ON MovieTome: Ali Larter is a little OBSESSED
GAMES:
GameSpot: Best of 2008
GameFAQs
MUSIC:
Last.fm
MP3.com
MOVIES:
Metacritic
Movietome
TV:
TV.com

One glance at the Intel D5400XS motherboard with its dual-CPU sockets and active chipset cooling is enough to tell you that this isn't your normal PC motherboard. Code named Skulltrail, the Intel D5400XS represents Intel's ultimate PC motherboard platform. Regular motherboards only have a single CPU socket, two PCI Express slots, and support for only one of the two competing dual-GPU formats. In comparison, the Skulltrail has two processor sockets, four x16 PCI Express video card slots, and built-in support for both SLI and CrossFire. If you set two Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775 processors in the board, you have an 8-core monster ready to run.

The Skulltrail code name follows the pirate-naming theme started with the "Bonetrail" code name for Intel's X38 motherboard. Intel was able to supercharge the board by making a couple of aggressive design decisions. Engineers built the board around the Intel 5400 workstation chipset instead of using its standard X38 or P35 desktop chipset. The chipset choice gives Skulltrail advanced features not available on normal desktop motherboards, such as dual-CPU support, but it also brings new requirements, including a new CPU socket, LGA771, and DDR2 FBDIMM memory. We aren't thrilled with the FBDIMM requirement, but the modules aren't too difficult to find and don't cost much more than unbuffered DIMMS.


Skulltrail 1     Skulltrail 2     Skulltrail 3     

The board will work with the new Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775 processor, as well as LGA771 Xeon processors. It won't be able to handle the more common LGA775 processors, such as the Core 2 Quads or Core 2 Duos, but the motherboard's limited CPU compatibility illustrates Skulltrail's elite status in Intel's product lineup. The motherboard's primary CPU option, the quad-core 3.2GHz QX9775 is more powerful than any LGA775 chip currently available. Intel hasn't announced any future Skulltrail-compatible processors besides the QX9775 and does not guarantee future compatibility with its upcoming "Nehalem" processors.

On the graphics side, the Intel D5400XS features four PCI Express x16 card slots and can handle both SLI and CrossFire. Support for the competing dual-video card standards from Nvidia and AMD are usually mutually exclusive on PC motherboards. If the motherboard supports CrossFire, it won't support SLI and vice versa. Intel boards commonly support CrossFire, but designers were able to drop a pair of Nvidia nForce 100 chips into the board to add two-way SLI support.

The Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775 doesn't have much competition at the top. We benchmarked two QX9775 processors against a single chip to see the performance difference between eight and four cores. The LGS771 socket limitation prevented us from dropping a dual-core into the Skulltrail, so we had to run our Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 in an LGA775 motherboard for our dual-core performance comparison. We selected a handful of multithreaded games and synthetic benchmarks including 3DMark06, Valve Particle Test, Unreal Tournament 3, Lost Planet, and Crysis. We also set up an ASUS P5K motherboard and a EVGA 780i to see how the Skulltrail's CrossFire and SLI performance compares to dedicated motherboards.

Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775 Skulltrail Performance

(Longer bars indicate better performance except in Windows Media Encoder 9 where shorter bars indicate faster encoding time)

3DMark06, 1280x1024

Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775, 3.2GHz, x2
13156
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775, 3.2GHz
12496
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775, 3.0GHz
12127
Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800, 2.93GHz
11001

3DMark06 CPU Test

Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775, 3.2GHz, x2
6492
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775, 3.2GHz
4603
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775, 3.0GHz
4266
Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800, 2.93GHz
2344

Valve Particle Test

Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775, 3.2GHz, x2
125
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775, 3.2GHz
104
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775, 3.0GHz
97
Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800, 2.93GHz
54

Unreal Tournament 3, 1024x768, Maximum Quality

Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775, 3.2GHz, x2
161
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775, 3.2GHz
135
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775, 3.0GHz
122
Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800, 2.93GHz
99

Lost Planet DX9, Cave Test, 1024x768

Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775, 3.2GHz, x2
115
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775, 3.2GHz
83
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775, 3.0GHz
73
Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800, 2.93GHz
51

Crysis, 1024x768, Medium Quality

Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775, 3.2GHz, x2
57
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775, 3.2GHz
57
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775, 3.0GHz
52
Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800, 2.93GHz
54

