1156? Help me justify its existance

[Icestation]

I need some help,
Fist off I try not to be a AMD fanboy its just worked out that way my last few builds.
I do recommend Intel for a mojority of applications as the Core2's and i7 are crazy number crunching monsters. But for "my" needs AMD has fit the bill the last upgrade I did.

Now here is the problem. This 2 socket stuff from Intel, I have been reading most of the reviews on these i5's and while the numbers are impressive I still struggle with the socket! So what I would like help with is why did intel make it and what real benifit to me the consumer it has in the CPU/Motherboard arena.
So here are a list of my opinions please dont flame this I would like constructive critique to help me recommend this socket/platform right now.

1. why does it exist? from what I know it has most of the features from i7 minus a few (triple ddr, hyperthreading, vm support (not sure on this one). couldnt have intel made p55 for 1366 and just slapped on 4 dimms instead of 6 since i7 1366 does not have to have 3 dimms it will work with just 2?
2. what is with the model numbers the i7 870 is the same price as the i7 950 (actually 10 dollars more at newegg) for less CPU lower clock and missing some features.
3. If the anandtech pricing is correct for the p55 motherboards in this article http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3624 hope its okay to link to an inferior website if not just delete the url please. there is no reason they could not slap the 1366 socket on a p55 motherboard and not pin out the 3rd channel of memory (i dont know if this is physically possible just a theory or reroute it just doesnt seem like this would be that hard to do considering AMD is putting ddr2 and ddr3 imcs in the same cpu cant intel figure out how to pin out a 1156 i7 870 or i5 750 to work in a 1366 socket? or make a i7 920/950 work on a p55 chipset without the gross overcharge for the x58 chipset?

So this is my big frustration I feel that the 1156 socket is a sham from intel like they are forcing us to pick a socket and then stick with it. or reinvest a bunch of money to jump to the next level and we all have seen sockets get retarded (AMD skt754,939,940 the early A64 days) I feel its intel being greedy and i have not forgot about the i3.

From a gaming standpoint I see i5 as killer cpu price/performance after the initial early adopter price drops. but from a heavy workstation view (cad/adobe) the i7 1366 is the first choice but if the budget is tight you have to pigeon hole yourself into a i7 1156 with a mysterious upgrade path, and from a budget build as of right now (i3 may change this but its 3-6months out) its hard not to go AMD am3 as its future looks a lot better then skt775.
and from a home user (web,ipod music and video ripper, and the family photo album) I see no reason in getting anything more then a PII 545 dual core for 89 bucks and a 70 dollar 785g thats loaded with options.
So any input would be great but as I see the 1156 its only purpose (other then specialized computing) I can put it in is the hard core gamer that cant scounge up another 200 bucks or so to make the full jump to i7 1366 with triple channel. even knowing the i7 1366 is overkill for gaming but when you spend 400+ on gpu's every year you are going to spend more then 150 bucks on a motherboard so you can get a couple of GPU cycles out of it.

If you read this thank you and please leave any opinions or comments to help me out or anyone else that might be wondering about this.

 

[jeremyshaw]

psst... You're spilling industry money making secrets!

I stick with AM3. LGA775 sometimes.

 

[lowteckh]

It exists because Intel with its army of economists, accountants, and anyone with a BA degree deemed it a good business decision.

 

[ihira]

Your argurment was on point until you brought up AMD and *your* own needs for a PC which was unrelated.

I too wonder why they decided to seperate into two sockets; LGA775 accomidated everything from 90nm single core P4s to 45nm quad core Penryns.

 

[Elios]

doesnt really matter how many times have you done a drop in CPU upgrade i can count them on one had
once for a Pentium 1 to a Overdrive P1 with MMX

the 1156 mobos are much cheaper to make and that should trickle down at some point
the 1366 boards are still high for a good one

 

[huddy]

Instead of trying to justify LGA1156, lets go after LGA1366. The larger 1366 socket is useless for probably 99.99% of home users. It is very useful for those that need large amounts of memory and the option for hexacore i9's soon. It is also used for the Xeon DP servers...

LGA1156 would be my upgrade of choice over LGA1366.
Did we lose a 3rd channel of RAM? Yes. Do 99.99% of users need it?
All of the i5 and i7 cpus support virtualization.
All i7 chips support hyperthreading, regardless of socket.
The QPI links were cut out from LGA1156 chips, but the PCIe controller was moved on chip.
Turbo modes and power consumption are superior on the 1156 chips vs. 1366 chips.
Overclocking is slightly more difficult at stock voltage on 1156 chips due to the PCIe controller... but giving extra voltage is nothing new to overclockers anyay.

