Intel seems like it's going to be making a bigger push at gamers with the launch of
Penryn, and HotHardware managed to score some deets on the company's upcoming "Skulltrail" platform, which is built-around server-class hardware reconfigured for gaming. The new mobo pictured here supports dual quad-core Penryn Xeon processors, SLI graphics, and four PCI Express x16 slots, as well as two standard PCI slots. You're also looking at a whopping six internal SATA ports, dual eSATA ports, six USB ports, a lone FireWire port, and Gigabit Ethernet. That's quite a foundation for a gaming rig -- let's just hope pricing is at least pretend reasonable, eh?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Dragod @ Dec 28th 2007 1:46PM
I'm looking at making a new gaming rig... Hopefully Intel doesn't disappoint with the pricing?
Tim @ Dec 28th 2007 4:07PM
I can't imagine this thing costing less than $400.
I LOVE THE CAPS LOCK KEY @ Dec 28th 2007 10:33PM
The CPUs alone have been rumored to each have a $1,000 MSRP.
Dorz @ Dec 30th 2007 2:00PM
One of the first (I think) server motherboads to support 45nm Xeons costs over £320 and has everything (inc 2 16x PCI-E2 Slots)but overclocking abilities. On this basis, I can't see this mobo costing less than £300 myself. I won't be at all surprised if it retails for £340+ given the complexities of its overclocking features. Thinks like this will ALWAYS come at a VERY HIGH premium for people mad enough to invest in it. I don't see the point my self because whats 100fps when your getting 70? Your not going to notice the difference, and how many games make use of 4 cores yet alone a possible 8 right now? Other than using it for Video, CAD or CG work its a complete waste of money as far as I'm concerned.
It does look the business though, I'll give it that...cracking looking motherboard.
luckycharms @ Dec 28th 2007 1:47PM
Looks like a sweet motherboard. I guess I know where the tax refund is going - lol
Kamokazi @ Dec 28th 2007 1:47PM
Totally overkill.
Totally want it.
Greg @ Dec 28th 2007 3:01PM
Not really, as far as gaming, graphics, and realism are concerned, future games are being limited by hardware, not the lack of appropriate algorithms or textures. The faster we push these technologies forward, the better.
Paul @ Dec 28th 2007 3:24PM
@Greg since 3d gaming became popular it has been limited by the hardware.
The developers write their games for the latest hardware with the ability to degrade gracefully on older hardware. Crysis is the best example of this at the moment. If you want to run (at a playable framerate) on the highest settings you need a bleeding edge computer, however you can turn down the graphics to the point where the majority of computers can play it in some form
Kamokazi @ Dec 28th 2007 3:28PM
You make a good point (definately agree hardware need to advance to push games forward), but I still stand by my overkill judgement on two reasons:
1) Most games are GPU-bound. Even a SLI system chugs through much of Crysis on max settings, and while a good CPU is important because of physics calculations, there is a point where more powerful CPUs make virtually no difference.
2) Only a few games take advantage of Quad core processors, much less 8 cores. This will start to change, but it will take a while.
So it's overkill right now, and in the near future. In 2-3 years this may be semi-standard for gamers...who knows.
dustandechoes91 @ Dec 28th 2007 1:47PM
Hopefully this doesnt cost a lot, seeing as you also have to buy two cpu's. At least it will run crysis-throw 3 9800GTX cards in there
mattclarkie @ Dec 28th 2007 2:28PM
I bet that MoBo costs more than the whole computer I built a few months ago, and I didn't build a cheap rig.
I don't game, but I know a few people that do and they all use AMD and don't like Intel. I don't know if the new chips are better for gaming, but if most gamers are like those I know they would never build an Intel rig, and the core demographic for this board are gone.
Prove me wrong!
Jeremy K. @ Dec 28th 2007 2:40PM
@mattclarkie
Your friends are either trying to save a buck or living a few years in the past. AMD chips are cheaper, but for gaming they still fall behind the latest Intel chips and aren't as overclockable.
