[Solved] Intel's Stance on LGA 1156

i think that 1156 has some forward momentum. As far as modern processors go, intel can barely get a processor under 200$, where they are losing a lot of money. So, intel needs to keep a lower end for the 32nm processors. Also, intel had 3 socket changes very recently so why would they change it again.

I can see Sandy Bridge being on a different socket. Can just feel it.

Personally, I've decided on socket 1366 - it does everything I want now, has some legs in the short-term with Gulftown and has enough PCI-E lanes to go stupid with triple graphics if I want. By the time my system is underpowered for what I do (usually 7-10 years for me) I'll be so out-of-date I'll need a whole new platform anyway.

I'd personally feel a little more confident going socket 1366 then if we're going the Intel route.

What's the crack with Bulldozer though? Is that happening any time soon? Will that be compatible with AM3?

I'm really puzzled as to why people seem to have so much angst about socket futures. The motherboard manufacturers come out with new motherboards all the time to incorporate the latest technologies, and when they do the old ones become pretty much obsolete. We're just starting a new generation with USB 3, after that there'll doubtless be PCIe improvements and others.

Sure, it may be possible to physically insert a 2012-generation LGA1366 CPU into a 2009 LGA1366 motherboard, but do you think that the vendors are going to update the mobo firmware to support it? They'll be busy writing firmware for the new boards, not the old ones.

DDR2 is already unfashionable and same price as DDR3 what is your point here? No to mention DDR2 has nothing with s1156.



AFG going Intel, WOW!

When I bought my 690G in 2006, it had all the bells and whistles I needed. In 2009, it still has the bells and whistles I need. Nothing really saturates the SATA 2 interface or my PCI-Express 1.0 x16 slot. You can hardly tell the difference between HT1 and HT3. Now, if this motherboard supported Phenom II like it was supposed to, I'd be happy.

I'm not fond of spending more money on a new motherboard, CPU and RAM when I can simply upgrade the computer to a faster CPU and only take a ~5% performance penalty. It's much more cost effective that way. I was one of the few reasons I decided to opt for an AMD computer in the first place.

Well upgrading from an Athlon X2, that'd be cost 1/3 of the amount of upgrading and getting a new motherboard and RAM.

Couldn't have said it better myself, bravo elmo.

The point is, LGA 1156 is in no way a dead socket, no more so than LGA 1366. Intel had to invest a LOT of money into creating LGA 1156, evidence of this is the PCIe controller, so they fully intend to support it and make money off of it along side LGA 1366 for a good long time.

Fangirl, What motherboard are you looking at? If you plan on using dual cards and want a good overclocking board with x8/x8 at a great price then look at the Biostar T5 XE SLI CFX. People are getting extreme clocks of 5GHz+ on it, with LN2 of course, and it is working fine with air cooled i5 750s/i7 860s @ 3.8 GHz to 4.0 GHz, and a local says he can get 4.2 GHz @ 1.4v easily off the board.

You have to be careful because when two threads are running on one hyperthreaded core they use the same execution units. If, for example, both threads are busy executing a string of floating point instructions, you're not going to get any better performance than a single core since they're both contending for the same floating point hardware. (This is a slight oversimplification because there are multiple FP units which do slightly different tasks, but you get the idea). So it's a lot less likely that a quad-threaded game which issues a whole bunch of similar instructions will get a performance boost from hyperthreading than four disparate programs will.