Intel: We're Still Committed To Sockets

[exfileme]

Intel has finally stepped forth to defend its position on socket-based CPUs.

Intel: We're Still Committed To Sockets : Read more

 

[Old_Fogie_Late_Bloomer]

Don't worry, if you want a socketed processor, you can feel free to pay upwards of $500 for a Haswell-E chip.

 

[halcyon]

Yea. I think it would have been a mistake to leave LGA for BGA. Even when doing a lower end system I like to be able to offer our customers the ability to more power if they find they want or need it. ...and our customers often want Intel products because that's what they know.

 

[mousseng]

When they say "the foreseeable future," do they mean the one where they have 5nm processors in sight or are they just talking about next year?

 

[djscribbles]

I thought the idea of dropping sockets was rather interesting, personally. The negatives are obvious, and would have been bad, but if they still had high performance offerings it wouldn't be the end of the world.
I don't know that I've ever upgraded my CPU without also grabbing a new mobo and usually RAM. On the flipside, troubleshooting components would be much much easier, you would have one RMA that covered mobo, cpu, and theoretically RAM. If you could buy an i5-3570k on a z77 board with 2xpcie slots and 8GB (and 2 expansion RAM slots) for 250-275$, that would be a great value and cover a huge majority of what users need. If you have problems, you need to troubleshoot the GPU, the PSU, and the mobo, and RMA one of the 3.

I would hate to see the options we have now eliminated, but there are certainly benefits to the other approach.

 

[ojas]

Told you (all) so.

 

[husker]

The problem is cost. This would push the price higher for the enthusiast. Manufactures would have to build and stock a variety of MB/CPU combinations. They would also end up selling fewer of the socketed variety and, since this is now a "high end" feature, they will charge more for them to make up for the increased costs.

 

[Bloob]

"We won't abandon sockets while AMD is still making x86 CPUs" is what I'm getting...

 

[dark_knight33]

Why don't we go the other way with this? Maybe instead of Intel dropping LGA support for BGA, ARM can add LGA to their line up. Upgradable SOC procs for phones and tablets would be a "killer feature" IMO.

 

[-Fran-]

Hahahaha, God...

For a moment I read: "We're Still Committed To Suckers" xD!

Well, anyway, as long as AMD is around, they will.

Cheers!

 

[esrever]

LGA 2011 replacement will still use sockets. All the other parts, who knows!

 

[Guest]

It's really dumb that some people interpret every move that Intel makes in terms of AMD. If they have any clue to how product planning works they would not think that way. BGA is a move to further drive down platform costs for lower tiers of the market. The majority of the market is actually in that region. Enthusiasts only think in terms of their own little world.

 

[stickmansam]

The issue is not so much about the loss of choice in paring "budget" parts with higher end parts (which still bad) but the problem with parts failing and needing replacement. I am assuimng the mb makers will have to buy the cpu from intel and solder it on themselves. That makes the mb vendors the people we will RMA to if either the mb or cpu fails. Thats going to be extra work for them and potentially not offsetted by not having to put in a socket. E.g. why solder cpu to board when you can just solder on a socket. I doubt there will be any price saving except that the CPU's will now be bought in bulk by the mb makers which can save moeny. But don't the major e-tailers we buy our CPU's from already buy in bulk?
Also in regard to repairability, if my motherboard is out of warranty and it dies, it's going to take out my CPU as well. That means I can't just take out the CPU (since its solderd on) and put it into a new board. One can say that the processor by then may be potetially outdated and no use, but I say even if it's not suitable for gaming, I can still re-purpose the CPU (if a socketable one) as a secondary rig or file server of HTPC or give it to some one else or sell the CPU. I don't have any of those choices if the CPU is soldered on. I see that Intel is saying no changes for the foreseeable future, but what does that mean?
Is Broadwell beyond the foreseeable future?

 

[noob2222]

"we won't abandon socket cpus, you can always buy haswell instead of broadwell in the forseeable future"

 

[Guest]

dark_knight33,

While normally I would disagree with you due to our past differences, I think you have an excellet idea. Just remember though cell phones come with preloaded software. I can't imagine them giving up that kind of power for a few enthusiasts. Besides this would make forcing people to by a new cell phone every two years harder.

And besides, why would you need more power out of cell phone? You already used them to find me once.... Geez...

 

[DRosencraft]

An anecdote on the beauty of replaceable parts;

The other day my brother rebuilt his system (he was away from home for 3 months and didn't need his PC so he took it apart and boxed it). He put it together and wasn't getting any picture. He tried a couple different GPUs (mine and a GeForce 210, and still nothing. He was able to swap another CPU in (a Sempron) to confirm if it was a problem with the board d or the CPU. It worked. Then tested the original CPU (FX-8150) in my board, and it worked. Put everything back together again and realized there was a slight issue with the CPU socket on the board where it isn't latching the CPU securely, so the board wasn't powering properly. Now if this was a board with the BGA design, there would have been no headache of trying to figure out what was wrong, but he'd have had to toss the board, with its CPU and then throw down several hundred dollars for an equivalent CPU and motherboard.

