Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Report: Upcoming Intel 9-Series Chipsets May Not Support Current Haswell CPUs

Tags:
  • Motherboards
  • Intel
  • Components
  • CPUs
Last response: in News comments
Share
a b V Motherboard
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2013 2:00:11 AM

its no problem, theres no such thing as an upgrade path these days anyhow

and why would i want a crappy old motherboard with a brand new cpu anyhow?

also a reason why Intel is so far ahead - newer designs = better efficency without being stuck with some out of date specifications and design

still i can see everyone complaining about this...
Score
-6
August 28, 2013 2:02:59 AM

AHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! typical Intel. New CPU? New mobo....
Score
13
Related resources
August 28, 2013 2:03:17 AM

now,now, haswell motherboards arent that old and crappy.
Score
18
August 28, 2013 2:04:09 AM

now,now, haswell motherboards arent that old and crappy.
Score
-12
August 28, 2013 2:05:39 AM

now,now, haswell motherboards arent that old and crappy.
Score
-12
August 28, 2013 2:06:36 AM

apache_lives

i guess you are 15 years old taking money from dad and mom or some guy with full pockets, that's why you have no respect for your money. Someone who works hard on the other hand will think twice before paying every 6-12 months Intel for a new cpu AND motherboard.
Score
2
August 28, 2013 2:13:12 AM

yannigr said:
apache_lives

i guess you are 15 years old taking money from dad and mom or some guy with full pockets, that's why you have no respect for your money. Someone who works hard on the other hand will think twice before paying every 6-12 months Intel for a new cpu AND motherboard.


I agree with you, I'd rather save the money and not be forced to upgrade. With a little planning, Intel could have made one socket last the past 3 chips. I mean the pin count went down! 1156 > 1155 > 1150. It's not like DDR4 or anything was introduced. I see it as a cash grab for investors in the face of declining PC sales.

Now if there is a substantial upgrade in performance or features to be had, sure, I'll gladly ante up for a board. ie when LGA2011 launched, I was all over it.
Score
3
August 28, 2013 2:15:06 AM

Yannigr, I have a job and I work for my own money. Yet I agree with apache. Please stop assuming things about people's lives.

So you're saying you are willing to buy another CPU for say, $220, $320 but buying another motherboard, that is the dealbreaker? Unless you're a pure CPU workhorse (in which case consider Ivy bridge E instead), upgrading is just excessive even if you just get the CPU. Having said that yes, two motherboard changes in a row is excessive, I prefer the whole Sandy to Ivy thing.
Score
2
August 28, 2013 2:16:08 AM

What the actual f*k? AMD does not talk anything about AM3+ or even new chipsets for Steamroller CPUs (don't care about 4 core Kaveri) or even if they will be releasing any CPUs other than Kaveri and now Intel are saying that their new 1050 is already dead while 2011 socked will be dead as well after Ivy-E release. Crap time for an upgrade.
Score
4
August 28, 2013 2:39:27 AM

dark_wizzie

Why pay $400 for a $220 cpu? Because that will be the cost WITH an quality new motherboard.
Score
2
August 28, 2013 2:48:55 AM

22nm to 14nm is a big jump % wise for chipsets to account for.
Score
-4
a b V Motherboard
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2013 3:07:36 AM

heh nope iv worked the industry for years

real world clients dont upgrade anything more then ram and replace faulty parts when needed, they would rather replace their computer after a ~5 year cycle which is now first gen i7 area age group

socket 775 is a great example for anyone who actually knows their facts and specifications - it may be the same physical socket for the Pentium 4/Pentium D/Celeron D/Celeron Dual Core/Celeron/Core 2 Duo/Core 2 Quad and yet the first gen 775 motherboards never supported the Pentium D, Pentium D motherboards didnt support Core 2 processors, first gen Core 2 boards rarely supported Core 2 Quads, let alone second gen Core 2 Quads etc etc and so on (with exceptions)

look at AMD, some of their sockets have a dual power limit/rating (95w and 130w), then the mess of 754/939/940/AM2/AM2+/AM3/AM3+

overclocked motherboards VRM's usually start to play up after ~3 years causing cold start issues, nvidia chipset based mainboards flake out at the 3 year mark, backplates and connectors corrode in my area due to damp/moisture and create bad contacts from the dust and crap

if anyone remembers socket 7/super socket 7 - that was an actual "upgrade path" but i take it no one here remembers that, or the modding days getting a Mendocino mainboard to support the next gen by a simple pin mod (exposing Intels pin out change to stop upgrading etc), Socket A had a good run but thats as far as it ever went

welcome to the real world, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN UPGRADE PATH ANYMORE

get with the times, wake up, learn a thing or two
Score
19
August 28, 2013 3:11:03 AM

22nm to 14nm is a big jump % wise for chipsets to account for.
Score
-3
August 28, 2013 3:46:58 AM

Hmm. This seems to be saying that a current Haswell might not work on a later 9 series motherboard. How many people would upgrade their Mobo and keep their current CPU?

