Well, Intel is reluctant to contribute to the greater good and focused only on maximizing income ... Read digitaltrends article : "If graphics cards don't need it, what's the point of PCIExpress 4?" that indirectly exposes Intels diversion on PCIe 4.0 .
In the interest of truth and common sense, I like to quote from the article :

"Nvidia RTX 2080 Ti and AMD's Radeon VII require masses of bandwidth to pump out the high frame rates and details that they're capable of. But even these cards don't need what PCIE 3.0 x16 slots offer. So, why is PCIE 4.0 a benefit? Because it means that gamers won't need to run their fastest graphics cards in the fastest configuration.

A 2080 Ti pushes the limits of what a PCIe 3.0 x8 port will allow, just – TechPowerUp's testing proves that. So, on a board with PCIe 3.0, running it in an x16 configuration makes the most sense. But that means the graphics card alone is hogging the all 16 lanes of PCIe."

Well, I'm not an expert on these matters, but has that article got some relevant important observations & foresighted thoughts or not ? ? ?

I'm a diehard Intel-user, but sometimes we must question if profitism or professionalism is on the companys minds ?

Sadly AMD seems to be the real leader now !   :(

Then just one question... why is AM4 X570's PCIe 4.0 support not smoking Intel in gaming performance? Seems to do better in 3D and graphics applications mostly, but lags Intel in gaming. Just curious, if PCIe 4.0 is all that (right now), AMD should have stats showing double the FPS in every single game out there. Instead, AMD lags in games to Intel. All I am sayin'. I am probably going to build a new system with an AMD processor, to get great performance in both Metro and Premier Pro and be ready for the 4.0 spec future  ;D

Quote from: Ilnahro on June 12, 2019, 09:34:58
Is anyone else reminded of that famous misquote of Bill Gates:
"640K ought to be enough for anybody"

Yes, 144Hz 4K may not be limited by PCIe 3.0 in current(!) games but it will eventually become a bottleneck. Either due to bigger textures in existing games or insufficient GPU memory or because 4K 144Hz will soon be surpassed (think of VR applications, which would benefit from 2x 4K or higher). Not to mention multi-GPU systems which (certainly in the case of Intels extremely limited number of PCIe-lanes) would benefit from the additional bandwidth already.

Don't be fooled. Intel in trying to excuse their legacy equipment by confusing you with irrelevant information.

Actually I don't recall having any proof that Gates ever said that at all. In fact, I'm pretty sure they were pushing for more memory support the entire time. IIRC the original spec was only going to be 512K

AMD.... oh an article that we can win some marketing shares over intel with if we can talk s*** about intel because we have pci4 even though we follow Intel's lead and Nvidia and will continue to do if we can't steal there tech.

Intel... Yawn ...I guess we should address the pci4 issues before Amd keeps feeding the animals / consumers they don't know any better ... they see pci4 and think it's great AMD finally won..lol...like hitting the nos at the wrong time in a race.... when Intel hits the Nos and shames AMD the fanboys will come up with something else about intel as AMD is left in Intels dust once again making AMD suck there dick 

It probably benefits Thunderbolt the most, where you do have GPU's and high speed storage that could use a doubling of bandwidth because fewer pci-e lanes are available to the adapter.

But... 
4.0 is going to generate more heat than 3.0
Traces will be shorter which anyone who knows how short TB cables are now will understand is going to have a balancing impact on how useful the added bandwidth is
Given that high impact lanes are coming straight off the CPU, we won't really see 4.0 from Intel until they both have 10nm AND they have the heat from 10nm better controlled, not to mention that 4.0 requires new CPU design (probably the real reason they are behind the 8 ball on this tech)
The real world impact of SSD's going from SATA to NVME was limited already.  The impact of 4.0 on SSD's real world results (not benchmarks) isn't going to night and day anyone.  Shave a second off a software load or 1.5 sec from a boot?
SSD's moving that fast are going to be hot as can be until we have much more efficient controllers.  Again that means you won't see the tech in anything but desktops or servers for years.