Simultaneous Crysis/WME9 Video Encode

Crysis, Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775, 3.2GHz, x2
55
Crysis, Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775, 3.2GHz
55
Crysis, Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775, 3.0GHz
51
Crysis, Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800, 2.93GHz
54

Simultaneous WME9/Crysis Video Encode (in minutes)

WME9, Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775, 3.2GHz, x2
7.72
WME9, Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775, 3.2GHz
9.79
WME9, Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775, 3.0GHz
10.4
WME9, Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800, 2.93GHz
14.33

Intel D5400XS vs. ASUS P5K CrossFire, 3DMark06

Intel D5400XS, ATI Radeon HD 3870 CrossFire
15788
ASUS P5K, ATI Radeon HD 3870 CrossFire
15792

Intel D5400XS vs. EVGA 780i SLI, 3DMark06

Intel D5400XS, GeForce 8800 GTX SLI
14674
EVGA 780i, GeForce 8800 GTX SLI
14317
System Setup: Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775, Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650, Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800, Intel D5400XS, EVGA 780i, EVGA 680i, Asus P5K, 4GB FB-DIMM (2x2GB), 3GB Corsair XMS Memory (1GBx2)(2x512MB), 750GB Seagate 7200.10 SATA Hard Disk Drive, Windows Vista 32-bit. Graphics Cards: GeForce 8800 GTX 768MB, Radeon 2900XT 512MB. Graphics Drivers: ATI Catalyst 8.1, Nvidia ForceWare beta 169.28.

The matching Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775 processor pair showed performance gains in most of our tests. The additional CPU didn't double framerates over the single chip system, but it did increase performance by a noticeable amount in Unreal Tournament 3 and Lost Planet. Crysis, on the other hand, illustrates the biggest challenge facing Intel. There just aren't a lot of multithreaded games that can scale up to four cores or more. Our dual-core Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 performs just as well as the quad-core and 8-core systems in Crysis. We set up a second test that forced the systems to encode a video file using Windows Media Encoder 9 while running Crysis at the same time. In that test, the Crysis scores hardly budged, but the dual-QX9775 processor system had the fastest encode time of all the contenders.

Skulltrail is very much a luxury option for most gamers. The performance is outstanding, but with the current dearth of multithreaded PC games, eight processing cores might be too much hardware for pure gamers. However, coders and power-hungry media editors might just want to sit down with their managers to see if there's room in the budget for new workstations. Intel hasn't disclosed pricing for the board and processors, but we can expect a workstation-level board to retail in the $500 range. Each Intel Core 2 Extreme processors will likely sell for well above $1,000. Intel will announce pricing and availability when Skulltrail and the new Extreme processor officially launch in the first quarter of 2008.

What do you think of Skulltrail and the new Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775?

345 Comments

  • luciotss

    Posted Oct 21, 2008 11:51 am PT

    biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig hhhhhhhhooooooooooooooooooooot... perfect !!! ofr cooling.

  • Chronikas

    Posted Sep 26, 2008 9:35 am PT

    I'm strictly interested in performance components as a gamer. This board is not important to me simply because it is not necessary. When games need hardware this expensive to run properly...I'm finding a new hobby.

  • fel_rossi

    Posted Sep 17, 2008 5:56 am PT

    lol

  • Dogswithguns

    Posted Aug 28, 2008 1:06 am PT

    Why so many cores? I still prefer one core over two. and now eight?

  • Akknid

    Posted Aug 16, 2008 9:37 am PT

    From a pc enthusiast stand point, i would love to build a rig with this at its helm... but, from a practical stand point, why the hell would i even need this when what we have now does the job just fine?

  • phantomtayONZEU

    Posted Aug 13, 2008 7:09 pm PT

    well i would only put 1 core 2 Extreme OX9775 processor with the Skulltrail until the games catch up with the technology to handle 8 cores.

  • sniper_99

    Posted Jul 20, 2008 7:38 pm PT

    not much of a big difference when compared to the single core 2 extreme cpu

  • aguatacaluseo

    Posted Jul 13, 2008 5:16 pm PT

    WOW 0.o => INTEL

  • SmallMafia

    Posted Jun 18, 2008 11:16 am PT

    Shouldnt Intel be focusing more on giving us more attainable tech rather than ludicrously expensive, mad, crazy, tech!

