Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Better upgrade path: 1156 or 1366?

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 25, 2010 10:35:08 PM

Taking in cost and perfomance, which has the better upgrade path. I was thinking it would be 1366 since hexacore wil eventuall come down in price.

More about : upgrade path 1156 1366

a b à CPUs
September 25, 2010 10:47:03 PM

Well 1156 is officially dead as Sandy Bridge is moving to 1155.

Hexacore won't come down in price - Extreme Editions never do (so 980X and 990X will stay as they are), and the i7 970 doesn't have any competition to drive it down. By the time we see hexacore Sandy Bridge, socket 1366 will be very long in the tooth and have something to replace it anyway.


To be entirely honest, buying a computer with any desire or intent to "upgrade it in the future" is a waste of time and false economy IMO - everything moves so fast these days there's little scope to upgrade. Intel don't even bother with any pretence (and that being a good or bad thing is left to your discretion), and even though AMD to try and extend their platforms to cover a few CPU generations, eventually they have to give up and just start again (upcoming Bulldozer is a good example).

Just buy the very best you can afford now, and if you have the ability to do an upgrade in the future then bonus. With that, 1366 does have the option of dropping in a hexacore if you're only going quad for now. The only way you're going to get any real longevity in a computer is to make the investment now and plan your spec and purchases for what you're likely to be doing.

For instance, I'm going 980X, 12GB Dominator GT, Rampage III Extreme. Do I need 6 cores? Not really - I'd be fine with 4. Do I need a top-end motherboard? Not really, but it's a great pairing for some serious overclocking. Do I need such robust RAM? I will do when I start overclocking. But as the software I use starts to embrace multiple cores properly I'm getting new benefits for free. As more CPU grunt is required, I can start overclocking the CPU to compensate, and the top-end motherboard and RAM will help in this area. You start getting more life out of the system, extending your initial purchase.

Spend £1,500 every 2 years, or make a £3,000 investment now that will last me 8-10?
a b à CPUs
September 25, 2010 10:58:34 PM

Quote:

To be entirely honest, buying a computer with any desire or intent to "upgrade it in the future" is a waste of time and false economy - everything moves so fast these days there's little scope to upgrade


Agree, I think people should buy and assume for they need now and worry about upgrades or new computers later. PC tech moves to fast to catch up. And I think its impossible to not get buyers remorse when buying any part of a pc.
Related resources
a b à CPUs
September 25, 2010 11:53:52 PM

amitjyotindra said:
Taking in cost and perfomance, which has the better upgrade path. I was thinking it would be 1366 since hexacore wil eventuall come down in price.

If you view adding cards as an upgrade path, 1366 comes with more PCIe 2.0 pathways. Otherwise, like the other guys said...
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2010 12:19:24 AM

Only upgrade when you need to upgrade, if you can do what you do well then stay where you are. If you are experiencing performance hidering that you cannot stand or bare for 8 months then upgrade. When you upgrade a component you are upgrading so that you can use more software and use the software you already use easier and with better performance. If you don't think upgrading right now is a must then wait till you can't bare the performance hinderence.
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2010 1:11:40 AM

By now you're probably getting the idea, so let me try it from a different perspective.

If either platform is acceptable to you . . .
. . . and if you want to protect against future need for a cpu without buying a new mobo
. . . then you want 1156.

Reason: The $170 you will save will buy your new motherboard when you buy that new cpu.

If either platform is acceptable to you . . .
. . . and if your current config would have a single graphics card
. . . and if you wanto to protect against future graphics needs
. . . then you want 1156.

Reason: You can add a second of any card you would currently install in a current SLI-capable 1156 mobo, and only lose about 10%. If you use, say, the 460, you won't notice the loss because the SLI scaling is huge.

If either platform is acceptable to you . . .
. . . and if you want to protect against 2560 future resolution
. . . then you want the 1365.

Because you are going to need all you can get.

Frankly, you will likely need the new cpu and mobo and vid cards anyhow, so save money and go 1156.

In other words, forget future proofing "platforms" atm. Buy the system you need now with room to expand using that platform's technology.
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2010 2:17:56 AM

Twoboxer said:

If either platform is acceptable to you . . .
. . . and if your current config would have a single graphics card
. . . and if you wanto to protect against future graphics needs
. . . then you want 1156.

Reason: You can add a second of any card you would currently install in a current SLI-capable 1156 mobo, and only lose about 10%. If you use, say, the 460, you won't notice the loss because the SLI scaling is huge.


1366 supports the same upgrade without any such losses, so your argument doesn't make sense. The cost argument makes sense though.
a b à CPUs
September 26, 2010 2:21:11 AM

Technically correct, of course.

The cost argument is part of it - why spend the money for the small gain. Should have popped that in there.
!