Slashdot Mirror
Next Gen Intel CPUs Move To Yet Another Socket
mr_sifter writes "According to a leaked roadmap, next year we'll be saying hello to LGA1155. The socket is 1-pin different from the current LGA1156 socket Core i3, i5, and some i7s use. Sandy Bridge CPUs will be based on the current 32nm, second-generation High-k metal gate manufacturing process. All LGA1155 CPUs will have integrated graphics built into the core instead of a separate chip. This is an upgrade from the current IGP, PCI Express controller and memory controller in Clarkdale CPUs. which is manufactured on the older 45nm process in a separate die (but still slapped together the same package). This should improve performance, as all the controllers will be in one die, like existing LGA1366 CPUs."
I can see that integrated graphics in a CPU can be handy for some applications, like low-power mobile stuff and such.
But for a desktop PC, isn't this a disadvantage? If you're using a proper graphics card, couldn't that space in the CPU be used for better things than a redundant graphics circuit?
There's always AMD's Fusion on the horizon. If they can execute well on that they have a chance to do what they did with the Athlon. Intel has yet to demonstrate that they actually have GPU tech that can compete with nVidia and ATI in this space. I really hope they do, Intel has had too long at the top of the market and they're getting all monopolistic again.
I hate printers.
As in, I hope AMD can execute, not I hope Intel have tech that can compete with nVidia and ATI. The former would lead to better competition, the latter would give the monopolist more power.
That'll teach me to not preview.
I hate printers.
Gah! I meant "that'll teach me to preview".
Someone pass me a mallet. My head seems to need a little percussive maintenance.
I hate printers.
You upgrade the CPU/Motherboard/RAM. Big woop.
You would need a new motherboard regardless if they changed the socket or not. You would also need new RAM since the RAM requires lower operating voltages.
They probably did this so you don't try to plug in the new CPU on your old motherboard thinking it was a straight upgrade when it requires different circuitry.
You've had to do this for a while. Don't you remember having to get a new motherboard to use newer CPUs, even though they had the same socket? Yeah, I do. That was very confusing at times, and at least with a new socket, you will have a better chance of knowing what will / will not work.
SSC
...the AM2+/AM3 socket on my AMD board continues to be useful for new AMD CPUs literally years after I originally purchased it.
Living With a Nerd
I can't understand why they would force another socket design on customers. I am using a four year old motherboard and recently replaced my AMD CPU with a current model. It was a drop in replacement. Sure I could get some benefits from a newer MB, but I can make the upgrade at a time of my choosing. I can spread the cost, get the big boost from the CPU now and get a smaller boost from a new MB in a year's time.
Board manufacturers have to spend money implementing the new socket. Retailers are stuck with old stock that no-one wants because a new socket is around the corner.
It raises prices and hurts the end user. Why are we still seeing this behavior?
So, there's no way to do this using the current socket/motherboard? My guess is that they do this purposely (at least some of the time) so that users need new hardware for their upgrades. It generates more revenue. I work in the software resale industry and the software vendors pull this crap all the time. (e.g. no backward compatibility forces more users to upgrade so that they can all work together)
Bite my shiny metal ass!
How about you design the next socket with twice as many pins as you think you'll need? Then we won't run out and have to buy a whole new motherboard when we just want a faster CPU.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2972/the-rest-of-clarkdale-intel-s-pentium-g6950-core-i5-650-660-670-reviewed/2
i5-661 (with the fastest on-package graphics) is performance-competitive with AMD's latest integrated graphics. The slower on-package GPU from Intel are behind, but not by much. Nothing Intel can't solve in its next processor (especially as AMD did not increase its IGP performance)
Only because Intel chooses to obsolete old chipsets (or, more preciselly, arbitrarily changes bus specs on new motherboards - I've seen an ASRock one for C2D with i865). AMD somehow manages to keep latest versions of their CPU interconnect backwards compatible...you really want to say Intel isn't capable of doing so? (especially if Intel simply uses PCI Express for those chips, which is explicitly backwards compatible)
One that hath name thou can not otter
I really hope that AMD gets back on top and can compete with Intel on the top-level CPUs again. I am tired of the Intel fanboy's crapping all over AMD for the last few years, and really the industry NEEDS AMD to get back on top and help drive the price of these Intel chips down. The price gap is so huge between AMD and Intel that it makes building a top of the line Intel machine very daunting for us working-class enthusiasts and system builders.
Thankfully AMD's new hexacores will work in AM3 sockets so a motherboard upgrade isn't necessary at least for the Phenom II X6's. To me that is a big deal. I think it will be for a lot of others as well.
