Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Socket 1366 to be obsolete in 2011 - please tell me this is nonsense

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
April 29, 2010 7:54:38 AM

Don't know if something like this has been posted already, but I just saw a couple articles from sources that I don't consider batshit crazy, and I am worried. Apparently, the Intel CPUs coming out next year will already obsolete the 1156/1366 sockets in favor of something called "X68" ... which sounds preposterous on the one hand and not so much on the other.

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2010/04/12/new-so...

Sadly, this makes sense to me, in that Intel loves trying to sell us new sockets/chipsets and CPUs at premium prices as "newest tech," regardless of how user-unfriendly that may be. They have no qualms about bending us over like they're Ben Roethlisberger and we're a drunk chick in a bathroom stall. Just trying to get a sense of if/what anyone else has heard of this, and whether it's completely crazy or not. If it's true, I'm probably going to avoid Intel for a while and stick with AMD.

If this has been debunked already somewhere, I'm sorry, but I honestly did a search for it on here and couldn't find it.
a b à CPUs
April 29, 2010 9:21:25 AM

It's an Intel Product. If they don't bend you over it wouldn't be Intel.......
m
0
l
April 29, 2010 10:06:25 AM

Greed, pure greed that they can't make new chips fit existing sockets like AMD do. You've got to question their integrity.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 29, 2010 10:16:23 AM

plus and minus points for the Intel / AMD approach to sockets. Intel = new chip... better performance (more cash too :(  )

AMD = keep using the same old socket design even if it hampers future performance and CPU upgrades.

Admittedly AMD do make the bets out of their sockets - just a shame it sometimes holds them back

m
0
l
April 29, 2010 11:18:34 AM

Quote:
Admittedly AMD do make the bets out of their sockets - just a shame it sometimes holds them back


Do you have any specifics?

I'm not having a go, just curious as I thought the whole AM2+ / AM3 design has been an exceptional display of user-focussed design with no real technical drawbacks. Apologies if I'm wrong!

Kyz
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 29, 2010 11:29:05 AM

Why bother?

LGA1366 platform will serve you well for many years.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 29, 2010 11:59:49 AM

As has been said, you don't add a GPU on the die and keep the current architecture intact; too much of a change for current socket layouts and designs.

The second Intel split off its mobos, I knew at least one of them would not be supported, and stuck with LGA775. And I couldn't be happier, as at the end of the day, a decently clocked C2Q is just as good at gaming as any other setup out there.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 29, 2010 12:50:02 PM

It's more than just the GPU on the die...it's more than just greed. The i7 9XX series of processors are the first series of consumer processors that Intel has released with the memory controller on the die using the X58 chipset and the QuickPath Interconnect as opposed to the old-style FSB architecture used in the P55 chipset that still uses DMI to connect the processors with the Northbridge and memory controller.

While Intel is still shaking out their bus interconnect architecture, AMD has been using HyperTransport for over a decade now. AMD hasn't even begun to push the limits of HyperTransport yet (HT specs 32 bit pathways in 3.1, and AMD still hasn't even gotten out of using 16-bit pathways yet), so they have no reason to even explore a different socket architecture, and if they do, the architecture will be evolutionary and AMD will likely be able to offer current processors for both architectures, as they did for AM2, AM2+ and AM3. In fact, I can almost bet that even the upcoming fusion processors that AMD has sitting in the wings won't force AMD to a new socket.

The Intel LGA1155 socket chipsets (the next generation after P55) are still not going to use QPI, instead opting for DMI 2.0 which, AFAIK, still keeps the memory controller off the die. Expect to see LGA1366 to hold the high end for a while, at least through the next generation of processors, since QPI offers a higher bandwidth than Intel processors are able to obtain at current speeds.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 29, 2010 1:05:54 PM

Lets see, LGA 1156 will be replaced by LGA 1155 and/or 1157 and LGA 1366 by LGA 2011 from the reports I've seen.

