• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Question on Intel's new lineup

S

SamuraiInBlack

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 10, 2003
Messages
5,774
One thing that's always bothered me about Intel's processors is that it seems like everytime a revision is made, such as through a new core being released on the same socket, it seems like the only way to upgrade to the new revision is to get a new motherboard rather than an BIOS update, like the case is with AMD. This is what has turned me off from Intel's processors among other factors, but having to plunk down more money for a new motherboard AND processor just didn't seem right for me.

I haven't really kept with the Intel side of things on it, so I want to know - is this still a problem now, and is it going to continue being the way things go with Intel? Or am I talking crazy again?

I guess I just don't understand why it takes a new motherboard and/or chipset for the same processor with the same socket type and pin-count with just a slight revision to the core with one, but the competition can do it on a BIOS upgrade.
 
I understand where you are coming from and totally agree. But at the same time, that is way beyond what I know technology wise. So there might be a reason, or it mgiht just be business. I honestly have no idea.
 
As far as I understand it, intel's way of getting everything they can out of their chips is to make sure they run on the apropriate chipset. I guess it all depends on how frequently you update. If you only update your CPU/board every 3 or 4 years, then a complete overhaul is in the works and Intel is a viable option. But if you upgrade frequently, then going AMD and being able to just update the chip makes more sense.
 
*sigh* Why must people say "every Intel CPU needs a new mobo"? This happened one time. Once. 925X didn't support dual-core, so Intel modified it to 955X to support dual-core and suddenly they are a bunch of greedy bastards who make you buy a new motherboard and memory for every CPU upgrade. Need I remind you of the 440 chipset? One of the earliest P2 chipsets, and yet it was stretched to almost the end of the P3 lineup. People and their generalizations...:rolleyes:
 
Hey, just because it happens once, doesn't mean it won't happen again. Us humans are slow to learn from our past mistakes and tend to repeat them. You don't need to peek outside of technology to figure that one out, but it'd prove the point more if you did.

I would rather be safe than sorry. Bottom line.
 
I was under the impression that people favored Intel for the reason that AMD has been changing sockets so frequently in the past 5 years.
 
SamuraiInBlack said:
I haven't really kept with the Intel side of things on it, so I want to know - is this still a problem now, and is it going to continue being the way things go with Intel?
Click to expand...

Form what I read recently, Intel has realized that a part of the market is turned off by the incompatiblity they had recently. The engineers or marketers "promised" that after the Core 2 release there would be a long period during which the motherboards could be kept with newer chips.

Whether or not Intel will stick to that is hard to say, but considering that some people are claiming to be running quad-core chips on a conroe board, i would say that there is a good chance that you won't need a new mobo for a while.

On the other hand, let's all be realistic: the DIY market is not that big. Most OEMs that keep a low stock could care less to swap mobos out when introducing a new line of CPUs. Intel is most likely to cater to them than the small enthusiast market.

Nonetheless, I would consider Intel a reasonably upgrade safe 'bet'. Few people in the world would know for sure and are likely not allowed to talk about it, nor willing, considering that they would be the ones working on the products.
 
InorganicMatter said:
*sigh* Why must people say "every Intel CPU needs a new mobo"? This happened one time. Once. 925X didn't support dual-core, so Intel modified it to 955X to support dual-core and suddenly they are a bunch of greedy bastards who make you buy a new motherboard and memory for every CPU upgrade. Need I remind you of the 440 chipset? One of the earliest P2 chipsets, and yet it was stretched to almost the end of the P3 lineup. People and their generalizations...:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
A good generalization is the fact that recent actions are weighted more heavily than older ones. Regardless of what intel may have done 9 or 10 years ago, it is their recent choices that affect public image the most.
 
drizzt81 said:
Nonetheless, I would consider Intel a reasonably upgrade safe 'bet'. Few people in the world would know for sure and are likely not allowed to talk about it, nor willing, considering that they would be the ones working on the products.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Plus AMD is already planning socket AM3 (which they've talked about future compatability with, but still) as well as their other upcoming things. I think we'll be seeing 775 for a while and a new board will have a lot of upgrade potential.
 
