Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (
More info?)
On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 01:41:20 +0000, Richard Hopkins wrote:
> "keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
> news
an.2004.12.31.14.54.40.9079@att.bizzzz...
>> Decent LGA sockets aren't cheap.
>
> There's no fundamental reason why this design of socket should be
> fundamentally more expensive than the mPGA solution, as the requirements are
> basically the same.
DO you have experience in this area? I have a little. LGAs sockets
aren't all that wonderful. They are expensive.
> IIRC Foxconn charges something like four times as much for a Socket 775
> assembly as they do for an mPGA478 at the moment, so in some ways you're
> right. However, pretty much anything gets cheap if you make enough of
> 'em, so as volumes ramp and production techniques improve, I'm sure the
> cost will drop.
Perhaps. I'll wait for the dummies to pay, thanks. LGA doesn't pay
unless you're going to bond 'em right to the board, in which case BGA is a
better solution, IMO. Unfortunately, the PC marketplace doesn't allow
this.
>> Huh? Have you looked at the Opteron stack?
>
> Of course. However, how AMD do their stuff is AMD's business. This
> thread's about LGA775, and why Intel chose the design they did as the
> successor to mPGA478.
Didn't you say the fansink was going to rip out the pins and bend 'em or
sonething equally silly? Hell, even the PII had better retention than
this. Or are you saying that Intel has completely lost their marbles?
My point is that there *are* ways of securing the stack, better than a
LGA. In fact the LGA package, by itself, solves nothing. The brackets
around it still have minimize the forces on the chip/socket interface.
>>> The fact that the pins are on the motherboard instead of the processor
>>> also makes the CPU's cheaper to make, and shifts warranty
>>> responsibility for pin failures away from Intel to the board
>>> manufacturers, which is obviously a good thing for Intel.
>>
>> ....but has no benefit to the end user, other than another place for
>> the board maker (the one making close to nothing) to screw up.
>
> Don't forget the biggest manufacturer of motherboards for Intel
> processors is... Intel.
Wrong! Intel hasn't made a board in *years* (five or six, IIRC). They
rely on the same board makers as everyone else.
> It's not in their interests to make a socket
> design that'll come back to bite them, while it's also unlikely that
> they'd set out to make a socket that'd annoy their chipset customers.
Their track record of "not getting bitten" isn't too great these days.
>> Again, there is good reason LGA's didn't make it to the PC space
>> before.
>
> Sure, the reason was that ZIF sockets were a proven solution that met
> the requirements of previous technologies. The PC industry doesn't stand
> still, and from time to time solutions need to be rethought. This is
> just one of those occasions. Did you react with equal skepticism when
> PCI replaced ISA and VL-Bus?
Irrelevant posturing. LGAs are *not* new. Just because Intel now makes a
stink about them only makes it new stink.
>
>> This is a definite wait-n-see.
>
> It's difficult not to see this as flat-earthism of a sort. Sure, the new
> socket looks very different, but from a system integrity and electrical
> standpoint it looks good. All the scaremongering that's been going on is
> frankly ridiculous, and very difficult to understand.
LGA is *NOT* new. Can't you get that through your mind?! I
worked with LGAs five-six years ago. I didn't like them then (only BGA
sockets were worse) and don't see how they're going to be magically
improved by Intel. ZIFs aren't all that wonderful, but large pinout ZIFs
are well known, and cheap.
--
Keith
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram