Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Future of the 1156 socket

Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 12, 2009 8:53:09 PM

While the i5/i7 chips can be used on cheaper motherboards, how does the future of the socket compare to the 1366? I know there are cheaper chips coming out for the 1156 but will the current i7s be the best available?

More about : future 1156 socket

a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
September 12, 2009 9:17:08 PM

Not good, no i9 support.
m
0
l
September 12, 2009 9:20:33 PM

Would you say that if I wanted a cpu that will work with a motherboard that could survive an upgrade cycle, it would be worth it to spend the extra money and get a true i7/1366, or go with an AM3/phenom2 setup?
m
0
l
Related resources
a b à CPUs
September 12, 2009 9:38:32 PM

buy what you want now.

I5 motherboards cost 1/2 as much as i7 so you dont get boned as bad when you upgrade in 1-3 years.

also when you are ready you might not want to reuse the motherboard..
by then we will be on sata 3.0 (600MB/sec) and other upgrades.
m
0
l
September 12, 2009 9:48:32 PM

Like rand_79 said, you'll be keeping your gear for 3yrs max. anyway. Buy what you need now, any future expansion should be considered as bonus only.

e.g. not everyone will need hexcore (i9) and 2x HD5870 CrossFire (16x/16x) within the next 2yrs. What X58 allows.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
September 12, 2009 9:50:20 PM

It will only hold up till ddr3 can no longer meet the demands of most users and the bottleneck that is the DMI along with the 16x PCI-e lanes (total) begin to piss people off. I give a good two years or so when people get tired of not being able to use high speed ddr3 with good timings like what happened to the early 775 systems except for the newts that still think dell is still cool.
m
0
l
September 12, 2009 11:51:39 PM

What I don't get is why they are still bringing out the hexa core when some early benchmarks showed it had no significant gains over the quad. They can't even get the quad to work correctly and it's been years... The only thing I can see is more heat and less clock for the cpu by adding more cores. Doesn't make any sense except for the fact that it is good for the market hype.

And, I know it's pure speculation, but when have common benchmarks from several sites ever been wrong in giving us at least a "rough" estimate? Never, from what I can remember.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
September 13, 2009 12:04:04 AM

rand_79 said:
buy what you want now.

I5 motherboards cost 1/2 as much as i7 so you dont get boned as bad when you upgrade in 1-3 years.

also when you are ready you might not want to reuse the motherboard..
by then we will be on sata 3.0 (600MB/sec) and other upgrades.



1/2 price my ass. lol.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
September 13, 2009 12:20:54 AM

threednonsense said:
What I don't get is why they are still bringing out the hexa core when some early benchmarks showed it had no significant gains over the quad. They can't even get the quad to work correctly and it's been years... The only thing I can see is more heat and less clock for the cpu by adding more cores. Doesn't make any sense except for the fact that it is good for the market hype.

And, I know it's pure speculation, but when have common benchmarks from several sites ever been wrong in giving us at least a "rough" estimate? Never, from what I can remember.


Yep the first problem is software and the next is the lack of adequate bandwidth between the cores and the rest of the system. Even DDR3 could not max out the FSB on 775 cpus 3.2gps for every 100mhz of clock.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
September 13, 2009 12:36:36 AM

get an am3 board with ddr3 support $70, make sure it can take 140watt cpus, get a x4 945 95w, next year around this time phenom ii x6 will drop right in.
m
0
l
September 13, 2009 3:27:42 AM

well I've been building/upgrading my computers for 10 years...I usually upgrade every few years (3 years on average). I've found that everytime I've gone to upgrade my cpu, I've always gotta buy a new motherboard, once I could reuse my memory, and could generally keep my graphics card or upgrade it off cycle no problem.

Even within the same chip series, intel often changes chipset or socket size or something.