Boards that support Conroe will work with 65nm QC and probably with 45nm Penryn.So in a sense , until somewhere in 2008 when LGA775 is changed for a new socket that supports IMC and CSI , you're fine. :)
 
InorganicMatter said:
You're implying that this problem is specific to Intel. Care to talk about socket 754?
Click to expand...

I imply nothing, but I do get the impression you're a bit of an Intel !!!!!! to be making that statement. If that's the case, save that for someone who actually cares to argue with you on it. I wanted a question answered, not a lecture and finger pointing on something irrelevant to my question.

So no, I don't care to talk about socket 754. When you make a socket 754 thread, I'll consider looking at it.
 
SamuraiInBlack said:
I imply nothing, but I do get the impression you're a bit of an Intel !!!!!! to be making that statement.
Click to expand...

That's the dumbest thing I've read all day. Calling him an Intel !!!!!! in the Intel specific forum. :rolleyes:
 
Happened once?

How about s478 Prescott? Most motherboards had to be retooled to work with power requirements

How about the FSB changes in Northwood. 400 then 533 then 800 each step up required a retooling of the motherboards to support the new FID pinouts.

or Tualatin? Socket 370, but Coppermine owners couldn't upgrade to Tualatin because of the pinout.

And now Conroe, most motherboards currently on the market won't support Conroe.

At least AMD has an excuse for changing sockets so much. The memory contoller.
 
merlin704 said:
That's the dumbest thing I've read all day. Calling him an Intel !!!!!! in the Intel specific forum. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
[rant]Why does it matter which subforum this is? As we say in Germany: "Fanb0is are idiots, everywhere." It doesn't matter which subforum we are in, the OP wanted an answer to his question, not some "my company can beat up yours" rhetoric. If the OP's view of the world of computers is incorrect, providing him facts that illustrate that Intel has always provided a great upgrade path and therefore it is expected that Conroe will do the same, would go a lot further than attacking AMD, which wasn't even subject of this thread.[/rant]


As I said before, there are people running the upcoming quad core processor (kentsfield is the name, I believe) on conroe boards. Given that Intel has "pulled up" the Kentsfield launch into 2006, I would assume that the ES chips are close to what we will see in production. For this reason, I expect that most Conroe boards will support at least Conroe and Kentsfield.

I am under the impression that Nehalem will be launched in 2008. Regardless of that chip being supported, you would get at least 1.5 years of use out of your Conroe board, which seems like a reasonable timeframe for a high-end component.

Considering that an outdated motherboard can be detrimental to system performance, I would usually make my choice based on current or near term viability of the platform and not take long-term outlook into consideration much, since there are many things that can change between now and 2008, especially in the computer industry, which is well known for moving quickly.
 
merlin704 said:
That's the dumbest thing I've read all day. Calling him an Intel !!!!!! in the Intel specific forum. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I was not aware that being a fanatic, more specifically, a !!!!!!, about a company was a requirement to be in the Intel or AMD forum.

I thought it could actually be possible to post a simple question in here without the attitude, but I guess not. But, hey, that's fine. I know who I don't need to talk to.
 
drizzt81 said:
[rant]Why does it matter which subforum this is? As we say in Germany: "Fanb0is are idiots, everywhere." It doesn't matter which subforum we are in, the OP wanted an answer to his question, not some "my company can beat up yours" rhetoric. If the OP's view of the world of computers is incorrect, providing him facts that illustrate that Intel has always provided a great upgrade path and therefore it is expected that Conroe will do the same, would go a lot further than attacking AMD, which wasn't even subject of this thread.[/rant]


As I said before, there are people running the upcoming quad core processor (kentsfield is teh name, I believe) on conroe boards. Given that Intel has "pulled up" the Kentsfield launch into 2006, I would assume that the ES chips are close to what we will see in production. For this reason, I expect that most Conroe boards will support at least Conroe and Kentsfield.

I am under the impression that Nehalem will be launched in 2008. Regardless of that chip being supported, you would get at least 1.5 years of use out of your Conroe board, which seems like a reasonable timeframe for a high-end component.

Considering that an outdated motherboard can be detrimental to system performance, I would usually make my choice based on current or near term viability of the platform and not take long-term outlook into consideration much, since there are many things that can change between now and 2008, especially in the computer industry, which is well known for moving quickly.
Click to expand...


Thank you. For your advice, for your insight, and for your rant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top