  • ff_medo_lp

    Posted May 13, 2008 5:06 am PT

    really nice but i am not that stupid to spend that much money on my PC :S

  • Ionizer23

    Posted Apr 29, 2008 2:37 am PT

    Screw that.. LGA 771(775 is what normal ppl use) , 4 PCIE 1.0 slots(which is unneccessary!), DDR2 800...hell no! Better of getting the Intel X48 or nvidia 790i Ultra

  • TiberiumMember

    Posted Apr 26, 2008 5:09 am PT

    i will never spend so much money on a computer.. i rather spend my money on something important like studies because the skulltrail will not be so good in the next month when something better will come out..

  • martyboy9

    Posted Apr 6, 2008 5:04 am PT

    i have to admit its a sic board!....and yh der aimin it at gamers....but ders no games gd enough to test these setups to the max so you mite aswell jst stay wif a quad cpu!.... they should of released this board in about a years time wen games are at there higher levels of graphics!! but i still mite buy one neway hehe! :

  • 96761

    Posted Mar 27, 2008 12:22 pm PT

    Awesome!!!!!!! I am going to buy this motherboard and max out every single feature that it can handle no matter what the cost.

  • syntaxvolskov

    Posted Mar 26, 2008 12:19 am PT

    more cores = better. more = gpu's = even better. spending money for an overkill rig is just stupid. just like demi veritas said, why need 8 when 2 does the job. >_

  • marcthpro

    Posted Mar 18, 2008 6:22 pm PT

    man it only made for game designer ( game designer need top Technology to work on a game)
    example Cryisis : starcraft 2 WIP(work in progress) but for you and i. we don't make a 80k income. and say hmm every Three Year im gona spend : 5000$ for Best pc Inclidning : DELL 30inch 2500x1600 monitor : 2x : Best Video card in sli example : 9800Gx2 X2 or newest ATI radeon in build up : 4x (cross fire) tough i wonder if ati gona get up soon or not
    I alway Think nvdia as Best And they probaly gona keep up the bar
    but so did i think that with AMD ? amd Being low now it all intel the Power
    Amd as a long ROAD TO BUILD BEFORE GET ON TOP once more
    Like the past if you remember benchmark of past. AMD :Athlon 64 : and XP :serie and X2 Perofrmed Awsome before Conroe Core duo for 5-7 Year amd was Leading the Price & power CPU but since when people do see benchmark mostly 3-4 year XD thx to gamespot & tomshardware & ammandtech.
    so let say. Two Cpu Quad Core : X2 : for Game Designed only to run one core. true it only add +30 frame rate per second so. for the money not worthing it XD
    at last not now. maybe in 2-3 Year just Before The NEW CPU Way they gona work we expect for games & industry CPU that cotain 16x to 32x to 128x core : by 2015+ for few hundred $$ i could go and talk abotu this. but this is only a Small forum topic ! not a big informatic DEBATE

  • UType

    Posted Mar 9, 2008 2:05 pm PT

    should have a multi core rendering program, like 3dsmax + vray

  • Adam_the_Nerd

    Posted Mar 9, 2008 12:35 am PT

    Man too many parts coming out too fast and too many games that DEMAND the best parts. UGH. What happened to buying a PC and having it last you 3-4 years?

  • NickK47

    Posted Mar 8, 2008 10:42 pm PT

    I think it's pointless they aim this at pc gamers. It's about pushing ur system to the limit with what you have, not spend $$$$ on a needless amount of hardware.

  • demi_veritaz

    Posted Mar 5, 2008 6:51 am PT

    Games are just starting to take advantage of dual core, why the hell do we need 8?

  • champmanfan

    Posted Feb 27, 2008 10:22 pm PT

    Its good with choices for GPUs but CPU & RAM is restrictive & not worth the cost - too much hassle for ordinary consumers. There are better alternatives coming up in the summer, just wait

    This would suit developers, CAD, video editors, or anyone where data crunching is needed & time is short. An 8 core system for the gaming masses in full production is still a few years off, so make sure if you buy a PC now, its quad core, so you won't feel its so out dated by then.

  • JonWatt

    Posted Feb 27, 2008 9:10 am PT

    All this technical jargon makes my head spin

  • syncmaster150

    Posted Feb 24, 2008 1:33 pm PT

    Why????

  • tompouce

    Posted Feb 22, 2008 8:30 am PT

    Holy ****!!!! That's amazing!!! two processor...2 HDMI PORT...lol....cant wait to buy this and put my new 8800 GT SLi in that!!!....omg....i just cant imagine how much something like this will cost me...AHAH!!....

