Intel To Continue With Upgradeable LGA Platforms

Good, even though it's not like Intels are particularly upgradable considering they churn out a new socket every year. But it's good to know that in case your CPU fails you don't have to swap the whole mobo.
 
not like Intels are particularly upgradable considering they churn out a new socket every year.
Click to expand...
It's a new socket every other year for the mainstream platform. 1 every ~3 years for the enthusiast. Although it is possible that haswell will break this. I mean if broadwell gets DDR4 this will require a new motheboard.

But it's good to know that in case your CPU fails you don't have to swap the whole mobo.
Click to expand...

How often does that happen? Of the 200+ CPUs that I have purchased (home + work) only 1 has died. And that was an AMD thunderbird that died because of a CPU fan failure + the CPU did not have thermal protection like modern CPUs do. Although I know overclockers will have a much higher failure rate especially if they use crazy voltages.
 
Last edited:
kasakka said:
it's not like Intels are particularly upgradable considering they churn out a new socket every year.
Click to expand...

I think there's another potential problem with BGA: The unmanageably large number of different products resulting from the necessity to fit the CPU in the factory.

For instance, Intel offers 19 different E5-2600 Xeon processors, and for these processors, Supermicro has 61 different dual socket mobos. Therefore you have 19*61 = 1159 different possible combinations for CPUs and motherboards, just for the category of dual 2011 setups.

Now if these cannot be put together in the field outside the mobo factory, you'd have 1159 different motherboard models. That's one logistical problem, not to speak of the financial one that Supermicro would have to buy and pay for all these processors in advance in order to assemble the product.
 
Well, they have no other way - unless they want to leave enthusiast market.
 
Verass said:
So they are gonna keep 2011 socket? :confused:
Click to expand...

Yes and no.

SB-E/IVB-E Socket 2011 is a dead end unfortunately.

Haswell-E will use Socket 2011, but it's a completely different layout on the sheer possibility it may share the DDR4 controller from its Haswell-EP/EN server brothers.

Therefore, Haswell-E is NOT a drop-in replacement for current Socket 2011 boards even if the pin count is the same.
 
octoberasian said:
Yes and no.

SB-E/IVB-E Socket 2011 is a dead end unfortunately.

Haswell-E will use Socket 2011, but it's a completely different layout on the sheer possibility it may share the DDR4 controller from its Haswell-EP/EN server brothers.

Therefore, Haswell-E is NOT a drop-in replacement for current Socket 2011 boards even if the pin count is the same.
Click to expand...

From what I read, according to leaks from Intel, there will not be IB-E. Intel is going to replace SB-E with Haswell-E, they completely leapfrog over making extreme version of IB. So yeah, 2011 is dead end.
 
Ok I see. What I don't understand is why make a socket with a dead end after spending resources developing it.:(
 
Yeah this is old news. They were never going to get rid of sockets when it came to the successor of socket 2011. It was only ever the successor to 1155 that was going to BGA.

Intel is happy to have anyone who wants a socketed processor pay through the nose for their overpriced enthusiast parts instead of getting relatively good deals like you can now with an 1155 mobo and a 3570k.
 
Verass said:
Ok I see. What I don't understand is why make a socket with a dead end after spending resources developing it.:(
Click to expand...

They design the socket around the processor, not the other way around.

Haswell and Haswell-E will feature parts of the VRM integrated on the processor. This alone breaks any sort of compatibility with previous sockets.
 
Tsumi said:
They design the socket around the processor, not the other way around.

Haswell and Haswell-E will feature parts of the VRM integrated on the processor. This alone breaks any sort of compatibility with previous sockets.
Click to expand...

Ah got it, thank you.
 
And, supposedly with the VRM now integrated onto the CPU and the possible TDP of 35 to 84W of Haswell at 2 to 4 cores and 150W of Haswell-E at 6 to 10 cores, they are supposed to be more energy efficient than a comparable Sandy Bridge or Ivy Bridge-based processor. That and be able to handle per core power loads and gating, plus per core turbo a lot better than the previous gen SB and IVB cores.

So, it does explain a lot why a new socket is needed for this processor.
 
meatling said:
I think there's another potential problem with BGA: The unmanageably large number of different products resulting from the necessity to fit the CPU in the factory.

For instance, Intel offers 19 different E5-2600 Xeon processors, and for these processors, Supermicro has 61 different dual socket mobos. Therefore you have 19*61 = 1159 different possible combinations for CPUs and motherboards, just for the category of dual 2011 setups.