In short 1156 is the socket to get from intel unless you need obscene memory bandwidth, a super killer workstation with all of the cores you can possibly get (hexacores will be here soon...), or if you want a high i7 overclock on stock voltages.

And for the record, with the lower motherboard and CPU prices, 1156 chips score the price/performance win over any similar quads chips that AMD currently offers.

As for me... I will be rocking my current C2D machine for several years just fine...

 

[a123456]

775 is pretty much dead for future new computers once the i5 was released. If you still have AM3/775 computers right now, there might not be a need to upgrade.

They definitely needed a new chipset for Nehalem because there were numerous fundamental changes, like the IMC among other things. The 1366 is pretty much their first try at it and then they made a budget version by stripping out some stuff like the extra lanes and the memory channel. I don't work at Intel, but clearly, with the average mobo price even now, the 1156 is a lot cheaper to make so they did so to cut costs.

The price difference between the i5 and the i7 920 may not be significant to you but a couple of hundred dollars is a big deal to many people as you get lower on the food chain. Not everyone spends 400+ on GPUs every year. If you do spend that much, then sure spending extra on X58 is no big deal. I'd be lucky to spend a couple of hundred every 2-3 years on my computer budget but I still enjoy gaming.

Most of their sales will end up in budget systems anyway and the 1366 is there to satisfy enthusiasts. For the bulk of the their sales, 1156 is there to satisfy the majority of the market who care more about the current cost to the wallet versus some nebulous upgrade path on either socket. Drop-in CPU upgrades are very rare except among enthusiasts like the people on this board so the future path while nice to think about isn't particularly significant unless it can save them costs. The 1366 might turn out to be similar in upgrade possibilities to the 1156 if the only i9 released is too expensive (1000$+).

As huddy points out, the 1366 doesn't offer anything to many users that the 1156 can't do.

I know people who are still running around with 5 year old computers and it's not a big deal. When they get tired of it, they'll get a whole new computer without regard to the upgradability of a given socket.

As for what to recommend people, is there something in the 1366 that the person would actually use (the extra lanes, memory bandwidth, i9)? If so, then go with that. If not, the 1156 pretty much can offer the same thing for a lower price. If the budget or needs are even lower, then the AM3 works okay also. Recommendations are based on user needs and budget and all 3 sockets can satisfy some percentage of the population. This is totally different from Nvidia and their 8800GT/9800/GTS 250.

 

[Icestation]

Your argurment was on point until you brought up AMD and *your* own needs for a PC which was unrelated.

I too wonder why they decided to seperate into two sockets; LGA775 accomidated everything from 90nm single core P4s to 45nm quad core Penryns

Well some people here are so Intel or AMD bias that I wanted to be viewed as a nuetral I dont care what brand it is I buy they best I can with the money I am willing to spend. I am also willing to spend less up front knowing something is coming out then drop it in.

I agree 775 was I think the best socket ever it got a little confusing with all the chipsets but overall the cpu support (upgradeability) was the best ever.

doesnt really matter how many times have you done a drop in CPU upgrade i can count them on one had
once for a Pentium 1 to a Overdrive P1 with MMX

the 1156 mobos are much cheaper to make and that should trickle down at some point
the 1366 boards are still high for a good one

Well I average 2 cpu's a motherboard. A lot of trading/selling with friends I try to buy the best motherboard slap in a lower end cpu and then swap it out 9 months later.

and thats the whole thing its not the socket 1156 thats cheaper its the p55 chipset and features of the motherboard. So why didnt intel just make the p55 chipset with a socket1366 and put 1366 pins on a i5 or the i7 870 I only see this costing a few dollars more per CPU/Motherboard. Then we have a single socket we can invest in and get more life out if.


I am leaning on what lowteckh is saying basically greed.

Would skt 1156 exist if AMD had something on the market 6+ months ago that could actually compete with the i7 1366? I doubt it.
Lets say (pretend) way too early to speculate but bulldozer turns out to just be crazy, faster then the i7 1366's just like 5% clock for clock. what will intel do with skt 1156 kill it off? or build 2 cpu's for every model one for 1156 and one for 1366 I just cant wrap my head around running 2 sockets on current cpus (i7)
people thought the AMD plus marketing was bad in the athlon xp days how are they going to react to "i7 inside" well kinda its not the real i7 1366 its the cut down i7 on 1156?