What would be more valuable to know would be if the later Haswells would work on the current mobo 8 series chipsets.
Score
1
August 28, 2013 4:11:55 AM

Welcome to "new" computer era , NO UPGRADE AVAILABLE ~
What is exist ? Buy new PC like current smartphone which is dumb ~
INTEL U SUCK A BIG TIME, Now Intel want to kill PC builders~
Score
1
August 28, 2013 4:19:43 AM

Intel.... LOL use typical old tricks again.... last time spread rumor Ivy not compatible with P67/Z68 chipset, everybody buy 2600K(instead of 2500K), now Spread rumor..... I guess they are not happy with everyone buying i5 K series?
Score
3
a b V Motherboard
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2013 5:01:46 AM

We had, what, 4 different versions of the socket 775 chips? None of the newer chips were supported on older boards, some of the newer chipsets didn't support older processors. This is par for the course for Intel.
Score
3
a c 87 V Motherboard
a c 140 à CPUs
August 28, 2013 5:22:33 AM

With only a ~20% improvement between CPU generations on a given socket, upgrading the CPU is a waste of money for most people anyway. Not much of a loss there IMO. What percentage of systems worldwide ever get a CPU upgrade these days between the day they are initially assembled and the day they are retired? Nobody I know has bothered with that in over 10 years.

And now, the low-end market is moving to non-upgradable form factors, which is going to make backward/forward chipset compatibility completely moot.
Score
1
a b V Motherboard
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2013 5:30:12 AM

@yannigr
so go buy AMD, their chips typically last for several generations, and they are not nearly as far behind the times as they were a few years ago.
The thing is (and as apache mentioned in his 2nd comment) that normal people do not upgrade their core system (case, mobo, cpu, and psu) ever during the life of a computer. Heck, I am a power who has built my own systems for almost 20 years and I have only ever once bought a CPU and motherboard seperately. I am not saying that you have an entirely invalid point, but you have to understand that home builders are a minority to begin with, and hardware junkies that buy a new mobo or CPU with each and every generation are even more rare, so your voice gets kinda lost among all of the $$ that is being thrown around by the masses who simply don't care.

On another side of the coin, Intel is making some HUGE changes right now with their architecture. Their goal seems to be to have the CPU become more of an SOC. They are already eating a few northbridge features with each generation, and with Haswell we saw the CPU eat the VRMs from the motherboard. Intel is already thinking about moving basic onboard audio to the CPU like they did with onboard video a few generations ago. And on top of it all, there are no real improvements in performance to be had. Haswell is faster clock per clock, but has serious thermal limits which keep the clock relatively low so that an older Sandy Bridge CPU that has been clocked to the moon can still meet or beat the current gen equipment.

And Broadwell with the 9 series chips is not going to be a desktop chip anyways! It is BGA1150, not LGA1150. Even if they make a few LGA parts to pascify the home build crowd it is going to have 0 performance increases as it is almost entirely a wattage shrink. Your next CPU upgrade is not coming until the Sky series, which may not be until late 2015 or even 2016. By then there will be enough mobo feature upgrades to justify a new mobo with the CPU anyways. Personally, I am quite happy with my Sandy Bridge. Games and most creative work is run on the GPU these days, so I feel a need to upgrade my GPU, but my CPU is simply not utilized enough to justify an upgrade on that front.
Even when I do upgrade again in a few years it will be for connectivity features, not for a boost in CPU capability.
Score
10
August 28, 2013 5:35:37 AM

I just simply won't upgrade. I'll stick with my 2600k & be happy. There's not enough performance gain for me to consider "upgrading" to anything newer anyways.
Score
7
a b V Motherboard
a b à CPUs
August 28, 2013 5:57:55 AM

natoco said:
22nm to 14nm is a big jump % wise for chipsets to account for.