  • hopeless_gamer

    Posted Feb 22, 2008 12:34 am PT

    Personally, I feel that this technology is the new Voodoo chipset.

    It's being introduced at a time when people don't really have a use for all the features.

    Dual processors is nice, but they are gearing this motherboard towards gamers, whereas they should be marketing this towards professional fields, such as Video Game Design and 3D Animation Studios.

    Don't get me wrong, this board kicks ass - but I don't believe this will do very well.

    Too much too soon.

  • JReefer1

    Posted Feb 21, 2008 7:18 pm PT

    I want one of these.

  • Roscoe245

    Posted Feb 20, 2008 8:51 am PT

    wicked sick board, i wonder if this will churn up crysis

  • themovi3nut

    Posted Feb 19, 2008 7:26 pm PT

    that is so pointless. A dual CPU motherboard? even that would need big fans. First you have to buy the mobo, TWO cpu's & then a fan or two if you haven't already got em. Why not just get a Quad-Core and overclock it?

  • ColdfireTrilogy

    Posted Feb 17, 2008 12:21 am PT

    nvm you will be spending at least 1k a piece for each as well ... only thing that will run on that mobo apparently. http://www.intel.com/support/motherboards/desktop/d5400xs/sb/CS-028676.htm

  • ColdfireTrilogy

    Posted Feb 17, 2008 12:19 am PT

    Waste of money, i mean seriously ... i went out and made my own rig top of the line everything ... but dual CPu features are just absurd at this point for the average gamer. You are now buying 2 CPUS TWOOO that will be outdated very quickly ... really by that time just buy a new mobo and CPU and you will still be saving money in the long run and have a better running PC. This is beyond what a gamer should want if he thinks about it.

  • Shinzok

    Posted Feb 14, 2008 9:06 am PT

    AWESOME.... but would be nicer if it had DDR2/DDR3 support because then it would have even more performance than it has now...

    FBDIMM has lower performance than current DDR2 800 MHz. memory

  • Petri87

    Posted Feb 12, 2008 12:08 pm PT

    @kam21 - He said that AMD had a dual CPU board. Although its tecnically not an AMD board, its a nVidia board whit AMD support since AMD don't do stand alone morherboards. ATI and nVidia make motherboards whit AMD support and they both also have Intel supported motherboards.

  • kam21

    Posted Feb 12, 2008 12:54 am PT

    @star35: It's not Intel's board it says that it support 2 AMD AthlonTM 64 FX Socket L1 (1207FX) CPU.

  • Nokols

    Posted Feb 11, 2008 4:15 pm PT

    On Intel's site, it says only the Core 2 Extreme Processor QX9775 can work properly on it, is this true? go here, it even says so
    http://www.intel.com/support/motherboards/desktop/d5400xs/sb/CS-028676.htm

  • ixxeon

    Posted Feb 11, 2008 3:53 pm PT

    Skulltrail is an excellent deal if you consider this..
    Buy the board with a pair of fairly inexpensive E5430's and run them wth a 1600FSB and hey presto, you have a Dual 3.2GHz, 1600FSB system with 8 cores for about the same price as a QX9770 and a desktop mobo. 4 cores almost come free ! have a bit more cash and E5440's give you 3.4GHz and E5450's give you 3.6GHz.
    Remember E series Xeons start life as fairly low power 80Watt parts so overall power consumption is still fairly sensible.

  • star35

    Posted Feb 11, 2008 2:41 pm PT

    i dont see why this is a big deal about intel having a dual cpu socket motherboard amd already has a dual cpu socket mother board for way longer here is a link to it http://www.asus.com/products.aspx?l1=3&l2=136&l3=486&model=1530&modelmenu=1

  • kam21

    Posted Feb 11, 2008 2:21 pm PT

    I was excited at first because two of the most powerful cpu's of Intel are in one motherboard, but the results of 2x QX9775 over single QX9775 are disappointing, may be they will improve with time who knows. By the way board has cool layout design and I wonder if long video cards will block sata and ide ports.

  • marut

    Posted Feb 11, 2008 1:58 pm PT

    The Crysis results are really dissapointing.
    I hope Crytek focuses ASAP on multicore patch,
    as currently the engine has 0 support for it, contrary their prerelease promises.
    Intel is not the one to blame here.

  • theMasticator

    Posted Feb 11, 2008 3:57 am PT

    omg!