This is what happens when a single company all but monoplizes the market. Oh well, at least current processors are more than fast enough to last for years without needing and upgrade.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 29, 2010 1:12:52 PM

+1, so don't bother, capt_taco.
m
0
l
April 29, 2010 1:31:16 PM

Anyone willing to throw down 300+ for a CPU every year and a half would welcome the excuse to buy a new board with the latest features in the same swipe. I know that is a bickering point around here but personally, I want a new CPU to be surrounded by as many features as possible. I don't want it sitting on a functional but mediocre board from years past. Allowing the same socket to accommodate the newest CPU isn't a bad thing. If you are Intel and the majority of your sales are through OEM channels it is a moot point. They are going to buy them regardless.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 29, 2010 4:29:36 PM

Nonsense; its a matter of motherboard compatability. You can NOT make significant architecture changes in the way a chip operates and maintain the same motherboard architecture.

Remember, even on 775, there were multiple motherboards that didn't support C2D when they came out, multiple motherboards that didn't support C2Q, and multiple boards that couldn't run the die shrinks of those chips. And thats within a single socket!

You can NOT just add a GPU on a die and expect everything to work; the mobo needs to know how/where to send that signal, thus, a new architecture.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 29, 2010 7:00:10 PM

I guess what I'm getting at is, it FEELS like Intel will come up with just about any excuse to announce a major architecture change ("It's Tuesday!") and the constantly shifting compatibility sucks.

It's like ... if there were going to be three significant features to introduce that could each obsolete a socket, Intel would release three different sockets a year apart. AMD would release one socket that took care of all three changes, while keeping some backward compatibility.

At least that's what it feels like from the standpoint of a consumer trying to avoid being bent over. Maybe I'm a bit too cynical, or maybe they really could do better about being customer-friendly.


m
0
l
April 29, 2010 7:01:01 PM

Houndsteeth said:

The Intel LGA1155 socket chipsets (the next generation after P55) are still not going to use QPI, instead opting for DMI 2.0 which, AFAIK, still keeps the memory controller off the die. Expect to see LGA1366 to hold the high end for a while, at least through the next generation of processors, since QPI offers a higher bandwidth than Intel processors are able to obtain at current speeds.


This whole "DMI instead of QPI" thing is generally misunderstood.

QPI is still used in 1156 to connect the "CPU" to the "MCH": it's just on-die or on-package for the 1156 chips. DMI is used to connect the (G)MCH portions of the 1156 chips to the PCH-- same as connects the X58 MCH with its southbridge. The only difference architecturally is that 1156 is a two-chip solution and 1366 is still a three-chip solution.

And since Sandy Bridge is monolithic, the memory controller will be on die on Sandy Bridge as it is on Nehalem and Westmere (the only exception being Clarkdale/Arrandale, where it's on package).

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 29, 2010 7:04:14 PM

Intel has never made a serious effort to keep this type of backwards socket compatibility. If that is what you wish, look to the AMD side.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 29, 2010 7:18:05 PM

^^ To be fair, they bent over backward to keep X86 itself backward compatable, so I understand their general unwillingness to go down that road again...
m
0
l
April 29, 2010 7:21:38 PM

757 and 939 comes to mind but I wasn't lurking this forum at the time to see everyone's outrage when AMD switched sockets in under 2 years time..
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 29, 2010 8:01:00 PM

FALC0N said:
Intel has never made a serious effort to keep this type of backwards socket compatibility. If that is what you wish, look to the AMD side.


That's probably what I'll do.

For the record, another reason why I'm starting to like AMD more is the fact that you can actually spend $150 on a CPU and $80 on a motherboard, and not end up with a system that's "low-end." Or outgoing technology. The constant $300 for a CPU and $175 for a motherboard if you want to be current-gen with Intel gets old. I'm sure I'm the first person who's ever complained about that.
m
0
l
April 29, 2010 8:16:36 PM

I hope this socket isn't just an excuse for Intel to make more money than they already do. I wonder if it will support the 128-bit to be released Windows OS.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 29, 2010 8:26:43 PM

roofus said:
Anyone willing to throw down 300+ for a CPU every year and a half would welcome the excuse to buy a new board with the latest features in the same swipe. I know that is a bickering point around here but personally, I want a new CPU to be surrounded by as many features as possible. I don't want it sitting on a functional but mediocre board from years past. Allowing the same socket to accommodate the newest CPU isn't a bad thing. If you are Intel and the majority of your sales are through OEM channels it is a moot point. They are going to buy them regardless.

