I think it should look like this:
The pros of this design are obviously the EEB form factor which physically is the same as E-ATX but with some different mounting holes. This size would increase the amount of cases that the board would fit substantially over the annoyingly incompatible HPTX form factor that the EVGA SR-2 and SR-X utilise. The size of those boards have been my main point of contention and was the reason I didn't get the SR-2. Yes it had the best performance of any LGA 1366 board thanks to its overclocking prowess and dual sockets but I wasn't willing to sacrifice a good looking and well sized rig for something that was monstrously obtrusive in my home.
When the SR-X was announced I was interested in it only from a geeky "whoa" aspect. But then we found out the new LGA 2011 XEON's are so locked down that the best overclock you can muster is about 5MHz on the BCLK. This brings the total overclock potential to around 100-150MHz. That is really just too low in my opinion considering how much money you need to spend to get decent XEON's that will outpace a well overclocked i7 Sandy Bridge-E chip.
So for me the SR-X is a board without a market. It doesn't appeal to workstation users because it doesn't use standard workstation board form sizes such as CEB or EEB and it doesn't support overclocking so the benchmarking crowd won't be that interested in it either. To me the Asus Z9PE-D8 WS is a much better buy. It's priced competitively and it supports overclocking if Intel ever release less locked down XEON's (which I doubt they will) and it uses a standard EEB form factor.
Just my thoughts on it.
Notebook: 15" Apple Retina MBP 2015, Ci7-4870HQ, 512GB SSD, M370X
Desktop: 3x30" Dell 1600p, Ci7-3930K, 32GB RAM, RIVE, GTX 780 SLI, 1TB 850 Pro
Server: E5-1650, 64GB ECC, 2x128GB SSD, 9x4TB HDD, AX1200i