Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Intel Upgrades

Next Gen Intel CPUs Move To Yet Another Socket 254

mr_sifter writes "According to a leaked roadmap, next year we'll be saying hello to LGA1155. The socket is 1-pin different from the current LGA1156 socket Core i3, i5, and some i7s use. Sandy Bridge CPUs will be based on the current 32nm, second-generation High-k metal gate manufacturing process. All LGA1155 CPUs will have integrated graphics built into the core instead of a separate chip. This is an upgrade from the current IGP, PCI Express controller and memory controller in Clarkdale CPUs. which is manufactured on the older 45nm process in a separate die (but still slapped together the same package). This should improve performance, as all the controllers will be in one die, like existing LGA1366 CPUs."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Next Gen Intel CPUs Move To Yet Another Socket

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Sigh (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MrNaz ( 730548 ) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @10:30AM (#31922752) Homepage

    Gah! I meant "that'll teach me to preview".
    Someone pass me a mallet. My head seems to need a little percussive maintenance.

  • A win for AMD (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Albanach ( 527650 ) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @10:37AM (#31922894) Homepage

    I can't understand why they would force another socket design on customers. I am using a four year old motherboard and recently replaced my AMD CPU with a current model. It was a drop in replacement. Sure I could get some benefits from a newer MB, but I can make the upgrade at a time of my choosing. I can spread the cost, get the big boost from the CPU now and get a smaller boost from a new MB in a year's time.

    Board manufacturers have to spend money implementing the new socket. Retailers are stuck with old stock that no-one wants because a new socket is around the corner.

    It raises prices and hurts the end user. Why are we still seeing this behavior?

  • Re:Figures... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Captain Centropyge ( 1245886 ) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @10:42AM (#31922970)
    So, there's no way to do this using the current socket/motherboard? My guess is that they do this purposely (at least some of the time) so that users need new hardware for their upgrades. It generates more revenue. I work in the software resale industry and the software vendors pull this crap all the time. (e.g. no backward compatibility forces more users to upgrade so that they can all work together)
  • Re:Sigh (Score:2, Insightful)

    by MoldySpore ( 1280634 ) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @10:58AM (#31923272)

    I really hope that AMD gets back on top and can compete with Intel on the top-level CPUs again. I am tired of the Intel fanboy's crapping all over AMD for the last few years, and really the industry NEEDS AMD to get back on top and help drive the price of these Intel chips down. The price gap is so huge between AMD and Intel that it makes building a top of the line Intel machine very daunting for us working-class enthusiasts and system builders.

    Thankfully AMD's new hexacores will work in AM3 sockets so a motherboard upgrade isn't necessary at least for the Phenom II X6's. To me that is a big deal. I think it will be for a lot of others as well.

  • Re:A win for AMD (Score:4, Insightful)

    by PhrstBrn ( 751463 ) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @11:12AM (#31923522)

    Because Intel sells motherboards and chipsets too. They don't want to sell you just a new processor, they want to sell you a new processor and a motherboard.

    If Intel thought they could make more money by keeping their stuff backwards compatible, they would, but I'm sure the bean counters figured the amount of sales lost to AMD would be less than the profits they could make by forcing you to buy new motherboards too, and I would tend to agree with that.

    I don't like it, I don't think it's good for consumers, but it makes sense from Intel's perspective.

  • Re:Figures... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Targon ( 17348 ) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @11:16AM (#31923594)

    There are different things to consider. On the AMD side of things, which everyone is using for comparison, you can often drop a new CPU into pretty much any AM2+ or AM3 motherboard with just a firmware update. You don't need to replace the RAM or motherboard, and you get the benefits of the new CPU. Going to a new MEMORY type would require a new motherboard, but with all of the new AMD processors, they support BOTH DDR2 and DDR3 memory.

    There really is no good excuse for needing an all new chipset for each new generation of processor UNLESS there is a very fundamental change going on. The move from DDR1 to DDR2 to DDR3 for example might be required if the CPU does not support the older memory types(meaning you WANT to prevent users from using a chip in a system that will NEVER support it). Moving to an integrated memory controller, or adding additional pins for more banks of memory MIGHT be an excuse, though these days, extra "reserved" pins should have been put into the socket specification for this, with backwards compatibility so you could drop it into an older system with a degradation in performance(you lose the extra memory controller functionality). Adding graphics to the processor SHOULD work the same way, where the graphics on the processor would not be used if you plug the processor into a system without support for it. Again, looking forward at future needs when designing a new socket would make sense, so you just have a bunch of pins on the CPU that are "reserved" for future use, then, a new CPU would just switch off features the motherboard would not support.

    AMD will be moving to a new socket type in the next year or so, due to things like adding the extra pins on the CPU for graphics, a 3, 4, 6, or whatever channel memory controller, or other functions being a part of their plans for the future. But, that next socket should be good to go for the next few generations after that, and for all we know, it may even support current DDR3 processors(DDR2 would probably be dropped since new motherboards would probably not have DDR2 memory support with the new socket).

    So, if AMD can do it, people would expect that 'the leader' in the industry SHOULD be able to do it as well.

  • by Firethorn ( 177587 ) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @11:29AM (#31923828) Homepage Journal

    More people will need this than you might think. Let's look at each piece of your claim:

    I think that the issue here is where you place the line on a 'proper' graphics card.

    By that I mean that today even integrated video cards are easily able to keep up with GUIs, play even blue-ray movies, etc...

    I'm not sure SVG/Canvas, rasterization will really bog down modern integrated graphic engines. Or if it doesn't support it, it'll fall back to the CPU, and assuming you're not doing anything too CPU intensive at that moment, it won't matter. You don't need a 5870 to run Office or IE.

  • Re:Sigh (Score:3, Insightful)

    by HarrySquatter ( 1698416 ) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @12:15PM (#31924698)

    So basically AMD's failures are always Intel's fault and not their own, right?

  • Re:Linux (Score:3, Insightful)

    by faragon ( 789704 ) on Wednesday April 21, 2010 @02:37PM (#31928178) Homepage

    At least they're trying?

    Trying it is not enough. It's 2010, and AMD bought ATI almost 4 years ago (1 [arstechnica.com]), so there are no excuses. I would be glad of buying AMD+ATI integrated graphics instead of Intel, but it is a no-no until drivers for Linux reach its Windows counterparts performance-wise, and of course, I will not buy anything from AMD+ATI until then, not before. I buy products based on facts, not promises (I already made a mistake 3 years ago buying a AMD/ATI integrated graphics, still today without proper driver for Linux WTF!!!).

Always draw your curves, then plot your reading.

Working...