+100

I'm a enthusiast. I love new and better technology.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 29, 2010 8:32:06 PM

Yeah, doesn't really bother me. By the time an i5 at 3.6 gets slow for me, the whole system will become my work/office computer and an entirely new one will replace it. However, I don't foresee that happening for a while.
m
0
l
a c 99 à CPUs
April 29, 2010 9:19:00 PM

gamerk316 said:
Nonsense; its a matter of motherboard compatability. You can NOT make significant architecture changes in the way a chip operates and maintain the same motherboard architecture.

Remember, even on 775, there were multiple motherboards that didn't support C2D when they came out, multiple motherboards that didn't support C2Q, and multiple boards that couldn't run the die shrinks of those chips. And thats within a single socket!


The socket really only has to change if the I/O to the CPU needs to change. Intel used LGA775 for five years because all of the CPUs ranging from single-core NetBursts to quad-core, dual-die MCM Core 2s used the same AGTL FSB and had roughly the same power requirements, so Intel could keep using LGA775 for quite a long time. Then they wanted to radically change the socket's I/O with Nehalem by incorporating an IMC, so they needed a new socket. Lynnfield incorporated a PCIe controller into the CPU package, so Intel needed a different socket than LGA1366 to run that chip. Sandy Bridge has even more rolled into the CPU package, so naturally its socket will change.

The motherboard has to change if there are changes in the chipset, bus speed, voltage regulators, and expansion slots, and other things. Note that those do not have to involve the CPU socket. That is why you had LGA775 motherboards that will not work with some LGA775 processors. The example of some LGA775 boards that won't run Core 2s mostly had to do with the voltage regulator spec used for the Core 2s being different than the voltage regulator spec used with most P4/PD CPUs. That required new boards with the proper VRMs and VRM tuning scheme to run the new CPUs, but didn't involve the socket.
m
0
l
a c 126 à CPUs
April 29, 2010 9:32:04 PM

New chipsets mean nothing. AMD has a new chipset specifically designed for Thuban. Intel had the P35 for Core 2 and then the P45 for core 2 as well. Both worked for the CPUs.

X68 is being desigend for Sandy Bridge specifically. Doesn't mean there wont be LGA 1366 chips. In fact we don't know yet.

LGA 2011 is made mainly for quad channel DDR3. We have to wait till about October before Intel will release actual info that we can rely on.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 29, 2010 9:36:59 PM

I wonder how many x58 p55 sales all this talk killed...

Let us know intel! Nobody wants to buy a dead-end socket!!
m
0
l
April 29, 2010 9:44:01 PM

To be honest, this does not bug me very much as I only build a new computer every 3-5 years... so when I do I want the newest I can get including motherboards. I've never really been one to upgrade a single component in a computer every year. Plus the fact that my older computers just get handed down to the kids or turned into HTPC's.
m
0
l
April 29, 2010 9:57:19 PM

^ Why would Intell tell you?

They want you to buy thier stuff duh.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 29, 2010 10:14:27 PM

Waylander:

I totally agree. I plan on keeping my setup until 5870 crossfire doesn't make my 30" happy. (Once I get those things hehe).

Still a lot of people bought in believing they would have an upgrade option a few years down the road, we'll see.

Builder bob:

Hehe aye. I wish there were more CPU competition at intels performance level so courtesy would matter.
m
0
l
April 29, 2010 10:32:33 PM

My i7 860 will be good for another 5 years at least ! do you know how fast 2.8 ghz is...use common sense....my last chip an athlon 2200+ lasted me 7 years and I played WOW with it online just fine with 10 people raids ! as long as i have plenty of ram and can keep updateing my Graphics card I'm Fine!
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 29, 2010 10:32:56 PM

Are there actually people who keep their motherboard but pull the old CPU off and put a new CPU on? Usually when I get ready to upgrade I want a new motherboard AND cpu. So it doesn't matter to me if the new cpu's require new sockets.

