What is the differance between 1366 and 1156

what is the differance between 1366 and 1156?
9 answers Last reply
More about what differance 1366 1156
  1. tipple-channel RAM/Dual X16 PCIE v.s. dual-channel RAM/Single X16 PCIE
  2. And it is also the physical difference in how many pins the socket has. The 1366 is more for enthusiasts or more hard core users. The 1156 is more mainstream because of some lesser features, as stated by andy5174.
  3. Thanks Guys!! That helps alot! Anything more? like dates of intro etc.
    Again- THANKS!!!
  4. Basically the 1156 is a "budget" platform and isnt as powerful as the 1366. The 1366 is more for enthusiasts and is more powerful.

    There is also the obvious price differences that should hint as the later.
  5. I can not pick a "Best Answer".
    All are very helpfull!!
  6. Quote:
    1366 has QuickPath and triple channel memory, but lacks PCI Express and DMI on the CPU. 1156 has PCI Express and DMI,
    but lacks QuickPath and only has two memory channels.

    1156 has on-die PCI-E controller and on-die North Bridge, so Quick Path Interconnect (QPI) between CPU and North Bridge & PCI-E controller is not required.
  7. Quote:
    Lynnfield's IMC was complete garbage so yes a lot less.

    Garbage?

    Heck no. It's not that far behind a Bloomfield in bandwidth, and it's actually better in some latency measurements, depending heavily on the memory used of course. It's also a hair better than K10.5 in latency, and significantly better than K10.5 in bandwidth. I would be very surprised if you could find more than a tiny handful of programs that would be even close to memory limited on a Lynnfield.
  8. Quote:
    Most i could get out of Lynnfield

    http://i1100.photobucket.com/albums/g420/Jean-Luc-Picard/19418.jpg


    Maximus III Formula :)

    And?

    I'll be honest, I don't really care about synthetics. Show me one application which performs significantly better on Bloomfield than Lynnfield because of the memory controller (and I don't mean a synthetic, I mean an actual, useful application). The benchmark you show there is more than sufficient for pretty much any modern program. It can easily keep all 4 cores fed with nearly any code. I know some people like benchmarks for the sake of benchmarks, but as far as I'm concerned, the purpose of a memory controller on a CPU is to prevent the cores from being starved of data, and from everything I've seen, the Lynnfield memory controller does so quite well.
  9. In terms of bandwidth? No, it wasn't. In terms of programs? It absolutely was. Both Lynnfield and Bloomfield perform almost identically clock-for-clock on most programs. This shows that as far as programs are concerned, both of them have equally good memory controllers, since almost no programs require the sheer bandwidth capability of the Bloomfield memory controller.
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Product