So as tempting as it is to get something 'future proof' and upgradeable, I think that in reality there will only be a slim chance you can reuse the board (obviously depending on your upgrade cycle). I wouldn't buy a 1366 board for future purposes, buy it (or the 1156) for now purposes.
m
0
l
September 13, 2009 4:45:03 AM

The future of the 1156 socket isn't going to be that upgradable ... because the new intel i9 will be for the 1366 socket
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 13, 2009 8:05:34 AM

wuzy said:
Like rand_79 said, you'll be keeping your gear for 3yrs max. anyway. Buy what you need now, any future expansion should be considered as bonus only.

e.g. not everyone will need hexcore (i9) and 2x HD5870 CrossFire (16x/16x) within the next 2yrs. What X58 allows.


Not sure if there's room at 45nm for hex-core.

That might just be for the bigger socket.
m
0
l
September 13, 2009 9:30:00 AM

The existence of hexcore on LGA1336 is very much confirmed and was always intended for triple-channel DDR3. Whether Intel want to bring it in @45nm or 32nm that's up to them.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 13, 2009 4:43:02 PM

I may be in a very small minority, as Enthusiast Users go, nevertheless
permit me to put some ideas on the table, for future consideration:

There is a very dominant trend developing industry-wide and
that is the growing gap between CPU performance and
storage performance.

Hard disk drives are getting much larger, without getting much faster.

Yes, I read a lot about SSDs, but price is presently a huge barrier
AND those devices are not without their growing pains.

When SATA/6G SSDs become available, hopefully sooner than later,
the prices for those high-speed SSDs will no doubt be higher still.

Hopefully, those "premium" SSDs will drive down the prices for the
"slower" SSDs using SATA/3G interfaces.


Let me illustrate these trends in another way:
when PCI-Express matured, the available bandwidth quickly
migrated to multiple video cards and now Gen 2 PCI-E.

For a truly fast storage subsystem, we still have not seen
any RAID controllers using all x16 PCI-E 2.0 lanes, nor multiples
of such high-bandwith controllers.

Similarly, the few available SDRAM-based storage subsystems
suffer either from exorbitant prices, or superfluous features
like the backup battery and compact flash slot in the ACARD ANS-9010.

All our workstations are powered by their own UPS
and we have plenty of "aging" HDDs for archiving backups.


As far as I know, Gigabyte never fixed the i-RAM or i-RAM Box,
both of which use DDR and SATA/150 interfaces.


For myself, as a motherboard or BIOS feature I would like to see
much more flexibility for assigning PCI-E lanes to various subsystems,
in zero-sum fashion.

I would gladly give up some video bandwidth in return for a faster Southbridge and/or
much faster RAID controllers.

It's really a shame that ASUS tries to describe their P55 SATA/"6G"
implementation as "fully supporting" 6 Gbps, when it's obvious
from these block diagrams that it suffers from a max bandwidth
of 500 MB/second (NOT "full" support):

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=769
(scroll to the bottom)

And, you can "upgrade" to this faster SATA speed
with an ASUS add-on controller, but it apparently
also suffers from the same limitation:

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=19975


How long has PCI-Express been available? But we STILL
do not have truly high-performance storage subsystems
without spending enormous sums of money:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-6gb-raid,2388.h...


Compare also the Fusion-io ioDrive, OCZ's Z-Drive,
and Super Talent's RAIDDrive.



MRFS
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
September 13, 2009 5:51:22 PM

Quote:
Who needs i9? I mean only about 1% of users will even use the power of i7 in the next year.



Ya, no one needs i5/i7 either. And apps and games are becomming multithreaded, so ya the more cores/threads the better for future proofing. I'll be buying my $1000 i9 as soon as newegg has them.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
September 13, 2009 6:03:40 PM

Quote:
Who needs i9? I mean only about 1% of users will even use the power of i7 in the next year.