Justin @ Dec 28th 2007 2:44PM
You're wrong. :) Basically since the Core 2 line came out, Intel's been stronger for gamers than AMD.
dustandechoes91 @ Dec 28th 2007 2:59PM
I have always been told Intels were better for gaming/rendering, where AMDs are better for multitasking. AMDs are a lot cheaper though.
Juaquin @ Dec 28th 2007 5:31PM
When I bought my AMD things were pretty similar - it was a choice between an early Core Duo or an Opteron, and I chose the Opty 170 because it was slightly cheaper, I already had a mobo for it, and it overclocked like crazy (the Intels didn't overclock as much back then as they do now).
But right now, Intel is the way to go. You can get a quad core processor for $250 nowadays, it's crazy. AMD has been playing catchup for the last two years and it doesn't look like they'll be catching up this round with Phenom.
dustandechoes91 @ Dec 28th 2007 5:57PM
They are supposedly working on a second line of cheaper better quad cores, along with octo-cores. If they can get those octos out before intel, that would probably get them standing back up pretty well.
justin @ Dec 28th 2007 1:48PM
Whatever happened to names like "Archie" and "Veronica"? Now we have "SKULLTRAIL". It sounds like one of those Lou Diamond Phillips revenge films on an Sioux indian reservation.
"WHY DID YOU DO THIS TO ME...SKULLTRAIL?!"
Funny enough, that very phrase could be heard now at the AMD offices.
Alan Partridge @ Dec 28th 2007 1:50PM
Hopefully 2008 will finally bring an end to people saying 'deets'
Justin @ Dec 28th 2007 2:44PM
Agreed, but I'm not about to start holding my breath.
L.Rawlins @ Dec 28th 2007 3:12PM
'American English' has always been about bastardising a perfectly adequate and usable language I'm afraid.
Matt @ Dec 28th 2007 4:34PM
@L.Rawlins
What does the "word" "deets" have to do with American English specifically?
Technex @ Dec 28th 2007 1:57PM
This looks plain awesome, will pick one up if price is good!
futurepastnow @ Dec 28th 2007 2:02PM
With its requirement for special, board-specific processors and FB-DIMM memory, this is probably going to fail even harder than 4x4 did.
Erwos @ Dec 28th 2007 2:10PM
Quad-core Xeons are reasonably cheap, funny enough. The requirement for FB-DIMMs, though, is what's going to really catapult the cost out of reach of most people.
nickels @ Dec 28th 2007 2:29PM
very much overkill, i thought programs arent using a quad core processor to its maximum let alone two of them
most programs are ready for 64bit yet either :P
anyway still would want one just to say i have one :D
dustandechoes91 @ Dec 28th 2007 2:29PM
Wait, is this pci express 2.0?
Damn, amd is gonna have to get those octo-cores that they are supposedly working on out fast to compete.
Phil Perman @ Dec 28th 2007 2:34PM
6 SATA ports isn't really all that impressive, most mid to high end boards these days have that many and the Asus board built for AMD's 4x4 platform had 12!
Panq @ Dec 28th 2007 9:20PM
Especially with optical drives shifting to SATA too. Back in the day you could live with only a pair of SATA ports on your motherboard because you had a legacy PATA DVD (or CD) drive.
mattydread @ Dec 28th 2007 2:37PM
With 4 PCI X16 slots you could load up 10GBit network cards and actually get the throughput! I don't know why you would need to do it, or want to considering the price of the cards, switch, and fiber, but atleast it would work! (if my math is right... IIRC you need PCI X4 or higher for real gigabit throughput)
Student Driver @ Dec 28th 2007 2:43PM
"Skulltrail" makes me think of the opening of a Terminator movie, which strangely can also be said of AMD's current state...
Whatever, I love the name, and once nVidia's new "PW3ND!!11!" architecture comes out it will be a match made in Hell. Not to mention one can simply exchange the "!" for "0" and have binary indication of what version of "PWN3D!!11!" you, well, own.