What does a die shrink have to do with pin outs?
Socket 478 went from 180nm Willamette down to 130nm Northwood and GallatinXE Pentium 4
LGA775 went from 90nm Prescott Pentium 4 down to 45nm Yorkfield Core2Duo, which is a much larger step
LGA1156 went from 45nm Lynnfield Core chips down to 32nm Clarkdale chips
LGA1155 went from 32nm Sandy Bridge down to 22nm Ivy Bridge
1150 (LGA and BGA) will go from 22nm down to 14nm

In every case you are seeing a 1/3 or more shrink. And if they wanted then they could stretch out a socket standard much longer. The thing is that they simply do not want to. AMD users always run into the game of having to match not only a socket, but a northbridge, BIOS revision, and a power rating to know if a specific chip will or will not work in a particular motherbaord. Intel tried that with LGA775 and decided that it caused them too many headaches. So on the Intel side all that you need to worry about is the socket and the BIOS. BIOS can typically be updated for support, so it isnt a huge deal. So (with rare exception) if it fits, then it will work for Intel.

Intel is working on more of an SOC design where all of the main features of the mobo and northbridge get built into the CPU itself. Once this process gets further along then it stands to reason that they could make a single socket that lasts for some 6+ years. Because all of the controllers would be on the CPU then you could upgrade the CPU to get the new standard of PCIe or USB without need for replacing the motherboard. If you need more physical connectors on yoru system then you could simply upgrade the mobo without needing to replace the CPU (or a smaller mobo for a smaller system). But then again it could all move to BGA in the end. who knows
Score
1
August 28, 2013 7:17:27 AM

I'm just laughing at the comments and the people who believe that there is a huge difference between a motherboard from one year to the next... other than the chipset/socket. It's even funnier given that they claim to have been "working in the industry for years...." I pity their company. This isn't the 1990s when a "new" motherboard could result in real performance gains. Today the specs on a quality mobo from 2011 versus a quality mobo from 2013 are minimal but for the chipset/socket. It's not as if we are seeing new ram or some other significant upgrade. It's a board and it's not that different from the old ones... real world performance differences are negligible. As for my CPU.... I would upgrade much more frequently if I could just buy the chip. If anything Intel is hurting itself by doing this as it causes me to wait several years before buying a new product from them. I would probably upgrade every two years if I could just buy a new chip, as opposed to every three to four years as I do now. I sympathize with Intel's desire to support "the industry" but at the end of the day it needs to do something for itself and it's pathetic stock performance over the past decade. Let the motherboard makers come up with their own reasons for people to upgrade, such as a significantly improved product, which as I noted earlier, we aren't seeing lately.
Score
1
August 28, 2013 8:26:26 AM

Why would Intel justify their intent on keeping new standards for motherboard? Intel has done such changes in past and most likely will do it in future. There is no opposition apart from people diverting to cheaper alternatives for AMD. Would Intel count on complacency of people to wait and accept new changes? Why would it not? Intel is currently featuring lower power requirements than any other PC manufacturer can offer. Performance wise, it is on par with AMD and leading in Windows platform.

Then we can move to another question. Would people buy it?
Corporate users would, as they are not used to upgrades often. However, due to shrinking money supply in corporate accounts per new economy and governmental policy changes, this remains to be seen as for how badly upgrade is needed. Hence, there is no absolute guarantee that companies would need upgrade.
Regular users will also be looking for new computers, not upgrade. However, the price would come into question since there are many cheaper alternatives coming from AMD and Android based computers.
Would people who upgrade their computers often be interested in upgrade again? Certainly, and this is not an issue for Intel. In fact it is they, people who upgrade often, are the early testers of technology Intel is counting for adoption. Would money be a problem for such people? If they justified purchase of new computer or upgrade previously, the same justification can be used over again. That is until money problems ensue and purchases are no longer justified the same way.
Score
-1
a b V Motherboard
a c 127 à CPUs
August 28, 2013 8:45:11 AM

Rumors are rumors. Can't be taken seriously until we see them in action.

Honestly I don't see the big issue since it can make sense. Look at AM3/AM3+. Bulldozer was not supported in AM3 but AM3 worked in AM3+. It has a lot to do with electrical layouts and what Intel may change on the new CPU.

If it takes more from the chipset on broadwell then it would make sense.

As stated, this is also why Intel is ahead of AMD. They don't focus on compatibility which limits what you can do with a CPU. If AMD adopted the same idea I doubt they would be so far behind but since they have to build their CPU around a socket instead of building a system around the CPU and its die shrink it holds them back.