Well but what about 3-5 years down the road? A lot of people were saying the same things about intel's P4 HT, Core duos, and core 2 duo/quads. Look now. a lot of us is now using there power fully or now need more than they currently got. Sooner or later (probably sooner) where programs will start using those 6 cores.
m
0
l
September 13, 2009 8:50:36 PM

warmon6 said:
Well but what about 3-5 years down the road? A lot of people were saying the same things about intel's P4 HT, Core duos, and core 2 duo/quads. Look now. a lot of us is now using there power fully or now need more than they currently got. Sooner or later (probably sooner) where programs will start using those 6 cores.


The 'technology' behind it may be the same (tho P4's HT is borked), fact is by the time you do need it you WILL be buying a better/newer product to run it.
e.g. Look around and see who still has a S939 rig running A64 Toledo... I thought so.
m
0
l
September 13, 2009 9:28:32 PM

Quote:
There is a very dominant trend developing industry-wide and
that is the growing gap between CPU performance and
storage performance.

Hard disk drives are getting much larger, without getting much faster.

Yes, I read a lot about SSDs, but price is presently a huge barrier
AND those devices are not without their growing pains.

When SATA/6G SSDs become available, hopefully sooner than later,
the prices for those high-speed SSDs will no doubt be higher still.

Hopefully, those "premium" SSDs will drive down the prices for the
"slower" SSDs using SATA/3G interfaces.
Good news is consumer orientated MLC-based SSD are still dropping rapidly in $/GB each year. Certainly faster than HDD is dropping.
I certainly hope so too that newer SSD with SATA 6Gbps will make older ones drop price much faster. Sub-$2/GB is the trigger point IMO.

Quote:

Let me illustrate these trends in another way:
when PCI-Express matured, the available bandwidth quickly
migrated to multiple video cards and now Gen 2 PCI-E.

For a truly fast storage subsystem, we still have not seen
any RAID controllers using all x16 PCI-E 2.0 lanes, nor multiples
of such high-bandwith controllers.

Similarly, the few available SDRAM-based storage subsystems
suffer either from exorbitant prices, or superfluous features
like the backup battery and compact flash slot in the ACARD ANS-9010.

Be grateful we've overcame the first step; getting rid of AGP and more importantly PCI-X in workstation/server. :) 

I'm actually more concerned about how slow it has been for Gigabit Ethernet uptake by homeusers. GbE NICs has been cheap since 2004, but the switching & routing equipments are still hellishly expensive. For example I bought my 24port partially-managed 100M switch back in 2004 for only $50 (good memories of high-school LAN parties :D ) then recently I bought a 3Com 3848 48port+4xSFP L2-managed GbE switch for $275. Both were 2nd hand of course and bought when the equipment got retired. If calculating per-port price GbE stuff are still significantly higher and modern computers are able to saturate GbE easily. That's not even talk about the cost of 10GbE-T...
IMO, 10GbE should by now be affordable by SME & SMB size businesses to be used as their network backbone. Clearly they're not.

Quote:

As far as I know, Gigabyte never fixed the i-RAM or i-RAM Box,
both of which use DDR and SATA/150 interfaces.

I don't think DDR2 are going to get any cheaper in $/GB. DRAM manufactures had paid their debt in trying to price-fix us back then.

Quote:

For myself, as a motherboard or BIOS feature I would like to see
much more flexibility for assigning PCI-E lanes to various subsystems,
in zero-sum fashion.

I would gladly give up some video bandwidth in return for a faster Southbridge and/or
much faster RAID controllers.

It's really a shame that ASUS tries to describe their P55 SATA/"6G"
implementation as "fully supporting" 6 Gbps, when it's obvious
from these block diagrams that it suffers from a max bandwidth
of 500 MB/second (NOT "full" support):

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=769
(scroll to the bottom)

And, you can "upgrade" to this faster SATA speed
with an ASUS add-on controller, but it apparently
also suffers from the same limitation:

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=19975


How long has PCI-Express been available? But we STILL
do not have truly high-performance storage subsystems
without spending enormous sums of money:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-6gb-raid,2388.h...