Now if these cannot be put together in the field outside the mobo factory, you'd have 1159 different motherboard models. That's one logistical problem, not to speak of the financial one that Supermicro would have to buy and pay for all these processors in advance in order to assemble the product.
Click to expand...
I thought Intel going BGA would have basically meant an end to most of the motherboard markers period.
 
I thought the only ones using BGA from Haswell would be low-end/entry-level PCs. Mid-range and high end would not be affected.
 
It is stories like this that remind me of something we did in my college communications class. The teacher lined up the whole class and gave the person on the end a message that they were told to pass along to person next to us. By the time that message reached the end of the line it was so badly changed that it wasn’t even close to what was said in the beginning.

“Intel remains committed to the growing desktop enthusiast and channel markets, and will continue to offer socketed parts in the LGA package for the foreseeable future for our customers and the Enthusiast DIY market,” Intel spokesman Daniel Snyder told Maximum PC http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/intel_says_company_committed_sockets2012
 
Ah, since you're here and trying to settle the issue of Intel still being committed to socketed platforms or not, a couple questions:

  1. It only mentions desktop enthusiast and channel markets. A lot of us are wondering about the entry-level and low cost desktop PCs you would usually find in places like Walmart. How about laptops? BGA-only or will the good old socket still remain like the old Socket P laptop boards?
  2. Ivy Bridge-E still coming this summer? (Or around that time?) Or have they been canceled?

Thank you, IntelEnthusiast.
 
octoberasian said:
I thought the only ones using BGA from Haswell would be low-end/entry-level PCs. Mid-range and high end would not be affected.
Click to expand...

Good move business speaking, however it would ultimately affect mid-range/high range in the global/bigger picture/economics.

And since when can Intel be trusted to deliver solid-performance (especially to lower end) when they have no competition.
 
octoberasian said:
Ah, since you're here and trying to settle the issue of Intel still being committed to socketed platforms or not, a couple questions:

  1. It only mentions desktop enthusiast and channel markets. A lot of us are wondering about the entry-level and low cost desktop PCs you would usually find in places like Walmart. How about laptops? BGA-only or will the good old socket still remain like the old Socket P laptop boards?
  2. Ivy Bridge-E still coming this summer? (Or around that time?) Or have they been canceled?
Thank you, IntelEnthusiast.
Click to expand...

Channel market = tray processors = OEM = covers entry-level and low cost segments, as well (as subjective as they are).

In regards to laptop/tablet being PGA or LGA or BGA, well that is up to Intel how they want to feed their direct OEMs and vendor partners. For a majority of consumer laptops and mobile devices, a soldered on CPU would work quite well, imo.
 
DejaWiz said:
Channel market = tray processors = OEM = covers entry-level and low cost segments, as well (as subjective as they are).

In regards to laptop/tablet being PGA or LGA or BGA, well that is up to Intel how they want to feed their direct OEMs and vendor partners. For a majority of consumer laptops and mobile devices, a soldered on CPU would work quite well, imo.
Click to expand...

Ah, makes sense then. Thank you for clearing that up.
 
DejaWiz said:
Channel market = tray processors = OEM = covers entry-level and low cost segments, as well (as subjective as they are).

In regards to laptop/tablet being PGA or LGA or BGA, well that is up to Intel how they want to feed their direct OEMs and vendor partners. For a majority of consumer laptops and mobile devices, a soldered on CPU would work quite well, imo.
Click to expand...

Except what would it be soldered onto. :)

Anything that leads to an All-Intel world is quickly going to end up like the HD video cards. No innovation and a decade to get something that is barely usable and probably will still be on the door of being obsolete in 2 years.
 
Fort_Major said:
Except what would it be soldered onto. :)

Anything that leads to an All-Intel world is quickly going to end up like the HD video cards. No innovation and a decade to get something that is barely usable and probably will still be on the door of being obsolete in 2 years.
Click to expand...

Foxconn and Asus pretty much make and supply all motherboards for OEM systems since they build just about all those desktops and laptops for them. So, they'd be soldered on to their own boards, then build the system around it, and slap HP, Dell, Lenovo, Gateway, whoever on the case.
 
DejaWiz said:
Foxconn and Asus pretty much make and supply all motherboards for OEM systems since they build just about all those desktops and laptops for them. So, they'd be soldered on to their own boards, then build the system around it, and slap HP, Dell, Lenovo, Gateway, whoever on the case.
Click to expand...

All the easier for Intel to go and say, stop putting USB3, Audio, and Network and use all our chipset/controllers.
 
Fort_Major said:
All the easier for Intel to go and say, stop putting USB3, Audio, and Network and use all our chipset/controllers.
Click to expand...