I'm glad that, for now, Intel is staying off that track. I would have liked a bit more convincing statement, but I suppose this is better than nothing.

 

[hannibal]

Well they say the same as before. Low and middle range mey leave LGA and highend will keep on using it... What does this "exactly" means, we will see later.

 

[PreferLinux]

[citation][nom]drosencraft[/nom]An anecdote on the beauty of replaceable parts;The other day my brother rebuilt his system (he was away from home for 3 months and didn't need his PC so he took it apart and boxed it). He put it together and wasn't getting any picture. He tried a couple different GPUs (mine and a GeForce 210, and still nothing. He was able to swap another CPU in (a Sempron) to confirm if it was a problem with the board d or the CPU. It worked. Then tested the original CPU (FX-8150) in my board, and it worked. Put everything back together again and realized there was a slight issue with the CPU socket on the board where it isn't latching the CPU securely, so the board wasn't powering properly. Now if this was a board with the BGA design, there would have been no headache of trying to figure out what was wrong, but he'd have had to toss the board, with its CPU and then throw down several hundred dollars for an equivalent CPU and motherboard. I'm glad that, for now, Intel is staying off that track. I would have liked a bit more convincing statement, but I suppose this is better than nothing.[/citation]
And if it had been a BGA design, there wouldn't have been a socket to have problems in the first place, so it would have never occurred. And note, I don't want BGA-only on mainstream CPUs any more than anyone else.

 

[tomfreak]

pretty much proved that guy who spread the stupid rumor are idiot. Intel will not go the 3dfx way to alienate the motherboard makers. (BGA has a huge impact to them)

 

[twelch82]

BGA makes some sense for small form factor, embedded CPUs. Not so much for desktops.

I could actually foresee a future where your motherboard would come with a low TDP, relatively inexpensive BGA processor embedded on it, but also have a socket for the main CPU. The system can stay awake via the low power consumption embedded CPU, and maybe even do some basic tasks, and wake the main CPU and other components on an as-needed basis.

That would actually be a great feature for someone like me. I leave my computer on all the time so I can access it remotely, but most of the time it's not doing anything.

 

[bit_user]

This article misses a key point. Socketed processors aren't so much about upgrades, which are already largely defeated by frequent socket changes, as about mixing and matching CPU with the motherboard, based on features, cost etc.

And the original semiaccurate article went on to suggest that Intel is planning to sell these chips on boards, instead of just bare. That would mean Intel gets to play market segmentation games and force you to pay through the nose for a high-spec system.

 

[tomfreak]

[citation][nom]twelch82[/nom]BGA makes some sense for small form factor, embedded CPUs. Not so much for desktops.I could actually foresee a future where your motherboard would come with a low TDP, relatively inexpensive BGA processor embedded on it, but also have a socket for the main CPU. The system can stay awake via the low power consumption embedded CPU, and maybe even do some basic tasks, and wake the main CPU and other components on an as-needed basis.That would actually be a great feature for someone like me. I leave my computer on all the time so I can access it remotely, but most of the time it's not doing anything.[/citation]with cheap laptops, low powered desktop is mostly replaced by it.

 

[Someone Somewhere]

[citation][nom]PreferLinux[/nom]And if it had been a BGA design, there wouldn't have been a socket to have problems in the first place, so it would have never occurred. And note, I don't want BGA-only on mainstream CPUs any more than anyone else.[/citation]

BGA still has problems like thermal expansion - the chip can come away especially when it's pretty large.

The thing that we'll lose is the ability to toss a i7-3770 on a $75 H77 board (or equivalents). They'll force you into getting a Sabertooth or similar (which I consider completely overkill for anything.

 

[bustapr]

[citation][nom]halcyon[/nom]Yea. I think it would have been a mistake to leave LGA for BGA. Even when doing a lower end system I like to be able to offer our customers the ability to more power if they find they want or need it. ...and our customers often want Intel products because that's what they know.[/citation]
i think they meant as far as their announced next gens and their plans to do for the gen after the last announced, their sticking with LGA. thats good for the next 3-4 years. after that, it looks like theyll move on to BGA. I believe this because this statement sounds like they have had strong talks about changing.

 

[beayn]

This is why people should not be quoting SemiAccurate, which is where this whole thing began. That site is just a tabloid style site designed to get people riled up without actually reporting the truth. It stays true to its name, "Semi Accurate".