On the one hand every new design that comes out somewhat obsoletes the designs before it. On the other hand the old designs can still be capable and serve into the future. A Core 2 Duo is a good processor but if you were building a machine right now with anything but a real low budget you would want to use the 1156/1366 cpu's instead. I have 2 desktops with Core 2 Duo's and they are pretty fast. I've built some i5 machines and they are only about 15% faster so I don't feel like there is anything wrong with my older machines. I can keep using those older machines for a couple more years and they will work fine. When I get ready to upgrade I'll buy whatever is the latest at the time.
m
0
l
April 29, 2010 10:51:02 PM

Raidur said:
Waylander:

I totally agree. I plan on keeping my setup until 5870 crossfire doesn't make my 30" happy. (Once I get those things hehe).

Still a lot of people bought in believing they would have an upgrade option a few years down the road, we'll see.

Builder bob:

Hehe aye. I wish there were more CPU competition at intels performance level so courtesy would matter.


Intell doesn't care. They have the crown, and you have to bend over and take it from them, or buy an indefior AMD product.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2010 7:04:29 AM

MrRichard said:
I hope this socket isn't just an excuse for Intel to make more money than they already do. I wonder if it will support the 128-bit to be released Windows OS.


Your not going to see a 128 bit operating system for another 10-15 years. So I don't think you have to worry about that.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2010 7:07:05 AM

MU_Engineer said:
The socket really only has to change if the I/O to the CPU needs to change. Intel used LGA775 for five years because all of the CPUs ranging from single-core NetBursts to quad-core, dual-die MCM Core 2s used the same AGTL FSB and had roughly the same power requirements, so Intel could keep using LGA775 for quite a long time................


Yes, they kept the 775 socket for a while, but not always compatibility.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2010 7:20:38 AM

The fact of the matter is, you just can't expect everyone to be changing rigs and upgrading their machines every year.
Thats exactly whats happening at Intel, when they change stuff, you have to change everything you have unlike AMD, it allows the consumer a flexibility to change one thing at a time...
Isn't that a more sought for policy?? As a consumer I'd think so, I can't possibly shug out 1K every year on my PC...... nope .... But I can afford a 300$ budget to be tech savvy and keep my machine upto date...... so I think AMD is for the Masses which are cash tight but love to be moving ahead.....although Intel rules the market but with it's new line of products..... I think it's going to start loosing it's share since, most of the populous just upgraded to C2D's last year and C2Q are still coming in..... so jumping ahead so soon is not something I think the masses would be too fond of.... esp since the new procs are 1k for the high end ones..... hmmmmmmmmmmmm
Bottom line is , Intel is still going to lead even though AMD is at par when it comes to consumer needs and satisfaction.
Yeah OEM do carry their stuff...... but the masses are slowly and gradually getting wiser....... More and more people are learning how to build computers , assemble state of the art equipment on their own and dumping the branded stuff...... of a lot of thanks to all the people here at Tom's.... but it is the best way.
The wiser the general public gets the better for AMD.......
Intel has made it's share of money......... I think it's high time the masses started looking at AMD......
Especially in this part of the world, since intel has it's brand logo all over us, people barely know about AMD.
I've had customers from all companies call me for support and the best part of it is, a computer is synonymous with Intel...... you talk about a PC or the internet even in a village here, you get a reply " Intel Na...."........ although they may not be able to spell Intel but they know the sign and the sound of it......
So it's pretty weird ......
AMD is lagging when it comes to marketing down our side.
I once sold an AMD customs built to someone around here, it would do everything he wanted it to do with ease, but 2 months later he came to me and asked me "Can you put an Intel in it????" I was laughing to no end, and so I asked him why did he think he needed and Intel??? and the answer was someone ot on the road told him so.........he basically didn't know the difference and didn't care but yet.... Intel is all around......
So I guess they've got a good marketing crew too..... not only good tech.... but still they ought to think more about the budget users...... which they don't......
m
0
l
April 30, 2010 9:07:14 AM

cadder said:
Are there actually people who keep their motherboard but pull the old CPU off and put a new CPU on?