Still rumors are rumors. Not true but might hold some truth. We will see probably in about well, another 4 months or so when some more info starts to come out.
Score
0
a c 87 V Motherboard
a c 140 à CPUs
August 28, 2013 9:11:15 AM

CaedenV said:
If AMD adopted the same idea I doubt they would be so far behind but since they have to build their CPU around a socket instead of building a system around the CPU and its die shrink it holds them back.

I doubt a new socket and chipset would make much of a difference for AMD since they are already managing to pull over 200W with the existing power pins. Improved IO performance from bringing PCIe and few other things into the CPU would certainly help but not nowhere near enough to turn tables around on its own.

The next major socket change on Intel's side will be when they finally bring the IO hub into the CPU, which may happen after Broadwell - though if I remember rumors right, some BGA Broadwells will have integrated IO.
Score
0
August 28, 2013 9:35:29 AM

southernshark said:
I'm just laughing at the comments and the people who believe that there is a huge difference between a motherboard from one year to the next... other than the chipset/socket. It's even funnier given that they claim to have been "working in the industry for years...." I pity their company. This isn't the 1990s when a "new" motherboard could result in real performance gains. Today the specs on a quality mobo from 2011 versus a quality mobo from 2013 are minimal but for the chipset/socket.


I agree with the overall thought behind this, but a couple of upgrades can make significant differences. For example, USB3 can transfer a lot more data than USB2 can; your new mobo w/USB3 would be a definite performance upgrade. Also, an upgrade to 6Gbps SATA is an upgrade where you can see a difference, especially with the new SSDs that can pump a lot more data with the faster connection.


Score
0
August 28, 2013 9:41:39 AM

Also, as you get older & more things change in your life, you often start pushing out upgrades to your PC. I'm okay with 2-3 years upgrades now, and maybe even longer. I accept the fact that I will replace my whole system, and that's fine with me. My current mini-ITX system was a great new build, and it will likely last me many years.

It's also true that CPU upgrades don't do as much for you as they once did. Going from a 386SX-16 to a 386DX-40 - now that was an upgrade! :) 
Score
1
August 28, 2013 10:18:51 AM

yannigr : "Why pay $400 for a $220 cpu? Because that will be the cost WITH an quality new motherboard. "

Exactly. For as long as I can remember I have always thrown an extra $150 on the quote when upgrading an Intel system without even looking into it (and usually its not far off the mark when the bill is sent).

It's pretty bad for business... or good... depending on the way you look at it.
Score
0
August 28, 2013 10:46:35 AM

jimmysmitty said:
Look at AM3/AM3+. Bulldozer was not supported in AM3 but AM3 worked in AM3+.


Some of the high end AM3 mobos support not only Bulldozer but also Piledriver, i.e. Asus Crosshair IV series. Look it up.
Score
-1
August 28, 2013 12:19:14 PM

Intel socket 1150 is a joke anyway, I got a brand new Gigabyte Z87 motherboard sitting on my floor right now with bent socket pins... worthless
Score
-1
August 28, 2013 12:21:08 PM

Intel socket 1150 is a joke anyway, I got a brand new Gigabyte Z87 motherboard sitting on my floor right now with bent socket pins... worthless
Score
-1
a b V Motherboard
a c 79 à CPUs
August 28, 2013 2:02:21 PM

Not surprising. Intel makes a good chip because they rape their customers and as a result have gobs of money for R&D. They are fortunate to have such a devoted fan base that will gobble up bi-yearly motherboard+cpu combos without question. I guarantee you they could have used one socket for all 4 generations of the core i series, but that wouldn't make them as much money.
Score
0
a c 87 V Motherboard
a c 140 à CPUs
August 28, 2013 5:50:12 PM

2Be_or_Not2Be said:
I guarantee you they could have used one socket for all 4 generations of the core i series, but that wouldn't make them as much money.

I would agree for the first three.

For Haswell and its integrated VRM (FIVR) though, a new socket was definitely unavoidable since it completely eliminates a bunch of CPU power rails from the pinout and motherboard layout. Pretty hard to avoid a socket change when there are drastic changes to power delivery.
Score
0
a b V Motherboard
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2013 2:16:52 AM

apache_lives said:
its no problem, theres no such thing as an upgrade path these days anyhow

and why would i want a crappy old motherboard with a brand new cpu anyhow?

also a reason why Intel is so far ahead - newer designs = better efficency without being stuck with some out of date specifications and design

still i can see everyone complaining about this...


CaedenV said:
natoco said:
22nm to 14nm is a big jump % wise for chipsets to account for.