I for one welcome this new naming convention from our gadget overlords...
stoneyzombie @ Dec 28th 2007 2:45PM
sweet baby jesus' tears.. this is the one..
this looks absolutely brilliant..
John P @ Dec 28th 2007 3:01PM
Once upon a time I had a fan like that on my Radeon 9800. And now its on a southbridge to a motherboard. How times change.
asphixiated @ Dec 28th 2007 5:22PM
you old fogie! stop living in the past!!@#!@
computer.dude.28 @ Dec 28th 2007 3:03PM
That board doesn't have much room left on it lol
Backlin @ Dec 28th 2007 3:06PM
This board will play the heck out of Doom.
Codey H. @ Dec 28th 2007 6:41PM
and maybe even *gasp* Quake!
ssuk @ Dec 28th 2007 3:14PM
Skulltrail... I'll take the IWHBYD version.
Zeus the God @ Dec 28th 2007 6:06PM
Halo fanboy.
wiedzmin @ Dec 28th 2007 3:16PM
Yes, but can it make coffee?
Juice @ Dec 28th 2007 3:20PM
So would any Mac compare to this?... I don't know shite about Macs cept I want Steve Jobs to lose. :D
Juice @ Dec 28th 2007 3:22PM
Check that. You can probably run Mac on it... No?
macona @ Dec 28th 2007 4:33PM
With OSX86, yeah, you could. Driver support will probably be non-existent.
MikeG @ Dec 28th 2007 3:39PM
Anyone else considered the volume of this thing?
Imagine loading everything you can into it, 2 CPUs, 3 GPUs, a rather large system fan, the size of the PSU needed to run all these things is also going to have a pretty big fan, and finally a well cooled case with countless (no doubt LED fans - if you're sad enough to spend this much money) case fans. Not that I'd refuse it as a present.
Matthew Hilario @ Dec 28th 2007 5:01PM
will all those fans, itll sound like a lawnmower.
Duo @ Dec 29th 2007 4:26AM
If you're building a computer out of this mobo, two quad cores, and four video cards you're already spending a fortune anyway. Might as well add some form of badass liquid cooling.
Dan @ Dec 28th 2007 3:41PM
Apple's wishlist of things to do
PUT THIS MOTHERBOARD IN THE NEW MAC PROS!
Cheaper graphics cards
Compatability with all Nvidia PC cards. (just get the drivers)
w00t @ Dec 28th 2007 3:43PM
"So would any Mac compare to this?"
Well let's look at what's on board with a current (aging?) Mac Pro...
Support for Dual Quad-Core Xeons..
4 PCI Express 16x Slots
8 SATA Ports (yes I did count them, 4 slide in racks, 2 spare (for eSATA maybe?) and another 2 in the optical bay)
2 PATA Ports for older optical drives
5 USB Ports (Close Enough!)
2x Firewire 800, 2x Firewire 400... Makes up for the one less USB I'd say :P
FB-DIMMs - 8 slots supporting up to 32GB
And all the usuals like onboard sound, slots for WiFi/Bluetooth radio's, etc
Bear in mind this is from a Mac Pro that is over a year old... they are well overdue a refresh and so expect something a little more cutting edge after Januarys MacWorld :)
Still... This Skulltrail thing is quite interesting, I might consider one if the price is right and I'm after a gaming box :)
mahonmeister @ Dec 28th 2007 4:27PM
It only has 1 (one) 16x slot. Adding insult to injury there are only 3 cards that Apple allows you to use, all of which are almost a year and a half out of date.
w00t @ Dec 28th 2007 4:37PM
Oh, I stand corrected.... I thought it was some sort of dynamically assigned thing (Anyone else?)
The 3 card limit has nothing to do with the Mac Pro. You can put whatever you want in there for gaming and just boot to Windows. :)
phlavor @ Dec 28th 2007 3:44PM
You guys do know that this hardware won't make any of you suck less at video games right?