Three Haswell CPUs to Ship With BGA Socket & HD5200 GPU
It appears that three of the Haswell chips will feature BGA sockets.
Last year we first heard that Intel might be planning do stop using the LGA (Land Grid Array) socket in favor of a BGA (Ball Grid Array) socket. While we won't be seeing all-BGA CPU's with the Haswell release, it appears that Intel is shipping three CPUs in the Haswell lineup that will have a BGA socket.
For those of you that aren't aware of it yet, a BGA socket isn't exactly a socket. A BGA socket means that the CPU is soldered to the motherboard, and thus not removable or replaceable.
The CPUs that would have the BGA socket are the Core i7 4770R, Core i5 4670R, and the Core i5 4570R. As you can tell, the R-naming makes for the BGA socket, so keep an eye out for this when buying a new PC. Beyond the BGA socket, the -R CPUs will also carry an HD 5200 GPU rather than the HD 4600 GPU found on all other Haswell chips.
The current assumption is that the -R chips will make part of the NUC (Next Unit of Computing) platform, although this remains unconfirmed. We might also be seeing these chips in laptops and all-in-one systems.
| Model | Cores / Threads | Base / Turbo | L3 cache | GPU | GPU Turbo* | TDP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Core i7 4770 | 4 / 8 | 3.4 / 3.9 GHz | 8 MB | HD 4600 | 1200 MHz | 84 W |
| Core i7 4770K | 4 / 8 | 3.5 / 3.9 GHz | 8 MB | HD 4600 | 1250 MHz | 84 W |
| Core i7 4770R | 4 / 8 | 3.2 / 3.9 GHz | 6 MB | HD 5200 | 1300 MHz | 65 W |
| Core i7 4770S | 4 / 8 | 3.1 / 3.9 GHz | 8 MB | HD 4600 | 1200 MHz | 65 W |
| Core i7 4770T | 4 / 8 | 2.5 / 3.7 GHz | 8 MB | HD 4600 | 1200 MHz | 45 W |
| Core i7 4765T | 4 / 8 | 2.0 / 3.0 GHz | 8 MB | HD 4600 | 1200 MHz | 35 W |
| Core i5 4670 | 4 / 4 | 3.4 / 3.8 GHz | 6 MB | HD 4600 | 1200 MHz | 84 W |
| Core i5 4670K | 4 / 4 | 3.4 / 3.8 GHz | 6 MB | HD 4600 | 1200 MHz | 84 W |
| Core i5 4670R | 4 / 4 | 3.0 / 3.7 GHz | 4 MB | HD 5200 | 1300 MHz | 65 W |
| Core i5 4670S | 4 / 4 | 3.1 / 3.8 GHz | 6 MB | HD 4600 | 1200 MHz | 65 W |
| Core i5 4670T | 4 / 4 | 2.3 / 3.3 GHz | 6 MB | HD 4600 | 1200 MHz | 45 W |
| Core i5 4570 | 4 / 4 | 3.2 / 3.6 GHz | 6 MB | HD 4600 | 1150 MHz | 84 W |
| Core i5 4570R | 4 / 4 | 2.7 / 3.2 GHz | 4 MB | HD 5200 | 1150 MHz | 65 W |
| Core i5 4570S | 4 / 4 | 3.0 / 3.7 GHz | 6 MB | HD 4600 | 1150 MHz | 65 W |
| Core i5 4570T | 2 / 4 | 2.9 / 3.6 GHz | 4 MB | HD 4600 | 1150 MHz | 35 W |
| Core i5 4430 | 4 / 4 | 3.0 / 3.2 GHz | 6 MB | HD 4600 | 1100 MHz | 84 W |
| Core i5 4330S | 4 / 4 | 2.7 / 3.2 GHz | 6 MB | HD 4600 | 1100 MHz | 65 W |
* Base clock speed of the GPUs remain unknown.

Why can't power usage be done in the BIOS or something. Just have an i7 4770 and let the builder choose T mode or S mode or whatever. And watch out for the 2 core surprise on the i5 4570T! Don't get started on the random feature removal surprises on K and others (VT-D, vPro)...
Heck, in the ultrabooks it's worse. There are cpu's like that inside some of them that are labeled as Core i7's....
http://ark.intel.com/products/64898/Intel-Core-i7-3667U-Processor-4M-Cache-up-to-3_20-GHz
I actually play WoW and EVE on my dev machine, a MacMini 2009 (C2D, 9400M). Not on a very high resolution or with any fancy settings on, but it works. But o/c, it won't suffice for any games that has been released the last 2 years !
This would pretty much be the perfect CPU for the next MacMini
But then again, a MacMini might not pass for a desktop without a little bending of the semantics of a desktop....
My work lappy is a lenovo thinkpad with HD 3000 intel graphics, it can run WoW and Starcraft 2 on low settings, which I'm totally not used to from work machines.
Why can't power usage be done in the BIOS or something. Just have an i7 4770 and let the builder choose T mode or S mode or whatever. And watch out for the 2 core surprise on the i5 4570T! Don't get started on the random feature removal surprises on K and others (VT-D, vPro)...
so I don't think BGA is such a bad idea, but there's issues still.
If the motherboard gets damaged or dies while the processor is fine isn't that a bit of a issue cost wise?
High end chips should should remain LGA for gamers and enthusiasts because they won't want to spend 600 instead of 300 to replace a motherboard or CPU. This will make warranties much more appreciated probably. BGA is limiting choice a bit too.
After 4.0GHz, there's little performance to be gained for the average consumer. Combined with the extra heat, electromigration, and power consumption, there's really no reason for CPU manufacturers to sell stock models over 4.0GHz. That's why we have unlocked multipliers.
I would still opt for an AMD alternative or a LGA chip over a chip soldered to the motherboard...
And that is why you need to look at the QMs...
This will never happen. I guarantee (myself included) that 99% of the market does not understand enough about thermal capacities to build a laptop properly. I can only imagine that hordes of angry nerds demanding RMAs because their self built laptop burned a hole through their desk (or legs).
I am all for building your own stuff, but keep it to the desktop. I want portable laptops.
This will never happen. I guarantee (myself included) that 99% of the market does not understand enough about thermal capacities to build a laptop properly. I can only imagine that hordes of angry nerds demanding RMAs because their self built laptop burned a hole through their desk (or legs).
I am all for building your own stuff, but keep it to the desktop. I want portable laptops.
What do you mean this 130 watt chip does not work in my notebook designed for a 24 watt one.... RMA time.
A small socket(it could even be just some key indents on the LGA to ensure that only chips with the same or lower power consumption would fit. Like how a Blank and Decker battery does not fit a Dewalt Drill until you Dremel the tab off
Existing silicon can easily go to 4.5-5Ghz on air, but they cannot stay there running 24/7 for 3-5 years without an unacceptable failure rate. I think this is more of a materials limit than anything else at this point.
80% of maximum is the guideline I have observed, and practiced. If you want your electronics to last a long time, do not push them beyond 80% of their maximum capacity.
While speed has been slowly increasing, the 80% guideline still works, as 5ghz is an awesome overclock, and 4ghz is 80% of that, where 3.9ghz is the maximum stock frequency.
This is misleading. There is performance gain slow execution vs faster execution. What is constant though is the rest of hardware, which does not get speed bump. Particularly this is memory timings.