What does a die shrink have to do with pin outs?
Socket 478 went from 180nm Willamette down to 130nm Northwood and GallatinXE Pentium 4
LGA775 went from 90nm Prescott Pentium 4 down to 45nm Yorkfield Core2Duo, which is a much larger step
LGA1156 went from 45nm Lynnfield Core chips down to 32nm Clarkdale chips
LGA1155 went from 32nm Sandy Bridge down to 22nm Ivy Bridge
1150 (LGA and BGA) will go from 22nm down to 14nm

In every case you are seeing a 1/3 or more shrink. And if they wanted then they could stretch out a socket standard much longer. The thing is that they simply do not want to. AMD users always run into the game of having to match not only a socket, but a northbridge, BIOS revision, and a power rating to know if a specific chip will or will not work in a particular motherbaord. Intel tried that with LGA775 and decided that it caused them too many headaches. So on the Intel side all that you need to worry about is the socket and the BIOS. BIOS can typically be updated for support, so it isnt a huge deal. So (with rare exception) if it fits, then it will work for Intel.

Intel is working on more of an SOC design where all of the main features of the mobo and northbridge get built into the CPU itself. Once this process gets further along then it stands to reason that they could make a single socket that lasts for some 6+ years. Because all of the controllers would be on the CPU then you could upgrade the CPU to get the new standard of PCIe or USB without need for replacing the motherboard. If you need more physical connectors on yoru system then you could simply upgrade the mobo without needing to replace the CPU (or a smaller mobo for a smaller system). But then again it could all move to BGA in the end. who knows


Show me a first gen 775 board that was designed for a Pentium 4 that works with a Yorkfield chip or even a simple Core 2 Duo
Score
0
a b V Motherboard
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2013 2:17:40 AM

razorblaze42 said:
Intel socket 1150 is a joke anyway, I got a brand new Gigabyte Z87 motherboard sitting on my floor right now with bent socket pins... worthless


Noob
Score
-1
a b V Motherboard
a b à CPUs
August 29, 2013 2:29:15 AM

southernshark said:
I'm just laughing at the comments and the people who believe that there is a huge difference between a motherboard from one year to the next... other than the chipset/socket. It's even funnier given that they claim to have been "working in the industry for years...." I pity their company. This isn't the 1990s when a "new" motherboard could result in real performance gains. Today the specs on a quality mobo from 2011 versus a quality mobo from 2013 are minimal but for the chipset/socket. It's not as if we are seeing new ram or some other significant upgrade. It's a board and it's not that different from the old ones... real world performance differences are negligible. As for my CPU.... I would upgrade much more frequently if I could just buy the chip. If anything Intel is hurting itself by doing this as it causes me to wait several years before buying a new product from them. I would probably upgrade every two years if I could just buy a new chip, as opposed to every three to four years as I do now. I sympathize with Intel's desire to support "the industry" but at the end of the day it needs to do something for itself and it's pathetic stock performance over the past decade. Let the motherboard makers come up with their own reasons for people to upgrade, such as a significantly improved product, which as I noted earlier, we aren't seeing lately.


How do you pity my company?

The world doesnt work the way you want it to its a simple fact your going to have to live with.
Score
0
August 29, 2013 11:53:49 AM

Why to people complain about how often motherboards change? How often DO people upgrade? Once every 6 months?! I upgraded from my Pentium 4 to a Sandy Bridge i5. Sure I could have upgraded sooner to a C2Q but I figured why not rather wait for a decent pure-quad core from Intel, seeing as the C2Q was actually not a true quad, just two duals strapped together. I skipped the i5 750 because I wanted 32nm.

Had I wanted though I could have gotten an older C2D to replace the Pentium 4 without swapping motherboards. I can upgrade (more like downgrade) to Ivy Bridge and keep my current motherboard, but... housefires, y'know?
Score
1
August 29, 2013 1:08:40 PM

There's always the option to really save your pennies for the upcoming next gen enthusiast grade CPU (Post Ivy-E). That way, you'll be set for another 5 years or so.
Score
0
August 30, 2013 12:48:08 AM