 

[Roland00]

p55 motherboards are much cheaper to make than x58 motherboards, due to more of the necessary circuitry being on the cpu (such as the pci express 16 links), in addition to the 2 channel instead of 3 channel memory.

The vast majority of users do not need 40 pci-e lanes, which x58 provides. Hell most people (as long as they are not gaming) are satisfied by the newer integrated graphics of amd and nvidia which are fast enough to offload 1080p content. Yet to procure that much pci-e lanes, intel use the quickpath interconnect which can provide such large amounts of bandiwidth. Most users only need about 8 pci-e lanes, with mainstream gamers needing about 16.

The real reason for developing qpi though was to allow intel to do processor to processor connection with the bloomfield. Remember bloomfield was developed as a server/workstation chip, and the i7 bloomfields are almost identical to their xeon brethen. Due to all the additional bandiwidth that qpi provides their needs to be more contacts on the cpu and thus the higher pin count.

Finally there is no need for tri channel memory with the current 4 cores, it is necessary with the upcoming 6 and 8 cores, which x58 chipset will support only needing a bios upgrade supposedly. There will be no upcomming 6 and 8 cores with lynfield.

----

Intel is cutting costs bring the bloomfield power to the masses with lynnfield, much of the circuitry that is incorporated in bloomfield is simply not necessary for typical computers (while on servers and workstations this circuitry is necessary). Thus it all boils down to this.

Lynnfield
+Massive OEMS

• Cheaper to manufacture
• With turbo giving almost the same performance as an OC 920
• Lower TDP which Massive OEMS prefer

Bloomfield

• 
  +The Server Market
  +The Workstation Market
  +The enthusiast crowd
  • Bloomfield is easier to oc and requires less volts due to you not having to feed the pci-express bus extra volts since it is connected directly to the bus (in addition to changing the bus speed in 33 intervals).
  • In addition you may get a very small mhz increase with bloomfield vs lynffield (very small since both chips hit 4ghz). Tri vs dual channel memory may not make a large difference of performance but this is the crowd who cares about 5%.
  • If you are going sli/crossfire with more than 1 card than you have x16 per slot instead of x8.
  
  So in sum, 1366 is the server chip and 1156 is the normal chip. Enthusiasts don't make intel that much money, we are less than 3% of the total marketshare, of the 1366 chips sold intel makes more money off the server and workstation market.

 

[a123456]

and thats the whole thing its not the socket 1156 thats cheaper its the p55 chipset and features of the motherboard. So why didnt intel just make the p55 chipset with a socket1366 and put 1366 pins on a i5 or the i7 870 I only see this costing a few dollars more per CPU/Motherboard. Then we have a single socket we can invest in and get more life out if.

I think you don't understand how much "a few dollars" matters. Just take a look at how many different Intel and AMD SKUs are out on the market separated by "a few dollars." Obviously, you are an exception and for you, that sucks since your needs are different than most people's. But for most people, they'd rather save the few dollars rather than have the single socket to get more life. Also, the P55 product combined seems to consume less power than the X58 products and for some people this is a big deal. Keep in mind that they need to look ahead to all the CPUs in the future on the 1156, including those that are <100$ for OEM builds (which probably comprise the bulk of their sales). So forcing people to purchase a bloated and expensive X58 mobo for the super cheap CPU makes no sense.

I am leaning on what lowteckh is saying basically greed.

Would skt 1156 exist if AMD had something on the market 6+ months ago that could actually compete with the i7 1366? I doubt it.
Lets say (pretend) way too early to speculate but bulldozer turns out to just be crazy, faster then the i7 1366's just like 5% clock for clock. what will intel do with skt 1156 kill it off? or build 2 cpu's for every model one for 1156 and one for 1366 I just cant wrap my head around running 2 sockets on current cpus (i7)
people thought the AMD plus marketing was bad in the athlon xp days how are they going to react to "i7 inside" well kinda its not the real i7 1366 its the cut down i7 on 1156?

No question there's an element of greed in capitalism. Corporations should look out for most profits if they can and it's legal.