Guilty as charged! My current rig was built 5 years ago with a Socket 939 board, and I upgraded the CPU to an X2 4800+ to keep it going a bit longer. I'd love to build a brand new system every 2-3 years to take advantage of the latest and greatest technology, but I have a family so there are other priorities. So now, as I've been looking at my options these past few weeks for dropping in a new board and CPU, the better chance of being able to do a CPU upgrade in a few years is the primary factor why I'll be going with AMD again, even though I feel Intel's technology overall is a bit better.

Does this mean everyone should buy AMD over Intel? I don't think so. If they can afford to do so, folks can certainly choose to simply go with the best technology at the time, even if it means spending more on a board/socket upgrade every time they get a new CPU. Folks with different priorities will make different, but no less rational, decisions when it comes to configuring a build.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2010 11:40:32 AM

MU_Engineer said:
The socket really only has to change if the I/O to the CPU needs to change. Intel used LGA775 for five years because all of the CPUs ranging from single-core NetBursts to quad-core, dual-die MCM Core 2s used the same AGTL FSB and had roughly the same power requirements, so Intel could keep using LGA775 for quite a long time. Then they wanted to radically change the socket's I/O with Nehalem by incorporating an IMC, so they needed a new socket. Lynnfield incorporated a PCIe controller into the CPU package, so Intel needed a different socket than LGA1366 to run that chip. Sandy Bridge has even more rolled into the CPU package, so naturally its socket will change.

The motherboard has to change if there are changes in the chipset, bus speed, voltage regulators, and expansion slots, and other things. Note that those do not have to involve the CPU socket. That is why you had LGA775 motherboards that will not work with some LGA775 processors. The example of some LGA775 boards that won't run Core 2s mostly had to do with the voltage regulator spec used for the Core 2s being different than the voltage regulator spec used with most P4/PD CPUs. That required new boards with the proper VRMs and VRM tuning scheme to run the new CPUs, but didn't involve the socket.


^^ Better then I tried to explain it.

Remember, even AMD's latest processors still use basially the same tech they have been using for years now; at some point, they'll need to design a new chip, which will almost certainly mean a new socket. They can't ride K8 refreshes forever...
m
0
l
April 30, 2010 12:26:07 PM

By the time I want to upgrade my i7 920, I'll want a new motherboard with PCI-E3.0 USB3, SATA3 etc.
m
0
l
April 30, 2010 7:04:02 PM

^ Yep, For gaming, the i7-930 won't be a bottlececk for the next 5 years, so gamers shouldn't moan to hard.

Just like all those Core 2 Quad users that complained about lga 1336.....

Ther Chips are fine, and will be for 3 years more....
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
April 30, 2010 7:22:04 PM

Anyone with a Q94xx, i5 750, i7 920, Phenom II X4, or Athlon II X4/Q6xxx overclocked or higher won't need an upgrade for years.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b å Intel
April 30, 2010 7:43:18 PM

This is a joke - Right

I fall into the same camp as several other - When I'm ready to upgrade the CPU - I always have upgraded the MB. Advancements like ISA->PCI>PCIe, MFM ->RLL->IDE->SATA, USB1->USB2->USB3, Sata 1 ->Sata3->SATA6. It's almost to the point that that the CPU upgrade is anly a small part of the equation.

My thoughts - Keep it coming INTEL, I like the "Slow" subsystems catching up to the Processors. It is in these areas that improvements are needed and that requires NEW MBs be it AMD or INTEL.
m
0
l
April 30, 2010 8:35:42 PM

^ Yep, My E6600 form 2006 is still going stong, and not bottlenecking me at all for games.

m
0
l
!