"I hope you know how very lucky you are to know me, because I am so incredibly incredible."
A large part of the performance gain in new generation processors is actually the combination of the processor and chipset. The core i5, core i7, etc. processors did away with a a separate memory controller -- that itself has been a huge power and speed advantage. Without upgrading the stuff supporting the chip, you don't get much benefit from an upgrade.
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
Intel, through illegal practises, prevented AMD from benefiting fully from their lead with K7 and early K8 Athlons. This illegally rerouted money weakened AMD R&D and fabs, while strenghtening Intel ones at the same time.
One that hath name thou can not otter
There are different things to consider. On the AMD side of things, which everyone is using for comparison, you can often drop a new CPU into pretty much any AM2+ or AM3 motherboard with just a firmware update. You don't need to replace the RAM or motherboard, and you get the benefits of the new CPU. Going to a new MEMORY type would require a new motherboard, but with all of the new AMD processors, they support BOTH DDR2 and DDR3 memory.
There really is no good excuse for needing an all new chipset for each new generation of processor UNLESS there is a very fundamental change going on. The move from DDR1 to DDR2 to DDR3 for example might be required if the CPU does not support the older memory types(meaning you WANT to prevent users from using a chip in a system that will NEVER support it). Moving to an integrated memory controller, or adding additional pins for more banks of memory MIGHT be an excuse, though these days, extra "reserved" pins should have been put into the socket specification for this, with backwards compatibility so you could drop it into an older system with a degradation in performance(you lose the extra memory controller functionality). Adding graphics to the processor SHOULD work the same way, where the graphics on the processor would not be used if you plug the processor into a system without support for it. Again, looking forward at future needs when designing a new socket would make sense, so you just have a bunch of pins on the CPU that are "reserved" for future use, then, a new CPU would just switch off features the motherboard would not support.
AMD will be moving to a new socket type in the next year or so, due to things like adding the extra pins on the CPU for graphics, a 3, 4, 6, or whatever channel memory controller, or other functions being a part of their plans for the future. But, that next socket should be good to go for the next few generations after that, and for all we know, it may even support current DDR3 processors(DDR2 would probably be dropped since new motherboards would probably not have DDR2 memory support with the new socket).
So, if AMD can do it, people would expect that 'the leader' in the industry SHOULD be able to do it as well.
More people will need this than you might think. Let's look at each piece of your claim:
I think that the issue here is where you place the line on a 'proper' graphics card.
By that I mean that today even integrated video cards are easily able to keep up with GUIs, play even blue-ray movies, etc...
I'm not sure SVG/Canvas, rasterization will really bog down modern integrated graphic engines. Or if it doesn't support it, it'll fall back to the CPU, and assuming you're not doing anything too CPU intensive at that moment, it won't matter. You don't need a 5870 to run Office or IE.
I don't read AC A human right
I've never really upgraded CPUs. By the time my CPU is outdated (2-3 years), my motherboards usually is, too: newer RAMS (SDR - > DDR -> DDR2 -> DDR3), faster HD interfaces ( PATA -> SATA -> SATA2 -> SATA3) and others (USB -> USB2 -> USB3; PCI -> PCIE -> PCIE2), bigger/faster HDs... In the end, I usually rotate entire PCs, they go My Main PC - > My Backup PC -> My parents / Niece.
My gripe with Intel is more about the price of their MBs, especially compared to AMD's. The cheapest AMD MB within an AMD IGP is listed at 54 euros at my favorite retailer ( Asus AMD2+, not 3, but perfs are broadly the same), while Intel's cheapest MB is 84 euros (Gigabyte). Their low-end CPUs are also kinda expensive. And their IGPs also still kinda suck, even for playing video, and definitely for even light gaming.
The interesting thing these days is smaller size. Mini-ITX mainboards are becoming common, there's cheapish ones with AMD2/3 or 1156 sockets, good cases (Silverstone...), huge HDs. Unless you really need a graphics card, you can build a very small and quiet PC.
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
Only one thing to cool now ...
So basically AMD's failures are always Intel's fault and not their own, right?
At least they're trying?
Trying it is not enough. It's 2010, and AMD bought ATI almost 4 years ago (1), so there are no excuses. I would be glad of buying AMD+ATI integrated graphics instead of Intel, but it is a no-no until drivers for Linux reach its Windows counterparts performance-wise, and of course, I will not buy anything from AMD+ATI until then, not before. I buy products based on facts, not promises (I already made a mistake 3 years ago buying a AMD/ATI integrated graphics, still today without proper driver for Linux WTF!!!).