  • danmarstaller

    Posted Feb 10, 2008 6:21 pm PT

    @neom22: Did you even read the article? The performance of Crysis didn't really improve at all, since they didn't use enough threads to use all the processors. So you'll get nothing for improved performance for Crysis, unless you normally run a ton of processes in the background or they come out with a really good patch.

  • neom22

    Posted Feb 10, 2008 5:44 pm PT

    Cool, maybe it can handle crysis with a good performance.

  • darksusperia

    Posted Feb 10, 2008 5:40 pm PT

    2005wrxsti: while you are absolutely correct about peripherals/emulation etc. its not just a great big marketing ploy. If your as educated as you say then you would have read the whitesheets. You would know that vista is an MS attempt at copying OS X. You would know that IE7 is a copy of firefox, and its still behind the 8 ball there as well.

    On a technical level and innovative usefulness level, OS X has it all over vista.

    OS X is the better OS, just doesnt have the support needed to make it what it could be.

    FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) is what MS sprouts and everyone listens. VISTA is a flop yet MS touts it as a success. Windows 7, otherwise currently known as the "anti vista" will be out in the next 3 years.

    both OS have the pros and cons but as of current standing, vista has more cons then pros.

    and before you start with the "not another mac user being hurt". I dont own a mac, I dont use a mac. Im still on a XP machine as its far better then vista. DX10 and vista is for gaming and media only. your argument fails right there.

    In a business since (where all the money in the IT industry really is) OS X is winning. why do you think intel hooked up with apple??????

    This board will mainly be used as server systems, not really aimed at the general market. really..who here or knows someone using xeons just for a home pc...

  • kemar7856

    Posted Feb 10, 2008 2:48 pm PT

    just maximazing this board will go pass $2500

  • 2005wrxsti

    Posted Feb 10, 2008 11:29 am PT

    Quick test...when you press the on button which operating system boots up? Another quick insite into this...no game is run natively on a PC. That would mean that when you boot up the computer you go right to your game screen, it's not possible unless the video game reinvents the wheel and developes it's own operating system. Whenever you run a game you're running two programs at the same time. The peripherals on the mac are designed specifically for mac, thus need a mac operating system and instructions from the operating system in order to get them to work. Another great marketing ploy from mac. Gotta love these guys for their lies.

  • 2005wrxsti

    Posted Feb 10, 2008 11:11 am PT

    Miowery...macs do not run Windows natively. There's software running in the background to make your peripherals run properly; do some research. I don't care what anyone says, it's not run natively. If there are mac software requirements then it doesn't run natively. it's run as a secondary program on the system. Read below...note that you need to update the mac OS and the firmware. Now if they just needed to update the firmware, then yes it would be native but you need to update OS X too. What else do I need to run Boot Camp? You need Mac OS X 10.4.6 or later. Apple updated Mac OS X a few days ago, so run Software Update if you haven't done so recently. You also need the latest firmware update available for your Intel-based Mac, at least 10GB of free space on your start-up disk and a full, single-disc version of Windows XP Home Edition or Professional with Service Pack 2 or later, as well as a blank CD. The CD will be used to create Macintosh software drivers.

  • almrls

    Posted Feb 10, 2008 10:16 am PT

    8 cores? for what? maybe 3 years from now, games and apps will require that much processing power, but for now, ill stick to 2 cores. Im thinking of building a new rig. How does this setup sound :

    Antec Nine Hundred ATX case, OCZ GameXStream 600W PSU, MSI P6N SLi Platinum nForce 650i, Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 3.0Ghz, G. Skill 2GB (2 x 1GB) DDR2 800, eVGA GeForce 8800GT 512MB, Western Digital Caviar 500GB 7200 RPM, and LG GGC-H20L Blu-Ray/HD DVD-ROM

  • mlowery

    Posted Feb 10, 2008 9:17 am PT

    @2005wrxsti
    Macs are PC's (personal computers) that can run Windows natively. Did you hear they are now using Intel inside?

    I'm considering a new Mac Pro with dual quads for my next system. Check them out at MacMall, they will even sell the system configured with Windows instead of Leopord.
    These machines have USB just like Win boxes, so the peripheral point is moot.

  • zeta_immersion

    Posted Feb 10, 2008 7:56 am PT

    love the idea ... but not the limitation on the processor .... none the less nice monster .. and a surprize was the non ddr3 .... but then again ... nice mobo