Apache_lives you're leaving out 2 huge differences between socket 775 and 1150. One socket 775 was backwards compatible I can go put a Pentium 4 in my 775 quad core system. 2 the cpus actually had a marginal performance difference to warrant a upgrade a pentium d was around 15% faster than a p4, Then core 2 quad blew Pentium d out the park etc. Several years ago a budget 2.0ghz Pentium dual core could curb stomp the fastest Pentium 4,where as now the top 5 fastest core 2 quads and first intel core i7 can keep up with or out perform the newest i3 something is wrong with that. Point is there used to be a reason to upgrade and warrant the new platforms now is no longer the case and it feel like intel forcing people to upgrade and spend more money the fact that there are no price drops on older sockets furthers the point. Wait just remembered this but ya pretty sure there was a decent amount of time core 2 came out like um idk 2 years after p4 the least.
Score
0
a b V Motherboard
a b à CPUs
August 30, 2013 2:48:03 AM

boytitan2 said:
Apache_lives you're leaving out 2 huge differences between socket 775 and 1150. One socket 775 was backwards compatible I can go put a Pentium 4 in my 775 quad core system. 2 the cpus actually had a marginal performance difference to warrant a upgrade a pentium d was around 15% faster than a p4, Then core 2 quad blew Pentium d out the park etc. Several years ago a budget 2.0ghz Pentium dual core could curb stomp the fastest Pentium 4,where as now the top 5 fastest core 2 quads and first intel core i7 can keep up with or out perform the newest i3 something is wrong with that. Point is there used to be a reason to upgrade and warrant the new platforms now is no longer the case and it feel like intel forcing people to upgrade and spend more money the fact that there are no price drops on older sockets furthers the point. Wait just remembered this but ya pretty sure there was a decent amount of time core 2 came out like um idk 2 years after p4 the least.


1) Backwards compatible is irrelevant no one upgrades a motherboard and keeps there old crappy crappy CPU
2) most final-gen Core 2 motherboards didnt support Pentium 4's or listed support when in fact THEY DID NOT i know that from experience
3) "pentium d was around 15% faster than a p4" - all depended on benchmarks, sometimes slower, sometimes faster
4) "Wait just remembered this but ya pretty sure there was a decent amount of time core 2 came out like um idk 2 years after p4 the least" -- Well actually the first Pentium 4 was for Socket 423 in 2000, then 478 socket came out later - this is all BEFORE socket 775 - its a little more then 2 years, what are you trying to prove here?
5) "where as now the top 5 fastest core 2 quads and first intel core i7 can keep up with or out perform the newest i3 something is wrong with that" - thats called progress, this is why we switch designs and architectures etc
Score
0
August 30, 2013 8:04:05 AM

apache_lives said:
boytitan2 said:
Apache_lives you're leaving out 2 huge differences between socket 775 and 1150. One socket 775 was backwards compatible I can go put a Pentium 4 in my 775 quad core system. 2 the cpus actually had a marginal performance difference to warrant a upgrade a pentium d was around 15% faster than a p4, Then core 2 quad blew Pentium d out the park etc. Several years ago a budget 2.0ghz Pentium dual core could curb stomp the fastest Pentium 4,where as now the top 5 fastest core 2 quads and first intel core i7 can keep up with or out perform the newest i3 something is wrong with that. Point is there used to be a reason to upgrade and warrant the new platforms now is no longer the case and it feel like intel forcing people to upgrade and spend more money the fact that there are no price drops on older sockets furthers the point. Wait just remembered this but ya pretty sure there was a decent amount of time core 2 came out like um idk 2 years after p4 the least.


1) Backwards compatible is irrelevant no one upgrades a motherboard and keeps there old crappy crappy CPU
2) most final-gen Core 2 motherboards didnt support Pentium 4's or listed support when in fact THEY DID NOT i know that from experience
3) "pentium d was around 15% faster than a p4" - all depended on benchmarks, sometimes slower, sometimes faster
4) "Wait just remembered this but ya pretty sure there was a decent amount of time core 2 came out like um idk 2 years after p4 the least" -- Well actually the first Pentium 4 was for Socket 423 in 2000, then 478 socket came out later - this is all BEFORE socket 775 - its a little more then 2 years, what are you trying to prove here?
5) "where as now the top 5 fastest core 2 quads and first intel core i7 can keep up with or out perform the newest i3 something is wrong with that" - thats called progress, this is why we switch designs and architectures etc


1 Ya dude everyone has money to throw away.

2 I have 4 diff lga 775 motherboards and have put a Pentium 4 in each one before please name me one that does not.

3 No dude it was faster in every benchmark and actually that 15% was a bad thing whole reason intel had to get there shit together and make the much faster core 2 where as now haswell is what 5-3% more faster than the last platform.