If AMD comes out with a crazy chip that is awesome, Intel will just do what AMD is doing now. Cut prices until the prices match up with relative performance. Same as Nvidia's response to the 48xx. Why would they suddenly throw away all the work and research when it can still sell, just for not as much? i3 will be coming up later on and it might compress prices a little more than they want but that's about it.

I admit the naming scheme is terrible and I hate it. It's built to confuse since 1156, 1366 shouldn't be all combined in the i7 name. But it's not the first time nor will it be the last time that "brilliant" marketing people try to confuse consumers who don't know better.

 

[ilkhan]

Justify it's existence? Pretty easily.
The industry is moving towards integration. s1156 allows for everything but low speed I/O (meaning stuff hanging off of the PCH) to be built in. GPU, memory controlller, PCI-E, its all on the CPU socket. less chips means less motherboard space, less complexity, lower power usage. But not dual sockets or true high speed I/O (hypertransport/QPI).
s1366 allows dual sockets and extremely high speed I/O. No reason NOT to offer consumers a chance at the higher speed stuff, it allows additional validation before getting put into servers (i7 was out long before X5500, while being physically identical) and lets those who desire those features access them.

AKA: s1156 is a consumer first socket, s1366 is a 2s server socket first. Different goals, different design choices. Both will live on for at least 3 years.

Pins are expensive, they don't put them into the socket desire without a purpose. Melding s1156 and s1366 into one design would have required a large increase in the number of pins. They'd also still have the same design choices, just different pins would go unused depending on market. ex: QPI takes 80 pins per bus. Thus a melded socket would require 160 QPI pins in addition to the current DMI pins. Also the PCI-E pins. And extra power pins (AFAIK s1156 only supplies 95W, s1366 supplies >=130W). etc.

As far as naming goes, forget iX. Just start referring to 900/800/700/600 series chips, or by socket.

 

[Icestation]

Instead of trying to justify LGA1156, lets go after LGA1366. The larger 1366 socket is useless for probably 99.99% of home users. It is very useful for those that need large amounts of memory and the option for hexacore i9's soon. It is also used for the Xeon DP servers...

Thats a great thought. Like AMD's failed skt 1207 or whatever that 4x4 bs was, server socket turned enthusiest to get them buy while the new platform was being finalized. If thats the case then all the future cpu's for 1366 are going to be so overpriced with no benifit over 1156, Other then the specialized computing (high end workstations and such)

but then I have not heard about any full sli/crossfire 16x/16x chipset for 1156. with gpu prices where they are mainstream is cheap and dual gpu's are not a crazy high end dream.

and for the record I DO NOT spend $400+ on gpus a year but I do install $400+ in gpus for a couple of clients more often then I should no matter what I try to tell them or no matter how many links to reviews I send them showing how much of a waste it is they still want to buy them.

So is 1366 going to basically turn into a high end workstation/server socket. If thats the case then 1156 now makes sense and shame on Intel for doing the 1366 x58 with full sli/crossfire support for basically a server socket.

 

[Icestation]

thanks GLSauron and a123456,

I am starting to get it a little more. Not on the band wagon yet but I am not flipping it off as it goes by I guess it needs a little more time, I think I was hoping to much that 1366 was going to stay affordable but it looks pretty clear that its not really going to as the new cpu's are only going up and 1156 will fill in from the sub $100 on up and even overlap (overlap thats the annoying part)

 

[chklin]

but then I have not heard about any full sli/crossfire 16x/16x chipset for 1156. with gpu prices where they are mainstream is cheap and dual gpu's are not a crazy high end dream.

One important feature of LGA-1156 is that the CPU has an integrated PCI-e x16 controller, so there is no need for one in the chipset (cheaper motherboards, lower latency). Unfortunately, there are only enough pins for 16 PCI-e lanes, so no future LGA-1156 CPU will be able to offer more PCI-e lanes. A single x16 or x8/x8 is all you will ever get from an LGA-1156 CPU. Ever.

The only around is to add something like an NF200 on the motherboard, but that kinds of defeat the whole purpose of having a PCI-e controller built directly into the CPU.

 

[Roland00]

So is 1366 going to basically turn into a high end workstation/server socket. If thats the case then 1156 now makes sense and shame on Intel for doing the 1366 x58 with full sli/crossfire support for basically a server socket.