Intel wouldn't do that. Intel needs Foxconn and Asus as much as Foxconn and Asus needs Intel for success in keeping or growing their market shares the PC business.
 
DejaWiz said:
Intel wouldn't do that. Intel needs Foxconn and Asus as much as Foxconn and Asus needs Intel for success in keeping or growing their market shares the PC business.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that what they're doing with this chip. Integrated Intel USB? or am I misunderstanding that?
 
Fort_Major said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that what they're doing with this chip. Integrated Intel USB? or am I misunderstanding that?
Click to expand...

Intel has a USB 3.0 controller integrated into the x7x with IB CPU platform. MoBo manufacturers are at liberty to add additional 3rd party controllers in order to provide more ports. This is something Intel can not control.
 
DejaWiz said:
This is something Intel can not control.
Click to expand...
No, but that's not how Intel usually approaches things when they're trying to convince somebody to use their chipset over a 3rd party.

It usually involves a combination of threatened price increases for non-compliance + price decreases for compliance, now far more subtle than before since they've actually been nailed before. Though I imagine they have far more leeway operating in China as opposed to operating in the US which I believe is where they've always been nailed for doing that.

So it will be interesting to see how that plays out knowing that it could have a much large ripple effects that affect non-entry level.
 
Fort_Major said:
No, but that's not how Intel usually approaches things when they're trying to convince somebody to use their chipset over a 3rd party.

It usually involves a combination of threatened price increases for non-compliance + price decreases for compliance, now far more subtle than before since they've actually been nailed before. Though I imagine they have far more leeway operating in China as opposed to operating in the US which I believe is where they've always been nailed for doing that.

So it will be interesting to see how that plays out knowing that it could have a much large ripple effects that affect non-entry level.
Click to expand...

That's what I mean...Intel isn't sharing their tech with anyone else, so nobody else is making chipsets for their CPU's. Hence, if you want to buy an Intel CPU, you have to get a motherboard equipped with an Intel chipset. Which in turn means that they already provide the MoBo manufacturers with native SATA3, USB 3.0, PCIE 3.0, etc as part of the package. It's up to the MoBo manufacturer if they want to add additional controllers, like an extra USB 3.0 controller to add more ports for the end user, and that's something Intel can't control.
 
Yep. and I understand that. My concern is more related to how many companies will jump on-board and stop buying these components and go all-intel and what are those ramifications long-term. A problem that doesn't affect us now, is not guaranteed to not affect us later.
 
You're not getting it. The PCI-E lanes provided by the chipset can be used for anything, and Intel can't control that. They can provide native features on the chipset, but ultimately it's up to the company to choose what they will and will not use off of the chipset. Obviously, using the chipset is usually cheaper and better, and that's a business decision. However, the chipset can only be used to provide a limited number of features, as there's only so much silicon space on the chipset, and adding more features increases costs for Intel.
 
Fort_Major said:
Yep. and I understand that. My concern is more related to how many companies will jump on-board and stop buying these components and go all-intel and what are those ramifications long-term. A problem that doesn't affect us now, is not guaranteed to not affect us later.
Click to expand...

It's not so much of a problem since Intel has offered a full suite of integrated features in their last couple generations of chipsets, but also make just about everything else add-on from NICs to RAIDs to SSDs, which is a very competitive market right now. Meaning, there are a lot of companies that also make the aforementioned items and are doing just fine because they are in a position to be competitive with Intel and even win contracts by being the lowest bidders to system integrators/manufacturers. That is something that is unlikely to change with Intel's upcoming generation architecture, if ever. This is especially predominant in the enterprise segment, and also where the largest revenues stem.
 
I'm guessing you guys miss the days of nVidia nForce and VIA chipsets?

I'm all up for consumer choice here as well, but those were the old days. I highly doubt we'll get those days again though.
 
octoberasian said:
I'm guessing you guys miss the days of nVidia nForce and VIA chipsets?

I'm all up for consumer choice here as well, but those were the old days. I highly doubt we'll get those days again though.
Click to expand...

Don't leave out Opti and SIS!
 
I was sad when Intel purchased C&T. It had some of the best mobo chipsets, and a good VGA core.

Don't forget ULi chipsets, some of the worst I remember (back in the 486 days)..

-------
OP: Intel never claimed to stop supporting upgradr\eable sockets. It was a rumor from a couple of terrible accuracy web sites, one of which has still not updated its story or superceded it with the announcement that Intel would support upgradeable sockets for."the forseeable future". Click bait + zero integrity = garbage "news".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top