4 I was clearly talking about socket 775 pentium 4 anyone with half a brain would know that.

5 And finally the much older processors keeping up or beating a i3 is a bad thing that is just plain terrible. 5 years a go a 5 year old cpu would not be able to hold a candle to the weakest of new cpus let alone beat out a lower mid tier processor. Intel are not advanceing technology nearly as fast as the could and over pricing while amd keeps lagging behind.
Score
0
a c 87 V Motherboard
a c 140 à CPUs
August 30, 2013 9:05:19 AM

boytitan2 said:
5 And finally the much older processors keeping up or beating a i3 is a bad thing that is just plain terrible. 5 years a go a 5 year old cpu would not be able to hold a candle to the weakest of new cpus let alone beat out a lower mid tier processor. Intel are not advanceing technology nearly as fast as the could and over pricing while amd keeps lagging behind.

If increasing performance was so easy to do, AMD would do it too. The simple fact that AMD is struggling so much to catch up with Intel while Intel is clawing at their own brick wall shows how steep of an uphill battle performance improvement through architecture is becoming.

While Intel and AMD could increase performance by throwing more cores at the problem, most mainstream software out there can barely make use of an i3 and most games come nowhere near making full use of an i5 so there clearly is no rush to increase mainstream processing power through parallelism... and with DirectCompute/OpenCL, most of the parallel stuff will likely get delegated to the IGP or GPU - the IGP may not be as fast as the GPU but it would still be several times faster than the CPU.
Score
0
a b V Motherboard
a b à CPUs
August 30, 2013 6:16:53 PM

boytitan2 said:
apache_lives said:
boytitan2 said:
Apache_lives you're leaving out 2 huge differences between socket 775 and 1150. One socket 775 was backwards compatible I can go put a Pentium 4 in my 775 quad core system. 2 the cpus actually had a marginal performance difference to warrant a upgrade a pentium d was around 15% faster than a p4, Then core 2 quad blew Pentium d out the park etc. Several years ago a budget 2.0ghz Pentium dual core could curb stomp the fastest Pentium 4,where as now the top 5 fastest core 2 quads and first intel core i7 can keep up with or out perform the newest i3 something is wrong with that. Point is there used to be a reason to upgrade and warrant the new platforms now is no longer the case and it feel like intel forcing people to upgrade and spend more money the fact that there are no price drops on older sockets furthers the point. Wait just remembered this but ya pretty sure there was a decent amount of time core 2 came out like um idk 2 years after p4 the least.


1) Backwards compatible is irrelevant no one upgrades a motherboard and keeps there old crappy crappy CPU
2) most final-gen Core 2 motherboards didnt support Pentium 4's or listed support when in fact THEY DID NOT i know that from experience
3) "pentium d was around 15% faster than a p4" - all depended on benchmarks, sometimes slower, sometimes faster
4) "Wait just remembered this but ya pretty sure there was a decent amount of time core 2 came out like um idk 2 years after p4 the least" -- Well actually the first Pentium 4 was for Socket 423 in 2000, then 478 socket came out later - this is all BEFORE socket 775 - its a little more then 2 years, what are you trying to prove here?
5) "where as now the top 5 fastest core 2 quads and first intel core i7 can keep up with or out perform the newest i3 something is wrong with that" - thats called progress, this is why we switch designs and architectures etc


1 Ya dude everyone has money to throw away.

2 I have 4 diff lga 775 motherboards and have put a Pentium 4 in each one before please name me one that does not.

3 No dude it was faster in every benchmark and actually that 15% was a bad thing whole reason intel had to get there shit together and make the much faster core 2 where as now haswell is what 5-3% more faster than the last platform.

4 I was clearly talking about socket 775 pentium 4 anyone with half a brain would know that.

5 And finally the much older processors keeping up or beating a i3 is a bad thing that is just plain terrible. 5 years a go a 5 year old cpu would not be able to hold a candle to the weakest of new cpus let alone beat out a lower mid tier processor. Intel are not advanceing technology nearly as fast as the could and over pricing while amd keeps lagging behind.


No one throws money at an old crappy computer

Most ASUS motherboards with Intel 4 series chipsets dont work properly with Pentium 4's, here is one (http://support.asus.com/Cpusupport/List.aspx?SLanguage=...) there are more iv come across during diagnostics uncovering unsupported processsors where support is promised ("plug n pray")

Pentium D's were not faster in EVERY benchmark go check your facts (http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/pentium-d,1006-12.h...) clock for clock with applications that were not multithreaded it was actually slower or equal at best

When an i3 DUAL CORE keeps up with the last gen QUAD CORE processors thats a great accomplishment
Score
1
a b V Motherboard
September 2, 2013 4:40:33 AM

Now this the reasons i wondered. Haswell isnt that much good for us consumers.