Why shame on intel? Intel has been king of performance in every field with the exception of the server market for decades (ignoring the years of p4/netburst). In the server market AMD is/was very competitive. This is why intel focused all there efforts on taking the core architecture and improving it with a server focus (aka taking all the good facts of intel, some of the good ideas of amd, and then improving them onestep further.) An integrated memory controller which improves memory access times up to a factor of 2.5, tri channel memory, hyperthreading, more power efficient, l3 shared cache to share info with multiple cores, etc. Intel goal was to get out Nehalem as fast as possible to grow in the field they were relatively weakest at.

It doesn't take much work to add crossfire/sli support, intel was already going to have nehalem out for servers, so it wasn't hard to add those few features for the enthusiast crowd.

And x58 will have a future for non server/workstation use later on in about a year from now as the 6/8 cores are released. While it may not be necessary now why are you blaming intel for putting out the motherboards

 

[1815]

Regardless of the technological benefits of 1156, Intel has made it fairly clear that in future the only chips that are going to work on 1366 are the waste of money 'extreme' versions of i7 and 6 core processors that will likely cost huge sums and have no application outside of professional CAD and video editting until they're already obsolete.

As others have said it's a bit of arse move to essentially make you pay £100s extra on pointless crap for SLI/CF, but that's Intel for you...

 

[Atech]

Regardless of the technological benefits of 1156, Intel has made it fairly clear that in future the only chips that are going to work on 1366 are the waste of money 'extreme' versions of i7 and 6 core processors that will likely cost huge sums and have no application outside of professional CAD and video editting until they're already obsolete.

As others have said it's a bit of arse move to essentially make you pay £100s extra on pointless crap for SLI/CF, but that's Intel for you...

SLI/Crossfire results on current hardware says otherwise, that the i7 pulls ahead of the i5 in higher resolutions...I also like stock voltage OC on Bloomfield, something the PCI-E bus on the Lynnfield is not eager to do.

I would hold off makeing such statements untill the next generation GPU's have been reviewed.

 

[Demonoid]

I would hold off makeing such statements untill the next generation GPU's have been reviewed.

The next generation of GPUs are ATI's R800 and Nvidia's G300 are still going to use PCI-E 2.0 with 16 lanes, so SINGLE gpu solution is still going to provide the say amount of performance as 1366. 1156 is NOT meant to be an SLI/CF board which is only for enthusiast.

 

[Atech]

The next generation of GPUs are ATI's R800 and Nvidia's G300 are still going to use PCI-E 2.0 with 16 lanes, so SINGLE gpu solution is still going to provide the say amount of performance as 1366. 1156 is NOT meant to be an SLI/CF board which is only for enthusiast.

Oh really?:
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/09/08/msi_p55gd80_motherboard_review

MSI chose to bundle the following accessories with the P55-GD80 board: a ribbon IDE cable; locking connector SATA drive cables and dual headed power cables; SATA to e-SATA converter cables with power connection bundle in a rear panel bracket assembly; the rear panel shield; 2-way NVIDIA SLI and ATI CrossFireX connectors;

 

[ilkhan]

Oh really?:
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2009/09/08/msi_p55gd80_motherboard_review

he meant x16/x16 SLI/CF. s1156 will do x8/x8, but doesn't have the lanes to do x16/x16.

 

[Icestation]

he meant x16/x16 SLI/CF. s1156 will do x8/x8, but doesn't have the lanes to do x16/x16.

Thats what I do not get, Does Intel have a chipset in their roadmap for s1156 that will do full x16/x16 (full 32 lanes) SLI/CF?

Or does Intel believe that the only people doing SLI/CF are big time enthusiast I for one am not (I dont spend that kind of money) but I have sli'd one time (6800's) and CF 2 times (3850 bought them super cheap) then sold them and bought a 4850 then when the price dropped bought another 4850. Just to sell them and buy a 4890 Asus (stalker clear sky is so much faster on a single 4890 then 2x 4850's) but thats me.
On the other hand I have SLI'd for for clients that are on a 1,500 budget (full box build) and I dont consider this enthusiast money at least not (s1366 money)

 

[Syntax Error]

To me, it's a separation of market sectors. LGA 1366 probably would have a large future in the server market for servers that require good performance for virutalization and such, but it also was a move on Intel's part to separate market segments to be more defined. and prevent the undermining of their other products with their own on different sockets, so if you already have an i5 and you see a good deal for an i7, you wouldn't be able to upgrade to that as that would require an additional investment in motherboard.