Compare also the Fusion-io ioDrive, OCZ's Z-Drive,
and Super Talent's RAIDDrive.



MRFS

What I'd like to see first is eliminating all PCI slots (or just leave one) and replace them all with at least PCIe 1x-4x. And no crappy-efficiency NF200 PCIe bridge allowed. Oh and leave them open-ended so I don't have to take a soldering iron to it to slice them open. I've got a bunch of dual DVB-T/DVB-S2 cards, two SAS RAID cards and an Intel dual-GbE NIC, all of them PCIe, that's been planned for my home server by the end of the year. Now I'm just looking for a platform to pop them in.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 13, 2009 9:38:35 PM

Isnt intel coming out with 1155 socket too. That would be ridiculously ridiculous and I would hate intel forever.
m
0
l
September 13, 2009 10:32:13 PM

warmon6 said:
Well but what about 3-5 years down the road? A lot of people were saying the same things about intel's P4 HT, Core duos, and core 2 duo/quads. Look now. a lot of us is now using there power fully or now need more than they currently got. Sooner or later (probably sooner) where programs will start using those 6 cores.

This is exactly what I was thinking, because even though most games don't really take full advantage of the i7 CPU's they will start using them a lot faster than what a lot of people are thinking. For example I remember when I first got my first p4 computer I thought the fact it had HT was so cool and I simply couldn't see how they where going to improve on it. Don't get me wrong I was fully aware that technology would get better and eventually pass it up but I was thinking that it would be at least 3 years or so before it did. But to my surprise it only took about a year or so and then BAM dual core CPU's started hitting the market.
m
0
l
September 13, 2009 11:15:24 PM

bige420 said:
Isnt intel coming out with 1155 socket too. That would be ridiculously ridiculous and I would hate intel forever.


If Intel does this, it's because they want to finally punish people for buying their low end chips and overclocking them to high speeds. Although, they have given us nice chips in the past few years, but if they do this, I'm going straight to AMD after this. Intel was playing dirty with their marketing schemes, but this one is going too far when you have three different sockets on which you know they could have put in one. Especially when it's becaue they wanted to cripple the platform...

@ComputerNovice

The i7 does have a lot of grounds on other processors in most games if you want the absolute max performance. Just because graphic companies are doing so terrible this doesn't mean the cpu is to blame. But, overall it does make any system look bad. Also, gaming programmers are too blame also and multi core cpu support for gaming might not even happen due to the fact that multi gpu setups and raw ghz power is more important.

I ain't trying to hate on people, for real, but uhhhh, you were around during the later years of the p4. And you mean the pentium D? Where early benchmarks showed that the single core was better for gaming at the time?

Hey, hold on, it's almost 2010 in a few months and I can pull up threads from 2006 where people said multi core gaming was right around the corner, along with 2007, 2008 and 2009...
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
September 14, 2009 1:22:23 AM

ComputerNovice said:
This is exactly what I was thinking, because even though most games don't really take full advantage of the i7 CPU's they will start using them a lot faster than what a lot of people are thinking. For example I remember when I first got my first p4 computer I thought the fact it had HT was so cool and I simply couldn't see how they where going to improve on it. Don't get me wrong I was fully aware that technology would get better and eventually pass it up but I was thinking that it would be at least 3 years or so before it did. But to my surprise it only took about a year or so and then BAM dual core CPU's started hitting the market.


Same here. (still using a p4 HT cpu. It's the old 478 pin.)
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
September 14, 2009 2:43:35 AM

threednonsense said:
Hey, hold on, it's almost 2010 in a few months and I can pull up threads from 2006 where people said multi core gaming was right around the corner, along with 2007, 2008 and 2009...

When (if) you do, please take note of those that disagreed. [:mousemonkey]
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
September 14, 2009 11:10:25 AM

*hides*
m
0
l
!