I never build a pc yet. But ive been reading,watching and learning stuff about PC, Rigs and even Modding.

Intel is the best CPU makers out there. But i really hate this "Upgrade" they say about.

Haswell might be the 1st PC CPU of some people here. Why do they bought haswell? FOR UPGRADE PATHS. BECAUSE THEY KNOW YOU CAN UPGRADE THE CPU AFTER FEW YEARS. THEN YOU GIVE US THIS?

Just not to be rude out here. NOW PEOPLE WILL UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS NO MORE UPGRADE WHEN BUYING CPU.

THE ONLY UPGRADE FOR A PC I THINK OF NOW IS THE CASE, PSU AND THE HARD DRIVES OR SSD OR WHAT YOU CALL IT.

That components should last 5 years or MORE unlike this.

And now people you should now rethink where to invest your money on each components.
Score
0
a b V Motherboard
a b à CPUs
September 2, 2013 3:21:15 PM

Genzo whats so different between this and the socket 1156 platforms? They didnt last long, one generation and replaced.

AMDs record is just as bad with Socket 754/940 and the rest their no saint either

Components do last 5 years or more its upgrading that may not, so buy something decent in the first place so you dont have to keep spending money on it - simple, nothing new here - im still running a 2.5 year old i7 2600k rig, no need to upgrade because its still up to spec and i didnt skimp out to start with

Performance between generations doesnt differ much, but compare to years apart and you see where we are going
Score
0
a b V Motherboard
September 3, 2013 2:35:41 AM

apache_lives said:
Genzo whats so different between this and the socket 1156 platforms? They didnt last long, one generation and replaced.

AMDs record is just as bad with Socket 754/940 and the rest their no saint either

Components do last 5 years or more its upgrading that may not, so buy something decent in the first place so you dont have to keep spending money on it - simple, nothing new here - im still running a 2.5 year old i7 2600k rig, no need to upgrade because its still up to spec and i didnt skimp out to start with

Performance between generations doesnt differ much, but compare to years apart and you see where we are going


Thats why nothing change. Thats why im leaning towards IB-E. the 4820k is cheaper than haswell and IB Mainstream i7. And according to some leaked specs its on par with the i7 haswell. Extreme processors have better soldering unlike IB and Haswell. More like intel became cheap on soldering. More people are risking their lives to delid their cpu. Well 2600k is badass cpu. But i cant find this nowadays.

Well DDR4 well be introduced in a few years. I wouldnt land on that. Because im dying to get a pc right now :lol:  cant wait for a year or so :( 
Score
0
October 14, 2013 3:49:44 PM

I havent felt any upgrade necessity after buying a sandybridge ...
why so serious about haswells?
Score
0
October 15, 2013 6:18:49 AM

Then there are hardware junkies that need an excuse to fill up their 900d Corsair Megatower with the latest watercooled three way SLI /Xfire rigs. However I'll definitly be buying a new mobo when Ivy-E comes out and I can put some DDR4 and 8 or 10 core cpu in there.

Productivity software, cad/cam/ rendering and 3d animation will all get a nice boost from that ram bandwidth and extra cores.
Score
0
January 20, 2014 10:38:02 AM

Ok guys this article has a few things wrong. First of all, the Haswell refresh will target current 8-series motherboards. Every gen has a refresh ~6 months after launch, and this typically includes a bunch of new SKU's with slightly bumped clockspeeds, otherwise they are identical. Nothing special there.As far as the 9-series chipset supporting DDR4, this is only true for the Haswell-E chipset, X99. NOT for the desktop broadwell chipsets, which will also be 9-series.Also, and this is only a minor mistake, the article mentions that Broadwell has been rumored to be in a "BGA Socket" this is false, if the CPU's are BGA they would not be in a socket at all, they would be soldered down directly to the mobo. For the Y and U series CPU's they probably will infact be BGA. As for the other lines, I am not sure. We may not even see a desktop version of broadwell AT ALL. If we do, I am not sure what we will see, but I would guess some sort of mixture between LGA and BGA.To sum it up, Haswell refresh will have the same support/compatibility as current haswell chips (currently the 8-series chipsets). Broadwell will not have DDR4. Haswell-E and beyond (in the E/EP range) will support DDR4. Skylake will be first desktop platform with DDR4. "BGA Socket" is a misnomer, it's either BGA OR Socket.
Score
1
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!