It's something Intel is definitely lagging on.  But they aren't wholly incorrect on the impact to real world computing.  Will we eventually need the speed?  Yes surely.  But the software world will continue to develop products that hit the middle of the market with some products (games usually) targeting the more advanced hardware once in a while.  So even if you have the potential, for this market you won't really see results from actual products that have a real effect on your daily use for 5 years or so.  That means Intel should be ready now, but if they are ready in a year or two they'll be late but not out of the game.

Quote from: Xkeyscore on June 13, 2019, 14:25:06
You're wrong about ssds being throttle by pcie 3.0. Please tell me an ssd that's faster than PCIe 3.0 x16 (126.4 Gbps) that's on the consumer market. W

I'm only speaking about laptops, not desktops. Almost all high-end laptops at the moment use PCIe 3.0 x 4 for M.2 NVMe slots. This translates to a maximum theoretical speeds of up to 3.94 GB/s. The fastest PCIe 3.0 x 4 NVMe SSDs in the market (e.g. Samsung 970 EVO Plus) go up to only 3.5 GB/s because precisely because of this.

Once PCIe 4.0 is out (and a new generation of SSD controllers is released), PCIe 4.0 x 4 setup (assuming the 4x lanes is maintained) will result in up to 7.88 GB/s speeds, or more realistically 7 GB/s to 7.5 GB/s.

You're wrong about ssds being throttle by pcie 3.0. Please tell me an ssd that's faster than PCIe 3.0 x16 (126.4 Gbps) that's on the consumer market. W

No s*** we cant benefit from it, there are no PCIE 4.0 cards available to the public

the need  Intel doesn't see.
when we can go from 8x or 16x PCIe 3.0 to 4x or 8x  in PCIe 4.0.
this leave tons of PCIe lanes extra  not that Intel has low PCIe lane chips.
even slower Nvme ssd's can move from 4 lanes to 2 lanes.

yup, intel is lagging behind, from technological, architectual and now feature standpoint as well

10nm is also useless.Let's make 14nm++++++++++ chips last forever ;D

Given how stingy Intel is with pcie lanes, especially on their mainstream platform, you would expect them to be all over pcie 4. Unless of course that is another feature they plan to segment off for HEDT.

I still don't think buying inferior products at a higher price is a good idea.

Even if it makes no difference for gaming, it does for non-gaming purposes:

1. The fastest NVMe SSDs in the market are currently throttled by PCIe 3.0 x 4. PCIe 4.0 is desperately needed to double the maximum read & write speeds. Of course new controllers will also need to be used alongside PCIe 4.0 to unlock read & write speeds of up to 7 - 7.5 GB/s.

2. PCIe 4.0 + increased PCIe lane count for both the CPU & Chipset will allow high-end laptop manufactures to have more ports given the upcoming bandwidth-hungry standards, so even the following dream port selection will be possible:

- 4 Thunderbolt 3 / USB4 ports @ 40 Gbps [Pending USB4 spec release]
- 4 USB 3.2 Gen 2 @ 10 Gbps
- HDMI 2.1 @ 48 Gbps
- Mini DisplayPort 2.0 @ 64.8 Gbps [Pending official spec release]
- Ethernet RJ45 Port @ 2.5 Gbps
- UHS-III Card Reader @ 624 MB/s

The closest laptops in the marketing to having the above port combination while still housing two M.2 NVMe slots is the Razer Blade Pro 17 & the upcoming Razer Blade  Pro 17 Studio Edition, but PCIe 4.0 & even PCIe 5.0's support in CPUs, motherboards & Chipsets is desperately needed for this to happen.

Thoughts?

"Intel found a benchmark that does not benefit from PCIe 4 and are happy about it"

7nm is not a big deal either for Intel, I guess...