I view it mostly as an Intel marketing move, really, to segment their CPU market and chipsets into more manageable and profitable sectors rather than it being a technological or practical measure. I guess that's what happens when the nearest competitor doesn't bring about that much competition in the high end. It's almost like when Intel' released the i7 for the first time, they portioned it out from their performance line (to get early adopters) and only now did the "mainstream" Nehalem derivatives have come out, unlike Intel's initial release of the Core 2 Duo Conroe, which was a launch-by-force of their high-end to mid-range processors all at once.

 

[ToastyBread]

Thats what I do not get, Does Intel have a chipset in their roadmap for s1156 that will do full x16/x16 (full 32 lanes) SLI/CF?

Or does Intel believe that the only people doing SLI/CF are big time enthusiast I for one am not (I dont spend that kind of money) but I have sli'd one time (6800's) and CF 2 times (3850 bought them super cheap) then sold them and bought a 4850 then when the price dropped bought another 4850. Just to sell them and buy a 4890 Asus (stalker clear sky is so much faster on a single 4890 then 2x 4850's) but thats me.
On the other hand I have SLI'd for for clients that are on a 1,500 budget (full box build) and I dont consider this enthusiast money at least not (s1366 money)

From what I've read, you can still use dual single-gpu cards (so regular SLI/Crossfire) on Lynnfield, in x8/x8, and not really see any change in performance.

The only time Lynnfield's performance drops down a good bit below that of x58 is when you're using a Quad SLI/Crossfire, in which case the extra PCIe lanes of X58 really begin to show their benefit.

I think the typical viewpoint is that anyone who is doing Quad SLI/Crossfire could generally be considered an "enthusiast", and thus X58/1366 is the better choice for them.

 

[chklin]

Thats what I do not get, Does Intel have a chipset in their roadmap for s1156 that will do full x16/x16 (full 32 lanes) SLI/CF?

I don't think so. The whole point of 1156 is to eliminate the need for a high-speed transport between the chipset and the CPU, because the important high-bandwidth controllers (memory & PCI-e x16) are already built into the CPU itself. Since the CPU pin assignment leaves only enough room for 16 PCI-e lanes, I believe 16 lanes is all you will ever get from Intel on 1156.

MB manufacturer can add a NF200 on the motherboard, but that kinds of defeat the purpose of 1156 (cheaper motherboards & low-latency PCI-e x16 access). Word on the street is that on the EVGA P55 FTW 200, x16 through NF200 is slower than x8 through CPU, so there you have it.

If you need x16/x16 SLI/CF, go with 1366.

 

[a123456]

Current testing has shown that something like two 275s in SLI works fine on the x8/x8. It's only when you get to the 4870x2 CF that the x8/x8 doesn't have enough bandwidth or that the CPU is too weak. And if you've already spent 1000 on video cards, then the extra cost of an X58 probably isn't that significant.

So for a huge majority of the population, the 16 low-latency lanes is enough since you can still do SLI/CF with that. If you're planning to need x16/x16 for some reason as an enthusiast and need the Quadfire-like power, then 1366 is there for now. The 1366 from Dan D's point of view is going to gravitate towards being their server/workstation platform and for the super high end.

That said, the next couple of generations of video cards might change the picture if they end up being much much faster.

 

[butterfliesrpretty]

it exists for when your grandma needs to buy a pc at walmart, the enthusiasts need to steer clear.

I personally think everyone is crazy for upgrading from a core 2 quad to anything, usb 3.0 will be coming very soon.

 

[ilkhan]

Thats what I do not get, Does Intel have a chipset in their roadmap for s1156 that will do full x16/x16 (full 32 lanes) SLI/CF?

Nope. There's not enough pins coming out of the CPU socket to support another 16 lanes. They'll move to PCI-E v3 at sandy launch (probably) but don't expect to see 32 lanes on s1156 ever.

And Im with butterfliesrpretty regarding timing. Anybody upgrading now (including myself, since I plan on getting a laptop without them) is crazy for not waiting for USB3/SATA3/PCI-Ev3. Of course, chipsets with native support are a whole year out. :shrug:
I'll buy into this gen as laptop GPU isn't upgradable, my newest/biggest USB drive is only 2.0, and my new SSD is 3Gbps. But if you haven't already bought into the current gen...

 

[tvih]

For me, LGA1366 i7 was out of the question (retarded power consumption, mostly, but also the mobo costs). Now, LGA1156 on the other hand is quite interesting. Too bad no mini-ITX board yet.