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_2C29.DeviceDesc="Intel(R) QuickPath Memory Controller Channel 1 Address Registers - 2C29"
PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_2C2A.DeviceDesc="Intel(R) QuickPath Memory Controller Channel 1 Rank Registers - 2C2A"
PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_2C2B.DeviceDesc="Intel(R) QuickPath Memory Controller Channel 1 Thermal Control Registers - 2C2B"
PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_2C30.DeviceDesc="Intel(R) QuickPath Memory Controller Channel 2 Control Registers - 2C30"
PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_2C31.DeviceDesc="Intel(R) QuickPath Memory Controller Channel 2 Address Registers - 2C31"
PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_2C32.DeviceDesc="Intel(R) QuickPath Memory Controller Channel 2 Rank Registers - 2C32"
PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_2C33.DeviceDesc="Intel(R) QuickPath Memory Controller Channel 2 Thermal Control Registers - 2C33"
PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_2C40.DeviceDesc="Intel(R) QuickPath Architecture Generic Non-Core Registers - 2C40"

; Copyright (c) 2007 Intel Corporation
```

IntelIOH.inf: 


```
[Strings]
INTEL="Intel"

PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_3400.DeviceDesc="Intel(R) QuickPath Architecture I/O Hub to ESI Port - 3400"
PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_3401.DeviceDesc="Intel(R) QuickPath Architecture I/O Hub to ESI Port - 3401"
PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_3402.DeviceDesc="Intel(R) QuickPath Architecture I/O Hub to ESI Port - 3402"
PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_3403.DeviceDesc="Intel(R) QuickPath Architecture I/O Hub to ESI Port - 3403"
PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_3404.DeviceDesc="Intel(R) QuickPath Architecture I/O Hub to ESI Port - 3404"
PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_3405.DeviceDesc="Intel(R) QuickPath Architecture I/O Hub to ESI Port - 3405"
PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_3406.DeviceDesc="Intel(R) QuickPath Architecture I/O Hub to ESI Port - 3406"
PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_3407.DeviceDesc="Intel(R) QuickPath Architecture I/O Hub to ESI Port - 3407"
PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_3408.DeviceDesc="Intel(R) QuickPath Architecture I/O Hub PCI Express Root Port 1 - 3408"
PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_3409.DeviceDesc="Intel(R) QuickPath Architecture I/O Hub PCI Express Root Port 2 - 3409"
PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_340a.DeviceDesc="Intel(R) QuickPath Architecture I/O Hub PCI Express Root Port 3 - 340A"
PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_340b.DeviceDesc="Intel(R) QuickPath Architecture I/O Hub PCI Express Root Port 4 - 340B"
PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_340c.DeviceDesc="Intel(R) QuickPath Architecture I/O Hub PCI Express Root Port 5 - 340C"
PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_340d.DeviceDesc="Intel(R) QuickPath Architecture I/O Hub PCI Express Root Port 6 - 340D"
PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_340e.DeviceDesc="Intel(R) QuickPath Architecture I/O Hub PCI Express Root Port 7 - 340E"
PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_340f.DeviceDesc="Intel(R) QuickPath Architecture I/O Hub PCI Express Root Port 8 - 340F"
PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_3410.DeviceDesc="Intel(R) QuickPath Architecture I/O Hub PCI Express Root Port 9 - 3410"
PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_3411.DeviceDesc="Intel(R) QuickPath Architecture I/O Hub PCI Express Root Port 10 - 3411"
PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_3418.DeviceDesc="Intel(R) Quickpath Interconnect Physical Layer Port 0 – 3418"
PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_3419.DeviceDesc="Intel(R) Quickpath Interconnect Physical Layer Port 1 – 3419"
PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_3420.DeviceDesc="Intel(R) QuickPath Architecture I/O Hub PCI Express Root Port 0 – 3420"
PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_3421.DeviceDesc="Intel(R) QuickPath Architecture I/O Hub PCI Express Root Port 0 – 3421"
PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_3422.DeviceDesc="Intel(R) QuickPath Architecture I/O Hub GPIO and Scratch Pad Registers - 3422"
PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_3423.DeviceDesc="Intel(R) QuickPath Architecture I/O Hub Control Status and RAS Registers - 3423"
PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_3425.DeviceDesc="Intel(R) QuickPath Interconnect Physical and Link Layer Registers Port 0 - 3425"
PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_3426.DeviceDesc="Intel(R) QuickPath Interconnect Routing and Protocol Layer Registers Port 0 - 3426"
PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_3427.DeviceDesc="Intel(R) QuickPath Interconnect Physical and Link Layer Registers Port 1 - 3427"
PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_3428.DeviceDesc="Intel(R) QuickPath Interconnect Routing & Protocol Layer Register Port 1 - 3428"
PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_342d.DeviceDesc="Intel(R) QuickPath Architecture I/O Hub I/OxAPIC Interrupt Controller - 342D"
PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_342e.DeviceDesc="Intel(R) QuickPath Architecture I/O Hub System Management Registers - 342E"
PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_342f.DeviceDesc="Intel(R) Trusted Execution Technology Registers - 342F"
PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_3438.DeviceDesc="Intel(R) QuickPath Architecture I/O Hub Throttle Registers - 3438"
;Copyright (c) 2007 Intel Corporation
```


----------



## HTC (Jun 4, 2008)

*Just found a few x58 motherboards:*





































Source: VR-Zone


----------



## hat (Jun 4, 2008)

Does anyone know if the LGA1066 or whatever it is that's supposed to be the mainsteam socket for Nehalem will support overclocking?


----------



## Morgoth (Jun 4, 2008)

1366 is bloomfield ( high end )
LGA1160 ( mainstream)

i'm gona get abit IX58-max


----------



## stasdm (Dec 8, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> Because of nahalem, which will use a completely different chipset. This is a completely different chipset, not an expansion of the previous ones.



Not at all - it is just modernized (memory controller removed allowing wider processor link) and overclocked to real PCIe v.2 5400


----------



## Morgoth (Dec 8, 2008)

hits stasdm with a stick for re-opening a old topic of 7 months ago


----------

